pointing and laughing at dance music part 4912

!!!

i) dance music can be just as flawed as any other form of music/attitude/culture

ii) swells is a clueless cunt

the only interesting point that is raised is that of authentic vs inauthentic dance music, but i'd like to see someone with a little more wit and panache than wells tackle that subject matter, particularly the issue of black-gay-urban-'spiritual'-american music becoming the soundtrack to white-straight-european hedonism. like Moodymann for example, and how his views on race, and the way he feels his music has been co-opted.

its hardly surprising or disappointing that wells would take such a rockist take on issues like "who writes the records" etc, but we are talkign abuot rock journalism here, and i think you have to take into account the audience aimed at, and that the press needs writers who write what people want to hear, and write surface level controversies. there is, after all, a reason why people hire people like Wells

apologies for the multiple postings

(rel'nship = index not anxiety)

Gareth OTM throughout this thread. That is all.

my least favourite excuse ever. its the nature vs nurture argument to some extent - and the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' idea somewhat e.g. by one esteemed critic declaring dance music is dead, dance music is then considered to be dead by a whole lot of people who don't really care either way as long as there is SOMETHING to talk about (the chattering media). i don't really have too much of a problem with that though. i guess it is telling people what they want to hear in that 15 year olds coming in their pants over The Darkness, as a result of genuine excitement over them and having them flung in their face by the NME or whoever (you always need this combination to be big i think). i suppose the 15 year old in me feels cheated somewhat because after dance music finally gaining satisfactory acceptance with regards to media coverage and critical analysis (although you could argue that is still inconsistent) the rug gets pulled from under your feet at the most convenient opportunity by the instituionally rockist UK press and media. Wells did at least touch on a couple of points (though these were already noted and documented elsewhere) i.e. 1) the absurd notion of the dance music rockist/purist/snob...and 2) the absurd notion of the superstar DJ in general...but considering that notion was a consequence of just how popular dance music has become it was not something to really get irked about. who's to say Paul Oakenfold didn't deserve a £10,000 cheque for 6 hours work but Premiership footballers do? He earned that fee for his reputation as a producer and luminary figure as much as his mixing ability and understanding of the practice of...playing other people's records...

The anti-superstar DJ sentiment is understandable from a journalist point of view: nearly all of them are fairly boring professionals nobody wants to hear about. They compose, produce and mix their own (instrumental) music in home studios, most run their own label and generally keep a fairly low profile when not on the decks (when was the last time you heard stories like "Sasha demolishes hotel room", "Tiesto checks into rehab for the nth time", "Oakenfold arrested for beating the shit out of some guy in a club" or "Westbam and J Lo seen together"). I really can't think of any DJ that fits the "mink cat-suited superstar DJ’s who used to date top supermodels" description in the first place. Hence, the hysterical coverage of "P Diddy goes to Ibiza".

who exactly slated ride on time?

to me this is like when rock in the 60s vainly courted the opinions of the serious/classical tastemakers "see, we can use strings too" etc etc, why was it important to them to chase after that validity/acceptance? and why does anyone in dance need that validity or acceptance from the serious press either.

although to be honest, i dont really know what the serious press is, on the one hand you could be talking about the broadsheets, but who would want to read about music in a broadsheet? which only leaves the rock press, which is necessarily oriented towards indie and more performative based genres, i dont know why their acceptance is of any consequence.

side question: why is it important for the music you like to be taken seriously? and seriously by who exactly?

anyway, i think dance music enthusiasts who take the medium seriously are looking for all other people to take it seriously too - not just the rock-biased press, but it has to be accepted on it's own terms too and for what it is (not fit it into a rock or pop dynamic - square peg in round hole style) - why? it seems natural to me. if you discover what you consider to be a great thing you want to share it with people and you want them to think it's great too. why SHOULD the rock-biased press be 'necessarily oriented towards indie and more performative-based genres (not sure i agree with this - i think i'd rather watch Royksopp or Ladytron live than Travis for example...but yeah Travis are far more popular, but i'm not sure WHY this should be really)?' where does this assumption come from? why is it more popular? can't that be challenged? should it be challenged? it appears to be easier (or lazier) to criticise dance music for what it isn't rather than to praise it for what it is. but Swells did point out that the DJs who also made good records were more deserving of praise, or rather more deserving of praise for when they were making records rather than just playing them - fair enough but why negate the 'art' of DJing itself? 'Just playing records'? Are guitarists just plucking strings?

Why do I care? Like I say, it's a natural reaction for me to call it out when somebody - whoever - attacks something in a way I disagree with. I care what people think because I know how influential that can be.

It's true that the 'serious' press has never really got to grips with dance music but I don't think it's that it disapproves of it. It's just that it's intimidated by it and doesn't know how to judge it. It knows that it's far cooler than rock music. Even now that it's supposedly out of fashion.

As for the future, dance music has been dying and rebirthing daily since it was born, as has music in general. Change rules as usual. Why have some journalists started to claim that dance music is dying? Perhaps it masy be that they identify the rise and fall of musical styles primarily from the rise and fall of print media interests covering those styles.

If anything, the dismissive tone is something that's emerged over the past three or so years... since all this New Rock Revolution bollocks rendered any notion of musical progress passé.

Incidentally, why is Swells pretending to like Morrissey all of a sudden, when from what I know of his taste he'd almost certainly like the majority of RonanHouse records far more?

There is very little writing anywhere about Soca, on the web at least, and even mags like Gargamel don't give it very much coverage. I've been trying to find some in order to help me refute Tracer's broadside on NYLPM!

Because I am trying to write about it for a living.

It really bugs me to see people saying who cares if dance is taken seriously, especially people who like it. Don't you see what a lazy easy option it is to take digs at dance music? Wouldn't you rather it wasn't that way? It just feels like peoples brains slotting back into a comfy niche and it's annoying.

Also if you've any experience of trying to write then it's doubly annoying, reviews sectioned off in the "dance page" just in case anyone reads them, constant misunderstanding of the basic ideas of dance music, total lack of comprehension of the volume and amount of dance music that exists, or the differences between it all.

And this isn't at all about "courting opinions", I feel passionate in such a cliched way here when really this just makes perfect sense, no need to be passionate about, it's just logic. It's not courting opinions to want dance music to be given a fair rap, I'm not saying dance music should change to be given respect, I'm saying that dance music should be given respect, it's almost the exact opposite.

I think Gareth's answer is proof enough of the extent of the problem, people who like dance music don't even think it's worth talking about. Either that or it's just a question of why bother writing about music, which is as good/bad a question here as ever.

Dance music doesn't need the validity, but crap writing is crap writing and crap writing about dance music isn't worth letting go. I don't understand how this isn't so obvious.

Matt may have a point about dance getting praised but lets face it DJ culture and 12 inch culture has long been a whipping boy for the usual hoary old earthy rants likening it to big macs or capitalism, or basically moaning cos the performers look a bit swish.

And I'm fairly sure "dance music is fine in a club" is about as far as the acceptance goes.

Surely this doesn't just apply to dance music though? Actually, you could argue it applies to rock music just as much (excluding the 30 or so favoured bands of the moment). But if dance music isn't being documented properly then the blame lies at the door of the dance press, not the rock press.

(x-post)

But how do you do it? I mean, generally speaking writing about dance music is still really fucking hard. Do you review every record that comes out regardless of whether there is actually anything to say about it or anything you can say in print that would actually differentiate from the hundreds of similar records to the listener? Or do you only review the distinctive/outstanding records, in which case you're back to 90s NME Square One.

I think the basic premise of this is that dance music fans, unlike rock fans, don't NEED a press to get exposure to the music. That's what clubs are for, surely?

NOBODY deserves that much money for six hours work.

It doesn't solely, the dance press itself is constantly in second place because it writes about dance music. Rock music is the critical centre of the universe to such a great degree, if singles were given the prominence they deserve both pop and dance would benefit, it's no excuse that they're only played in clubs or whatever when indie acts who never play anywhere are being sought out.

Also a major part of this is the bare truth that no magazine anywhere ever would print an article mocking rock music. And alot more people would attack it too, someone hating rock music is eternally a bitter reactionary who loves another genre, someone hating dance music has some intellectual ground to walk on. Ie its not seen as possible to dislike rock music because it's engrained in you.

The above is not something which can ever change I accept, but that doesn't mean it's ok either, and small victories are possible.

yeah, but i also think there were some funny moments in this. This article is not even asking to be taken seriously and in fact he's always written (funny) shit abt dance music and lots of stuff I like such as psych or whatever.

I mean, its so damn cartoonish.

There should be writing abt everything even if its 'hard' to do there are ppl out there who like a challenge.

(actually wasn't nowhere near as funny as his anti-NME rant that was linked to here a few weeks ago by DJ martian).

B-b-but... it ISN'T. Or at least, it wasn't. For YEARS the UK dance press completely oldsold NME, Kerrang, etc.

if singles were given the prominence they deserve both pop and dance would benefit

How would you like them to be given more prominence? What is the radio/MTV for if not to publicise singles? Why aren't you lambasting Radio 1 for not playlisting more dance music?

I get the feeling you're vastly overestimating the influence of the rock press, or the music press in general, and there are tons of failed NME Great White Hopes to back this up.

I'm also getting the feeling that everyday musical culture is far more rock-biased in Ireland than it is in the UK.

Also, laying the blame on the rock press is a very convenient way of avoiding the question of WHY dance music is less popular than it used to be (if it is).

I think the rock press are what look back and say "this is what happened" and you know well it's always going to be rock acts. Why put a dance act there when you can't continue to mention weirdo depressive singers, political movements, brilliant guitar licks, cliched "attitude" quotes to interviewers etc etc etc.

By prominence I mean if a great single was given more praise than a 4 line review, there's no ability but also no desire in the press for talking at length about anything except rock music. I've listened to my favourite singles of last year more than any of the albums, whatever way you look at it.

It may be about everday culture being more biased here, but it does go way beyond that too.

Why dance is less popular? No dance act is making dance music for rock fans.

In fact, I'm willing to walk down Oxford Street at lunchtime purely to test this.

This suggests to me that a successful language for writing about rock has been found and is being used. I don't think an equally successful language has been found for most other genres (pop maybe if we're separating it out; hip-hop possibly but I don't read the hip-hop mags enough). My hunch is that the success of the rock language has had bad effects for rock (plus bad effects in forcing other genres to the side, as Ronan says) - in terms of helping to set up a bunch of rock values and expectations, defining 'what rock is' by how we talk about rock (I'm not just referring to paid print criticism).

(I'm NOT saying it's impossible for good writers to write well about other genres or that genres can't be written well about. Good writers can write well about loads of things. What I'm saying is that a mediocre rock writer is more convincing to a rock fan than a mediocre dance writer is to a dance fan.)

answer i don't accept: "it is a given that this cannot possibly be the case"

steve: the ride on time and rockerfeller skank are better tunes so yes it would be easier! right, i'm off for lunch!

julio plenty of musics - polka say - are way older than rock or dance andf not written about at all

dave you are confusing the potential effects of what could potentially be written (if the writing was "good" in a sense yet to be pinned down) with the actual effects of what has actually been written

clear effect of WRITING ABOUT MUSIC = the thousands of bands who based their sound on the velvet underground

w/o people writing abt them — esp. in the late 70s, ie long after they'd disbanded — they would have sunk, not w/o trace, but into a tiny tiny TINY cult of no consequence

the VU turned out to be GREAT to write about, and lots of little bands noted this and set sail in that direction

Yeah, but its a matter of knowing what the listener itself is listening FOR and adapting your writing to focus on these elements, isn't it? (Pitchfork Basement Jaxx review to thread!)

At the same time, I find it pretty difficult to accept that there is really much that can be written about, say, a functional breakbeat track that acts as trough/filler in the context of a DJ set. Actually, I feel the same about functional rock track that appears three quarters of the way through an album - both are far harder to write about than the big singles/anthems or the digressions/oddities.

x-post with Stelfox - in 8/10 cases, is it really WORTH writing about individual dance records, or widening to focus to talking about DJ sets or club nights or cultural movements etc? Surely this is much more what dance is really about? (I am throwing ideas around here, not really stating an opinion).

but did polka have the 'cultural impact' that rock or dance had/still have?

(And then there's the matter of of music for people who don't like to read.)

dancehall massive to thread!

it doesn't really... i don't know of any tabloid that really bother with it much, not counting the daily mail (and coverage there is just plain daft/bad)

BUT it always stayed below the radar of mainstream music writing (i'm surely there were also specialist magazines actually) and has tended to fall out of the ambit of routine histories of popular music (except when novelty crossover was achieved)

(rock is basically a local/ethnic music which achieved novelty crossover, except the novelty went on to eat the world)

This is not the case to the same extent with dancehall or soca or hardcore or any music made prior to about 1900 except classical.

If the tabloids WERE writing more about a certain type of music, would more people be listening to it? (I am fully aware that tabloids are followers rather than leaders in terms of cultural trends, BUT...)

tabloids didn't write abt popstars or pop AT ALL until the late 80s, really => i (seriously) think reality TV makeover pop was a cultural reaction against the entrapment of the fun of celebrity in the web of tabloid writing (obviously it failed)

in the last two or three years we've begin to see music-makers once again taking up the baton of that web as a challenge (taTu = most obvious), though no one's been as effective as the pistols momentarily were (at tremendous cost to themselves)

i used to work there < / potentially devastating confessional >

this sentence has never been in th bizarre column! sean paul is the new shaggy tho, apparently...

ans = of COURSE it has an effect and not all "bad" either (necessarily)

actually the fact that eg the nme is paid unquestioning attention by eg bizarre columnists (and radio one djs) is an even more extreme example of HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED BUT HE LOST WHAT HE HAD

ha ha, sorry - add the word 'Jordan' in there somewhere

It reminds me of a thread I started last year "is dance music starting to have a heritage every bit as irritating as that of rock music".

I am a bit lost here because I went to lunch and then had work to do. Matt's point about broadening what's written about is good but I'm not sure people understand DJ sets enough.

On reflection Gareth's questions were getting at one thing I was thinking about at lunchtime, sort of why doesn't one (or don't I) just write about dance for dance people. It feels like preaching to the converted I guess, I'd rather be working towards something rather than just doing the job.

And yeah I see the obvious "but if you achieve it you'd have nothing to do" thing but that's true of any life.

But I thought your whole rationale behind this was stopping all these great records you've heard from disappearing? In which case, surely writing for an audience you KNOW would like them is perfect?

but also there's tom's point that unless you think quite hard about what the achieved goal is to be, you may end up with something you can't bear

(*ie not publishable only in slim volumes of poetry handprinted in vilnius)

need to be given room to make these manoeuvres

What are the chances though eh? At least in print anyway.

What are the chances though eh? At least in print anyway.

you need to write for american magazines who don't pay!

NOBODY deserves that much money for six hours work.

Nobody deserves than money for 1 months work.

NOBODY deserves that much money for six hours work.

Nobody deserves that money for 1 months work.