RFI: Putting together music and sociopaleoarcheostuff

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I like writing about music and so forth, and I think I can do a fairly good job at describing how it sounds, how it makes me feel, how it generally fits in with the stuff I like or don't like, simple analogies, stuff like that. I'm usually fairly happy with my basic outlook: I describe an album, throw in a few touchstones people will hopefully know, and point my thumb in the proper relative direction. Works for me.

Then I go and read a Simon Reynolds-inspired thread and that all goes out the window.

I've only gotten into this hardcore music nerd phase comparatively recently (passive listener early '80s-early '90s; active yet half-informed record-seeker mid-late '90s; total enthusiast from about 2000 or so) and I feel like I'm groping for straws every so often. Seems like the writing that really means something nowadays (and the stuff I someday hope to actually get my head around and write about) is the writing that can get to the bottom of what things mean in a specific context, how things evolve and fit together, the whole microgenre splintering process, and Where Things Go From Here. Considering that it's taken me forever to even get an Ornette Coleman album, I feel really underqualified to get into the "dig deeper" philosophy that seems to be the most rewarding for both reader and writer.

So where do I start? I'm not much of a historian, and I've been burned by other writers' attempts at explaining the whole overarching history of pop and/or segments thereof; almost all of the notable high-level writers seem glib and dismissive about a lot of the bands and genres and artists I've invested a lot of emotion and interest in, and that seems to hinder anything positive I might get from it (i.e. "why should I care what he has to say about what '60s garage-psych meant in the scheme of things when he later sputters forth the tired 'disco sucked, thank god punk saved us from it, but then new wave came and ruined things again' trope?"). More succinctly, how can I feel like less of a clueless poser when talking to people who can, with two minutes and a bar napkin, connect direct threads between Blondie and King Sunny Ade (to which I can only respond "Yeah, I guess they... uh, both knew how to, er. Integrate synthesizers. Into their music. For, er, dancing.")?

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 16 August 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I suppose this could've been sub-titled "TS: writing about sound vs. writing about culture", but I really want to get better at the latter to supplement the former. I'm sick of feeling like I only know half the story. Here is where you recommend books and albums and writings and ideas and philosophies.

(Incidentally, this is why I don't post here as often as I used to.)

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 16 August 2003 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Analogy: Friday is casual day and I am wearing a "National Hot Rod Association" shirt I got at Ragstock because in a shocking contrarian nature as regarding my Buzzcocks fandom, I like fast cars. I do not, however, belong to the NHRA, which is why I had a notably awkward moment with a co-worker when they asked me joshingly why I was not in Brainerd.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 16 August 2003 14:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i. i think music can hold its own in the world (so of course it's ok just to work on describing the thing itself, exactly and evocatively well)
ii. i think music can hold its own in the world (so of course it's ok throw it in with grand bigwig claims about whatever you like, provided of course you do the non-music stuff the SAME PRECISE JUSTICE you'd do the music stuff — otherwise you're in danger of secretly admitting that music CAN'T hold its own in the world)

the ordinary fearlessness we all show towards chartpop or indie is the handle we OUGHT all to have on science or politics or psychology or ________: of course it derives from cheerful much-played familiarity

language — it doesn't have to be written — is the big step we've all made: the jump-off point to our family likeness... the rest is just detail, and we're programmed to be good with detail (though we don't share the same taste in it, and that's good too)

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 17 August 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks. I was in a mild stupor of confusion when I posted this thread and I'm feeling a bit more confident now. I also picked up an issue of the Wire last night (on my way to a WWE house show, so I read up on my Fela Kuti history while waiting for Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit to beat the daylights out of each other) and now I feel as though I could be getting a better grip on extracting the deeper insight into music as it relates to itself or (when necessary) the rest of media/pop culture/politics/the world.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Sunday, 17 August 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

read more books and less magazines maybe

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Sunday, 17 August 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

xp?

Yeah, I stopped at Borders and was confronted with what appeared to be a wall of feh (KISS UNMASKED: THE TRUE-LIFE HISTORY OF GENE SIMMONS' ROCK STAR DONG) and the obligatory paperbacks of Psych Reaction Carb Dung Etcetera. So some good rock-pop (and general pop culture) book recommendations would be U+K.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Sunday, 17 August 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos to thread!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Sunday, 17 August 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, Matos called me a few days ago and was all "get all those Peter Shapiro Rough Guides, yo" (actually I don't know if he actually said 'yo' but work with me here).

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Sunday, 17 August 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I bet he said "yo"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Sunday, 17 August 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

ha he's right though.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 17 August 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Nate, I've been struggling with this same question recently. Or a relative of the question, anyway. For what it's worth, I read your blog and don't see a dearth of contextualizing there (if contextualizing is what you're talking about here). I see a lot of good ideas, developed.

― David A. (Davant), Sunday, 17 August 2003 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

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