Worldview

Check this out.

Only had a chance to scan Sterling's link just now, but it's an interesting piece indeed, especially given its 1925 authorship. It could probably be written today without worry, though the implicit eschatology towards the end might have to be willfully ironized by most writers today. More thoughts on it later, perhaps.

To answer Momus' point from my own perspective -- there are certain bands/performers/etc. who I would never care to listen to knowing their own particularly virulent political views, let's take the late and unlamented Skrewdriver as a classic example. In that case worldview trumps whatever musical ability is there. That said, any number of other examples could also be named where worldviews are equally suspect in my eyes but the music is something else again. Classic example here -- Public Enemy. Just dig up any random gay-baiting statement back in the early 1990s from Chuck D, whether talking about how house is a 'false' lifestyle accompaniment to the African-American experience, or how the Koran speaks against homosexuality. And yet something like _It Takes a Nation of Millions_ or _Fear of a Black Planet_ is so amazing to hear.

On the flip side, though, I *never* buy or force myself to enjoy something by someone solely because a stated worldview matches mine. The music has to be of interest. This almost certainly means that I have spent more time on music (and other artistic expressions) by people who I couldn't stand to be in the same room with than I have by those who I could or would want to. Does this compromise my own beliefs as a result? I don't think so, and indeed arguably hearing somebody say something offensive/idiotic/etc. can be a particular sign to set oneself against it rather than simply following it.

In some respects, Momus' question makes me think of the Christian rock thread. There, at least in the modern American sense, worldviews between performers and audience are more than most places specifically intended to match. But which came first and who leads the way, audience or performers? Not as odd a question as might be thought, I'd argue.

Of course, this all predicates certain discussion of what a worldview is -- I have referred here to both internal (recorded lyrics) and external (outside statements and actions) expressions from artists. But unless we actually know a person through and through, can any true comparison or link of worldviews exist? Is it more like an exchange between media image and individual buyer/listener?

I don't think pop music could change people's worldview much, though I'm sure there are examples of particular records which have made people stop and think about how they see the world. Pop music seems to me to be the sort of creature that'd tap you on the shoulder and point in a particular direction but probably wouldn't be too bothered if you carried on the way you were going.

I think most people are quite willing to forgive an artist for the way he or she looks at the world, on the strict grounds that the music must be good. If you don't like the music, then differing world views may be held up as the main reason for not liking the artist.

For instance, I know a few people who don't rate Phil Collins. If you were to ask them why, one of the answers they may well give is the fact he's a 'tory bastard' but ask them what they think of, say, Gary Numan...

Or, another example, I don't really like Hefner because of their annoying weediness but I do like other bands in spite of their weediness (TBS for example)

This might be wrong, but perhaps it would be interesting to come up with a list of bands you don't like because of their attitudes and then compare those attitudes with other bands that you do like in spite of the way they see the world.

The problem with any artist who has a world view is that his world view becomes the priority . Therefore the only artists that have a definably world view are also those who have a definably ideological agenda. Sometimes, usually when i agree with the ideology , this works in their favour ( Billy Bragg and 16 Horsepower. ) . But more often then not they become a propgahanda machine.

I'm particularily interested in worldview which is hidden, dovetailed with musical and stylistic decisions, rather than the obvious worldview contained in musicians' political posturings and lyrics which, I agree with Ned, needn't really interfere with our musical appreciation.

But what if every 'purely' musical decision was also taken on the basis of worldview? Is there a politics of style? Maybe what I dislike about the new Squarepusher is the ideology I imagine to lie behind those drill'n'bass fills, which an unpleasant collision of Nihilism with the idea of the virtuoso musical genius. Maybe what I do like about Scratch Pet Land is the homemade and friendly sound of what they do, and the picture it seems to contain of a low-tech, egalitarian world, where Africa and Europe meet on terms of mutual respect.

Hmm...you raise an interesting point, Momus, but what it makes me think is this -- aren't your reactions, positive or negative, phrased in terms of a learned and studied consideration of certain sounds and how they are described/received/considered by the 'common' culture, which in this case actually is something of a Western point of view? In which case, which worldview is the more hidden and interesting to consider -- the perceived worldview of the musicians or the constructed perception of said worldviews by the listener...and therefore, his or her own worldview?

'Is there a politics of style?' also implies that there might be a politics of texture, of musical colour, of harmony, of arrangement. I found myself in a meeting the other day with an artist and a record company person, discussing a recording project, saying 'I'm not interested in making the kind of record where you hit a cymbal to show it's an exciting moment. I want to find fresh ways to create excitement.' Was that a political statement? I think in some way it was.

So the difference between activley partcipating in a culture and raiding it. Or poltics by subterfuge like Sterolabs marxism. I think the best example of this is Shostakovitch making music for Stalin. How the parody of Facism sounds almost the same as Facism itself. Or in Visual Art how little their is difference between Thomas Hart Benton, Diego Rivera and The nazi/soviet social realism. Or is that too obvious. What about the pastiche and idiom used in the New School of singer songwriters. Is their something inherently queer in the way Stephen Merrit and Rufus Wainwright work. I would argue yes.

Ned: yes, that's why in the question I said that reviews discussing worldview would have to spell out the artist's worldview, then the critic's. That would take forever, so people don't do it. And it's not even as simple as that. You'd have to spell out the critic's perception of the artist's worldview, then maybe poll a few other people to see how their opinions differ. If audiences differ on basic questions like whether Ricky Martin is gay, how could they ever agree on the intended worldview of the artist? When it gets to the politics of texture, it's all maddeningly subjective and culturally-specific ('Western' etc). But it's no less important just because it's confusing.

This raises another interesting point: do we sometimes project a worldview on an artist to make him palatable? For instance, decide to pretend someone is gay to offset their otherwise stiflingly conformist image? Even if we know we're wrong?

And: because styles, colours and textures can change meaning in a flash, we get these sudden reversals where a music we'd assumed was right wing, square, dead (guitar, bass, drums, or diluted hi-energy chart pop) is suddenly represented to us as radical (post rock! or the suggestion that chart pop is a gay format 'passing off').

This list has done ideas about political worldview and taste to death, but I am interested in what Momus is talking about here in terms of the listener's identification with a perdceived workaday philosophy. I'm thinking of identification with a perception more than an ideology, and I would say this is a key ingredient in all music that I truly love. It's that feeling of communication, where the artist says "I see things like this" through music and the listener says "I see things like that too!"

I'm thinking of the Aphex Twin track "Flim," that sad, gentle sense of resignation. I feel like I understand something about how James sees the world through that track. I could be wrong, of course! But even if I'm wrong I still get to have something about how *I* see the world articulated perfectly. And things like Silver Jews, Flaming Lips, Boredoms, Nobukazu Takemura -- what makes me love all these is the deep connection I feel to the outlook conveyed through the music and words. Despite all this, whether I am "correct" in terms of what the artist actually intended is not very important and pretty much unknowable anyway. That's a paradox I can't resolve just yet.

I can't feel connected to music where there is no worldview "click," which is probably why I never got into punk (Boredoms punk is about joy not anger which is why I love it), despite a deep love of noise.

I think the answer to Momus' question of critical worldview -- why reviewers don't spell out personal conclusions -- is answered by context. The review, whether on an individual webpage or e-mail post or bound and glued in the _Rolling Stone/Q History of Rockologica, Volume 456, The Study of Bruce Springsteen Impersonators in the Lower Eastern Seaboard_, is situated somewhere, somehow. I assume, perhaps wrongly, a readership that if interested in reading a review in the first place is also generally aware of where or in what context an individual encounters the review. The general -- rather than individual, necessarily -- worldview of the publication/website/ discussion form is therefore assumed and the reader works within that context, however amorphous, to process and reflect on said review. _Rolling Stone_, for instance, is seen in a wide (a *very* wide) context as monied left; ergo, U2 will be seen as having a deep, personal meaning towards world salvation while struggling against Those Darn Nasty Right-Wingers. Simplistic, but there you go.

As a result, politics of style in the way you've described it gets in the way. It is not focused, it is not easily dissected, it suggests a multiplicity of worldviews where one overriding one is generally desired. It also does not readily fit into a 500 word three-and-a-half star discussion about why the 'slamming beats' and 'screaming guitar' of Incubus define the 'youth of today.' Much better to work with an established image and reify it.

As for projecting worldviews -- oh heavens, all the time. Don't we do that in daily life anyway? Don't we assume or want to assume that everyone is hopefully like us enough to at least avoid any sort of direct conflict? Therefore why not the same with our musical icons? (Of this, this presumes a worldview of *wanting* to avoid conflict, as opposed to those who might want to seek it out -- me, I like to think people are sensible [as I see it!] until proven otherwise, though sometimes it's not hard at all to demonstrate it).

In the meantime, wanting to assume something about a musician when clearly not the case is a great part of fan worship -- consider the vaguely notorious Jim Reid/Bobby Gillespie sex romp fanfic going around. Fanfics in general are all about projecting an image, a worldview, onto a not always amenable reality!

As for your wanting to avoid a cymbal clash sound (pardon the fractured postings here, I'm doing several things at once, eating dinner, writing back to friends, and record reviewing, oddly enough) -- amusingly, that reminds me of a legendary Samuel Goldwyn quote: "Let's invent some new cliches." Not meant as negative, just that you're aiming to set aside one signifier for another, but one that of course could create its own sonic tyranny/preprogrammed/received response. But ain't that the way?

Ned: politics of style in the way you've described it gets in the way. It is not focused, it is not easily dissected, it suggests a multiplicity of worldviews where one overriding one is generally desired.

So, in effect, its avoided because of a fear of pluralism. Interesting. If worldview is pretty much implied by the house style of music publications, I'm very interested in what it says in the Style Bibles about worldview. Any pro writers -- do Rolling Stone, Spin, NME etc have 'Style Bibles' with guidelines for their writers? Do they say things like 'Don't waste time questioning the basic meanings of instrument choices and arrangement styles, and never, ever raise these concerns to the level of politics'?

My own quick rereview of the AMG style guides doesn't mention anything up-front about politics, but there I think it might almost be a matter of discretion. And space, after all -- with rare exceptions, 300 words is seen as the upper limit, and can one fully critique within that space? I would post the links to the style guide directly, but they're not publicly available to my knowledge, and I don't know whether that would be seen as a faux pas to link away. Andy would be able to say, if he's reading this thread.

The closest I ever got to full political commentary in an AMG review is here:

http:/ /allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A87jeeat24x87

The review runs just as I submitted it. I leave it to you to decide if I'm being an asinine prick.

I have to say that in the artists I like best, there is a worldview that is sympatico to my own. I might like all sorts of things without regard to worldview, but the artists who have the deepest impact upon me *do* have a worldview that expresses itself stylistically. I'm thinking of people like Prince, Beck and yes, The Fall. The Beatles. Ummm... Momus, too. We bought all of John Zorn's stuff recently, so I've been listening to a lot of that lately. These are some of my favorites, and I like them because they're curious, restless people. I do think that this curiosity is a Weltanschaung and that the music would not be the same without it. I also like a sort of self- questioning or dialectics in music. They're the kind of records where you say to yourself, "yeah, right on, dude!" I don't understand the sort of worldview which is just slapped on top of the music - I think that reflects the sort of ideology that's not all that deep.

I suppose something could have that sort of curiosity and I still wouldn't like it, but at the very least I would check it out if I saw evidence of it in reviews and interviews.

i nkow i can't stand shit like indigo girls or ani de fucking franco, but my politics should be alligned there somewhere.

Personally I like critics who engage their whole personality in what they write.You're admitting here -- cautiously and uncontroversially, I think -- that a beautiful album was spoiled for you by thoughts of its political context. The danger of this, when it's taken further, is that we start thinking like Adorno, who said that poetry couldn't be written after Auschwitz.

I remember a review in the NME of the UNKLE album which dissed it for the way James Lavelle put it together with his cellphone and his high calibre contacts. Whereas I disliked it because it evoked a view of human nature I associate with 'dark Hollywood' and Paul Schrader. Life is tough, Man is evil, the innocent are caught like a rabbit in the headlights, etc. While seeming to condemn the 'heart of darkness' this school (I'd put PRML SCRM's 'Xterminator' in the same category) mines it for its macho glamour. Now that's a worldview gripe.

You're correct on the cautious approach, but then again this is writing for a specific employer and publication that's different from what I did on my 136 list, which was for FT and my own amusement. But I like to think I at least made something known with what space I had, call it a bit of art in miniature.

The Adorno comparison is intriguing, but I find that quote a bit glib. Seems to me poetry is as natural a response to Auschwitz as anything (though of course perhaps he meant a certain kind of poetry...). As for the Schrader comparison -- well, yes. This *is* Hollywood, after all. "Quick! Film something that we will implicitly condemn but explicitly valorize. Or is that vice versa?"

[Posting a lot because my recording session got postponed!]

There's a great book by David Batchelor called 'Chromophobia'. It's about how colour has been feared and repressed in our culture, from Plato on down:

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/index/fyfe/fyfe2-13-01.asp

What's interesting is that he sees colour -- and its repression -- as being very much a political statement, although one whose meanings are not fixed.

Could a similar book be written about sound? Is there a history of pop to be written which might see a political struggle between those intent on expressing sound (making it primary) and those intent on repressing it (making it secondary)? If there is, could we see some people's politicization of pop (say Billy Bragg's) leading to repression of sound and other people's leading to its expression -- not a depoliticization, just a shifting of the location of worldview to form itself (say Oval)?

So noise not merely as sonic signifier of supposedly transgressed realms but actual insurrection of some sort...almost sounds like a reclaiming of what rock (rap, whatever) was theoretically supposed to be, only consciously kicking against any method of incorporation in a 'conventional' sense? If I'm reading that right. Oval is an understandable comparison, or something like Disc -- which puts me in mind of your posting elsewhere about "Love Will Tear Us Apart," since Disc takes that master recording and does amazing and amusing things to it both.

Music designed to be never played because the medium was destroyed -- I know that's happened before, but maybe some newer examples. All packaging, you open the CD case and it's already been microwaved, while there's a printout of all the data of what was on the disc as liner notes. But is it art or is it music? ;-)

We kind of did this thread before but the Chekhov quote was like too much snow on the branches and the whole thing fell over. (maryann, I am still on tenterhooks re: what Chekhov's ruling idea was!)

My easy answer is that every record changes my worldview in some way; at a minimum (and when I'm at my laziest) as a confirmation of it. What "it" is, of course, I am at a loss to describe.

Is it only musicians who say 'Oh no, that hi-hat pattern goes against my worldview'?

politics and world views can be touchy subjects when injected into music- in my listening tastes, i enjoy acts like the Boredoms, Slits, OOIOO, and Kleenex not only because the music is wonderful, but because the communal spirit invoked in the recordings injects me with a similar sense of giddiness. the Scratch Pet Land album gives me the same feeling. In dub reggae, it's believed that you can get closer to Jah in the space in between the beats, submerging yourself in the deep bass sounds (keep in mind i'm no expert on dub, and i'm simply paraphrasing here)... to put it simply, dub can be considered a religious music, albeit one designed for bum shaking and head bobbing. Acts lumped into the Shibuya-kei tagline seem to revel in their worldwide worldview, bringing unity and harmony through pastiche and crate-digging. Cornershop and Beck also come to mind here.

on the other hand, you've got things like straight-edge hardcore- while i've always supported being drug and alcohol free (having Diabetes helps in that one), i always found most hardcore in general to be unexciting and aggro posturing. i always found the DC scene humorous- you'd think a concept such as uniting kids with similar positive mindsets would be positive, yet you always hear about how insular and clique-ish the DC scene is, and while all hardcore sXe kids aren't hardcore badasses, most of the ones i went to school with or have met have been intent on venting their alcohol-free frustration by beating the shit out of people- hardly the right way to further your mission statement.

there are many musicians that i find to be very intelligent, well spoken individuals. many of said musicians make music that i find incredibly unstimulating. chalk it up to bad taste.

on the misogynist rapper tip, i always loved Public Enemy, yet Eminem leaves me feeling stale and cold- chalk that one up to the backing tracks. acts like the Beastie Boys got better with age not just because they matured, but as they matured they seemed to care a hell of a lot more about their fanbase.

i thought the UNKLE album was disappointing mainly because of the songs- while i enjoy DJ Shadow, he is not UNKLE. it showed on this album. also, while i like a lot of Mo'Wax records, their scene seems too clique-ish, too hipper-than-thou, much like Nigo's Bathing Ape clothing line, which as an eternal Planet of the Apes fan, i love.

for years, i embraced Sonic Youth's view on everything- i've pretty much became the music obsessive i am today thanks to them. they remain one of my all-time favorite bands, and while some of the avant noodling gets tedious, they've still got great taste in what they listen to.

some artists, like Momus and Sonic Youth, have lead me to music i probably would never have discovered or had dared myself to listen to prior. thanks to Momus, i discovered Cornelius, Kahimi Karie, Wendy Carlos, the Incredible String Band, and opened my ears up to more baroque and folk music. thanks to Sonic Youth, i discovered free jazz, the Boredoms, and the concept of being unafraid of creating music w/o being trained in any instrumental capacity.

one last thing- Nick, while it's nice to hear from you so much, GET BACK IN THE STUDIO!!! nice thread, though... we can always count on you.

'Jacques Derrida in his book "Noise: The Political Economy of Music" posited that changes in the control of sound foreshadowed social change. Thus the drift of musical performances from churches to stately performance halls presaged the rise of the bourgeoise and the shrill hiss of the amplifier, fascism.'

That's from today's Japan Times:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fm20010624st.htm

It might be more convincing with the right Jacques: Attali not Derrida...

saw an indiebloke using a fretless bass the other week to a sneery bunch of Belle-nds - mick karn/kev hopper stylee - i almost cried when he slapped it - revolutionary suicide !

Props to Nick for a good question. Imagine the scene: it's early 1992 and I am completely shitting myself because I am on a press junket, my first, to interview The Cure. My first question to Disco Bob Smith was 'what's your worldview?'

His eyes widen. He honestly does not know what I am talking about. At this point I begin to wonder if I know what I am talking about. He reaches out and hooks two beers in his paw, passes them to a minion for opening, who places them on a table before us. Then the classic bluff. 'Worldview? What's my worldview? Tch, what's yours?'

Maybe most people have outgrown the idea of using artists as role models, rendering their worldviews irrelevant? Or maybe the division of labour has become more explicit?

"By their fruits, ye shall know them"

I think that a common point made about the worldview of someone like Eminem is that the music he's making will have negative effects on the attitudes of the impressionable kids that listen to it. Though I don't agree that this is any reason to censor him, I think this is a valid point, and one that any pop musician who begins to have a realization of the influence that they have on their fans will eventually have to deal with in their music. I think its pretty obvious that Eminem was doing exactly this on 'Marshall Mathers.'

My own personal example of this would involve 'The Smiths' who pretty much defined my worldview in High School. In retrospect I can see that it really put a gigantic chip on my shoulder, and ruined any opportunity I might of had of actually having a good time because I had these high minded 'ideals' which in actual fact were more just a long list list of 'dont's' I was living because I was 'infected' by a few songs that created such an emotion in me that I cut my hair differently, changed the way I dressed, and started acting like an arrogant, unsocial stoic. Somebody mentioned Public Enemy earlier, and I would say that they were the band that really changed my attitude in the opposite direction. They had an anger about the way sociey was being run and people's attitudes that I found to be a bit more sophisticated and wide ranging than what Morrissey was trying to express, and actually stimulated my desire to participate in all aspects of LIFE more-- whether it was politics, racial issues, social responsibility or, most importantly, that it's okay to have a good time once in a while.

I think that's a pretty amazintg thing.

Behind my attachment to both ends of the spectrum was a love of the music, THE SOUND, was always was the thing that drew me to the music in the first place. Music that can successfully peal back something from my eyes, and reveal the world to me in a new, heavens-spitting kind of way of way is the defining thing that makes it GREAT it my eyes.

For any Marxists/Atheists out there I'm sure this will be seen as simplistic, but I have to say that I think the worldview that binds all music, whether you like it or not, is a spiritual one. Perhaps the reason Robert Smith had such a hard time talking about his 'world- view' is because it's a lot like asking him what his 'spiritual' views are.

This question seems to make everyone except Prince uneasy.

For anyone that's interested, the music that I heard that has come closest for me lately of 'hitting the spot' occured in about a minute of footage of some Arabic kids doing a 'stick-dance' in a circle of clapping onlookers while a couple of musicians played along with a drum and some wind instruments. It came a from a Canadian Documentary about the Pharoah Akheton made during the 70's, and needless to say, I'm having a hard time finding it on Limewire. Any body have any good Arabic folk-music to recommend?

That should be 'heaven-splitting' not 'heaven-spitting', though I kind of like the sound of it.

Is there a question that does make Prince uneasy? And if you know what it is, can you send it to him?

If you can provide Prince's email, I'm sure I could think of something...

Try squiggle@paisleypark.com ;). Oi Nicholas, have you got enough crib notes for your next essay yet?

Yeah, and does ILM get a cut?

I've come too late to the party and see the guests are already leaving, trailing pithy pleasantries as they go. But before I'm shown the door, I'd like to say that in these circumstances we should consider the philosophies of nonpop people like Charles Ives or John Cage or Harry Partch--especially Mr. Partch, who was so fed up with the usual "serious music" worldview that he had to create his own world, from how to speak to how instruments should look and sound. (I'm reminded, too, of the revolutionary platform Japan's "Art Of Parties" promised but didn't even attempt to deliver.) It's musicians like these and the alternative utopias they create who often most interest me. Ok, out with the lout!

Momus: I think your question draw some untenable lines between worldview in the socio-political sense, worldview in the aesthetic sense, and worldview in the general quotidian sense. And based on this, I'd posit that the only reason anyone likes anything is because they agree with the artist's worldview, or at least the limited portion of it that's being expressed musically. Or at least enough of it to make the listening worthwhile.

For instance: many people are thoroughly annoyed by your records. I'd argue that that annoyance has very, very little to do with your technical ability to make pleasant records, and has pretty much everything to do with the fact that you --- based on fundamental beliefs you have about the level of formal and conceptual thinking that should go into contemporary music --- make a particular sort of record. If we ask a person to decide between listening to you and listening to, say, Modest Mouse, we are, at least in part, asking them to make a decision about precisely that topic. And even a feebly-put attack on your end of that topic ("Momus is just a pretentious cyclops with a keyboard," "Momus doesn't rock") is, in the end, a pretty high-level commentary on the world at large: "Momus doesn't rock" equally means "I believe that music as an art form should be a highly emotive and highly Dionysian form of expression, appraised based on intuitive reactions rather than intellectual or conceptual analysis." Which is getting into pretty high-level "worldview" issues, at that point, right?

I sort of see music --- particularly the movements of trends and ideas through various genres of music --- as a very cool and very complex means of codifying those basic worldview issues, which I suppose tends to be how sociologists, in their rather removed way, view things as well. For a fifteen year old boy to decide to like Drowning Pool instead of Matchbox 20 is a massive and magnificent statement about what that fifteen year old imagines the world to be like, and what he imagines the best way to react to it is. How that translates to sociopolitical thought is probably beyond him, but that's much of what I find interesting about pop music --- it manages to package tiny bits of high-level worldviews in ways that can be intuitively understood even by small children.

What I'd like to see is some sort of long-term study of music listening and potential links to political orientation. Couldn't we imagine, for instance, that today's 19 year old Dave Matthews fans will be more likely, in 20 years, to politically conservative than, let's say, today's 19 year old Pedro the Lion fans?

No worries, Zedd - I'm also the perennial late-comer crashing various timezones, etc... Just an interesting observation regarding aesthetics sniffing around worldview: One of our weeklies made the assertion that 'House' is the sound of gay sex, morever gay black sex - which of course challenges the dom'paradigm and wrecks the social economy, but only for the length of a song, quickly fading into the next thumping beat (much like gay sex [aesthetic] itself - the pursuit of constant (and building) pleasure, style over substance, liberation through transient meanings, urban and global culture, etc). But what happens when it moves off exclusive danse floors and into the mainstream mix? Did it push gay activism out of the margins and into the mainstream? Or does it simply extinguish under it's own contexts. (Chuck D's 'House' phobia per above certainly demonizes it) Would this be an instance where worldview gets consumed and pushed into an entirely new direction (straight white culture taking these anthems and making them into escapist- weekender vehicles, but again, you've the unifying religion of consumerism (and constantly getting ready for it) so perhaps this mobius loop eats itself? Ok - maybe not a great example... Ok - perhaps a better example: I remember an old article which claimed that Billie Holiday's voice appeals to us not because it betrays her own tragic vulnerability, but because we were so apocolyptically obsessed and damaged coming from the cold-war, her creaky voice skated the edge affirming our joyous mortality in the face of death. But was her worldview Soviet paranoia? Again, i create another bad logic loop...

Jason,

I like the way you're framing house. Could it be said, maybe, that part of the usefulness of the a subcultural musical trend --- house, here --- isn't destroyed by its being co-opted by the mainstream, but actually consists of its being co-opted by the mainstream? I say this because I could easily be convinced that mainstream appreciation of what was largely a gay trend has played some part in increasing tolerance of gay culture. (E.g., Rupaul --- a black drag queen with a house hit. Who'd have imagined such a thing in 1975?)

Couldn't it be said that the success of a subculture's art makes people a bit less wary of the subculture? And couldn't it be said that that's worth the usual groaning over having given up a culture that was once one's own? "Music makes the people come together?" Just sort of thinking this out . . .

I don't know who Momus is, but I don't expect you people to respond to that. But at least maybe Nitsuh could tell me who 'Modest Mouse' is. 'Modest Mouse'??

Prince@hotmail.com

Pinefox,

More of an American thing, I suppose. Modest Mouse is a band from Washington with a weird post-indie (in the American way) trailer-park vibe. Quite a lot of people really love them --- Pitchfork directed their usual annoying evangelism at them shortly after they were done creaming over the Dismemberment Plan. Quite a few people loathe them. I feel like I should really loathe them, but I'm forced to admit that they're near-brilliant for at least five aggregate minutes of each album.

Regardless, something about their trashy-chanty emotive vibe struck me as a good antithesis to Momus's considered, conceptual leanings.

Nitsuh: I remember reading a study made around 1972 about political beliefs of fans of various bands. Allman Brothers Band and Yes fans were deemed the most liberal, Chicago and Carpenters fans the most conservative, but the methodology was retarded, stuff like pot smoking = liberalism and whatnot.

Sorry...Yes, Nitsuh! I should have implied coopted rather than all- out obliterate. Another thing from another thread that relates to this - the business of getting people (any group) to dance is extremely difficult - does the DJ set the worldview in motion then?

(He pauses on the doorstep, buttonholing the host): Yes, yes, yes--but allowing that it might be relevant, how does one even DISCERN an artist's worldview--or that the artist has one (see Suzy and Robert Smith)? Especially if one considers chameleonic artists like Prince or Madonna whose political posture/posturing one moment might seem revolutionary and the next reactionary?

Everyone loves Mozart but few mention his antisemitism. Many people hate Wagner simply because he appeared antisemitic. Charles Manson wrote some interesting songs; Hitler could paint quite competently--the same old examples... All right, I'll go quietly now...

Another latecomer to the party, I'm afraid.

Assorted responses.

For a long time I found it problematic to like bands with names like Joy Division and New Order. I then spent my early twenties wallowing in (especially JD's) glacial synths. I still don't find that sickness very clever, but what pathos. (Oh I was such a Smiths Victim in the 80's.)

Extraordinary story from Israel last week, when Daniel Barenboim actually asked his audience if they wanted to hear Wagner. What a moment that must have been. There ensued half an hour of debate in the theatre on the subject of Wagner's seemingly contradictory Weltanschauung. The piece was eventually played in a half-empty venue!

Jean Luc Godard spent his whole career making studies on the politics of style. I won't go on too much about him here as this is a music forum, suffice it to say that he is an artist who constantly asks the audience to consider and reconsider how it feels about the language of the artform in question. Check out Le Weekend, for its variation of pace, focus, techniques and so on.

...

Gary Numan's politics don't bother me half as much as the aesthetic he conveys. A friend recently tried to argue that Dance, was a forgotten classic. I told that I just didn't want to know. Gary Numan is just unappealing on so many levels. Just like with films - you know when there's a film you definitely don't want to see.

Momus mentioned that we project a particular style onto a particular artist, because it suits us that way. We fanatasise. I've always been fascinated by artists whose image doesn't quite come out the way they intended. In Brazil, there's this really cheesy form of country music called sertaneja, which is like Demis Roussos and Julio Iglesias mixed with country and western. It's almost always sung by male duos, whose macho posturing is spectacularly gay-looking and sounding.

Gainsbourg. I love him to pieces, but I don't own a single recording by him.

Scritti Politti's legendary attention to detail. Green took so long over his records not because he was smoking or drinking his advance away. He was in the studio, fine-tuning every beat, every synth texture. He would spend days on one cymbal. At least that's what I like to believe.

It's almost too obvious to say that lyrics are important, but nobody seems to have mentioned them. Lyrics don't seem to play much of a part in my appreciation of an artist's worldview. Maybe they should. Maybe I should pay more attention!! But the interplay of words, voice and instruments is rarely done with any great care in pop music.

Weekend = worst Godard film EVER. I consider it the visual equiv. to Barth's "Giles, Goat Boy" as a sort of up-the-middle-finger artifact with no redeeming value outside of meta-critical insights it (occasionally, oft. poorly) offers.

Worth mentioning re: "Rupaul --- a black drag queen with a house hit. Who'd have imagined such a thing in 1975": anyone here recall Sylvester, who was basically a black drag queen? "Mighty Real" and "Dance (Disco Heat)" were only a couple years after that.

Of course I remember Sylvester. He died a few years back, right? And heavily features in the BBC (or C4?) documentary The Rhythm Divine, about queer disco written and presented by Jon Savage.

They played his records at my local roller disco between Rick James and ELO. 20/20 hindsight makes me so, so happy sometimes.

If Beck were actually a Scientologist - or a Republican for that matter - wouldn't this inevitably colour the glowing, identikit critical responses to his every move?

Beck would be a cool scientologist, but an even better member of the NRA.

Sterling - redeeming features of 'Weekend' - the opening 'obscene' dialogue as one of the few successful tributes to Bataille, the long tracking shot along the crashed cars, the use of sound/music throughout, the garbagemen who carry the detrius of the world in their van, the violent hatred of the last five minutes, 'end of cinema'. Wld say there are many more unwatchable Godards than this one....

The long tracking shot was ten minutes too long. DUD. Stop fookin' with tha audience, and start COMMUNICATING, goddamnit.

yeah, so i was really keen to talk about the author/reader dillema and that one could easily view the privledging of "non-visual" signifiers (even the term 'non-visual') as political choices that maintain a great deal of important things...

but now i want to talk about godard...i mean, sterl. did you think king lear was awesome? was le gai savoir really entertaining? did it age well?

weekend's pretty awesome if you ask me. the part where leaud gives the male lead 'the people's elbow' after he's dragged out of the phone booth while they try to steal his car is probably 'the punctum' for me. woo.

King Lear was great.

hello.
a very interesting question indeed, a question that will possibly never be solved, but only solved in our own minds and interpretations.
i believe that art is given 2 us from the moment we arrive in this world, from that very moment of opening our eyes, and right up until that very day we leave.lets put it this way there is a bow and we are the arrow...let it fly and it will find its way,direct it and it could fly back 2 u, this is how an artists thoughts should be,it should not be shaken up in this political world, the mind should be kept alive and believe in what it wants 2 believe.art is in us all, and a musician,the way this musician comes thru to you may be in shock,in happiness, it may excite us mentally or physically, or better still spiritually,whatever experience this individual has is entirely up to them........therefore,no political person, group,etc......will ever convince my world what music is right politically.
this is not art,this is stopping an artist from being an individual, therefore affecting or shall i say infecting the minds of those who would listen to this music and maybe heal them, or made them realise something about life,or just simply give them a good tune to drive to........
whatever i may have said might sound like shit to some and how r ya to another......i wouldnt know,but i do know that influence can be good or bad,and noone will decide for yourself only you will, thats how music is and the different views and thoughts of an artists should not be condemed it should be given to us and our minds and souls should respond to this like nature therefore being comfortable to make up our own minds...and to those who would talk about this topic till there tongue got cramped i say, get over it and get on with giving yourself the best in life.....just handle it, trust me it will be ok.