Simon Reynolds - C or D

There are other things to ask. One complaint of yours with Reynolds is that your students turn in half-assed papers that take advantage of his ideas. But would they be giving their experiences with dance music, for example, serious thought if it wasn't for him? Are you offering them viable alternatives, and attempting to give them ways of writing about what's important to them, in ways that are acceptable to you? I don't mean for this to sound just like "well, what are YOU doing?" Just to indicate what I take to be the importance of getting people thinking and giving them a vocabulary.

- we didnt delete the post.

- the reason we said we might is cos at the time we had a policy of deleting personal abuse aimed at another poster. SR had posted here and been met with the thread title "Simon Reynolds Is A Gobshite!". As you pointed out, this isn't high on the Richter Scale of abuse, so the thread stayed. Simon Reynolds - C or D? is fine, as is the sort of critical mauling you're dishing out.

As for what you're actually saying? Hmm. For a Texan, you're very class-conscious. I can't really say much about your accusations because almost everything you're holding up as a great sin of English rock criticism I totally endorse and encourage. I'd also prefer a writer like Reynolds - who whatever his starry-eyed conception of the proletariat is at least writing regularly about the music that excites him right now - to someone like Meltzer who has as far as I can tell spent 30 years playing the same solitary I-coulda-been-a- contender tune.

By the way J, calling someone earnest and sincere and then pointing out not one paragraph later that same fellow is basically a "desperate square" in love with the idea of seeming hipper than he is seems to be bit of a contradiction. Reynolds cannot simultaneously love and enjoy the rave scene and be the same sort of calculating hipster hanger-on that Meltzer clearly thought Christgau and Marcus were/are. Those two were genuinely disconnected from much of (if not all of) the music and the scenes they were writing about. Unless you are implying that Reynolds has never been to a rave (a claim easily refuted) or that he didn’t enjoy the “raving experience” (another claim I think would be pretty easy to refute) I fail to see the connection. Just because he doesn’t fall into your rather limited preconception of English ravers (slack-jawed yobs?!?) doesn’t mean that he didn’t “belong” and/or wasn’t accepted in the community he documented. Christgau and Marcus would have difficulty claiming such a thing and this is what Meltzer was pointing out.

I have no real idea whether Reynolds is earnest and sincere. He may be engaged in quite a bit of self-promotion and hipster quotient enhancement, but if that is your “real” criticism, J, I find it a bit ironic to be coming from a someone engaged in building the same sort of mythology about himself. Did we really need to know that you are a professor of philosophy at an American university (I wager it’s not a very prestigious one or you would have mentioned it)? Or that you read over Sex Revolts with Holger Czukay? Hmmn. Is this necessary to building your arguments or you simply pulling a “Reynolds” so to speak? What do you think your hero Richard Meltzer would say about you?

You seem to be blaming SR for his [influence] on students, which isn't very productive: lots of bold, original writers are terrible influences. For what it's worth, I'm all in favour of misreadings of Theory mavens in popcrit, as long as they are fruitful misreadings. I think SR just takes the bits and pieces of Theory that he fancies (pleasures of the text, ecriture feminine, abjection etc), and doesn't necessarily try to be "true" to the sources. What's important is the energy that is generated by the meeting of the [magnesium of] idea with the [water of] the audience/readership. Speaking as someone who had his thoughts about music turned inside out by SR etc, I found it quite a productive encounter. {ps I think if you are going to criticise people for misunderstanding Theory, you shd make sure you spell Cixous correctly - am I alone in thinking that a Philosophy prof who disapproves of "hi-falutin' concepts" must have made some curious career decisions?].

You seem to disapprove of Reynolds using Theory to talk about "slack- jawed yobs" (I'm not sure that he does, but anyway...) - this seems to me snobbery of the worst kind. Should such people be undiscussable? Do you have an approved reading list of ways of talking about such people? Should one feel class-shame for one's education? I think Reynolds - who has been raving since the early 90s, incidentally - is much less the square rockprof than entire American rockcrit establishment (Xgau, Marcus, etc).

I can't really defend The Sex Revolts, I found it overly-schematic, a book that seemed like it had been written by a committee.

Nevertheless, I would say that Reynolds at his best (the early Monitor essays, most of Blissed Out, Energy Flash, the new book on postpunk by the look of it) weaves together the defining strands of English popcrit: analysis, theory, prosody: he has a peerless ability to place the primary experience (record/gig/event) within a number of contexts (artistic, cultural, political) and pretty much alone among current pop writers marries a sense of the seduction of the aesthetic with the responsibilities of the social.

It strikes me that popcrit is all about "idiotic attention to detail over insignificant pop'n'fashion trends". You think you have made an incisive critique of SR? As we say in Rotherhithe "you're talking out of your arse, mate".

I have that Sex Revolts book at home, have dipped into it a bit, and lean towards thinking it's a load of rubbish. I'm not such an expert on the discography of Can so factual inaccuracies there don't bother me. But I thought the general tone of the book was a bit reductionist (rock/pop music is all about lyrics) and the way most artists get a page at most on their work seems like Reynolds is just skimming the surface of their oeuvre.

Now I don't prescribe subject matter or content in any of my classes, nor does my aesthetic approach necessitate some pragmatic "usefulness" factor either. If SR inspires these students to view the music they like in a more thoughtful manner, fine. I just wish they had a better role model, then. Namely, one who knew what the hell he was talking about. I don't doubt that SR knows something of the rave scene - I certainly wouldn't presume to know much of anything about that, as my own tastes run more in the direction of Keiji Haino and Iancu Dumitrescu and not towards the dancefloor - but he sure doesn't know much of anything about philosophy, semiotics or cultural theory. Problem is, he sure tries to pass himself off as someone who does.

Well, I guess my American sarcasm doesn't translate so readily at all times. The Texas class conscious thing is funny (really!), as I was taking my cues (and taking the piss, I guess you'd say) from the class stuff in Energy Flash. As Lester Bangs wrote, I don't know shit about the English class system and I don't care shit about the English class system. (Well, I did once receive a paid trip to Cambridge University and found, with few exceptions, the profs and students alike to be the most snooty and arrogant bunch of toffs imaginable. One more snide, whiny "witticism" and I was ready to join the IRA! I admit it, the English class system is an impenetrable mystery to me and the English xenophobia is an inseparable gulf.)

As for Richard Meltzer, well, he seems to possess everything I find lacking in Reynolds, namely, wit, passion, and poetry. Compare that to SR's faux-Oxford grad student jive - the existentially neat, effete chiding/finger-wagging, half-baked theorizing. Meltzer hasn't claimed to be keeping up with current music, so tell me: just what is the point in running down something for being something that it's not? Talk about specious reasoning. Besides, Meltzer is the Voice of the Crank extraordinaire - perhaps the only valid voice left to anyone in this day and age. (And Meltzer certainly has a much more thorough grasp of the philosophical canon - tossed out of Yale for his troubles - than SR ever will - and is confident enough in his knowledge NOT to have the neurotic compulsion of a nervous clasroom swot, shoving his book-learning down the hapless reader's throat at every turn.)

Well, I figure that the Meltzer barb is a not-too veiled attempt to steer this thread into the tired old "rockist/anti-rockist", 1980's English pop weekly discourse vs. big bad US Forced Exposure aesthetic, Brittania vs. America camp. I ain't buying that argument, and I'll tell you why.

Jeezuz. Why the fuck are so many ILM posters obsessed with a 23 year old non-issue that I found silly when I was reading the NME in 1979? Here we are in 2002 and SR is now waxing nostalgic about his vanished youth (midlife crisis, I suppose; just watch, he's going to denounce rave music as decisively as he previously denounced Morrisey or long- forgotten "oceanic rock" combos), revisiting ye olde Rough Trade shoppe circa 1979 and gravely and pompously informing the world that we are all the poorer for not properly appreciating the true genius of A Certain Ratio or the tinny, sub-skiffle sounds which manifested from the skanky confines of Green's scummy boho squat. At least Tanya Headon can see that Scritti Polliti knew and accomplished fuck all. A fair and honest assessment, surely, but here we have Simon Reynolds insisting on presenting such long-dead insignificance as a matter of earthshaking importance. I just don't happen to think that some daft ICA/Dick Hebdige-semiotic reading of the length of this year's coat collar or Green mumbling "Jacques Derrida" or Tricky droning on about "oompa lumpa I be awful stoned and paranoid" or some such amounts to much in the way of, well, much of anything at all. A cultural and/or intellectual barometer ("supported" by some sound bites from Baudrillard and Debord)? You've simply got to be joking.

I don't mind being the crank around here. I find the discussions at ILM quite lively and intelligent. Next thread I start will be a thorough demolishing of Momus' "cute formalism" thingy, i.e. - attitudes such as this exemplify everything that's wrong with this world.

And before you jump all over me ...

1) I quite like and respect Momus as a thinker, even if I disagree with him 50% of the time. (Maybe 70% after reading his Bjork comment on a recent thread.)

2) Ye olde Rough Trade shoppe comment. Records by This Heat, the Fall, the Raincoats, Red Crayola, TV Personalities and Young Marble Giants rate among some of my all time favorite records, so you certainly can't accuse me of Anglo-phobia (yeah, I know, Mayo Thompson was a Texan too.) HOWEVER, Scritti Pollitti, The Smiths, the Virgin Prunes and Aztec Camera should all have been strangled in the cradle. Along with Bjork and Derek Birkett, Momus. (I remember when Birkett usta be an ANAR-CHIST along with his brother and the Crass gang, long before his transformation into Larry Parnes-meets-Richard Branson. British pop kidz are so fucking FICKLE, eh? I personally blame it all on D. Bowie's postmodern Al Jolson guises, the shape- shifting vaudeville dog and pony show.)

Does he reckon that Beanie Sigel whups the asses of BOTH Jay-Z AND Nas?

and what's wrong with that, exactly?

(except for the tired hobby horse of: blah blah, trying to pass himself off as deep theoretical something or other. blah.)

The telltale thing about Blissed Out is that he spends the whole book inventing names for genres but when someone else (e.g. AR Kane) has the tenacity to think up their own genre names, SR moans on about their "sulling the purity of their music."

Me? I just think he tries way, way too hard.

*Which is true, fine.

meltzer = mother of all anti-rockists obv

mark s = mentalist.

Cixous, yes. So I'm not always the world's most accurate typist. Big fucking deal.

SR as earnest and sincere. Doncha recognize sarcasm when you read it?

Slack-jawed yobs and high-falutin' ideas. Doncha recognize irony when you ...

PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHY. Of course academia is full of shit, and philosophy as a discipline is one of the worst offenders. You think I don't know that?! Do you think I play that game? Do you want to take a guess how my vocal stance against the entire farce has worked out for me? Do you think I have or will ever have tenure? Take a guess. Go on. I dare you.

Prestigious university. As if that matters one fucking whit. It's the fourth largest university in the UT system. You figure it out, if it matters to you.

Otherwise, I think it becomes an example of what other people are saying..."Well, who else is going to do it?"

DUNS SCOTUS!!

(SR did EngLit didnt he? not even a Real Subject, only introduced in 20th century)

This obliquely reminds me of the revelation about the philosophy department here at UCI. In the men's restrooms there, there's a huge amount of anti-Derrida graffiti, obviously prompted by his residence here every spring. One time I asked someone in the department about that -- "Geez, are the grads here really ticked off with him?" "Oh no," came the reply, "that's from the professors."

I align myself with Tom in this particular debate, unsurprisingly.

Scenario 1: I'm gonna follow in the footsteps of other (non-Simon Reynolds) Brit super rock-crit Jon Savage and write a best-selling book all about how the souls of millenarian homeless loonies have invaded the spirit of this year's current pop practitioners, resulting in a utopian look-in/look-see shining future, sadly and surely to be crushed by the tide of History (capital H) and New Labour Market Forces, with quite a few pages devoted to the intrinsic world-historical importance of hand-me down Teddy Boy and long- castoff Carnaby Street fashions. I'm currently applying for a research grant, in order to enable me to devote the next year divining the dialectical import of the Nehru jacket. Like Savage, I hope to sneak such straight-faced phrases as "snookering one's betters" into my text.

Scenario 2: Move to London and assemble a boyband to manage; then I too can be Larry Parnes/Joe Meek/Malcolm McLaren/Richard Branson/Brian Epstein/Andrew Loog Oldham/Derek Birkett etc. and then some. The name of the band is Snotty & the Wankers. S&tW's aren't pure fluff. They like to have a laugh or two, go down to the pub, have a few drinks, but also in firm possession of a meaningful social conscience. Songs include "We Vote New Labour 'cos We're Thick" and "Gatwick Airport, How I Love thee".

Scenario 3: Become chair of philosophy at Oxford. Now that's the funniest one yet.

Now look what you've done, you've stolen Dave Q's plans for management world domination from under his nose.

Hey! Is THIS what J Savage meant by "snookering one's betters"?????!

Did I snooker you? Did I snooker the English? Did I? Did I? (Do you REALLY have a culture over there that sez things like "snookering one's betters"? Do you? Do you?! Tell me, damnit!)

Talk about duration and delirium ...

(formula "x and the ys", with its in-built and apparently overtly celebrated class hierarchy, is ALMOST NEVAH seriously adopted in UK rock/punk/pop self-naming, and when it is — Peter and the Test-Tube Babies? Slaughter and the Dogs — seems calculated to ensure failure to TAKEN seriously despite apparent pretensions; actually i wd term it a Strategy of Deniability, in that band in question were AFRAID to place themselves in role of responsiblity of ARTISTIC SERIOUSNESS)

(help me out foax, is this true: it FEELZ true...)

Didn't Mike Batt do a song called "I'm Snookering You Tonight"? Used as theme tune for top TV gameshow "Big Break." Now how would Mr Jim Davidson go down in Texas? (though he has worked with Greenaway, so some cred)

Golly! Would you like someone to fax over to you a nice cup of chamomile tea?

The Higher Criticism indeed. Any minute now they'll be recalculating Bishop Ussher's chronology.

Christgau and Marcus are indeed jerks and squares, but to be fair, I believe that Marcus went to Graceland and hung out backstage with Jon Landau and Springsteen. Probably drank Evian with Randy Newman and Robbie Robertson too on several occasions. Maybe even actually attended a Mekons concert and lectured to them on Johnny Cash's true place in the American Studies pantheon after the show. Probably tried to fuck Sally Timms too, who I bet wouldn't touch ol' American Greil with a ten foot pole. (Would you?)

Christgau undoubtedly attended appropriate industry functions and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame events, being the Dean of all things rock that the Dean of the Pazz & Jop poll would expected to be.

So how can you say that these twits are disconnected from the culture swirling round the gunk they write about in a way that your vaunted Simon Reynolds is not? I for one have no trouble believing that SR attended many raves, unsuccessfully tried to pick up many an ecstasy- addled sweet sixteen hot young thang, and noodled his (near) middle- aged arse in slightly-askew rhythm bump 'n grind, fancying himself a hotshot with culturally redeeming legit-reason-to-be-there, pausing occasionally and thinking through his halllucinogenic haze, fancying that rare A Certain Ratio cassette and his yellowing, autographed Crispy Ambulance flexi disc, and just remaining merely DAZZLED at how it ever came to all this ...

Do I KNOW you, J?

Terry, you're Marcello?

I finally read Retromania and it was just as frustrating as I had assumed it would be. I was pretty angry throughout the whole book and I kept adding post-it notes to highlight things that I was going to come here and comment on, but by the end I was so exhausted I didn't care anymore. I used to like Reynolds but lately I just feel like he's hitting DeRogatisian levels of wrongness.

like a lot of popists i think he doesn't have that much enlightening stuff to say about the music so he just projects a bunch of half-baked cultural crit ideas onto the audience

tbf this is kind of a widespread thing in music criticism

Wait are you saying you're a popist or he is? Cause he isn't

I feel like he's personally conflicted about the state of new music and his nostalgia for the old "new" (or NOW!) music of his youth. In Retromania he consistently talked about rave and post-punk as if it were an objective truth that those two genres were totally new or even the only totally new music of the past 30 years. And he did it seemingly without any self-awareness that his opinion was totally colored by personal nostalgia.

In that Hard Summer article he points out that the music doesn't sound that much different from the '90s but then in the end he describes all of the ways in which it sounds and feels new. It's like he's always on the verge of this revelation but he never quite connects the dots and realizes that something can borrow from the past and still be new, or that there can be subtle innovations and evolutions within a genre that are only noticeable to the people who are deeply involved with it. All throughout Retromania I felt like everyone he interviewed and everything he discussed throughout the book was leading up to this revelation. That he was just kind of trolling us and the book was actually going to illustrate the process of debunking the thesis he put forth in the beginning. I kept thinking he was surely going to make a 180 degree turn at the end and realize that he was wrong.

I disagree with the above, a bit - he uses rave and post-punk a lot b/c they were ~his genres~, but while

(a) I wasn't around for them (literally for post-punk, was < 11 when rave was happening); and
(b) I like new music plenty

I also think there's a big difference between the extent of musical possibilities opened up in a few short years in those eras, and the extent we've seen in the last ten years or so.

Like, you can agree that:

something can borrow from the past and still be new, or that there can be subtle innovations and evolutions within a genre that are only noticeable to the people who are deeply involved with it

while also saying "yes but the innovations and evolutions used to be a lot more sweeping than that, as a general rule."

I don't get doom and gloom about that, and I think that one needs to unpack the relationship b/w macro- and micro-transformations (or inter- and intra-) to appreciate that a lot of the time the former are just examples of the latter that were in the right place at the right time.

but I don't think his basic thesis is fundamentally incorrect.

the book definitely disproves itself despite itself!

funnily enough I'm reading totally wired atm and it's brilliant, twice the book rip it up is. Cause reynolds is pushing his thesis but the interviewees are pushing back.

don't hate this guy at all, I think he's cool although he says mindblowingly stupid shit sometimes

(xp)

i was identifying him as a popist which I guess he's not

while also saying "yes but the innovations and evolutions used to be a lot more sweeping than that, as a general rule."

Another problem with the book is that there was very little discussion of changing technology. Yes, there were a lot of new sounds in the '60s when things like multitracking, wah pedals, and moog synthesizers were new. And there were a lot of new sounds in the '70s and '80s when synthesizers became more widely available and drum machines and samplers were new. And there are some new sounds being made now although the technological changes aren't as radical on a surface, sonic level. But there was no discussion of any of that in the book from what I can remember, and now real exploration of micro editing, tuning, the ease of computer home recording, or the kind of digital sheen and hyper compression styles that he touches on in the Hard Summer article.

but I don't think his basic thesis is fundamentally incorrect.

He doesn't really give a shred of evidence to support it and he gives a ton of historical evidence that illustrates that "retromania" is nothing new! Nor does he ever give a convincing argument as to why the appearance of "newness" is actually a valuable element in art. And every artist he interviews in the book has more intelligent and interesting insights on the topic than Reynolds, but nothing they say seemed to influence his thinking at all.

There was a time when electric pianos were a new sound, and clavinets were a new sound, or hammond organs, spring reverbs, fender guitar amps, marshall stacks, analog synthesizers, 808 drum machines, analog string machines, etc. And now there's a time when all of those sounds can be fairly convincingly emulated on a laptop with the built-in samples and effects that come with a program like Logic. That is one of the truly radical recent advancements in music technology, and it's no surprise that musicians are therefore using all of those old sounds again. But I don't think he really approached the topic with any kind of curiosity. He had his mind made up going into the book and he stuck to it.

Gaaah, now I can't stop thinking about it. I guess I should take it to the retromania thread, but oh well, I'm here. There are a couple of other major things that bothered me.

He didn't talk about how much of the musical innovation throughout history came from different cultures being exposed to each other and their musical forms intermixing and emerging as new hybrid styles. With the rise of mass communication and recorded music during the 20th century, that cultural mixing reached an all time peak to the point where we arguably hit an almost total globalization of culture. That type of cross-cultural synthesis arguably won't happen to the same degree in the 21st century now that we're all culturally interconnected instantaneously.

I also thought he hit on an important point early in the book when he briefly mentioned retro porn that focuses on natural hair and breasts. But he seemed to dismiss the idea immediately and didn't entertain the possibility that different body shapes and body hair styles are an issue of personal taste and that it's the homogenization of body images in porn (universal implants and waxing) that leads people to seek out the "retro" stuff. Likewise, corporate consolidation, radio deregulation, clear channel, etc. has led to an increasing homogenization in mainstream music. But not everyone wants slick futuristic sounds all of the time, so some people logically look to the past to borrow sounds form other eras in music that were more sonically diverse.

the slick, futuristic sound of Adele

No seriously, everything you mention is relevant, and he downplays most of that too much, but from memory he also frames increasing retromania as in part a reaction to all of that stuff. Definitely technological changes have encouraged it.

Another problem with the book is that there was very little discussion of changing technology. Yes, there were a lot of new sounds in the '60s when things like multitracking, wah pedals, and moog synthesizers were new. And there were a lot of new sounds in the '70s and '80s when synthesizers became more widely available and drum machines and samplers were new. And there are some new sounds being made now although the technological changes aren't as radical on a surface, sonic level. But there was no discussion of any of that in the book from what I can remember

what happened to mark s's book anyway

i totally agree with wk, wonder if i went on about this on ilx already as much as i thought i did

mb the biggest problem is that his 'increasing tide of retromania' works for, like, dance music and pitchfork rock. but how does he deal with genres that have achieved some kind of formal stability -- i'm going to say metal, hardcore, jazz, all of which v arguable obv but like: there's not been a tide of 70s style heavy bands obliterating recent developments in the form, nor a second coming of trad jazz

i really want to work this argument around to calling him a racist but enhh

Genres heavily engaged with pop culture vs genres not

bullshit

Another problem with the book is that there was very little discussion of changing technology.

The chapter on YouTube is great imo re: technology and transformed engagements with music.

the chapter on youtube is the one where he has some quotes from lopatin and ends "and i guess these people have opened up interesting new affective possibilities but i'm just going to handwave about that for a bit", right

i feel like there are a lot of kinda retro sabbath type metal bands now tho

thomp went in hard on the retromania thread, I remember that, it was great

and I didn't dislike the book

the slick, futuristic sound of Adele

Well, right the alternative to "NOW!" sounds is to use sounds from the past, right?

Arguably every style of music that sounded radically new was created because of either new technology (electronic music), borrowing styles from other cultures (post-punk), borrowing overlooked styles or ideas from the past, or all of the above (psychedelic rock or hip hop). I would have liked to see more of an exploration of how that process actually works, and whether or not novelty has actually slowed down, or how art reacted to similar periods in the past.

the chapter on youtube is the one where he has some quotes from lopatin and ends "and i guess these people have opened up interesting new affective possibilities but i'm just going to handwave about that for a bit", right

Yeah, I thought the Lopatin interview quotes were the most interesting parts of the book and I was sure after that Reynolds was headed for a reassessment of his thesis.

bullshit

― i better not get any (thomp), Tuesday, 9 July 2013 9:38 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how so? I admit that dichotomy is tossed off, but given retromania is a fairly-widespread (but not monopolising or universalising) tendential phenomenon it stands to reason that genres more beholden to generalised fashion trends / developments in social media technnology / developments in radio and music video trends / etc. are more likely to pick up on it.

Whereas genres whose contemporary critical dialogue is more internalised will not.

In dance music, for example, the more internalised/tribal/cut-off-from-the-broader-world a sub-genre is, then the less retro it is, as a general rule.

Arguably every style of music that sounded radically new was created because of either new technology (electronic music), borrowing styles from other cultures (post-punk), borrowing overlooked styles or ideas from the past, or all of the above (psychedelic rock or hip hop). I would have liked to see more of an exploration of how that process actually works, and whether or not novelty has actually slowed down, or how art reacted to similar periods in the past.

― wk, Tuesday, 9 July 2013 9:50 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Agree with this though. The biggest problem with the thesis is that it hypostasizes a particular type or manifestation of novelty as innovation. I think SR probably would acknowledge that's an issue but it's too determinative of his general worldview for him to effectively move past it.

yeah it's not really bullshit, i just didn't feel like articulating a proper argument /:

i guess i would probably point to hip hop as a space where things are way more complicated than 'increasing retroness' would allow. i spent way too much time arguing with this book in my head and getting annoyed at it/myself to be able to think about it much at a later date

Agree with this though. The biggest problem with the thesis is that it hypostasizes a particular type or manifestation of novelty as innovation. I think SR probably would acknowledge that's an issue but it's too determinative of his general worldview for him to effectively move past it.

yah on the book's thread i claimed something like this but in hokey jamesonian terms because i was doing that for some reason: "addiction to the novum, as an aesthetic mode, is as much a symptom of culture under capitalism as dependence on pastiche"

how so? I admit that dichotomy is tossed off, but given retromania is a fairly-widespread (but not monopolising or universalising) tendential phenomenon it stands to reason that genres more beholden to generalised fashion trends / developments in social media technnology / developments in radio and music video trends / etc. are more likely to pick up on it.

Whereas genres whose contemporary critical dialogue is more internalised will not.

In dance music, for example, the more internalised/tribal/cut-off-from-the-broader-world a sub-genre is, then the less retro it is, as a general rule.

That doesn't ring true to me at all. There are insular niche genres that have remained almost completely stagnant for 20 or 30 years including large swaths of metal, punk, hardcore, and dance music. Or they have undergone subtle evolutions that are not perceptible to outsiders but are very important to aficionados. Plus there are many niche genres that are completely absorbed in nostalgia and pastiche. And on the other hand, contemporary pop music seems to still be primarily focused on all that is shiny and new. But you seem to be saying that retromania is in fact something new and therefore music that is focused on changing fashions is currently steeped in retromania. Which seems to be the conflict at the heart of the book that Reynolds can't quite reconcile.

Simon Reynolds - C or D

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1455 of them)

pointing out the number of messages in a thread is kinda retro

And on the other hand, contemporary pop music seems to still be primarily focused on all that is shiny and new. But you seem to be saying that retromania is in fact something new and therefore music that is focused on changing fashions is currently steeped in retromania.

1. I don't think "retro" and "shiny and new" are necessary opposed. A lot of SR's writing since the book has come out focuses on the intertwining of these dynamics in current pop music and while I don't agree with all of it I hardly think Ke$ha somehow disproves retromania.

2. Never said retromania is something new. Again, the idea that something may be an increasingly prominent quality in current popular culture and the idea that it's been with us for a very long time are not necessarily opposed.

I'm really only taking SR's side here b/c these days I try to avoid adopting a totalising view with these sorts of arguments where if I can find 20% of stuff that is inconsistent with it I proudly proclaim the entire idea to be bogus.

where's the fun in that

There are insular niche genres that have remained almost completely stagnant for 20 or 30 years including large swaths of metal, punk, hardcore, and dance music. Or they have undergone subtle evolutions that are not perceptible to outsiders but are very important to aficionados.

Haha how do you even propose to distinguish between these.

Plus there are many niche genres that are completely absorbed in nostalgia and pastiche.

Right, and my previous comment should be subject to the caveat that some niches explicitly define themselves as revivalist. I was talking more about the dynamic of genres which don't self-identify as retro at the outset. So, for example, in the internal-mainstream of middlebrow contemporary dance music, the fondness for early 90s US garage has been on the rise for several years, but not as part of some explicit early 90s garage revivalist scene. That's just what (for a lot of people) house happens to be in 2013.

1. I don't think "retro" and "shiny and new" are necessary opposed.

Neither do I. Is Adele retro or something new? I think she's both really. That's the core of the problem I have with Reynolds' thesis. Doing a slightly different spin on something old is one of the primary ways that art evolves into new forms.

A lot of SR's writing since the book has come out focuses on the intertwining of these dynamics in current pop music

I'm just getting around to commenting on the book itself so that probably shows how closely I've been following his writing since then.

2. Never said retromania is something new. Again, the idea that something may be an increasingly prominent quality in current popular culture and the idea that it's been with us for a very long time are not necessarily opposed.

I guess that describes the weakness at the heart of the book to me. Reynolds acknowledges that revivalism is nothing new but he thinks that it's currently reached a degree that makes it notable. So in order to strengthen his thesis he downplays how prevalent it was throughout the history of art imo. And I guess that blurry line between something being new and something being old but reaching such a degree of popularity that the surge in popularity becomes essentially new is exactly what happens in the music too.

xp

Haha how do you even propose to distinguish between these.

I don't. That's the point. Stagnation, innovation, and "retro" are all far more relative and subjective than Reynolds lets on. There might be just as much difference between a "garage rock" band from 2013, '03, '93, '83, or '65 as there is between say house music from '13, '03, '93, or '83.

So, for example, in the internal-mainstream of middlebrow contemporary dance music, the fondness for early 90s US garage has been on the rise for several years, but not as part of some explicit early 90s garage revivalist scene. That's just what (for a lot of people) house happens to be in 2013.

haha, so how do you distinguish which is retro? an interest in 20 year old music isn't retro, it's just where that music "happens to be"? Why can't another form of music happen to be in a mode that looks back 40 or 50 years?

I guess it's the difference between a continuous tradition vs. a revival of something that was lost or forgotten. But to me the latter is actually more interesting and holds more possibilities for coming across as something genuinely new, while the former often feels like stagnation.

I think an important point is that NOW!ism doesn't only relate to whether or not the sounds are new. When I've been to an EDM-concert, the NOWish feelings come a lot from the structural lack of patience, the incessant dropes, at least 70 per hour, which keeps everyone forgetting about what happened more than five seconds ago.

Funnily enough, I sorta get the same feeling from the hipster-black scene. A complete lack of deference for the past, and a focus on constant dynamic bliss.

I think the drop-dynamic is fundamentally different from the attack/decay/sustain/release-dynamic, but admittedly I get most of my knowledge of dance-dynamics from Simian Mobile Disco-covers.

hipster-black?

not just parenthesizing a racially loaded term but wondering what music is being referred to

Neither do I. Is Adele retro or something new? I think she's both really. That's the core of the problem I have with Reynolds' thesis. Doing a slightly different spin on something old is one of the primary ways that art evolves into new forms.

He doesn't disagree with you. Perhaps one way to frame the debate is whether as a matter of probability the first slightly different spin on something old is more apt to give rise to new forms than the twentieth, esp. if that twentieth is also informed by spins two through nineteen?

One of the issues here is precisely the other factors you raise: the availability of new technology or potentially untried genre fusions to enliven and render unfamiliar the "something old" component.

These intervening factors don't break the causal connection though, because I always get the impression that SR sees increasing retromania as partly responsive to those factors.

haha, so how do you distinguish which is retro? an interest in 20 year old music isn't retro, it's just where that music "happens to be"? Why can't another form of music happen to be in a mode that looks back 40 or 50 years?

No, I'm saying it is retro, and consciously so, but this is not part of some scene-wide decision to abandon the present in favour of a particular moment in the past. Next year the same DJs / dancers may be interested in something that doesn't sound remotely like US garage or the early 90s for that matter. So that's what makes it a really good example of what SR is referring to: the fact that here is a scene where people are listening and dancing to sets full of tunes from 20 years ago and contemporary tunes that have been recorded specifically to sound like they're from 20 years ago, while those people may not even be committed genre-revivalists per se.

I don't. That's the point. Stagnation, innovation, and "retro" are all far more relative and subjective than Reynolds lets on. There might be just as much difference between a "garage rock" band from 2013, '03, '93, '83, or '65 as there is between say house music from '13, '03, '93, or '83.

Sure. And? I think Reynolds would agree with you.

I guess it's the difference between a continuous tradition vs. a revival of something that was lost or forgotten. But to me the latter is actually more interesting and holds more possibilities for coming across as something genuinely new, while the former often feels like stagnation.

Isn't that the basic reason SR offers for the attractiveness of the past as a source for potential innovation/newness? The issue then becomes how much possibility is inherent in repeated revivalism of a particular idea. And there's never gonna be a hard and fast rule, never a moment where we can say "that's it, garage rock or straightforward house music will never surprise us again". But I would hazard a guess that it becomes harder to pull off over time.

In general terms I think you're punishing SR for not being able to isolate some pure retro-gene which can be distinguished from newness or nowness or whatever, whereas to my mind he's not even remotely trying to do that.

xp

skrillex is the musical analogue of the transformers films - except much better - so, yeah

nobody got irremediable brain injuries in the making of a skrillex lp

well idk, ray manzarek didn't last long

Perhaps one way to frame the debate is whether as a matter of probability the first slightly different spin on something old is more apt to give rise to new forms than the twentieth, esp. if that twentieth is also informed by spins two through nineteen?...

The issue then becomes how much possibility is inherent in repeated revivalism of a particular idea. And there's never gonna be a hard and fast rule, never a moment where we can say "that's it, garage rock or straightforward house music will never surprise us again". But I would hazard a guess that it becomes harder to pull off over time.

I think it's the other way around. It takes time for new forms of music to evolve and emerge. The idea of overnight revolutions is a fiction manufactured by the music press. I think it's possible that music that's currently being written off by some critics as being too retro is going to evolve into distinctly new genres that will become unrecognizable from their roots. Look at the evolution from the blues revival into Hendrix/Cream/Zeppelin style electric blues, and then the subtle shift into heavy metal with Sabbath and then trace that lineage all the way to something like black metal. It was a slow and continuous evolution that led to a result with no discernible connection to its blues revival roots. The critics who wrote off Sabbath in the '70s couldn't anticipate how influential they would become.

In general terms I think you're punishing SR for not being able to isolate some pure retro-gene which can be distinguished from newness or nowness or whatever, whereas to my mind he's not even remotely trying to do that.

No I'm annoyed by the fact that he takes all of these processes that are totally natural and even necessary to the creative process and gives them the dismissive label "retromania." I'm not the one trying to reduce everything down to some kind of retro-gene.

hipster-black?

― the most promising US ilxor has thrown the TOWEL IN (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), 10. juli 2013 01:24 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Metal. As in Liturgy and such. The most nowish concerts I've been to lately has been with EDM and BM. But yeah, hipster-black was way too vague a term, especially in this discussion.

http://www.factmag.com/2013/07/11/filmmaker-and-massive-attack-collaborator-adam-curtis-on-why-music-may-be-dying-and-why-need-a-new-radicalism/

this adam curtis interview could be simon reynolds speaking. i wonder if hes read retromania. or maybe its reynolds whos read adam curtis.