What bit of flotsom will be dredged up next for ironic adulation?

As to Mr R.: I wonder what music he imagines we pretentious indie f*cks would actually be listening to if we weren't so busy trying to strike ironic poses. It's a relief anyhow to know that I don't actually love these thousands of CDs littering my house; I was beginning to wonder what to do with them.

dogs w.eyes like saucers = the tinderbox = THESE IDIOTS HAVEN'T USED THE ILLUISTRATION I'M THINKING OF

coffee in yr what?

I wish I actually liked this Finnish black metal instead of just being all ironic about it, 'cause it's really terrifically good

My problem is that I change my mind a lot anyway and I'm simply not sure what I 'honestly' or 'ironically' think. I play a song, if I like it I listen to it all, if I don't I skip it. Sometimes I skip things I know I like - I just skipped a Faust track, and I enjoy Faust, because I wanted to listen to the new Beyonce single, which I think I don't like. But if I'm skipping tracks by them, how do I know I actually 'like' Faust?

Another point is that you can be entirely honest about your taste and still strike a pose. If somebody comes to photograph a model for a magazine cover, and they show the model ten different shots of herself, and she picks the one that makes her look best, is that selectivity still 'dishonest'? I mean it's still her on the photo, there's no trickery. Similarly I listen to a lot and try and be honest with myself about it - there's then some selectivity when it comes to the stuff I write about most.

I think you're getting at something though - the problem isn't the unknowable word "irony" but the too-flexible word "liking", which covers an incredible range of feelings about music from total transportation to a kind of fascinated but uneasy interest, and a lot more besides.

-- John Darnielle (editor@lastplanetojakarta.com), May 30, 2002.

despite the fact that you genuinely do like metal, there are those who have love for the laughter at the thought of listening to metal, and therefore buy it for that reason alone. not because of the genuine case that, "hey, this album rocks and it rocks HARD AS F!", but because, "holy shit, that chop is so 84! HA!"

the enjoyment of music vs. the enjoyment of ironic posturing.

you can feel that OG's "question is rich with exactly the sort of presumptuousness that makes so many people hate indie so much" ...but it doesn't change the fact that these people exist.

is it indie that really vaunts it's ironic nature, or is it society in general that's the true bearer of posturing? i know geeks into commodore 64 in a big bad way. i have a friend who owns a gremlin and spends all his time fixing it up because he thinks it's hilarious.

? m.

But where do they exist? This is the problem. How can you tell if someone likes something ironically? The answer is, you can't, so it seems fairer to take everything at face value. The nearest concrete examples I can think of are people who say things on their weblogs like "Oh my God I can't stop playing that N'Sync song, I know it's bad but I like it" or something like that. And even then that's not quite what this question's talking about.

The problem I have is that it assumes there is one proper way to like something - i.e. it's OK to like metal because it rocks but not because it's funny. But I had friends and acquaintances who were big into metal in the 1980s and all of them without exception thought it was very funny and ludicrous as well as rocking - they were both 'legitimate' reasons for liking it at the time.

"Play" is in fact one of those singles which I think will soon be forgotten but should not be because it is so crass dynamic and vital it belongs on Nuggets 2001.

(irony is a defence, sure, but it works in the opposite way to the way mr pataphysics-lab is using it: remember LOVE IS EMBARRASSING!! mark s and beyoncé, sitting in a tree!!)

but that's almost exactly the example i'm talking about....the undercurrent translation sounding like, "it's bad, but i can't stop listening to it, how funny am i?" it's like black face or fat suits in a twist of logic. "watch me parody the lesser something i'm really not." what's wrong with just straight up liking n'sync? if it makes your ass move, go with it! forget what everyone else thinks!

The problem I have is that it assumes there is one proper way to like something - i.e. it's OK to like metal because it rocks but not because it's funny. But I had friends and acquaintances who were big into metal in the 1980s and all of them without exception thought it was very funny and ludicrous as well as rocking - they were both 'legitimate' reasons for liking it at the time. -- Tom (ebros@netcomuk.co.uk), May 30, 2002.

that's a good point. and i agree. i mean, i love metal and it makes me laugh. even if you're ironicly posturing, who cares? enjoyment is enjoyment. that's what matters.

now that i've probably done a 180 in my stance, m.

i don't mean this to sound snidey, but this is something that has been explained to me before and i've never quite understood it.

no...you're right. ..i probably should have elaborated that i think it's ok to enjoy music however you enjoy it. ..i just think it's sad that some people need to use an ironic posture to defend their liking of something that their friends believe they aren't supposed to like.

i think OG was kinda referring to how this phenomenon seems to even generate certain records being put out by certain labels ...

? m.

Well, him and the RE/Search series. Thing wz, they dug up a truckload of great forgotten records in the process so hurrah. Was Genesis P. Orridge being "ironic" about Martin Denny? Ans = I have no idea, but Martin Denny is great so hurrah.

Ironic love of a band or music is like patronizing an 8 year old child -- you tussle its hair and laugh when it speaks, but you also do not give any credit -- you laugh at it because you hold a position of power (imaginary or true) over it.

Faux-populism -- or the anti-intellectual stance, which is just as repugnant as the snobbish intellectual stance. The Faux- Populist, for whatever reason, switches to this stance and embraces everything that Popular, reevaluating and defending it against those "arty snobs." The faux-populist tries to convince you that Destiny's Child or Coldplay are great and that if you do not like it you are snob -- just as the Snobbish Intellectual might try to convince you that you have no taste or brain if you do not like the CD-r or tuva throat singing accompanied by Merzbow on broken microwave oven keypad. Both position are reprehensible. Each one is about maintaing a position of superiority has as Ironic Love is the same, creating distance to ridicule.

This opens up a whole can of Mark S intentionality worms & uses an unpleasant analogy in the process; since I luv mark s's posts I'm glad about the former: I apologize for the latter but I have been reading W.H. Gass all morning and it's hard to escape unscathed from that stuff (which incidentally proves the existence of the hoary monster of influence yet again har har har) so that's my excuse

could someone please explain the logic of this?

It's kind of like how opinion pollsters know that some of the people saying they'll vote left will actually vote right but won't admit it. If you're a pollster or a commentator you know this happens, you correct for it if you can, but you don't assume that EVERYONE who says they'll vote left is a liar or that the entire left-wing vote is a guilt-ridden sham. And you don't assume it of any specific person either.

The ones containing Destiny's Child and Coldplay ("faux-populist") and "tuva throat singing accompanied by Merzbow on broken microwave oven keypad" ("Snobbish Intellectual").

To deny that Ironic Love, faux-populism, etc are not components of what is trotted out on the runway is absurd.

but whose runway?

So unless you have a guilty conscience, I think one is making assumptions about my intent and is really saying more about themself. The question is about several different kinds of relationships with music. Of course, not relationship is one or the other, but a mix and match of all sorts of approaches.

so which is it? you're proposing a dichotomy here, by bringing the "guilty conscience" into this, which mixing and matching would inherently contradict, by placing the approaches in a state of flux rather than as absolutes.

...mm. I get cross over norms supposedly being established as holy writ, true. But this idea of a put-on is strange to me, for reasons I can't describe...it's very strange, almost like I can't visualize anyone actually saying that to me.

There's quite a bit of enjoyably bad music out there that I have a fondness for, thus the Golden Throat comps and all. But I can't see my liking for that as ironic...I see it as, well, enjoyably bad, so it provides unintentional pleasure, the same way an enjoyably bad movie does. :-)

By this logic, everything you said in your original question "merely describes" the listeners' relationship to the music and disqualifies it as criticism. So why did you ask the question?

I think what people are asking, OGR, is what the above means for the "fourth pose" you could be accused of adopting: Group A likes stuff [popular populist]; Group B looks down on Group A for not liking other stuff [snob]; Group C looks down on Group B for looking down on Group A for liking stuff ["faux-populist," post-snob]; OGR looks down on Group C for looking down on group B for looking down on Group A for blah blah blah [post-post-snob faux-populist-snob?].

The common thread is someone picking on someone else for not liking things in a sufficiently "appropriate" way, whether "appropriate" means "fun-loving" or "intellectually critical" or what-have-you. You're of course more than welcome to play this heirarchical game and "win" it in that top-of-chain fourth column: it's a funny game because the object isn't to "beat" the other players but to talk on and on and on about how they're not even qualified to be playing and should just give up.

I don't anyone here would even dispute your central point -- that it's disagreeable when it seems like people are listening to music for the primary purpose of mocking it -- but even that sort of crumbles when you think about it. (a) Is this inherently bad? Are we all horrible people for watching Mystery Science Theater, which works from the same central premise? And more importantly (b) do people really listen to music for those reasons? They talk about it, yes -- they'll say "Oh, I love Kenny Loggins" -- but I've never come across anyone who will actually listen to the Kenny Loggins or whatever else -- alone, non-publically, for non- social and non-rhetorical purposes -- unless he/she actively likes it, on some level. And I stand by my assertion that a lot of what we interpret as "ironic" listening is really just people who are surprised and amused that they're (a) liking something they think is "supposed" to be bad, and (b) liking it in a way they're not used to liking things.

And if not for "bits of flotsom ... dredged up ... for ironic adulation" would it be quite as easy to get your hands on those Shaggs records?

Ironically. the Shaggs baiting of me is ironic in itself. The same people who accuse me of being a snob or whatever because of the question I posed (in a manner that would attract attention), are revealing themselves to be even more snobbish than myself. I can't believe you genuinely like the Shaggs! How could you not have my same aesthetic and poetic criteria for music? Why aren't you the same as me? I don't think the Shaggs are good, so you can't possibile unironically like them. Interestingly enough, I never questioned what anybody else liked. I discussed the question in general terms, citing a few examples, etc. It's mighty neighborly of y'all to do to me what you accused me of but I never did. Now back to your nose lifting excercises, folks. There's plenty more people who might show up here for you to irrationally argue with today and tomorrow. (and in saying that, I do not include people like Tom and Darnielle, who actually had productive ideas to share). Back to your masturbation, boys and girls and its.

He sez, oh no sir, I'm a mentalist.

OGR, later: "Interestingly enough, I never questioned what anybody else liked. . . . Now back to your nose lifting excercises, folks."

ME: "You're of course more than welcome to play this heirarchical game and "win" it in that top-of-chain fourth column."

OGR, when people erect a fifth pose to turn on him: "The same people who accuse me of being a snob or whatever because of the question I posed (in a manner that would attract attention), are revealing themselves to be even more snobbish than myself."

I.e. "They beat me at my own heirarchical game! WAAAH!"

by the way: I've never heard the Shaggs

I have yet to see a rebuttal of this. I think it's pretty much spot-on, myself.

you don't assume that EVERYONE who says they'll vote left is a liar or that the entire left-wing vote is a guilt-ridden sham. And you don't assume it of any specific person either.

Actually, I think one can take a good stab at inferring those sorts of things. If I meet a person whose attitude towards the world is one of sneering, unfeigned contempt, it's not a big leap to imagine that they enact the same sort of contempt in their musical preferences. On a smaller scale, I do think there is an element in all of us that gets off on feeling superior, and I don't think it's a noble, or even value-neutral, trait.

Personally, I enjoy someone like Wesley Willis because of a few different things -- for one, I take vicarious pleasure in seeing someone transgress social norms (e.g. by telling bus drivers to fellate pack animals) and in general do things that I think we've all wanted to do at one point or another. I've done a fair amount of thinking about why I like his music and why he makes me laugh (and have written about it on my site and ILM) and feel pretty confident that I'm motivated not by contempt, but by affection and bemused bewilderment. I also have seen people at his shows who are unequivocally motivated by contempt, and I have absolutely no reservations about saying that I believe myself capable of identifying their motivation. So, no, I don't think it's impossible to figure out why someone likes something. Sometimes you have more information than at other times, but to claim that other people's motivations are completely opaque to inference and examination simply is factually untrue. The question isn't whether it can be done, the question is whether the person doing it is capable of doing it, and whether the conclusions they reach are based in reality.

The problem I'm having with OGR's argument is that his arguments are so goddamned self-righteous. Only HE knows who's being sincere and who isn't, and he fails to see how anyone could possibly disagree with him about anything. (Something that I'm willing to wager everyone on the board has been through at one time or another.) My position is that OGR isn't very capable of doing it and that his inability to figure out that positioning himself as The One True Shaggs Fan isn't helping his case any.

the real JUICY proof is here.

m.

uh... i genuinely like the shaggs. i know others do as well. no where did OG say that NO other person is a true shaggs fan. he just stated that it's somewhat common that shaggs fans like them cause they think they suck.

holy triscuit wars, m.

there's something personally distasteful in liking music for its ability to make its listener feel better than its intended recipients

Note that now we are not only parsing whether or not someone "actually likes" something but precisely why they listen to something they don't "actually like" -- after all, "ironic" appreciation quite often revolves around complete bafflement as to who the "intended recipients" even are. This also completely clashes with OGR's "faux-populist" accusations, in which people would be pretending to like Destiny's Child not to mock people who like Destiny's Child but in order to mock people who mock people who like Destiny's Child.

But John's right: I'm not disagreeing with the existence of a particularly disagreeable type of ironic listening, and elsewhere on this board I've gotten really vocally irritated specifically about my perceptions of certain Wesley Willis fans. But this has nothing to do with the above -- again there's no contempt aimed at an "intended audience" as it's really hard to imagine one -- and everything to do with some WW fans looking at a troubled human being as an amusement, which really has very little to do with the music itself. In fact, I'm not sure how productive this conversation can be without separating out "outsider" music as a different and far more vexed area of discussion.

Anyway, no one is disagreeing that it's really unattractive when people's listening choices are fueled largely by contempt (and I still maintain that they're more rhetorical than actual listening, but whatever); everyone's just jumping on OGR because he cast such a wide and presumptuous net in assuming that anyone who likes pop or Trans Am or "elevator music" or any "lost genre" likes it stricts for irony's sake, which is just stupid -- it only became more fun to jump on him because Michaelangelo's passing suggestion of the exact same thing with him and the Shaggs got him so shrieky and defensive.

Fakery, of course, isn't always easy to ferret out. In some cases the listener may have a genuine love. Let's, for argument's sake take the Shaggs, for example. I have a genuine, unironic love for the band -- I mesmerized by their shift rhythmic guitar pieces. I like them for what they produce and, to be a cliche ridden bastard, they strike a chord with me. On the other hand, a large portion of the Shagg's audience (see The Key Of Z by Irwin Chusid) only appreciates them as a bad band, laughing as they chortle over how they think the Shaggs are comical in their recordings.

MSP, the logic Jack Cole is following here is very plain: "ironic listening" and "faux populism" aren't as "productive" as more "genuine" modes of listening. He obviously feels he's representative of this "genuine" mode, and his question very strongly implies that this forum is only (or at least overwhelmingly) concerned with the "ironic faux-populist" mode. If you can't see that as deliberate provocation, then I can't do anything else to help you.

What happens, do you hunt people down and whip them with daffodils?

on in spring time...most other times of the year, we make you pretend to be latoya jackson... and speaking from experience, that's not such a bad thing.

m.

C'mon, Jack, honestly: it's silly to throw out deliberately provocative witticisms and then get all huffy and indignant when people throw them back at you. Seriously: go back and look at the question as you posted it. Note the derision in the title. Note how you very clearly imply that this huge and ever-widening swath of music that loads of people enjoy -- starting with music by disabled kids, and widening through Trans Am, "lost genres," "elevator music," and finally mainstream music in general -- is primarily consumed by people who don't actually like it. Keeping all of that in mind, ask yourself how anyone in his or her right mind could really empathize with your getting all indignant when Matos flippantly suggests the very same thing about you and one band.

And so you reveal yourself and ladle out a paragraph that reads like everything everyone here said to you when you asked the question in the first place. I mean, come on: "Ristle merely said that [he] didn't listen to the Shaggs ironically, just as, say, you might listen to some bad you unironically like" -- what, something I might unironically like, like, say, Trans Am? Is there something special about your fictional Ristle that makes him deserve more deference in this regard than he's required to give others? This thread "makes [you] sick to your stomach with [its] emphasis on snide rhetoric instead of real discussion" -- what, like the thread you started with an uber-snide and completely unsupported indictment of tens of thousands of records? "Do what you must to maintain your pecking order or to validate yourself" -- what, like asking dismissive questions designed to imply you're so much more clever and sensible than people who like pop music, because they couldn't possibly actually like pop music but must in the end be "posing for the camera?" At PRL, whatever that is, "We only expect people to support what they have to say if in a debate" -- what, like maybe supporting the contention that people only like pop music as "anti-something-or- other-faux-populists," a recurring accusation on this board which is just about the dumbest fucking thing ever insofar as it's pop music, it's what more people like than practically anything else?

Honestly. That's my "real discussion." That's my best and more serious explanation of why everyone is jumping on you, and it's not ad hominem: it's an explanation of why people didn't get all kind and studious over answering a question that was faulty and spiteful from the get-go.

2. My post on the PRL was taken out of context -- the context of the audience it was intended for -- my joking to them perhaps untranslatable because none of you are really familiar with me at all.

Jack Cole yalp! my love of the Shaggs is being questioned . . . (216.26.12.18) May 30, 2002 at 14:31:45:

I mean, osmond ristle's love of the shaggs. no one believes that I can unironically like them. Screw them -- they probably don't believe David Fair is a great guitar player either.

the post is mostly just a half mocking comment on what was going at I Love Music and the astonishment that anyone could believe that I didn't seriously like the Shaggs (and for what it's worth, David Fair of Half Japanese has always been inspirational for me in his playing and as a person). On the PRL everyone at one time or another has post as someone or something else, be it a shoehorn or Burl Ives or Osmond G. Ristle, who usually asks questions about imaginary bands. If you are referring to the Darnielle comment -- though you wouldn't know it, I've discussed Darnielle's work in the past in a favorable light. Even though I like it, be it writing or music, I still find some of his writing a bit self-righteous -- but you know what -- that's OK too -- some of my best friends can be self righteous and annoy me at time, but I still like them.

Moreover, I don't care if they get all studious over the question -- really I don't -- that isn't to say I don't want some interesting to happen-- but it seemed to me when I checked the thread people were seriously discussing it. I re-entered the conversation at the point and I responded in the manner that other were. I attempted to explain where I was coming from, wrong or right without questioning the authenticity of anyone's else love of whatever. As I said, I didn't get urked until I was treated rudely.

As for argument -- I never indicted anything, let alone tens of thousand of records. The closest thing I came to indicting in the original question was the new Trans Am record, the premise of that straight from most of the reviews I've read of it. Yes -- I probably was indicting ironic listening -- ironic listening as a sole mode of listening, that is. And, sadly, faux-populists do exist, their choices saying nothing about the records they choose to champion. Their choices only reflect on them and their agenda as they comment on those records and what they oppose. I have never made the generalization that everyone who likes pop is a faux--populist. But, that's the thing isn't? Like the others you're jumping to conclusions without any substantiation -- and that's what pisses me off.

I have no problem. You seem to have one, though. I didn't post the question to provoke you into a hostile rage or to overreact. And, a matter of fact, people to post things like "Osmond G. Ristle" on the PRL but they don't overract to it. Moreover, I wasn't attempting to pick a fight. I offered a question. As for calling me snotty -- I don't recall ever calling anyone "dick" or anything else similar to that. Moreover, the question itself wasn't anything anymore snotty some of the comments I have read here.

What exactly threatens you about people who appreciate music ironically, anyway? Afraid people will think you do too, and think you're a stupid hipster doofus?

Nothing threatens me about it. Should I be? Why are you threatened by questions about people who appreciate music ironically? Why is it such a hot button for you? If had known, I might not have posted the question, which really wasn't anything more or less snide than anything else I've seen here. Shall we go check the archives? If makes you feel better to consider me a doofus hipster, then go ahead. Sorry if I wonder about those who appreciation for something is almost completely ironic.

What the hell threatens you about people who want to talk about music, and analyze it, and think?

Nothing threatens me about that whatsoever. I hope you're not implying that's what happened from Fritz on during the question. I tried to honestly answer the responses posed. You can't really consider comments like those that Sterling or the others made constructive can you? Oh but I see, it's ok for you and Philip, etc to be snide -- just not any outsiders. Whatever. If I have anything to apologize for, its for letting myself getting annoyed by the poor behavior exhibited today. Try actually reading what happened objectively.

If you really wanted to do that you could start a discussion that wasn't as provocative, or just look through our archives, we talk about this all the time. If you can't take it then just go back to where you feel safe and leave us the fuck alone.

Thank you. You're a sweetheart. Your hospitality has been wonderful. Sorry to unintentionally muss your hair. Sorry for showing emotion in those last posts. How "unironic" of me.

Only problem is, (c) is bullshit.

This, I believe, is termed the crisis of modernity.

Can't we like reify something or other and make it go away?

"We're only controversial and threatening because ___________."

a. "well, we're not because gee gosh darn, we're talking about music here and well, what's honestly worth getting so upset about? let's rock or dance or jam or something."

b. "it's our turf and we outnumber outsiders with different viewpoints. even if they provoke us, we know what to do to those spoilers of sports. burn the bastards! rah!"

c. "we wear tree bark. fear us! we're crazy! rah!"

d. "even though we have nothing to fear because we're right, we still feel the need to respond and attack. i mean shit, they pushed first! didn't they?! hell yeah! rah!"

was it Jon who once said, "i love you guys." ???

play on, m.

I just noticed this. Have you been hiding something from us, Jack?

Minna, irony is like patronizingly masturbating an eight year old, which is satisfying for the moment, but not as satisfying as when someone else's hand is doing the tousling. And yet you are not giving him any credit. This is also the same as Faux-Populism. Please note that I have never accused anyone of masturbating children, you filthy child masturbators.

I put a towel on the floor by the two inch gap under the door

Now they can't see me any more.

Check the locks so they can't clock, but they can listen.

There'll be no bargin' in and there'll be no dissin'.

No good. I used up my 'one rile per week' on N. Williamson already.

It was your "I really like the Shaggs for their rhythmic sense, but a lot of people like them for all the wrong reasons" comment that I objected to. You're assuming the worst in everyone else and then expecting everyone to assume the best in you. All the subsequent putdowns of the Shaggs - they're fat and ugly and can't play or whatever - came from your mouth, pal.

Also note that I attempted to give my own shifting perspectives on irony in music in a few posts way upthread (talking about Terry Jacks, 80's metal, and trying to avoid anything but canonically- upproved unironic music). You know, the series of posts that began with "To try to answer your question seriously..."? But I guess those weren't the flames you wanted, so you ignored them. You continued on with your proclamations until I threw your nonsense back in your face, at which point I became a convenient villain - a savage! (puh- leeze) - for you. I don't think you had any interest in having a civil discussion in the first place, so you got exactly what you wanted. Congrats.

"We're only coming to this message board because ___________."

a. The other kids are ignoring me on those other message boards - maybe this will get their attention!

b. Maybe I will look "controversial" if I try to stir up things by throwing out ill-thought out insults on ILM. I don't really have to answer to anyone else's comments, mainly because I can't think of anything intelligent to say.

c. I really am stupid enough to think that my way of thinking about music is the only way, and anyone who appreciates anything different is lying or faking it.

Jack, Jack, please! Are you really going to backpedal so far as to pretend the question was about some legendary music beast who has never unironically enjoyed a record? I don't think that even qualifies as a straw man: only an imaginary hat for one.

No, here's what we have, and here's my last attempt at editing this thread down to a concrete demonstration of how you annoyed everyone:

OGR: "I ... was indicting ironic listening."

Matos: "Put me on the record as wondering just exactly how genuine OGR's Shaggs fandom is."

OGR: "The Shaggs Moment -- where I lost it -- and became myself -- was simply unwarranted and uncalled for."

I.e., you got all huffy because midway through your accusations that some people out there enjoyed things in disagreeably ironic ways, someone flippantly suggested that maybe you did, too? All that indignantion over someone holding a mirror up to your own words?

But checking back it turns out that you first grew angry and defensive when Mark S pointed out the element of "sneering" in your early statements. Thus all disagreements in this thread might best be solved by your consulting a dictionary and working out how someone might think dismissive overconstructed unsupported references to things being "ennui-inducing," "dull," "pap," "repugnant," or "reprehensible" might constitute "sneering."

Which points up your biggest outright lie in this thread, which was to pretend halfway through that you were only criticizing the abstracted straw-man ironic-listeners and not the music itself, which you called "dull" and "pap." Please stop lying in an attempt to keep arguing: it's insulting, as we're not idiots and we can read and speak English and remember what you've said from post to post. If you want to talk about the topic tell me what you think about Andrew WK.

1. I never said I haven't liked anything ironically. I commented on a general relationship with music that was primarily ironic (such as a portion of the Outsider Music Community as I attempted to do with the Shaggs examples -- by using myself I was attempting to clarify the difference: thinking they are good vs. extolling the values its so "bad" its good).

2. How many times do you want to go over the original question and its intent? How many times do you want me to say it was half-serious and half silly (the silly part being the words you so graciously pulled out)? I apologize for touch a nerve with you and other ILM denizens -- the question wasn't intended as an attack on the ILM or a comment on any person who posts here and their relationship to music. The question, as snarky as it was, was posed in general terms using as examples Trans Am (the question using what's already been written a lot about their new record), outsider music (it's so good it's bad) and faux- populism (backlash against indie, experimental, whatever).

3. No, I don't think you are an idiot nor I have attempted to treat anyone as an idiot. That's been reserved for you and others at I Love Music (I believe I haven't called anyone a "dick" yet or snidely mocked I Love Music as has been done with the PRL or accused anyone telling "outright lies").

4. Fritz's last answer was good -- I see now where he is coming from, though I disagree with him on the Shaggs or Half Japanese being terrible. Then again, why the Shaggs or Half Japanese are terrible or not is more of an aesthetic question. Still it would be interesting to discuss the difference between the Shaggs' unintentionally developed musical vocabulary (as they strived to be like what they heard on records and radio) and Half Japanese's intentional break in their building of their own musical vocabulary (both idiosyncratic and a continuation of what Destroy All Monsters were doing).

6. No disagreements were ever worked out with "ennui", etc. I never used words like that in my repsonses. That was in the question itself was intended to be over the top. My responses were substantially different from the question itself and were based on what had happened since I had posted the question 8 hours previously.

7. " . . . might best be solved by your consulting a dictionary . . .": really the only accusations of anyone being an idiot or a 'dick' or whatever else have been cast towards me -- you're patronizing comments a prime example. You hold all the "snarky" cards now. Want to borrow the mirror you so graciously gave me to stare at my reflection in? Wasn't it Nietzsche who said something like "when pursuing monsters one should be careful about not becoming a monster oneself"?

Thank you.

Q. "What bit of flotsom will be dredged up next for ironic adulation? Will be more records of the specially abled? Or will it be parodic presentations of ennui inducing 80's dance music à la Trans Am? Or it could be more elevator music? Or perhaps a bit more digging to pirate bits and piece dully from some lost genre's past remains? Or will more mainstream pap be championed by those who should know better in an attempt to pose for the camera as an anti-something-or- other-faux-populist? Who will be wearing the Emperor's New Clothes next?"

A. "Is it your personal mission to feel superior to the rest of the world? ... How about climbing off your high horse? Would you like me to [play those records here] so you can dissect [them], spewing out your agenda all over [them]? There is nothing [ironic] about the [music] you refer to -- unless that's what you bring to it -- and apparently you are. Do you have a problem with a [pop record being enjoyed]? I know I don't have a problem with [elevator music] or [Trans Am] -- in fact, I have an abiding love of the culture, be it [lost genres] or [outsider music]. You're making untentable assumptions without understanding what [outsider music] is about. Then again, you haven't really asked either. You continue to jump to conclusions, your verdict predetermined. I can't stop you from forming your imaginary impression of [mainstream pop music], but you should be aware that it is not grounded in reality. Still, it's much easier to be snarky and self righteous than it is to try to really understand something isn't it? How well tread the path of least resistance is. Habit is so comforting."

Yay!

1. Midland U.S. A teat or nipple.
2. Something resembling a nipple.

1. Arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive: morally repugnant behavior.
2. Logic. Contradictory; inconsistent.

[Middle English, antagonistic, from Old French, from Latin repugnns, repugnant- present participle of repugnre, to fight against. See repugn.]

1. Intellectually weak or obtuse; stupid.
2. Lacking responsiveness or alertness; insensitive.
3. Dispirited; depressed.
4. Not brisk or rapid; sluggish: Business is dull.
5. Not having a sharp edge or point; blunt: a dull knife.
6. Not intensely or keenly felt: a dull ache.
7. Arousing no interest or curiosity; boring: a dull play.
8. Not bright or vivid. Used of a color: a dull brown.
9. Cloudy or overcast: a dull sky.
10. Not clear or resonant: a dull thud.

Not records... drum circles!

so nabisco%%, in the spirit of peace and olive branches and white doves (or white buffalo), what's your impression of Andrew WK? Folk have discussed him in the past a little at the PRL due to his pole vault from Bulb Records, complete obscurity, to "pop sensation" and "Party King Of the 21st Century". I've heard his Bulb e.p. and his old band, the Pterodactyls, which was OK (and, yes, a mixture of irony and true pop- metal love), but haven't heard his major label debut. I did see him play on SNL while flipping channels and it was pretty different from his Bulb stuff -- and not really something I could get into.

The other reason I brought it up was that it demonstrates the really broad and complex spectrum between "liking" and "liking ironically," and how there's no such thing as a polarity between genuine-liking and sneering-contempt. In fact, over the last twenty-five years the whole thing has gotten so muddied that it basically boils down to pure-enjoyment again, only self-conscious -- and hair-metal is without question the best possible example of this, insofar as those who love it are among the first to chuckle over its ludicrous flaws. Liking it "ironically" is nearly the exact same thing as "actually" liking it, and thus the very dialectic itself ceases to matter.

(This doesn't really answer the question: I like him and fortunately I think he will follow the early-80s path I mentioned and disappear quietly, which will be for the best. Lately I find myself thinking we need more one-hit wonders, weird flashes of interesting stuff that crop up and then go away once their point is made.)

Hardly. Just because they don't represent an exclusive binary, or even opposite ends of a linear continuum, doesn't make them bound up in an inextricable muddle. I do agree that people can have a ambivalent relationship with music they're drawn to -- I listen to enough so-called "outsider music" to know that phenomenon.

But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's possible to have a deep aesthetic response to a piece while simultaneously cultivating a high level of ironic detachment. Ambivalence, yes; loving something in spite of, or even because of, its flaws, yes; contempt and ironic detachment, no.

These feelings on the part of the music-maker, by the way, are a completely different issue; for one, part of the craft of making music is learning to turn in a good performance/composition/mix/whatever even when your heart's not in it. Of course, ironic detachment can and will shine through more often than not -- the works of 5ean 0'Hagan testify to the fact (ha, ha). Anyway, I don't see this "hating the form" as exemplar of contempt as a good thing; I see it as musicians being aware of how the conventions of the form in which they work are inhibiting them from creating what they want to create, and then having the courage to try breaking some of those conventions. Presumably Reed and Rotten -- not to mention Schoenberg, Beethoven, Miles Davis, Coltrane, and so on -- had music they wanted to make that, in their eyes, couldn't be made without redefining the form in which they were working, no? That's not an act borne of contempt, it's one borne of courage and vision.

So I'd reply to the question:

what's the difference between "irony" and "not taking yourself too seriously" or "having fun with it?"

With another question: At whom are you laughing, and at whose expense are you having fun? I'm generally all for fun at one's own expense -- but with the exception, of course, that it (self-deprecation and self-mockery) can be a massive defense mechanism that can keep an artist from saying what they have to say without constantly deflating it with jokes and "no-no-don't-mind-me-I'm-harmless-I-don't-really-mean-any-of-this" self-sabotage. My attitude towards laughter at others -- and, in general, at approaching work with a high degree of ironic detachment -- is that it's a highly complex issue which defies easy analysis, and perhaps merits its own thread...

For some reason my mind keeps coming back to the kid in high school who, when my class went to watch Schindler's List, kept cracking Jew jokes and generally making fun of the movie. The problem there is more than just racism, it's also a fundamental contempt for the idea that the movie could actually have anything worthwhile to say to him. "It is difficult to get the news from poems but everyday men die miserably for want of what is found there."

To throw around a few more stereotypes: it seems quite strange that women don't like things with a sense of detachment. I mean, groupies of hair metal bands and rappers - and serial killers - idolise them without a sense of irony that would seem absolutely unavoidable given that the objects of their affection apparently want to destroy them.

I would agree that things can be ironically liked with subtlety -- especially in the case of the artist using irony as strategy in his or her work -- a complicated relationship between love and a certain level of detachment (wobbly see-saw of love/hate -- hate in sense of understanding the absurdity of certain qualities or ideas one is dealing with in the work). In that sense (without commenting on the actually product produced), both John Waters and Andrew WK deploy irony in a similar manner as an ingredient in their work as a whole.

The average listener (I would surmise) probably also is a combination or ratio of both many times depending on the person. Then again, there is a difference between recognizing irony being deployed by an artist and appreciating it and ironically liking something "because it's so bad." In invoking the Outsider Music Community (which I have had some experience with in the past), ironic listening in a purer form (which is not the normal operating mode for most) is the usual operating standard -- in that sense it's an interesting example because it's presents ironic listening in one of its most undiluted forms (ah, the quotes I could provide of people commenting on their latest "terrible" find and laughing at how such idiots could produce such "hilarious" rubbish). The relationship (in regards to a large of the Outsider Music Community -- there are exceptions, one being Citizen Kafka, a man I highly respect and who also put together The Secret Museum Of Mankind collections, which are awesome) is a laugh at the expense of another -- to put in crasser terms, "Look at what that poor sap tried to create -- HA HA HA." This, of course, is ironic listening in it's most extreme form, and most do not listen that way. An idle thought crosses my mind (so bare with me and don't jump down my throat): if ironic listening is the primary mode of listening, ironic listening through the detachment it creates forces the listener to only skate a long the surface of the sounds. The purely ironic listener never moves beyond who is producing the sounds or the surface of the sounds themselves. Let's take Shooby "The Human Horn" Taylor as example. Shooby Taylor, in the early 80's I believe, was a retired African American postal worker -- in fact when he made his recordings he had just retired, booking time in a NYC studio. Luckily, the engineer made a copy of what Shooby was doing, thus passing on Taylor's work through the network of outsider music enthusiasts. When you first Shooby Taylor, you're automatic reaction is on an ironic level. What you hear is a guy creating "saxophone" melodies and improvisations with his voice over the cheesiest pre-recorded, elevator-music- like tracks possible. You laugh at his choice of material and how they are performed coupled with manic vocalizations to songs like "Over The Rainbow" and "How Great Thou Art." On further listens, however (at least for me), you get past the pre- recorded backing tracks and the songs chosen, and you move away from an ironic stance towards Shooby as you realizing how complicated and amazing his vocal horn arrangements really are in relation to the melodies of the songs. The irony of Shooby's work then takes a backseat (though perhaps somewhat present, but to a lesser degree, underneath) to what he is actually doing and how unique, thought out and soulful it is.

one final thought to Phil, who I think really brought out some of the stuff I'm thinking on the subject:

For some reason my mind keeps coming back to the kid in high school who, when my class went to watch Schindler's List, kept cracking Jew jokes and generally making fun of the movie. The problem there is more than just racism, it's also a fundamental contempt for the idea that the movie could actually have anything worthwhile to say to him. "It is difficult to get the news from poems but everyday men die miserably for want of what is found there."

It seems to me at least, that joking is a defense mechanism to create detachment from the subject (to be shocking to hide or shield vulnerability or whatever).

This, btw is not meant as hostile & perhaps could have been better put by not refering to you and the shaggs except you seemed to take offense earlier and I did want to explain.

I would agree with that entirely, really. What shooby does and the choices he makes for his material (pre-recorded tracks, songs) are inseparable. However, for me at least, on the first listen to Mr. Taylor, the first thing that struck me is here is this "weird" guy sort of scatting or something over these ridiculous tracks. It wasn't until further listens that I was better able to see (or hear) what he was doing, the complexity of his human horn vocals setting into my peanut sized brain.

This was my point w/r/t the Shaggs above -- that the things some consider "bad" are not seperable from the pionts you like, but rather a different attitude towards the same thing. What they take as moronic, you take as earnest. In either case, there's a projection of desire and a choice of readings which lies with the listner. Thus my point that "you are just like them, do you SEE!"

Not that I want to go into it here, but my history of listening to music didn't introduce me to the Shaggs in (I think) the normal way. They were never introduced to me as a "bad" band and when I heard them I was already pretty heavily into stuff like early Half Japanese, LAFMS, etc so the Shaggs seemed to fit right in as a precursor. You'll laugh, but my first contact with the Shaggs was through a college writing assignment in which the professo gave everyone in the class a Xerox of Shaggs lyrics, expecting us all to write an essay on them.

This, btw is not meant as hostile & perhaps could have been better put by not refering to you and the shaggs except you seemed to take offense earlier and I did want to explain.

No hard feelings. Like I said, mistakes were made, but in the end it has all been interesting, at least to me.

Funnily, I found this thread because I was listening to "Hold Her Tight" over and over on my iPod and was trying to find the one about the Osmonds.

Thought this would be another big beat revival.