Critical Guilt Trippin' (or: Everyone Hates This Album But Me)

To wit: I'd love Is This It 100 times more if the music press had no idea it existed.

I don't think I ever do really. Dylan gets a lot of flak on ILM and it's never affected how I hear the music. Maybe for new albums it would be different.

Especially difficult if one of the bands or albums that you love was a flavour of the month at one point but has fallen off the critical or populist radar. I'm a massive, massive Suede fan (really!) but that's a lot easier in, say, 1993-1994 than it is in 2002, when the same people who would have been chanting with you at concerts now give quizzical looks and hand over Hives records and tell you to get with the program...

Nate, I'm sure amongst music fans/snobs/'experts'/whatever, Clash hatred is considered 'naive and stupid and stunted' - part of the fun of ILM is the chance to take part in 'against the grain' canon re- writing (even if that means MBV suddenly and absurdly become the center of the post-punk universe - special smiley face for Ned :-) ) I used to like the Clash, now I can't stand 'em - tastes change, what you want out of music changes, and sometimes you just realise you've backing the wrong horse all along...

But don't be browbeaten by 'majority' opinion, here or elsewhere - have faith in yr taste! And look at the way Mr. Matos and yr pal Ethan mounted a pretty steadfast defense against all the recent (and might I say well-deserved) Moby bashing. I really like the way that Mark S, say, challenges my assumptions abt Coltrane, even tho' I pretty much disagree 100% with his 'position' - if your love for an artist can't withstand a bit of clever/well-informed bashing, maybe there are cracks and flaws in that love that are worth exploring and picking at...

Beck IS a tosser, tho'.

Yeah, Beck's a tosser- he tosses your preconceived notions of music out the window! Ha ha cough yeah jeez that was lame. Uhm... well... Tom Waits likes him, at least.
The thing I'm worried about is that my assumptions and likes will somehow be actually proven wrong (by SCIENCE!), and I will feel like a schmuck for investing lots of interest and time and money and by- god enthusiasm into total shit.

if it produces some kind of uncontrollable reaction in you (besides an immediate desire to turn it off before your brain melts) then it's good music, and don't let anyone tell you different.

Contrary to what seems to be the general groupthink pattern around here, there is no definitive musical standard of quality, no "science" to prove you wrong...

haha mo you so don't get us at all do you

maybe you aren't doing a good enough job of explaining yourselves...?

"The thing I'm worried about is that my assumptions and likes will somehow be actually proven wrong (by SCIENCE!), and I will feel like a schmuck for investing lots of interest and time and money and by- god enthusiasm into total shit."

I know you're kidding about the science part, but I hope you aren't serious about the rest. If you are, re-read what you said and just think about how ridiculous it is. If you LIKE and ENJOY it, who cares what other people think about it? And if other people calling it crap keeps you from enjoying it, then you're too insecure in your tastes or too sensitive to critcism. I thought ILM was pretty cool when I walked in on it because everyone here seems to enjoy mainstream pop music, although some seem to like it a bit too much (sorry folks, Britney sucks). Anyway I had never before seen pop so openly accepted before I came here, but I liked some of it anyway- and now if I were to say I didn't most here would call probably call me a snob. Point is, everyone everywhere has different tastes and opinions on everything, so don't worry about theirs, just make yours. (and then make fun of theirs)

What kind of alternate universe is this where people don't like the Clash or Dylan? And put "Baby One More Time" as the #2 "album" of all time?

Damned if I know, Clay, but it might be a good idea to start talking like Bizarro Superman. "ME NOT LIKE BEATLES! ME NOT THINK THEM WRITE SONG SINCERE AND POETIC LIKE 'BARBIE GIRL'!"

"What kind of alternate universe is this where people don't like the Clash or Dylan? And put "Baby One More Time" as the #2 "album" of all time?" - It's called paradise, baby. Welcome to it.

none of my friends ever talk shit about Wreck Small Speakers

WRECK SMALL SPEAKERS ROCK!!

What kind of alternate universe is this where people don't like the Clash or Dylan?

A pretty damn great one, in my universe at least. Which, jumping back a touch, is why, Mo, your claim about groupthink is so laughable in ways -- because I've been saying the same thing on here forever, namely that there are no absolute standards, there is no law. We all like what we each all individually like, and I no more have to respect your musical sacred cows as you have to respect mine...

what makes ILM seem extra strange, I suppose, is that it's full of people who to some extent agree: if you like it, it's good - and there is no definitive standard of musical quality. in fact, I'd bet ILM is one of the places more sympathetic than most other places on the web, as far as taking those ideas seriously goes. (of course, lots of us disagree, but...) the thing is, that need not be the end of the story. just because there's no definitive standard, e.g., doesn't mean there are NO standards. and even when those standards are still personal, subjective, biased, whatever, arguing about them helps us make sense out of music and enjoy it more. and just because we argue, that doesn't mean that we really think we're trying to win, trying to establish definitive standards for the end of all time. all of this is part of the normal way people talk about the music they love. only, turned up a whole bunch.

Not adhering to a musical "canon" is all well and good, but I'm going to respect someone's taste more if they like Dylan and the Clash over, say, Captain and Tennile and Yes.

good for you. so you know how to spend your cd money more efficiently when you get recommendations and stuff. but what else do do you get?

nate if i hadn't got caught up in an argument w.someone who thinks that accusing before reading is somehow being "left wing", and that "thinking" means "being told what to think by someone in a cool haircut", i wd probably softened on the clash quite a lot: almost everyone on that thread was having a go and i started to feel a bit sorry for them, becuz while almost everything said was true, you can def.make a better case FOR them than was made => as i said in an early post on that thread, i present myself as more of a hata than i am because ppl say the clash are PUNK, and obviously they are not => (punk mattered quite a lot to me) (i wish i was not still getting into fights about it at my enormous great age, but there you are: the ideals of yr youth distort your life...)

i shd have posted a picture of my haircut!!

better still, gareth's — and said it was mine!!

ha! my hair is not good at the moment, esp at the pub meet where it got rained on:(

Contrary to what seems to be the general groupthink pattern around here, there is no definitive musical standard of quality

i have never thought of it like that mo, what i like about here is the fact that definitive standards can be challenged, that they don't count for much. eg - the clash. in *the real world, out there* the clash are a definitive standard. here, thats not going to go unchallenged. i like that, i don't like to take things as a given, i've always felt alienated by the critical consensus because those are generally records i do not like (or if i do like, i like in a different way). in the pub i'll talk about shit like britney spears and autechre and suede or whatever, and people are like "what? i dont understand". here what i say is listened to. might not be agreed with, but people do listen

canonical ilm stuff there is, yes - radiohead, magnetic fields, outkast - all of which i do not like.

I like the Clash quite a lot, actually. The reason they get slammed so much around here probably has to do with the fact that they're constantly held up as the one punk band that it's okay to like, that 'survived' that era as supposedly the one act of the time with talent and lasting power. (Which basically proves that they AREN'T a punk band, right?) Probably the people who don't like the Clash would dislike them even if this weren't true, but as with certain vegetables, having something shoved down your throat every day of your life doesn't make you like it any more.

They're not really a punk band, because you never hear that willingness to say anything, that edginess you can still hear in the Pistols or the Adverts or Subway Sect, because the Clash always backed away from the edge, always wanted to insist that they could be good and righteous and still be "the only band that matters." Which is utterly foolish and strangely enticing. It's probably why Lester Bangs fell so hard for them while he treated most bands with deserved suspicion. But "Complete Control" and "White Man In Hammersmith Palais" are still as powerful as any punk records ever made, London Calling is an out-and-out masterpiece, and "This Is England" is the best "last" punk song I've ever heard. So I'm willing to forgive them all the rebel posing and the empty sloganeering and all that. Because, you know...weren't they at least better than the bloody Jam?

they were better than the jam yes, but they is perhaps the most backhanded compliment i have ever given

The reason they get slammed so much around here probably has to do with ..... INDIE GUILT

"this is england" is indeed terrific

haha kiwi the only reason they are "liked" in the first place is BUBBLEGUM GUILT!!

d kilgour

i was dumb and I opened my mouth

i was blind and i closed my eyes

wanna unwind you

lay you right out flat

make the world round you see reason

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

cast it all aside and set yourself free

ill be your friend if you listen to dylan

you couldn't tell the difference between a real blonde and a fake

i love beck and oingo boingo!

I think if I am on the fence about something, then other people's opinions can sway me negatively (at least temporarily).

It's definitely a good thing to undertake a thorough investigation as to why you like something, to probe and question and pick at it. However, it becomes tiring when people constantly shit on your opinion without really listening to your arguments (not on ILM, obviously) - or even listening to your argument and then dismissing it out of hand.

haha we only do that sometimes here

"I suppose, is that it's full of people who to some extent agree: if you like it, it's good - and there is no definitive standard of musical quality."

Is that why so many people seem to offer their opinions as if they're edicts from on high? I mean, come on - you guys get SUPER hostile! Telling people to stab themselves in the genitals and never reproduce and whatnot... and how is arguing that the Clash are crap because they "don't make you think" any different from the standard critical/canonical argument that Britney Spears is crap? If the canonical argument is bullshit, how can you use it to defend your own "non-canonical" tastes?

I mean, come on, you guys are all acting like your opinions are not reactionary or groupthink - but that's precisely what they are! If you have a need to establish your tastes apart from the established canon (Dylan, the Clash, etc.) and then run to a group of people who agree with you about Britney Spears (wtf?!) and Ja Rule, you're just sacrificing one set of socially reassuring opinions for another, except that you're establishing your new clique as "better" or more "open-minded" because it goes against the grain.

Oooh! You don't like Dylan! You're *different* man! You can't be categorized! You wanna be different just like all the other different people...

I guess I'm just annoyed cuz I'm in the middle. I love Andrew WK (which is pop, but not pop enough apparently), Missy, Outkast, even Donovan! But I also, actually, truly genuinely love a lot of the established "canon" (Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Clash, Dylan). I guess I'm just not cool enough. *sniff* *choke*

But ILM makes it so easy to feel rebellious: by embracing much of the mainstream canon and dismissing much of the provisional ILM canon, I can feel that I am thinking for myself; and I probably am as much as anyone around here (which is not to imply that anyone around here is thinking independently about music any less than most people are).

DeRayMi calls it, Mo. You're getting terribly defensive because you're thinking there's a cabal at work -- it's been charged before. But ILM is not monolithic and never has been, and never will be.

I don't like the Clash not because they don't 'make me think,' but because I'm not fond of the music, or think that what they did others pretty much did better or did in ways that I find more interesting. Meanwhile, I'm not really a fan of Britney per se at all -- Max Martin, yes, but there are only a couple of songs where I like Britney for what she's doing herself, and I find the one song usually referred to as the keeper, "...Baby One More Time," to be unmemorable on both her and Martin's part, an incredibly dull and overrated slice of 'perfect pop' much like Andrew WK's "Party Hard." A lot of people on here disagree with on that take vociferously, but that's not evidence that there's some sort of 'clique' here out to exclude me because of it. Anything but -- if you think that's the case for you, you're fantasizing, and it's not interesting to watch, so drop the martyrdom complex about not being 'cool' enough in others' eyes. I like lots of stuff that isn't 'cool' for many here, hell I've been raked over the coals for it plenty of times.

Our tastes are manifold, kaleidoscopic. Your stance is just as valid as mine and is just as valid as anyone else's here. What matters is the interactions between our multiple visions; there is no room here for the person who can't believe that someone honestly will have different tastes from oneself, and can argue for those differing tastes with as much passion and intelligence as anyone else. Josh already said this -- does it really need to be said again?

Argue what works for you, accept that you're not talking into a mirror and that the potential range of reactions will run from enthusiastic agreement to bitter opposition, but also that if you are willing to hear others out and take them seriously, they will be willing to hear YOU out.

To quote Starship:

Say you don't know me, or recognize my face Say you don't care who goes to that kind of place Knee deep in the hoopla, sinking in your fight Too many runaways eating up the night

Marconi plays the mamba, listen to the radio, don't you remember We built this city, we built this city on rock an' roll

LOOK OUT FOR THE ENORMOUS DICE ABOUT TO LAND ON YOUR HEAD AND CRUSH YOU!

I liked the fist-pumping Lincoln Memorial dude. I wonder how much they paid the guy to be painted white?

I love 'Odelay', dammit. My purchase of it, so long ago, probably had quite a bit to do with Rolling Stone's swift canonisation of it, and to do with his "cool" image, but now I continue to adore it simply because it's a great collection of great songs. I have a feeling that you people's hatred for Beck doesn't have much to do with his music.

(Midnite Vultures was kinda crappy though)

Also, often what people are down on so much here are the shitty reasons people give for liking the canonical things they do. I love Dylan, but that doesn't mean I'd buy poor reasons why he's worth liking from someone else. I think on the Clash thread you were just unlucky to find a number of people who don't like the Clash AND don't buy shitty reasons for liking them.

i'm sorry you didn't like the tone of my clash edict, shaky => but i did say i was writing the post real fast and it was late, and i was boiling down 20 yrs of being bugged by them into one sentence => and then (as i pointed out in my response) i've been too frantically busy this week to be extended and reasonable and weigh all sides kindly (plus tired and cross in relationship to dickheads at work in the real world) (i work at a place where ppl pull manipulative stunts to do with "all together for the cause" a lot so i don't cut it much slack as a reason to toss aside my opinion: the "cause" may be difft — better even — but the rhetoric just stopped working w.me a long time ago)

if i dislike [xx] i want to be presented w.a reason for ME to like them, a perspective i didn't see previously; this may not be ANY of the reasons you like [xx], though (given yr list of likes upthread) i think we have more in common than not, tastewise. What I have come to dislike abt the Clash is that they seem to foster an attitude, in their more defensive fans, that to cast around for these other perspectives is to BETRAY their political agenda — whereas to me, to FAIL to cast around for other, new, fresh, unexpected reasons to persuade someone who disagrees with yr politics, to catch their attention, to pique their interest, is a sign that one's interest in politics is merely tribal, NOT political. So I'm saying, your job is to adapt yr argument to persuade MEEEEEE!! Well, you can obviously say to me, "fuck you we don't need your sort in the movement you egotistical pseudo-theoretical dilettante", but if you do, you have to (a bit) take the rap if you lose the election (and/or revolution) because a whole division of egotistical pseudo-theoretical dilettantes switched sides at a key moment.

(specific movement = clash lovers of the world unite, in para above, tho i think the point carries to any argt anywhere)

(be 'cause may be bettah' i mean yr cause is better than the one they are constantly invoking at work) (by a v.v.v.long way)

Nate totally stole my idea of a "can you be convinced not to like something?" thread. Everyone of course wants to come across as the brave individual who doesn't flinch in the face *influence.* Myself, well I think I've been convinced when the path I'm on is drying up or a dead end i.e. reading rec.music.industrial back in the day.

A band I cling to in the face of critical bashing: Bright Eyes. (Maligned by both ILM and the 'fork!)

The whole anti-canonical thing is a bit of a red herring, Shaky, as being anti-canons isn't the same as being knee-jerk anti anything in the canon and knee-jerk pro anything out of it. The idea/ideal of ILM is that a bunch of people discuss music on a webboard and that no music gets dismissed out of hand without somebody else coming along to defend it. Actually, even more than that - no music gets dismissed without a reason. The point of ILM is to make a music forum where no question gets dismissed as stupid or not worth asking because everyone knows that the Clash rule/suck or Britney rules/sucks.

In the Clash thread the defenders are you and John Darnielle and Nate Patrin. In the Atomic Kitten thread the defenders are me (a bit) and Graham. In the Dylan threads the defenders are me and Josh. In the Ja Rule thread the defenders are Ethan and Jess. Etc etc - everybody gets a fair crack no matter how bolshy or aggressive the initial question might have been.

Now that's the ideal. The first problem is that there are a lot of people who get put off by aggressive questions, and a lot of the dismissals of the music have no backup. (Sometimes also the dismissals and praise of the music is backed up but not in ways people think are valid - i.e. I read Mark S' Sex Pistols post and thought it was excellent and persuasive, you read it and thought it was off-the-point gobbledygook with no bearing on the music. But that's not a problem really.)

The second problem is that obviously to some people arriving here, ILM does seem really hostile. It doesn't to me because I'm used to it so I'm not sure what I can do about this other than recommend to people that they try not to be a smartarse with new posters. Some of the little rhetorical things we do - like "Classic Or Dud?" - might not help because they look very binary. Again because I've lived with it for ages I tend to read C/D as just "discuss this please" but to new posters it doesn't look that way.

One thing that I've noticed about ILM is that it doesn't like people who take things for granted - if you turn up with an air of, why are we even discussing this? then people will get aggressive or defensive or teasing. This is healthy 'cause keeping discussions open is healthy. This is unhealthy 'cause it pisses the (perfectly innocent) new poster off and because it means some debates keep going round and round in circles.

So there you are - as hopefully unbiased an account of ILM as the person who started it can offer.

"Is that why so many people seem to offer their opinions as if they're edicts from on high? I mean, come on - you guys get SUPER hostile! "
Because the internet takes away the facial expression, you perceive some posts to be serious. Personally at the end of the day, I know I am right in my own little perfect universe. heh

The second problem is that obviously to some people arriving here, ILM does seem really hostile.

I reckon this is where most of the problems stem from. Because all the "regulars" have been over the same ground many times, especially with the canonical/anti-canonical bands, these bands tend to be dismissed when they are mentioned in unrelated threads. He said, eloquently. But new posters may not have realised all the arguments that have gone before - they only see the glib dismissal, etc.

There's no immediate fix to this - is there? - except recommend people lurk for a while before posting, to find where all the in- jokes come from.

I mean, come on - you guys get SUPER hostile!

in the main, people here only seem to get hostile as a reaction to when people come in having a go. i don't like this either, and i think people (inc myself) should respond to bait better. If you have a need to establish your tastes apart from the established canon (Dylan, the Clash, etc.) and then run to a group of people who agree with you about Britney Spears (wtf?!) and Ja Rule, you're just sacrificing one set of socially reassuring opinions for another, except that you're establishing your new clique as "better" or more "open-minded" because it goes against the grain. Oooh! You don't like Dylan! You're *different* man! You can't be categorized! You wanna be different just like all the other different people...

interesting. i guess this is quite reliant on whether you believe that i like x and dislike y because thats how i feel, or because i am trying to be different and/or fit into a clique. if you do not believ me, that leaves me at a disadvantage (i was not believed in the pub last week when i said i liked britney, i had no come back to that, if people think i am only pretending what can i possibly respond with) I guess I'm just annoyed cuz I'm in the middle. I love Andrew WK (which is pop, but not pop enough apparently), Missy, Outkast, even Donovan! But I also, actually, truly genuinely love a lot of the established "canon" (Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Clash, Dylan).

you see, you're just like most other people here! i like some of the canon too (rolling stones, bowie, aphex, nick drake), but not others (dylan, clash, doors). i don't hate the canon, i just think its funny (doesn't stop me liking some records on it and some not)

but why shouldn't i criticis the clash or dylan? i don't like them, should i just keep my mouth shut unless i have something nice to say. people here give autechre and suede a right slagging off, but i don't get all upset about it, i usually think they have something interesting to say...

didn't manage the breaks very well did i?

the original pre-"nu-ilm" ilm clash throwdown (= a draw, surely?)

haha see how the issue divides families viz the greenfields of working class EAST london! (i am conceding nothing on the geographical issue of redbridge, DG, except for mere tactical/entertainment purposes

The whole anti-canonical thing is a bit of a red herring, Shaky, as being anti-canons isn't the same as being knee-jerk anti anything in the canon and knee-jerk pro anything out of it.

But I think I have sometimes seen opinions expressed here in that form: given a choice between the canonical and the uncanonical I will take the uncanonical. I'll admit that on closer examination I don't think there is anyone who regularly posts here who doesn't like some music from the mainstream canon (the pop or rock canon, or the jazz canon, or the classical canon, etc.)or who likes everything that isn't part of that (which would be even more bizarre).

Tom, somewhat beside the point of the subject of this thread, I question the extent to which explanations can be given for why I like this music rather than that music. Maybe this is laziness on my part, but it seems to quickly boil down to things that can't really be defended any further. I find it very hard to describe musical properties in words, and I don't see too many examples of it being done successfully by anyone, anywhere.

Again, I think DeRayMi has something. You note, Tom, that 'a lot of the dismissals of the music have no backup,' but I guess determining what kind of backup is universally valid seems to suggest my old personal bugaboo, the objective standard. Is it that you're drawing a distinction between someone who doesn't/won't listen to something but still has something to say, who does listen to something but won't elaborate any further about not liking it, and who does listen to something and will engage in full discussion about the music though still not liking it?

I think that it would be easier to construct a "standard" for interesting arguments than for good music, Ned - though in honor of you and your cult I would not say that either are technically possible.

Considering this boils down to the reason one actually dis/likes the music, I'd like to say that politics boils down to maybe 5% at most (I refuse to listen to Ted Nugent because he's a fascist asshole, for instance). I don't really pay much attention to Public Enemy's Farrakhan stuff even though I tend to dislike his anti-Semitic ass; I don't think "Oxford Town" is automatically a better song than "Ballad Of A Thind Man"; the Clash's politics are not even secondary but tertiary to my enjoyment of their music (which hinges mostly on their ability to fuck with a whole bunch of styles and usually come out with something I like; also the ability to write catchy songs that cover a fairly wide range of scenarios and personas as the band evolves- i.e. "I'm So Bored With the USA" vs. "Gates Of the West").

I am in fact almost never compelled to defend/detract an album I like/hate with politics, whether of the sociological variety ("Rolling Stones stole black peoples' music") or the scenester police variety ("The White Stripes appeared in USA Today; how can they be indie?!"). It's not as important to me as pure aesthetic enjoyment and sometimes drawing historical lines parallels ("Super Furry Animals=my generation's ELO?"). Now the important question: is that being a responsible critic and/or listener?

I think that it would be easier to construct a "standard" for interesting arguments than for good music, Ned - though in honor of you and your cult I would not say that either are technically possible.

Aw, bless. ;-) Cult, though, what cult? Frightening thought!

Actually, I do happen to agree with you. Though are we getting off on reasoned thoughts, how those thoughts are presented, the sheer entertainment value that might be found in something unreasoned, etc.? Could be a lot going into this! I guess it all boils down to the 'why are we here' question again, also semi-revived.

It's probably easier to convince someone through reasoned argument that (based on their existing taste profile) they should or shouldn't like something than to actually make them like something through reasoned argument. I don't think argument is the way to go in trying to persuade someone to like something. But you can point out aspects of the music that they might be missing. This seems to me to be a matter of drawing attention to something though, rather than really forming an argument. Example, "But listen to the way the bass line in 'Everybody's Got Something to Hide. . .' trips over itself."

Would you try to make someone experience sexual attraction to someone else through argument? Again, you could point out that this person is their apparent type, but that would not be enough to create attraction. (I have sometimes said to myself, "I should be attracted to her, but I'm not.")

(Slow day at work.)

Your existing taste profile may be modified on a quarterly basis. All modification requests must be submitted two weeks prior to the beginning of the next quarter.

Taste profile modification requests which are deemed to be spurious will result in a two year suspension of the privilege of modifying your taste profile.

It's all my brother's fault. I like something, he proclaims that it's shit, and I can never hear it quite the same again. Nobody else worries me like this.