Scenes are music's version of cancer

Don't even get me started on teratomas...

Scenes, by their nature, are limiting. Music that transcends its scene seems to exist on a completely different level from music that doesn't; I'm not sure that you can describe "popular music" as a "scene" in the sense that (I assume) everyone intuitively understands. Music that taps into that level of consciousness gets much wider exposure in many different contexts, whereas stuff that exists within a scene is by definition playing to a limited, self-selecting audience.

Maybe scenes aren't cancer; maybe they are adolescence? I don't like the direction that train of thought is taking me; I don't want to try to stand behind the argument "popularity = adulthood" because it's really a fucking gross idea to contemplate.

Funny thing is, I just went to a show for all of the above, and was surprised to discover that I enjoyed much of the Jayhawks/Golden Smog sets.

Why did it take me so long to stop being a scene-hater and see a show? I'd trace my blind hatred of this scene to the release of Sugar's Copper Blue. Every Twin Cities scenester I knew in college tried to beat me over the head with that album, and thus sparked months and years of resistance to proselytizing about bands like Husker Du, The Replacements, The Jayhawks, and their brood and diaspora.

Scenes can be cultish and resistant to outside influences. Scenesters can be annoying and obtuse.

This reminds me a lot of biological processes, wherein groups of like-organisms/cells come together because the mere act of associating and participating in a particular behavioral or reproductive pattern promotes longevity for the group (and usually for each member of the group, though not necessarily). And of course, there are ways of breaking apart the group, or overrunning it via counter strategies (again, whether consciously or not)

Furthermore, there is no reason why a scene has to "promote" anything outside of itself. The fact that scenes are exclusive or "against the spirit of the music" says nothing to me about their ability to grow, spawn sub-scenes, etc. You could say this is "cancer", but it's also every other generative biological process.

and now I'm off to paraphrase all of this for my next wildly popular series of bio-musicology lectures

or for twenty years, even, not to name any specific cities ahem ahem

This is usually how I think about scenes. It can start with one good band that brings a style to a city, or keeps a regular gig, or just sparks people, and then kids say "YES, I wanna do THAT". And then the best case scenario is healthy competition, collaboration, getting a loyal audience together, etc.

Are you serious, st3v3? Drum N Bass in the UK was the most exclusive genre in any given period of time ever, as far as keeping things solely UK, and ignoring anything outside it. (There are probably counterexamples, sure.) The artists within didn't seem to (and i stress "seem to") distance themselves at all from it, at the time.

like early 80s NYC hip hop.

or SST or whatever.

it seems natural that people that like the same things and get excited by each other's ideas are going to want to hang out and socialize and make music.

i understand what people are saying about how the bad parts of "scene politics" can overwhelm the music or leave otherwise talented outsiders out. or that being part of scene can be more important to people than making good music.

it just seems wierd to say that they are the "cancer" of music.

x-post

i wasn't really thinking about dance genres (they're not REAL musicians lolgeir) which do tend to be scene-orientated with everyone supporting each other (at least until they reach second album stage or start doing tracks with people deemed 'outsiders').

It is, and experienced almost the exact growth/stagnation curve I described above!

How is politics or culture in the genesis an excuse for exclusivity though? You figure the notion would invite the opposite to remain relevant, within the past decade at least. And while it took a while, why did hip-hop survive, through all bumps and potholes along the way, for so long based on the same premises, yet it seems DnB and Grime haven't?

Not trying to make this a UK vs. Whatever thing... I'm just pointing out that it's not simplistic, and the circumstances of the genesis of a scene don't automatically excuse it from discussion, especially abstracts like "politics" and "culture".

ok fine but the whole 'we don't think of ourselves as part of a scene' thing felt like such an immediate cliche to me suggesting it's come up often enough. and the examples that sprang to mind for me are with bands not with producers/djs.

How is politics or culture in the genesis an excuse for exclusivity though? You figure the notion would invite the opposite to remain relevant, within the past decade at least. And while it took a while, why did hip-hop survive, through all bumps and potholes along the way, for so long based on the same premises, yet it seems DnB and Grime haven't?

You can understand why the people involved would feel a sense of 'distrust' or protectiveness about it tho surely.

Hip-hop survived because it's just bluntly more commercially viable than the other two, and from a place with the right conditions to actually make that happen.

but that's exactly how those three things started - in specific locations and times, growing from there to become more than that. real scenes also strike me as things which are not particularly self-aware - growing by accident more than design. when the design takes over, that's probably the tipping point for any scene.

* - in general. this isn't to do with a relationship between real life scenes and internet ones, though especially for new music, it seems hard draw a line between the two now (says me on an internet message board)

i don't know about that. a scene is a scene is a scene without someone with business + promo savvy (eg andy warhol -> factory, that factory records dude -> manchester, mclaren -> london 76, poneman -> seattle, rick rubin + russell simmons -> nyc + surrounding burroughs late 80s, the dischord kids -> dc, sloan -> halifax ) to overlay some design + mythology on top of what is essentially a bunch of kids hanging out trying to be cool like everywhere else... but yeah it may be the tipping point from the kind of scene i was describing above and into something more codified and ultimately restricted like Hip Hop or Punk Rock. maybe we're agreeing here, i don't know.

No, I don't.

Distrust seems to be more unnecessary radioactivity for the cancer, IMHO.

Granted, I've never felt a need to make music because I was in a cultural or political well that was inescapable, in the grand scheme of my surroundings.

And i don't think every musician has to open his/her/their arms to every other musician who wants to be part of the social creative momentum either. But this isn't distrust.. that's just sanity management.

Is there any point to making a distinction between a "collective" and a "scene"? By which I guess I mean a collective is a group of artists in the same place doing mutually supportive things which, with enough support/exposure, give birth to a scene, namely the people attracted to the fruits of their labors? Or, to put it in a less flowery manner, the collective describes the musicians while the scene describes the audience? Or has the word "collective" accrued too much baggage thanks to the likes of Godspeed! You Black Emperor, Gus Gus, Sky Cries Mary and Consolidated?

I guess what I'm thinking is that a collective generates a scene that could could blossom into a genre. Does that make sense?

But do they scale — i.e. do they survive becoming a brand name?

Good old-school examples: 70's CBGBs bands, early stages of SF scene (mid/late 60's).

Bad old-school examples: Athens, Seattle.

Weird.

Is this the end point of popism? Where everything must be enjoyed purely for its own sake in some sort of aesthetic exercise?

You can get back to whining about popism/rockism without reading the rest of the thread now, thanks.

they might be just playing in some dive
they might be keeping rock & roll alive - Sonny & Cher

I think it's the critics writing about the scenes that's the problem. Sad sorry critics sucking all the air out of the room!

ideal scene: new york, early '80s. punks + disco producers + early hip-hoppers + art weirdos + clubbers seemingly up for anything = variety of different approaches (disco not disco, no wave, early electro) feeding off and cross-breeding with each other. you could maybe argue how tightly-knit together that bunch were as a 'scene' tho.

That was called "Absolut Musik" in the 19th century, and was founded on largely "rockist" principles, that is, that music has value in itself and doesn't need any kind of non-musical context. Hardly very "popist". :)

Another measure is new blood. When the bands associated with a scene are basically recycling the same musicians, that doesn’t bode well for creative dynamism.

That's kind of dependent on the musicians involved, isn't it? Some people are all about trying new things all the time, some people are about honing a particular style to the keenest edge they can make, and everyone else falls somewhere along that spectrum with most ending up in that horrible middle-ground where they do the exact same thing all of the time and never get any better at it.

Well yes of course the individuals ultimately make the decision, but the structure and culture of the scene can set up the sticks and carrots for "trying new things" vs. "honing a style." Also it's not like there are all these musicians that operate exogenous of scene culture - I mean certain bands or certain types of personalities may be attracted to one type of group or another, right? So... yeah.

but i think art (and science and lit, etc) can only be created socially. how do you make art in a vacuum? would it mean anything if you did? if scenes are a cancer they are a benign. eventually a scene calcifies, but it can't die because it has influenced some number of people good or ill and its not bad or good it just is.

has anyone read this? http://www.amazon.com/Linked-Science-Networks-Albert-Laszlo-Barabasi/dp/0738206679/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-6858515-0225712?ie=UTF8
he might say the fittest scenes (nodes) become genres (hubs).

I strongly disagree with c.t.mummey's idea that there's no such thing as a good or bad scene.

interesting idea. but with that vagueness, that lack of form, can it really be called a scene?

any cohesive group/subculture/scene finds identity through exclusion of others. the group promotes qualities that help set the limits/boundaries between in and out. ways of saying "we" the members are better than "you" the outsiders.

I wonder if part of the excitement you mention has something to do with being at the center of "something" which could become big and important, history in the making.

abbey hoffman is something of an idol now. whether or not he accomplished anything doesn't seem as important or as lasting as the symbol he's become. its rather contradictory. certainly, the way that we see the past now, in the present, affects how we interact/react to the social movements of today.

I totally agree with you, but what you're describing has less to do with the nature of a scene, and more to do with the nature of the individual artists.

I suppose one could imagine a "scene" in which an insular and stable group of artists and fans feed off eachother to create new and interesting material, but that seems more like the exception than the rule.

It seems to me that it is too easy for a scene to become an institution. Institutions are inherantly conservative.

when a subculture group becomes successful, it eventually becomes absorbed into the mainstream. it influences the general public and sort of grows up and then before you know it, its no longer the underdog, but an accepted form.

nobody likes hippies anymore, but if you compare yourself to the people from that era, chances are... you'd actually be more of a hippie than a square. additionally, a lot (not all) of hipppie music is now acceptable.

think about the punk scene. same thing. the punk aesthetic is still alive, but its dilluted. everyone is a little bit punk. consequently, it's lost its edge.

the scene gains power. the power influences the main stream. the scene dies out. the uncertainty and ambivalence that is so pervasive today I think is a reaction of seeing the process play out over and over again. little scenes will continue to flourish, now doubt, but perhaps the big scene is officially dead.

what about museums and universities? what about the philadelphia ethical society, buddism, quakers?

Then maybe that is what makes the existence of scenes a force pushing for innovation and change. Being a hipster was in until someone attached the word "hipster" to it. Rejecting hiphop was in until the word rockist began getting thrown around. Being a Fauvist was cool until everyone got together at Montparnesse and *said* it was cool - but without that institutionalization there would have been no cubism. So - I think of scenes not as holding back the natural evolution of music but rather as just another brick on the postmodern novelty quest.

I don't think you have to belong to a scene in order to make art. just because you're not part of a scene or a subculture doesn't mean you're living in a vacuum. you'd have to be a freakin hermit. and even then you could still make art.

Well yeah, once something's defined it loses its fluidity. Artists are musicians and writers in the modern age have always rebelled against the canon (until rebelling against the canon becomes the canon.. oh no!)

yes, its absurd! but I feel like that's exactly what's happening!

well not completely. signs and language can and do shift, slide and sometimes become something completely different. does "punk" mean the same thing now that its being sold at hot topic? (almost) everything is debatable.

I strongly disagree with c.t.mummey's idea that there's no such thing as a good or bad scene.

-- Young Fresh Danny D (djperr...), September 13th, 2006.

dan you and i might think a particular scene is bad, but what i meant to say is that scenes aren't bad in themselves 'scenes' ie people with similar interests drive what we create whether it is art or science. some scenes i think are bad others think are good and i have changed my mind over time on my opinions as learn more (this is how i am saying scenes evolve and ar tis created).

i can decide to be a hermit and then make art, but why did i want to become a hermit? even Jandek is reacting to SOMETHING and Jandek probably had a mother and father too (he came from something and somewhere and this informs his "art"). otherwise someone can give me an artist who has created something completely new (we can probably agree technology is a driving factor too)

What can we do but cry in our bourbon and read the myth of sisyphus.

jandek came from a virile spore of a fern