make predictions about what will be in/win magazines' end of year polls - 2003...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (172 of them)
Actually Chris surely one of the ways we can think about Low's music is to ask, "If not dancing, what physical response does this music provoke? And how is it different to Basement Jaxx in terms of its physical effect?'

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 05:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

Although I'm surprised you can actually type your thoughts on the keyboard what with that massive Cartesian split you've got going there.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 05:58 (twenty-one years ago) link

Band 1: Powerful sleeping pill.
Band 2: Obnoxious alarm clock.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

You've just neutralized your own argument, Chris!

geeta (geeta), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

The mistake is concretizing "danceability" into a definite property rather than a tendency that is present in varying (and ocasionally indectable) amounts in all music. Even my depiction just then is wrong because it suggests you can somehow quantify the amount of danceability of any given music; styles of music which often seem impossible to dance to from an outsider's perspective (gabba, drum & bass etc.) would suggest that it's actually about a level of compatability between the music and the dancer's body. ie. danceability is not a property, but praxis, something we do. It's like there's a hermeneutic horizon where the technical properties of the music mesh with the dancer's ability to interpret those properties physically.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

Creativity works in the same fashion of course, which is the fundamental reason why segratating them into separate (and mutually antagonistic or exclusive) properties is a mistake - because they are merely different articulations of the same relationship between the audience (the listener/dancer) and the music.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:21 (twenty-one years ago) link

NP: Negativland, "Announcement"

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

Same thing happens on her new single "Pass That Dutch". Timbo 're-interpolates' "Potholes In My Lawn" by De La Soul.

Formulaic.

Tim, so basically, you're saying it's cool for Dizzee to be uncreative because his uncreativity is so incredibly uncreative that it borders on an unforeseen level of uber-innovation? Stop dressing up the situation. I don't see it as some kind of beautiful reinvention either. I can't see a lot of emcees getting away with this, but because he's a more introspective, junglist emcee, because it's 'his environment', he gets away with it? It's the same thing as every rapper making new songs over "Paul Revere", it's just lazy. And should I feel better about it because he doesn't really care about the beats he's making?

Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

NP: BAD, "Rush"

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

Rollie I think you deliberately misread every sentence in my post.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 06:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

'Pass that Dutch' and 'Potholes in my Lawn' sound nothing alike. What sample is it?

bnw (bnw), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

The bit when she says "If you's a fat one put your clothes back on before you start puttin' potholes in my lawn"

Rollie's applying a mentalist strict approach to sample creativity - Missy's not even allowed to reference De La Soul.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

I thought he was talking about regurgitation rather than reference. I was, at any rate.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

Chris, this is what I said to you when you first brought up this argument:

"But Chris I still think you're missing the point. The use of recognisable samples in Under Construction is not the result of Missy and Timbaland wanting to make music like they used to dance to and going to the most obvious records on their shelves. Rather, they're deliberately chosen to trigger the most frequent recognition for the most number of listeners in order to make a point about the specific nature of Missy and Timbaland's nostalgia - a nostalgia which is repeatedly explained to be not theirs alone, but a collective nostalgia. Collective nostalgia by its very nature revels in the overly familiar, because it gets by on cultural touchstones that "we" can take for granted as having shaped everyone's awareness. That's why heaps of people go to eighties revival nights as Madonna or Cyndi Lauper or Michael Jackson, but no-one goes as the drummer from The Minutemen (so far as I know!) - what's the point?

Likewise, for Missy and Timbaland, using unfamiliar samples would unnecessarily obscure the nature of the album's retro-fetish - it would bog the approach down in an overly loaded understanding of what their eighties hip hop "golden age" actually was, rather than what it felt like to someone like Missy who, strictly speaking, was probably too young to have an incredibly intimate knowledge of the source material. And it's only really the feeling that the duo are trying to evoke - the samples are largely decorative, and often their retro qualities exist in deliberate contrast to still-very-futurist grooves. In contrast most other current "golden age" hip hop shies away from obviousness in samples but boringly champions an aged + authentic approach to groove construction.

Ultimately I think the retro samples on Under Construction are used in a similar manner to the the way pop songs are used on the 2 Many DJs album, which is pushing an idea about pop as much as Missy is pushing an idea about hip hop. As both are essentially "arguments" as much as they are records, it only makes sense that their creators would cite the most recognised and persuasive precedents in support of their position."

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

At any rate, if Missy and Timbaland weren't doing so much else in their grooves *apart* from sampling old hip hop tracks your argument might hold some weight. As it is, the quote of "Potholes in my Lawn" is unnecessary for the song to work, it's a surplus designed to throw everything else in relief.

While I can't make the exact same argument about "Fix Up Look Sharp", in Dizzee's case the "so much else" is his rapping, which is captivating even without any musical backing - in that sense the entire groove is the "surplus", almost throwaway. So you're half-right in that regard Rollie, except of course that you're totally ignoring the role of Dizzee's rapping. One should regard "throwaway sample backing" as playing the same role as "deliberately simple instrument-playing" in that it has two purposes - one) it's rushy, exciting stuff that operates on an entirely different plane to any boring ideas of "creativity" that you and Chris insist on peddling; and two) its deliberate lack of "craft" in one sense serves to highlight the presence of a totally different sort of craft (Dizzee's capabilities as an MC).

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

Tim, you give Missy Elliot far too much credit. You can't talk something into mattering.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

!!!!

Explain what you mean by "mattering". In what sense does it not "matter"?

geeta (geeta), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

Typical "intellectual listener" problem: thinking the song into a "critical" context beyond what it empirically establishes.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

I agree with Tim's take on Missy's stuff, definitely. Hip hop as a genre LYRICALLY is full of that sort of genre/era referential stuff all the time; take the Non-Prophets rec., which is Sage Francis dropping Ice-T lyrical references like its nuthin' - he was a kid when Ice-T was at his peak, its about remembering a different time in hip hop. Of course, N-Pz are doing a different sort of thing than Missy...but no, I don't think missy's getting "far too much credit" at all.

The verdict is still out on Dizzee for me though...my immediate reaction was negative, but it has grown on me. I still don't see whats so great about "I Luv U" though.

ddrake, Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Typical "intellectual listener" problem: thinking the song into a "critical" context beyond what it empirically establishes."

So wait...what exactly DO you think Missy's doing?
I don't see how Tim is overintellectualizing this at all...

ddrake, Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:31 (twenty-one years ago) link

I have no problem with references. It's completely natural for a rapper to reference something in the past of the art, but just like it bothers me when someone re-uses the drum pattern from Audio Two's "Top Billing", it's just pointless to grab a piece of another beat to get your point across. Tim, you seem to be magnifying the purpose of their regurgitation. You make it seem as if it's some big noble restructuring knowledge program when really it's like a big ugly writing block. Your glorification of their lack of creativity is part of the problem, how this kind of recycling gets through the review process.

Still, I see what you say about the purpose of Under Construction. But what's the point of her seemingly taking the same approach with this new album? Or Timbaland with his and Magoo's Under Construction 2 album?

This is a battle of personal preference, it seems. Personally, there's no point to the whole 'retro revival' concept. If I want to hear De La Soul, I'll listen to De La Soul. I don't care if they are trying to make a statement. Their whole music shouldn't be based completely on building upon the past.

Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

Missy is, in the contended case ("Work It") pressing play on one of her favorite records. No more, no less. Chris Rock made "Weird" Al caliber light of this with "Champagne" ages ago, but that's about all rap is good for these days: connecting the dots.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

i feel like i've taken the crazy pills and fallen into some alternate horrible universe

geeta (geeta), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

" but that's about all rap is good for these days: connecting the dots."

This is pretty ironic, considering that you consider almost all hip hop albums of the 90s to be "full of filler".

And Rollie, the thing is, they AREN'T completely based on building on the past. Timbaland's beats are anything BUT reliant on the past - which is what makes the context of the use of "retro" sampling so cool. If he was doing entirely sample-based production a la Prince Paul, it'd be one thing....

ddrake, Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

i'm too drunk to make anything like a cogent argument to the 56 (!!!) posts which have sprung up since i went out earlier tonight, except:

life's too short to argue with morons.

strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

also wherever tim said "i can't speak for jess": you know you can, brohemes.

strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

also chris ott getting on timbaland's dick re. "creativity" is ilm laff riot of the year.

strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

also...

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

go to bed, kid. it's where i'm going.

strongo hulkington's ghost (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 2 November 2003 07:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

arguing with morons? i thought that was the point of life.

or maybe just too much of mine.

(chris ott exemplifies old-pfork fear of body to a remarkable extreme -- dance and have fun? i'd rather sleep!) (if this had some bangsian self-loathing w/r/t the utter stupidity of this thrown in it could still make a cool article tho)

also chris Timbo is the main creative force behind Missy production. also do you hate all songs with I V IV after Louie Louie? if you're going to write a new song, why not use a new chord sequence? and all these records use the same instruments! if you're going to write a new song, why not invent new things to play it on?

also rollie, for pfork's "rap dude" (or one of them) how can you hate sampling so much? you do realize this invalidates most "old-school" rap far more than modern stuff, right!? "fuck eric b. and rakim -- they just stole from james brown, maaaan!"

really, what are you, eighty-five years old or something?

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

[xpost jess you forget ott's "if pfork is popular than it MUST BE GOOD" turn of glorious illogic]

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yet of all the ILM boiz, I am the most bling-bling.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

you're not an ilm boy chris! we never accepted you into the hivemind.

also if you don't rock the bufu you can't claim the bling.

christ, actually please never use that word again! (or at least until you listen to a b.g. or big tymers at the least album IN FULL)

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:10 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh Sterling come now, you know I haven't listened to anything recorded after 1997.

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

True Story, Baby Gangsta (B.G.), 1993

He was spittin fire while you were still wearing training blinders.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'll take Warlock Pinchers Sterl; after all, I'm an "intellectual listener".

Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Sunday, 2 November 2003 08:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think the end of year polls will be dominated by HIM and Helloween.

jel -- (jel), Sunday, 2 November 2003 09:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

"I'm a fan of sampling. I make beats, I sample all the time. But I do have a problem with using the same idea twice."

I said that earlier, Sterling. Read the thread first. I like sampling. Just when it's done right. My thing is about how it's somehow extra legitimate to sample a really well-known piece over something more obscure for nostalgia's sake. I don't really get that line of thinking. Sampling should be used to bring a new light to music that wouldn't be heard normally, not some sort of nostalgia light tower.

Timbo is one of my favorite producers. In most cases, his forward thinking approach is refreshing. But still, his records with Missy Elliott somehow irk me with a sense of 'let's remind them of this'.

Whatever, this argument lost it's point awhile ago.

Rollie Pemberton (Rollie Pemberton), Sunday, 2 November 2003 09:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

what the fucking fuck. i feel like i can't reply to one thing here without replying to eveything here, which is just tiring. to limit it to the most recent post: sampling shouldn't be about people recognizing what's being sampled??????!!!! nostalgia isn't enough of a 'creatively legitimate' emotion for smart musicians to want to evoke it in some way? sampling a well known bit of music automatically = 'nostalgia'? (which was tim's point, one of them anyway)

mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yum!

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

No, YUM!

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:09 (twenty-one years ago) link

what'd you think of since i left you, rollie? large chunks of the emotionalism in that record = "let's remind them of this"

mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

hmm i'd bet ott and rollie wouldn't think twice about defending a rock song that was thrown together, nasty, hasty, seam-showing, etc., but 'fix up' is this big PROBLEM somehow. well, maybe not, but i'd bet so.

the key is the shock-cut silence between the 'big beat' beats. offends only the virtuous! if that little affront to the Forces of Tasteful Progess gives you a sour-lemonade face then, well, you know which side you're on i guess.

g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Sunday, 2 November 2003 10:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

''So to divorce music from dancing doesn't make sense, just like divorcing music from quarter notes and eighth notes doesn't make sense.''

I guess you're talking abt dance music in the 'divorce music from dancing' (though every record creates some kind of psysiological reaction but it may not lead to what we know as dancing): even so, surely its reasonable to make the argument that, as record is released for home consumption (that is one of its functions) (passive listening) then it may not work as that.


Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 2 November 2003 11:02 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yes, Julio, but Tim said:

The mistake is concretizing "danceability" into a definite property rather than a tendency that is present in varying (and ocasionally indectable) amounts in all music. Even my depiction just then is wrong because it suggests you can somehow quantify the amount of danceability of any given music; styles of music which often seem impossible to dance to from an outsider's perspective (gabba, drum & bass etc.) would suggest that it's actually about a level of compatability between the music and the dancer's body. ie. danceability is not a property, but praxis, something we do. It's like there's a hermeneutic horizon where the technical properties of the music mesh with the dancer's ability to interpret those properties physically.

I heart Tim and Geeta, btw.

jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 2 November 2003 11:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

i don't understand how that para has to do with what i said.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 2 November 2003 11:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

What bothers me about Under Construction is not so much that it's a nostalgia album in a lot of ways, though of course it is, but that in that nostalgia and self-reflexivity it pulls another skin over the endlessly backward-looking and history-scrambling music of the end of the last century without bothering to contribute too much to the argument.
Know what I mean? A lot of the most exciting music in the last fifteen years or so of the 20th century was, for me, a creative act but also an acknowledgement of the culture of previous generations and the effect it all had on one's perception: understanding that by 1991 all the good melodies had been used up, but through pastiche or cut 'n' paste or whatevs something new could be made of the old. The rap nostalgia of Under C. doesn't contribute too much to the cycle of pop reinvention-- though it could've. We have to assume Timbo doesn't do things by accident, and it's tough to imagine such a whiz would dredge up the formulas of the past for any reason but mass appeal-- especially when he has so much that's new to say.

Shabba (antexit), Sunday, 2 November 2003 12:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

I hope everyone's gotten that riduculous Radiohead record out of their systems

Why? It is, after all, the best thing they've done since "OK Computer"

Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Sunday, 2 November 2003 14:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

Cuz it's the 'least African', right?

dave q, Sunday, 2 November 2003 15:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

But Geir, they use drums?!

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Sunday, 2 November 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.