How Do You Use ILM?

I don't really understand what ILM is for, what the ethos is. I don't like it but I keep coming back.

I don't think much of it is relevant to me and my relationship with music.

Maybe I just have too much free time.

I find the great dialogues of long slab posts fill me with guilt, and — by extension — irritation. I have time to read em if I make it, but it gets stolen from somewhere. And no time no time not time to contribute: I don't think like that, or want to. Dart, dab, jab, skip, tweak, twirl...

Actually, I'm not sure I can, but if you jot 'em down as they occur, then I can always bluff... ILM is an invigorating blast of slightly stale and sometimes rank air. It reminds me that I don't exist in a vaccuum although I prefer to remain unconvinced.

I'm sad Tom finds some threads 'too smart' because this is a unique selling proposition on ILM. You can't get theory about pop music (ethics, aesthetics) in UK or US print media, so there's a crying need to be able to thrash it out somewhere online. It's balanced out by plenty of 'What's yer favourite band?' stuff.

ILM (and Freaky Trigger, actually) has given me a better appreciation of popular music in general. I discovered this whole cabal just as I was coming around to stuff happening in the mainstream (like Timbaland, Destiny's Child, etc.), stuff that was completely antithetical to my once-strident indie posturing (which is horseshit, of course). On a lesser scale - I doubt I'd actually own _Miss E...So Addictive_ or _Lateralus_ were it not for the endorsements of the fine folks associated with this endeavor.

I use ILM the same way I use most of the 157 mailing lists I'm on - snoop around, ask questions re: artists & albums, solicit opinions & suggestions. Being able to have theoretical discussions, however, is a nice bonus - mailing lists always turn catty and stupid, and never in a playful way. It helps that the ILM folk are intelligent and creative and humorous. Thank God they're humorous.

As far as overcoming music writing blocks - you can try forcing it, but I think Mark S (in another thread in a galaxy far, far away) is right on in suggesting a change of pace. Better yet - just take a break. Wait a while. Become inspired again. It's not like you HAVE to write about music - it's a hobby. All music and little else makes folks a bit loopy and boring. And I should most definitely know.

I come for the theory. I think I have an irritating desire to mentally codify different aspects of music -- which, as many have noted, can take some of the fun out of some of the listening, but also (a) helps me appreciate a lot of stuff I otherwise might not, and more importantly, (b) clears up my goals when it comes to making music.

Plus I have trouble thinking things out without wanting to write about them. So perhaps I'm just using and annoying you all . . .

Many, many thanks, Tracer, for the kind words. I didn't catch GBV, per se - I was standing in line for Italian Ice. (The wrong line, as it turned out.) But, from where I was, "Tractor Rape Chain", filtered through their big arena-rock posturing combined with my distance from the stacks, sounded just like _Bee Thousand_. Which I liked. (I had my fill of GBV live when I saw them @ Irving Plaza last year and they played for 3+ hours. You can only see Bob kick up his legs & kick back a few cases of brewskis for so long.)

Thread? About my article? Don't need to ask me twice! (Watch out for her crotch, though.)

END SIREN FESTIVAL TALK!

I definitely don't come to ILM to find out about new music. I don't feel enough of a connection with people here taste-wise (the thread where Sundar asked about Ryoji Ikeda made my day.) I guess I like the idea of communing w/ others who care a lot about music, & I'm more interested in hearing how music affects listeners than I am in learning about new bands.

Theory, eh...my education was a joke so those discussions are over my head. Any time I see a thread where every other word is in quotes because meaning is so hard to pin down I skip it. But I can see how those threads are enjoyable for those versed in such things.

Like everyone else I'm curious about the whats and wherefores of Tom's new listening habits ;). How is this detached from what you are listening to, Tom? If you feel like sharing.

and yet I agree with Tom on this: "it feels detached now from what I've been listening to and how I've been listening to it". Don't know why that is exactly, put I suspect *we* should change that by introducing topics on what we listen to.

So in that situation I have two options - i) blame the posters for being bad writers, ii) blame me. I prefer the latter because it's more polite and also it implies that if I re-read the damn things enough I might work out what's going on. "Too smart" is not meant to imply that I'd prefer a load of 'what's-your-favourite-band' threads. Particularly as I don't have a favourite band.

But. There are ways I prefer to write about and read about pop - I like writing which is more allusive, more audacious, which *doesn't* stand up to close scrutiny neccessarily (or demand it) but which gets a point under your skin anyway. A writing-about-pop which is closer somehow to pop itself while still being intelligent. What I love about the charts is the sense of indirect conversation across time ("call and response" as Mark S would have it), and the Greenspun format seems suited to that, whereas I find direct debate-style conversation on Greenspun harder to get through.

What have I been listening to? Nothing special - the same old stuff actually. Sorry, Tracer, I wasn't meaning to imply I'd discovered a vital musical resource which ILM simply wasn't speaking to. ;)

I think Tom E is making a little too much out of the idea of 'Theory'. Some people have been talking in a 'theoretical' manner, but not the majority. On 'Theory' I am very much with the Momus geezer above: where else are you going to find it? As it is, it's still very marginal within ILM.

I myself don't understand a lot of the more 'theoretical' postings - eg. Phil vs Josh on musicology. But it seems plain to me that those two (at least) are being very cogent, rigorous and serious. The only reason I don't get what they're on about is my sad lack of musicololgy. I would really like to be able to contribute, but can't.

But again, the idea of being 'excluded' by long words (I don't mean to caricature Tom E here) seems to me a massive red herring. What always Excludes me on the board has always been the constant reference to new music, chart hits that I never hear, hip-hop genres, sampling acts etc etc - things I know nothing about. I don't think that anyone has changed their way of doing things just cos those things Exclude (ie. are totally unknown to) me.

ILM may fall apart someday sooner or later, but right now I don't think Tom E is calling it the way I see it.

Tom E: Hm... I daresay that I quite agree with you. Actually I *don't* really want to talk about actual philosophers (or whatever) in the course of talking about how pop records sound - well, *maybe* I might do, but not necessarily. Barthes, maybe, Derrida, no. In that sense I *don't* really want to integrate Theory into pop writing - I just want intelligent, exciting pop writing. Like what you are good at, except that you mostly write about things I don't know / like.

PS: a couple of close-scrutiny reservations: 'Doesn't stand up to close scrutiny' - well, why not? shouldn't sentences be things to run your fingers, eyes and lips over? 'Gets a point under your skin' - yes, but I have a suspicion that points only do that if they are there already. You could write something very eloquently about one of your fave bands and it would presumably not 'get under my skin', for obvious reasons. 'Perfect Skin', though, that might get under my imperfect skin.

I neither have the time nor the depth of knowledge to scrum down with Mark S, Momus et al on the big issues, but I DO enjoy reading thru all except the most arid of these threads. A month or so back it seemed that that this kind of debate may come to dominate ILM which would have probably sidelined me as an active contributer, but it didn't happen, and now I think there's a reasonable balance back in ILM. Why do I use ILM? Probably a 50:50 split between wanting to hear new opinions on music I already have an opinion about, and finding about new music.

i. Interrogatory - what does it mean? clarify! this is too simplistic! this is WRONG. let me formally respond.

ii. Collaborative - I'm not sure I understand, but I'll let the bits I do understand percolate and then I can come up with something of my own: not a reply as such, but an extension.

Here's something I wrote back in January which says all this a bit more clearly

Basically, I think you're right, but that the distinction you're making might not be very hard and fast. People might disagree about which side they were on. Anyway - by the way - part of what I was really saying was that language, imagery, the grain of the sentence, etc, can be things to savour - to reread, to get close to in that sense.

I'm a critic. I don't listen to music. Not during work hours (3 - 3.30 pm, Tuesdays and Fridays) anyway. There's a fundamental difference between hearing music for pleasure and listening to music for work. Believe it.

I have said before that Stevie T, more than anyone, 'taught' me that ideas might work in the way you recommend (ie. provocative soundbites to be followed somewhere, not put to the inquisition). But even with Stevie T I sometimes like to make a list of 5 things I think are wrong with his latest undeniably brilliant idea.

At the same time, in the past few weeks there's been little I have been moved to contribute to. It has gotten to be too exclusionary and intimidating, and I feel that anything that diverges from a certain mindset will get shouted down or sneered at.

I also get little sense of the awe and the excitement a great song can inspire in you; this is not an attack on theory, it is possible to write about theory in a way that still conveys the passion you feel about music (Mark S. is a good example of how to do just that).

Also, I'm not British. Please don't take this as a potshot, but as a Canadian, music is not as embedded in our culture as the UK. We don't have NME, Melody Maker or John Peel. Thus, the road to jaded-dom is not accelerated by the presence of music 24/7.

So back to the original point, I tend to skip over some of the negativity on ILM and just share gushing enthusiasm with my favorite bands' fans. I guess sometimes it makes me feel a bit stupid, because of my inability to objectively and eloquently criticize anything; on the other hand, sometimes I'm glad that I don't have a critic's POV, but that of a fan's.

Hey, I've only been here for about 2 months, so everything is new, bright and shiny.

No, I don't think that's the case. The mindset I'm talking about is not so much about a certain type of music, but more about a certain way of writing about music.

Fine - I thought it probably was. But what I was asking was: *which* way of writing about music? And which way(s) might be better?

Sorry I wrote 'that' rather than 'those' in previous post.

Montreal A: it's OK, we don't 'have' NME / MM / Peel either. I certainly don't, not nowadays. (But if you mean, some of those things shaped some of our youths, then you're spot-on of course.)

(And thanks for the generous compliment, by the way!)

But I would say that in pop writing the aphoristic impact is more the point than the argumentation - your answer to the question "what *might* Sterling mean and where does it get me?" is more interesting than Sterling's answer to the question "what did I mean?".

I have to disagree here (as you probably would've guessed). I think, for me, the best critical writing combines a narrative of emotional/aesthetic response, which can be aphoristic and need not be supported by argumentation, and intellectual elucidation/explanation/argumentation, which does I think require its aphorisms to be supported unless they're inferrable. I responded the way I did to Sterling's thing because any disagreement over statements of fact, made aphoristically as he did, necessarily turns into a conflict of egos, rather than ideas, if you omit the argumentation. Supplying argumentation allows me to gain insight into how Sterling came to his conclusion, and to understand whether or not I agree with the process. I automatically scanned it for inferrables, and couldn't find any that made sense, so I wanted to see his papers, so to speak.

And all that, of course, assumes that Sterling actually meant what he said. If he meant it as a topic to be discussed -- a provocative thought that he wanted to put to the test, and to use to provoke us to further thought -- I personally would've liked something that made that clear ("Thought of the moment: Bach's inventions were pop. Discuss."). Sometimes the intuitive insight comes first, and seeing others fill in the blanks can help you to articulate what it was you were seeing. I'm game for that approach, but when the dust settles I still want to see -- or make -- the argumentation.

"Aphoristic impact": I don't know about that. What's the difference between that, then, and sloganeering? That last being something that I will quite willingly rail against, as I've always felt that "Just do it" and "Deutschland über alles" were rather of a piece. By and large I can only accept those kinds of aphorisms when I have access to the thought-processes that created them, or when I feel like I can fill in the blanks myself, or will be able to upon reflection -- in other words, that there is something there, and that the aphorism is functioning as shorthand for a long and complicated thought that can perhaps be grasped intuitively but which need not be argued in full every time it's invoked.

Otherwise, though, they generally repel me, and make me feel like I'm being told not to think.

Here's an interesting thought, which might shed some light on where I generally come from: one of the reasons I invoke so many other kinds of music in my posts is because I tend to treat the pop I enjoy in many of the same ways that I treat the jazz, classical, etc. I enjoy. The emphasis on the "disposability" of pop, then, and the attendant style of critical writing, is one that's never really turned my head, because I don't listen to pop music (that engages me) in that way. I think I tend to treat strongly disposable music as camp -- which, interestingly, doesn't tend to exclude the possibility of appreciating the things I think are good in it. So when I listen to, say, AC-DC or the Rolling Stones, I'm aware both of the ridiculous aspects and of the legitimate-if-sporadic brilliance, and the two don't cancel each other out. But I'm not really able to just regard it as disposable, because I treat every note of music I hear as something that matters -- or, at least, I approach it as something that could -- so I can't really not care (which I suspect is a prerequisite for treating things as disposables). For me, music is in many ways a deadly serious thing, inasmuch as I treat it not really as entertainment, but as an illuminating and enriching force -- one that is a key part of my life, and provides a way of talking about the world (including itself) and of articulating otherwise inarticulable relationships (between the reasoned and intuitive, the intellect and the emotion, subjective and objective senses of time, etc.) that can be had in no other way and that, at its best, is thoroughly moving to me.

(Or something like that, anyway. And to be fair, everything changes a bit on the dance floor or in similar contexts, but not completely.)

Beyond that, I'm pretty much with Phil. Writing that doesn't hold up under scrutiny seems like bad writing to me, and/or bad thinking. Write that way if you want, of course, especially if it's the sort of thing you like reading, too, but it's an odd decision to attach an online discussion forum to your writing if you don't think it's intended to be the starting point for a rational dialogue (which is exactly one of the things Tom is having second thoughts about, of course).

I also think that historically, trying to consciously emulate the qualities of a music in writing about it has almost always turned out to be a poor artistic impulse, so beware.

PS to Mike Hanley: I don't know who you are, either.

I only skimmed Tom's Loafing piece on pop criticism, but I like the idea of "getting it wrong" being an integral part of theorizing and discussing problems. It's more collaborative, it's easier to engage, it allows for more wiggle room. I can certainly understand wanting to know WHERE someone is coming from (say, on that Bach quote attributed to Sterling), but I think it's better (in terms of facilitating a more encompassing dialogue, as well as engaging one's own mind) to answer that question yourself. And that's regardless of the intent of the statement - whether it's meant to spark some debate, or be a pisstake.

Maybe Sterling just wanted to have some fun. Maybe that "fun" switches on someone's lightbulb to go explore some other line of though which, up to that point, seemed completely unrelated. It's all good. Trying to disseminate the intent of the "speaker" is good, to a point, but is often a dead end - similar to asking a songwriter what they meant in using a certain melody, or a phrase in a song. What THEY intended is one thing; what YOU get from that might not jive with what they were thinking, but that doesn't make you wrong, does it?

I'd like to note, though, that I often get the same feeling from much of the super-intellectual discourse that Phil gets from sloganeering. And this is definitely not a slight on those involved in the discourse (all of whom are fine writers, love humanity, recycle, etc.) - I just can't seem to find a spot within the volleying to stop and think clearly about what's being bandied about. (This is a PERSONAL PROBLEM, though - like Tom said, it's the bad of the reader.)

But, then, there's a place here for both the hit-&-run and the considered dialogue, as well as the rare melding of the two. Which is what makes this place so nice & cozy. Which has been stated many times already. So, yeah.

Also, I do think the S&D/C-or-D threads serve a necessary purpose, outside of the shit-talking and insults and invectives tossed about (which I enjoy, to a point). Even if they only serve as an alternative for the lengthy cererbal debates that blossom every so often, they're indispensable. As Cliff Notes on what novices and the curious should explore / avoid regarding a certain band / genre...well, they're quite useful. I'll leave it at that (lest we start getting into "I like this!" / "Well, I like THIS!" types of bla- blah).

I'm sure many will disagree with Glenn's comment about not posting about music you dislike, but I suspect he's on to something here as well. I know *I* would enjoy threads more if brief dismissals were done away with, but then I feel something akin to what Alex was mentioning above. I can see blowing up a "hatred" of certain music for the sake of humor, but I can't tell if it runs deeper than that for some people. I have this image of certain posters here lying awake at night, consumed with anger at the thought of Limp Bizkit's music or Radiohead's fans. It reminds me of David Lynch's comic strip "The Angriest Dog In The World," where the beast is so bound with rage it sits imobile, in a state of perpetual rigor mortis. It seems strange to me that someone might feel that way about a band.

That said, I don't think negativity is *that* big a problem with ILM. It just gets annoying to me occasionally. I criticise ILM because I like it; it's the best thing of its type going, and I want it to stay that way.

Actually I use ILM simply in that way that I click on "new answers", check the current day and maybe click on a thread and maybe maybe contribute. I have tried to start threads but it did not work too well. Maybe my musical taste is too far off of the average ILM contributor (I still cannot believe it).

Another thing I do not appreciate too much are the theoretical discussions on music, e.g. the recent cult of the new thread. They make me go back to my stereo and listen to some good music. I look for information on bands, musical styles, new trends etc. on ILM. And this is very difficult nowadays as it is very difficult to find out if something has already been discussed or not. I try to use Google but they are always 5-7 weeks behind. Then I try to use the folders but they are not so useful anymore because firstly there are not enough and secondly almost everything stays in "uncategorized" nowadays. So I propose again to install a site search here. Maybe not Atomz (I am not so happy with it on my little site), there are other choices, e.g. Freefind.

It is nice to have ILM but I could live without it. I would probably waste less time without it.

(Sadly only DG has a pipe, so the requisite smoakin will not be done in the Korrekt Homes tonight. DG = kewl.)

Why should "smart" mean "hard to understand"? Smart arguments can be hard to understand, say if they're really original, or based on specialized knowledge, or come from a strange world. (But then, stupid arguments can be hard to understand for the same reasons.) But maybe at least some of the time people don't understand me because what I've said was not yet smart, because I imagined that my vocabulary words could do my thinking for me, without realizing that not even I understood what I meant by them. Maybe Tom's problem with the subjective-objective thread was that it wasn't smart enough for him. But often smart ideas began life as stupid ones, so I wouldn't want such threads to go away, or for people to only post smart arguments.

Mark and piney: Way back in the last millennium I read some of Derrida's Speech and Phenomena without having read Husserl first, and it seemed to me that reading it was functionally equivalent to not reading it. So I speak in ignorance, but I speak nonetheless: Wouldn't Derrida be distressed if you brought his theory into any discussion, since he believes that he's trying hard not to have a theory, at least not a philosophical one? (But maybe he'd be happy if you brought his style into a music discussion, without your even mentioning whose style you were swiping.)

I print it out and use it as toilet paper.

"The elegant host/ess will always notice when his/her guests are bored, and take steps to razz em royally..."

Frank, as you well know, you rascal, I don't give a fuXoR what Derrida wd think of ILM. Pish... (Actually, no, now you've raised it I DO want to know: who here knows him and can link to him? AlexT? Momus? ethan? Mike Hanle y? If we got Mr Grammatology posting then all ALL SHALL FEAR OUR BRANINESS etc etc) (Yes this came up before and yes I still insist: I myself by no means hate his writing or thinking, but SURELY HIS TASTE IN MUSIC IS RUBBISH!)

Who shall defend Jacques Derrida's taste in music?

[so much for the soul of wit, eh?]

1. The breadth of knowledge and enthusiasm displayed, just love it that I can read a thread about Merzbow or Caetano Veloso and then something about Soft Cell or Scott Walker. 2. I like the general good humour and open-minded spirit to the threads. Seems to be pretty much a flame free zone (famous last words). 3. I like the fact that there is a mixture of serious and lighthearted discussion, often in the same thread. 4. I like the fact that it challenges my tastes and assumptions and the way it makes me reassess what I listen to. Jeez, I would never have dug out a copy of ELO’s Time if it weren’t for ILM (and what an OTT classic it is). 5. I like the way it introduces me to new stuff; Glitch-hop, booty bass.

But most of all it’s just got some damn good writing and being able to contribute (badly) is great fun.

Perhaps I'm a little tired of the "list the best/favourite/most appropriate"-type threads (a number of which I am certainly guilty of producing), but I think this forum has only become more personally- necessary since it's inception. In fact, a number of music purchases that I have made recently are direct influences of ILM'ers. Much more essential than any sense of a shared musical taste, though, is the ability of ILM posters to articulate the manner in which music truly effects and extends into their lives ( Mark Sinker's recent post- derived FT article, for one ) in a way that ( to my knowledge ) transcends any conventional music writing on the web or otherwise. Here, I'm not only talking about writing that's personal, I'm also referring to ILM's collective ability to intelligently participate in the ethic/aesthetic debates that Momus brought up. I think this forum could benefit from Mr. Glenn Mcdonald's insights. Also, I would imagine that the "cliquish" element is something that common among almost all online communities, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. My brain is feeling sluggish, so I'll conclude my ramble now.

I'm trying to tell a story with everything I contribute - perhaps not a very original or radically inspiring story, but not that bad a story really. At least I hope so.

Britney = energy, fox

>>> I'd be distressed if I showed pinefox a piece I'd written about hip- hop and he were bored with it.

I'm sorry to hear that, Frank - and I'm flattered that you see fit to mention me. But I daresay I would be bored nonetheless.

>>> Wouldn't Derrida be distressed if you brought his theory into any discussion, since he believes that he's trying hard not to have a theory, at least not a philosophical one? (But maybe he'd be happy if you brought his style into a music discussion, without your even mentioning whose style you were swiping.)

I don't want to disagree with this as a reading of Derrida - the point is probably acute in those terms. My answer is really (not *that* different from Mark's): I don't care what Derrida thinks. I was probably the one that mentioned him upthread and wrought the damage (but I only mentioned him in saying that I was not interested in discussing him). I know people who are crazy for Derrida, but I - to put it crudely - have given up on him. I am hardly any more interested in him as a Philosopher than as a Music Critic (and I'm sure Mark S is right that he would be dire as that).

E.g., "nothing is true, everything is permitted" = retarded, vacuous statement, because the "true" that was shown nonexistent wasn't the "true" that people cared about anyway

"because I treat every note of music I hear as something that matters - - or, at least, I approach it as something that could -- so I can't really not care (which I suspect is a prerequisite for treating things as disposables). For me, music is in many ways a deadly serious thing, inasmuch as I treat it not really as entertainment, but as an illuminating and enriching force -- one that is a key part of my life, and provides a way of talking about the world (including itself) and of articulating otherwise inarticulable relationships (between the reasoned and intuitive, the intellect and the emotion, subjective and objective senses of time, etc.) that can be had in no other way and that, at its best, is thoroughly moving to me."

Writing like this is why I read ILM. It gives me hope as a human and an artist for all of us, and now I have to go back into trance...

Though what I really need is some kind of bot to do the weeding and the rooting for me. This garden grows too fast! Sometimes, especially when I scan all the recent answers after being away just a day or two, I feel like I have a second, unpaid job.

I thought Ned knew Jacques Derrida.

He teaches at the campus in spring and I run into him occasionally, while also handling his Reserve list material. If he remembers ME at all, I'd be very surprised.

There are trends in music which are invisible to me, not to you. Without you I wouldn't see them.

LIGHT BLUE TOUCH PAPER

A note from your hero goes a long way.

LEAN WELL FORWARD

I am a performer (haha proto-performer) who likes the sound of my own words.

YOU

I like being in the semi-company of famous people.

DETACHED

It's full of intelligent, funny people who often make me smile; full of people who stick to positions infuriatingly. Most of all, it is full of people who are willing...

To think, to burrow under nesting ideas, to vamp and to invent new ones, it has people dissing on people who are Big Names, gang wars, cabals and plots.

I use it to try and learn ways to look at music. Different angles, tropes, forgotten histories, re-drafts of inaccurate maps.

PLEASURE, VALUES

Somewhere in the middle (quietly guiltily) I use it to read writing.

BUYER'S GUIDE BAH

Lastly I use it as a resource to find out about new music.

This place is as much about words as about notes.

I am addicted.

Validation that never comes.

Nostalgia for the not-yet-happened futures.

I like the writing that is theory.

I spend too much time just thinking about music and really have no one close to me to discuss it with endlessly as I have in the past. So its nice to go somewhere and talk about the things I think about.

Yesterday I fired up slsk out of curiousity to see if people are still using, and observed that the community is well small.

Like other Audiogalaxy users, I flocked to slsk when Audiogalaxy was shut down. Slsk was heaven in my college years because I got into soul and post punk music through randomly d/ling files and talking to users. Going through the archives, it seemed like ILM users were using this in the early 00s yet see no new threads from 2006 on. Has Google music blogs (which I predict in five years will be gone the same way as Napster and Audiogalaxy) become the new slsk. Do you guys still use slsk? Just curious.

P.S. Yes I know torrents exist.

Ok wow sorry about that. Talk about a n00b mistake.