We Are Weird (ish)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

M.Matos: "one interesting thing I find on ILM is that a lot of folks tend to regard it as the sole repository of informed (or, in some cases, gleefully uninformed) opinion, when in fact it's pretty anomalous as far as critical forums go--aggressively, sometimes almost bullyingly pro-pop and generally dismissive of music that, in fact, quite a lot of critics and "serious fans" like (U2, Moldy Peaches, Moby)."

This is an excellent point, I think. Why is ILM like this and what are the implications for the way people talk about stuff here?

― Tom, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

contraryism makes good dialogue. liking britney in contrast to liking the moldy peaches is a more complicated and critically interesting opinion than just liking britney in contrast to nothing, and the eventual ilm threads about liking the moldy peaches in contrast to liking liking britney over liking the moldy peaches are more interesting than just liking the moldy peaches in contrast to britney. this is why anti-ilm mafia sentiment is the ultimate ilm thing to do, it's like 'punk'.

― ethan, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But is it a just a response to crit convention? I'd like to think that some of it stems from actual enjoyment of the music, and desire to defend it from quotidian dismissal. I know reading ILM has changed my pop ear/eye a bit.

Ethan's being the more punk response to Tom's question, of course.

― Dare, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

FUCKIN ILM DUDE!!!!

― ethan, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What Ethan said, although I want to personally point out that contraryism for contraryism's sake has the tendancy to annoy the fuck out of me and has usually been the cause of my occasional lengthy disappearances from the ILX contingency. However, I always end up coming back after people manage to convince me that there's nothing wrong with being a punk.

It's interesting to note, though, that this brings the 'would I be a member of a club that would have me' question into consideration. (IE, am I a snotty punk and don't know it? I don't think so, but here I am.)

New ILMers really need to respond to this thread.

― matthew m., Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm relatively new to ILM -- or atleast to the mindset Tom quotes in the original post. I always figured most of the pro-pop attitude at ILM was genuine. Maybe it's concentrated here because it's actually hard to find forums where people will talk about pop music seriously, so critics who like the stuff will flock to this board.

― dleone, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

well the thing is i think most people here like the things they like but when you're a hiphop kid who digs the apples in stereo or a thirty year old british oxford guy who likes britney, sometimes it works best to recontextualize the music from the original form by making it an alternative to whatever you're 'supposed' to like (ilm as the new grunge!!) so therefore liking moby becomes punk instead of 'barnes&noble middle-brow'.

― ethan, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ILM is the only place I've ever found where people tend to idealize a pop music synthesis. I guess that's why, while I understand what people who say that it tends to get cold and standoffish around here are talking about (they're really just misinterpreting the quirks of a subculture of anglomerican enthusiasts who have had their various personality traits and tendencies compounded by the anonymity of the internet), I think ILM actually combats that ugly omni-alienation it's so hard to avoid with pop ("12-CDers" don't understand the rock fans who scorn rap fans who dislike the indie kids who won't really admit to liking anything at all). If that means taking a realistic and open minded rather than idealistic/rockist (I'm still not entirely sure what that word means) view of what it seems like we're supposed to like versus what we actually do like listening to, I'm fine with that.

ILM rules okay.

― Dan I., Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

quite a lot of critics and "serious fans" like

This is the crux of the question, I think -- and my answer is "Who cares what the collective 'they' like?" For this reason -- this sense of consensus is unneeded garbage, but what's much more fascinating is the individual response. That's why both M. Matos and Dan's responses on the Moby thread are valuable but whatever 'critics/serious fans' like is a chimera. Hell, I'm a critic and serious fan, I share no empathy with the three bands mentioned at the present time!

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't recognize MM's description, particularly the bit about being bullyingly pro-pop. In fact I don't think that ILM is bullyingly pro- anything or dismissive of anything. Clearly there's a pro-pop slant to Freaky Trigger, but that's it's charter, as defined by Tom and co. ILM is not FT -it's a truly remarkable place where Yes can co-exist with A Certain Ratio (Hi Jeff) and Altered Images be discussed in the same thread as Slayer. That's a good thing.

― Dr. C, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

also i think a lot of ilm is sort of united by reacting against the rock crit community as opposed to the top forty, ie maybe if i was assaulted with britney all the time like indie types always claim they seek refuge from then i would like indie more than i do but i bet most people here are forced to hear [insert 'real' indie band here] more than any pop artist so pop becomes as i said the new 'alternative' (not to marginalize chart-pop or indie which are great for different things and play pretty much equal parts in my life)(which brings another good point, a lot of the ilm 'way' is the fun intellectual posing of whatever sounds good at the time)

― ethan, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

One of the things I ike about ILM is that it takes music which is usually ridiculed in indie or electronica circles seriously (sort of), and I don't think this is necessarily to be contrary. I've lost count of the amount of times someone has been incredulous on finding that I like Aaliyah as much as Autechre for instance. So ILM is ace for countering that mentality, for one thing.

― owen hatherley, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Owen's point is a good one. That said, I guess this is me, but I see the whole thing as a war that's already been fought. You like what you like and people will disagree over quality, and there we are. That to me is the key, not all these canons and standards and muck.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The funny thing about some pro-pop critics is that they think they are taking some kind of brave oppositional contrary position by praising something that k-zillion people already like. They're like born again x-ians or something, all evangelical and dismissive of their old (indie) ways.

The funny thing about anti-pop criticism is that it contorts itself into trying to make people feel guilty about music by dragging moral and authenticity issues into what is, life-changing as it may be, essentially entertainment. They're like a health food mom after halloween or something, telling her kids to eat apples and throw out their candy.

I think most ILM-ers already know better than to trap themselves in either

― fritz, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

eat apples, throw out your pabulum and RAISE YOUR STANDARDS! (sorry alex you know i love you)

― mark s, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ned, do you think that's implicit, or do you think that ILM is designed to actively try to convert people to your likes and dislikes?

Also, I don't think of ILM as being particulary reactionary, as per Ethan's model, and that's always been one of the things I've liked about it. Abovementioned contraryism notwithstanding, I've always seen it as being a sort of grand meeting of people who don't subscribe to musical confines, and that's a good thing. This is, essentially, a summarization of what several people above have said.

Thread opinion tally so far:
1. Diversity is good, and ILM is a place featuring diverse people. Now with even more fudge whales.

― matthew m., Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

....and HONOR THE FIRE!!

Sincerely, Alex in NYC (who cannot eat apples, as he'll go into anaphlactic shock if so, being horribly allergic to them).

― Alex in NYC, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

do you think that ILM is designed to actively try to convert people to your likes and dislikes?

Good *gawd* I hope not. I wouldn't wish my set of likes and dislikes on anybody. They're my own cross to bear. ;-)

ILM seems designed to vent. The success of the venting, positive or negative, appears to depend on how well one deals with all the other venting. ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As a new boy here, I was delighted by the breadth of knowledge and reference, and the combination of intelligence and thought with immense raw enthusiasm. I loved finding discussion of Kylie and Ornette Coleman and obscure hip hop and old rock all in one place, because that's how I like to experience music (roll on the Kylie/Ornette collaboration).

― Martin Skidmore, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can always like pop, but ILM makes me really like liking pop.

― Clarke B., Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

A couple weeks ago, I was watching a Britany video, and I said to my roomate: "that's a cool piano part, but it shouldn't have gone to that chord. It doesn't work as well" In response he said "don't even bother anaylizing this", and he changed the channel. He doesn't belong on ILM.

― A Nairn, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

not enough freak nasty discussion due to elitist pro-cha cha slide ilm contigent

― bc, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ned just winked at me twice in his last post!

― chaki, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You bring out the flirt in me.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I wouldn't mind if threads on music which is not in the ILM pop canon would be a bit longer. Ok I am exaggerating here but you know what I mean. Where was the discussion on Lambchop, my personal favourite this year up to now? The threads on music I like tend to fade out after two screenfuls of answers. I like ILM and find the pro-pop attitude interesting though I don't share it. But it makes fruitful discussions possible between the two camps.

― alex in mainhattan, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm torn by this thread, just as I'm so often torn by ilm itself. It's as ironic as hell that this who ilm mantra seems to be rooted in some triumphant sense of personal authenticity, which is good, very good - but all the while it's/you're/we're discarding all other notions based on same. Why?

In addition, since when is it such a good thing to exclude moral and ethical considerations from critique simply because the subject in question is something that we've decided to call 'entertainment'?

― static, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

moral AND ethical?

― mark s, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

discarding all other notions based on same

Whose notions, exactly?

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Why Ned, the ROCKIST's of course. Or something like that. Whatevah. Mark, just choose whichever word you like best and lets pretend the other one never made an appearance here, sarighty? Yes I'm making up words now. It's all over.

― static, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My opinion of ILM is that it initially worked as a kind of "liberation movement", or a "resistance movement", a stage in that movement anyway for a bunch of critics (who really didn't need liberating or a 'movement' ANYWAY hence the monster scare quotes) to talk about the things they liked. And the point of the movement was to ask questions, like "You say this is good? What if THIS is good?". This movement was not new, loads of critics - and ordinary people - had trod this particular path before.

Where ILM is now is at the point where the questions get turned back on themselves, "Well what if THAT was good after all?", and - again I suspect this is far from new - we're now at the point where you have to decide whether what was important was the initial answer or the fact of asking the question. I think the initial answer may have been right (ie Moby still sucks) but I think the important bit was the question, which is why I still [heart] ILM. ILM is after all a place where people come and ask questions.

I am rather drunk. My apologies for hyperbole and incoherence.

This post was written while listening to U fucking 2. Cheers Pinefox you bastard.

― Tom, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

U fucking 2

A Sesame Street sponsorship gone horribly wrong...

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tom and Ned have made me like U2 again.

― Dan Perry, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think I'm going to have a sulk now over how Ethan got away with using "contraryism" instead of contrarianism, yet I was picked on for a mere redundancy. Ah so, Mafioso!

(kidding)

― static, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I agree with Ned (and others, hell, Ethan even nodded to this) than you should just go ahead and like what you like. In that sense, I have no problem with anyone enjoying Britney. But if you are doing it to be more punk than the punks, you are misguided. It's all been done before, Sonic Youth etc. have done their Madonna covers and whatnot, and boy, that was REALLY cool (and so funny!! Madonna!!)

A big part of my problem with pop (and yes, Ethan, it's manifestation on THE CHARTS) is not the Music but the Motivation and the Makers. I see my music consumption choices much like any other medium I throw my dollars at. I'd rather not eat at McDonalds. I'd rather not wear Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. shoes. And I'd rather not listen to Britney Spears and N'Sync. I don't want anyone to think I'm all about trying to be morally superior or anything. What I mean to say is that I hope anyone who's consuming the mass production is doing so out of GENUINE LOVE because if not, the fat cats don't need the money.

Some chart-y stuff I like: Eve - gotta man, that Puffy song 'we ain't goin nowhere'or whatever, Faith Evans 'you gets no love'

Somebody please give me a reality check on this: I can't help feeling like it is very rare for anything good to become popular in the true sense of the word, ie to have the greatest number of people like it. This usually requires that something be geared towards the lowest common denominator. Also, most people have bad taste. Just look around. Good lord look how grouchy I am.

Looking back over my comments, maybe I'm not really addressing the original question but this is where my mind has wandered to. So be it.

― Ron, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

hey but the 'critics and "serious fans"' regime has been on the decline for years now anyway hasn't it? i dunno maybe it's just seemed like that to me 'cause i sort of stopped reading most of the rock press a quite long time ago & got all my info & opinions from like a circle of friends & acquaintances who were kind out of step w/ the rest of the world, had their own version of "critical consensus", blah blah blah...then i got into the internet & then i found this & it sorta finished the job i.e. i have no need at all for "real" rock critics ('cept the ones that go on ILM i guess), i've gotten over the "modern music is boring" jadedness that me & my friends had painted ourselves into a corner with, i'm all interested in all kinds of music again, yay, thanks ILM! yeah i'm not answering the qn., except i am 'cause i'm saying internet cell groups with anomalous tastes ARE the rock critics now & things are gonna be much better that way.

― duane, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hurrah for Duane! That's a neat story, I say. :-)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Sometimes I think that it's precisely this sort of self- reflexiveness that will keep us from ever having another 1977. Or for that matter, another 1991.

― Mark, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, 1977, 1991, 2046, yahtzee. That "year where EVERYTHING changed" theory is only still around so critics can get facetime on VH1 reading from the Sociology for Dummies book series so the 12 CD folk can impress their wine-tasting friends. (Ooo, punk rock! How droll.)

And what Duane said. Right down to the very last period. More blah may come @ a later date.

― Daver, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

(To qualify...)

It's not that I think we're necessarily in need of any sort of radical paradigm shift per se, but I do wonder sometimes if the speed with which Salon-styled critical analysis and genre etymology are foisted upon us will ever really allow for anything pure (re: devoid of irony and self-reflexiveness, etc) to happen to music en masse again.

Is this what happens when the level of critical analysis supercedes the level of emotional impact?

― Mark, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Daver --

The references to 1977 and 1991 weren't made in the interest of playing the Revolution: Forecast! game (trust me, I've learnt that lesson but good.) The reason I bring them up is because, as clouded by post-event nostalgia as they are, 1977 and 1991 both mark reactionary paradigm shifts in *mainstream* music. And, given our increasing tendency to react and ruminate post-haste, I wonder if anything remotely like that could ever occur again.

― Mark, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

hey but the 'critics and "serious fans"' regime has been on the decline for years now anyway

Haven't they got a lot stronger in their pro-rock anti-pop ness though? Less people read the NME (ect) maybe, but I think the guitars=good/manufactured=bad view is very widely held amongst teenagers. They no longer need to be told weekly to think this, they already just do. It's weird.

― Graham, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Wonderfully weird, I laugh, cry and think all at the same time. You are all music geeks of the very highest order. While I dont get alot of what flows around here the prose, wit and intellect is scary. I try to keep my simple thoughts to myself to not offend...

Are there similar sites to ILM that are a little more rock/alt.country and perhaps less precious in outlook that anyone could direct me?

i enjoyed Gareths little post on tolerance though...

"exactly pinefox, but i still have sympathy for the idea that another person can shed new light, make me think differently, have a different perspective. liking 6 things the same is fine, but i can guess the 7th for myself. liking 6 different things? the point where intersection occurs: fascinating "

-- gareth (gareth@norfolkwindmills.com), March 19, 2002.

― kiwi, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Martin's database= real scary shit

― kiwi, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

In response to Ron - ILM has existed for all its little life in an unprecedented window of pop history where you could listen to records put out by the colossal megacorps without buying them if you feel guilty about that colossalness. I actually own relatively few pop records (and a lot of the ones I do I bought for DJing purposes before I had a CD burner, or picked up second-hand) but stacks and stacks of Top 40 MP3s. That's not really a conscious political stance of avoidance, it's just a case of (in theory anyway) wanting to save my money for labels that probably need it more.

Out of interest, do you avoid books on Harper Collins (to pick an example)?

― Tom, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't buy books generally. Support your local library!

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Where ILM is now is at the point where the questions get turned back on themselves, "Well what if THAT was good after all?

nail on the head, i hang around to see where it will take us

― sean, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Okay, here are a few random thoughts that I know won't come out right, but anyway here goes.

1. I stick around on ILM because it is the only forum I know of that comes close to representing the way I think about music and my tastes (so there's probably a bit of selfish self-affirmation goin' on here, but the forum has broadened my horizons too ... a bit). So if it is an anomaly, then that's fine with me.

2. If do still find ILM a bit close-minded in some respects (not enough coverage: Mozart; pop/rock records pre-1970 outside the canon; exotica; anything not sung in English. Good reasons for the under- representation of all of these, but they are all still within my definition of 'pop').

3. If there is anti-establishment flavour to the discourse here, I think the "serious fans" are pretty well represented too, even if they don't shout as loud. The aggressive pro-pop thing is probably more an NYLPM/ILE thing (cf Duel 2002 - if there hadn't been a lot of calls for a pop version, I bet it wouldn't have happened, and it still might not if we're not super-vigilant. ;-) Also what was that nonsense Tom and jess were spouting on a thread I can't find now - grrr - about "old ILM battles needing to be re-fought"?)

4. I hate contrariness for the sake of it - if anyone catches me doing it, please correct me publicly. TTBOMK any records I've said on this forum I like I genuinely do.

5. I wonder if 102 Beats That will shatter current perceived notions of what ILMers like? I have a sneaking suspicion it might.

― Jeff W, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I've wanted to do a pop/dance Duel! for aaaages but there weren't enough really rubbish pop/dance acts kicking about. Are there now? Well I don't know but Anastasia must surely be represented (Also: NYLPM already has a regular feature which spends 2/3 of its time complaining about the rubbishness of Top 40 acts. NYLPM is not "pro- pop" so much as "pro-talking about pop")

The "old battles" thing - I can't find it either - was based on my a.m.a. experience, i.e. that you spend your time questioning various attitudes (and getting your own attitudes questioned too), then loads of new people come in with the same attitudes and you end up having to go through the same question again. Jess' attitude as I saw it was fuck this shit, my attitude is no it's always worth doing cos you end up understanding more yourself.

― Tom, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As for point 4, one of the reasons ILM works is that basically everyone on it operates on good faith i.e. they assume that anything another person says about the records they like is genuine. Personally I change my mind on records a lot but I try to be as honest as possible about my reactions to them and I think the same is true (minus the mind-changing) for everyone here.

― Tom, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

re jeff's point 2: i am always a bit sad when threads on salsa or sibelius die too soon, but i kind of think there's two things intertwining: the knowledgeable in that zone tend merely to agree (minority-interest cluster) and the un- knowledged are more intimidated then normal about being funny or mocking or perverse, or anyway pushing boxes over somehow

however note that the free improv fite threads have often become full-on throwdowns: like the charts, improv's canon of quality seems to present itself as wide open to neophyte comment in a way that (say) indian classical raga i think does not (this is possibly why i always end up jumping down mickey black eyes' throat, then later feeling bad about it)

― mark s, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

they no longer need to be told weekly to think this, they just do

Graham is totally otm in my experience. Lots of teenagers do go on and on about "manufactured dross". But the thing to rememeber is that none of these like particularly obscure rock/dance/hiphop by any means. And so it seems it's more a stance taken for its own sake. It beats saying nothing huh? ahem.

I should stress despite arguing many times about pop here, I've never once used the word "manufactured" or the word "dross" in my argument, nor have I ever sent emails to the music pages on teletext.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1. I stick around on ILM because it is the only forum I know of that comes close to representing the way I think about music and my tastes
I'd actually say I stick around because I *don't* think (like you guys). I am sadly prone to almost always disagree. Even with myself. I am actually just here to brainwash you guys into liking dEUS

― nathalie, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

To me ILM being concerned with overall 'quality' of music rather than the nebulous punk-fundamentalist idea of autenthicity leads to a far more level playing field of criticism. With no contextual moral high ground, ILM has fewer prejudices than anything concerned with a 'scene' or 'movement'. I love this place, sniff.

― Barnaby, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i am always a bit sad when threads on salsa or sibelius die too soon, but i kind of think there's two things intertwining: the knowledgeable in that zone tend merely to agree (minority-interest cluster) and the un- knowledged are more intimidated then normal about being funny or mocking or perverse, or anyway pushing boxes over somehow

As someone who posts to/starts some threads on music of marginal interest, while I would like to see more response, it doesn't really bother me when there isn't much. I understand that this site has a particular history and most people are here to discuss other strands of music. (Actually, I have other places to discuss some of this music, particularly Latin music, but compared to the other regulars at, say, rec.music.afro-latin, I know so little that I rarely feel I have anything worth posting.)

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also, it would help if I could point people to MP3s of some of the less familiar music I bring up, but my experiences working with MP3s has not been wonderful, probably because my connection is on the slow side.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also, since I went through a brief period of considering indie/avant/progressive stuff to be good and commercially oriented stuff to be bad, later loosening up and resuming listening to some pop, I can relate to that theme of ILM (except that I just don't like most pop music).

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

since when is it such a good thing to exclude moral and ethical considerations from critique simply because the subject in question is something that we've decided to call 'entertainment'?

well, not to exclude moral considerations but to be reasonable about them, not to create false moral standards for pop that one wouldn't be able to apply to one's own life (eg not to argue that using computers to make music is WRONG when one is USING A COMPUTER to disseminate this point of view; not to argue that musicians who want to have a lot of money are EVIL when we'd enjoy having a lot of money ourselves, etc. etc.). I think anti-pop criticisms since the dawn of time have often come from a logic that pop is somehow intrinsically immoral or a symptom/cause of a general societal decline - that The People would be better served by music that is more challenging/more traditional/more whatever-pop-is-not.

The "music must be good for you" ethos is even absorbed by pro-pop critics who have to qualify their praise with well-duh observations like "The Neptunes are actually very avant garde". It's just like those stuffy music profs in the sixties who argued that the Beatles should be taken seriously because similarities to classical composers could be trainspotted - "they're not just longhairs screaming yeah yeah yeah, they're serious melodic composers". It's not that these observations are untrue, just the incredulity that accompanies them that bothers me. It's this false assumption that The People have to be tricked into liking good interesting music when in fact they always have liked good interesting music (along with lots of crap uninteresting music too).

― fritz, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tom - you have a good point about the mp3 factor, I still do not think that way about music, I think because I'm relatively new to the computer.

Re: your book publisher comment and your likely overall reaction to my opinions: I don't know, ideally I'd like to buy nothing at all, but alas this is not possible. And as with many of my opinions, it's totally irrational and emotionally driven. Very frustrating. I get v. offended by the existence of many things in the world. But what's happening here, in trying to express my opinion about it, is the same effect that comes about in the real world, nothing. sigh

I forgot to mention that I DO really like it here, pop aficionados and all, and even if I disagree, it's all love love we can still be friends

― Ron, Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

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