"could never have been made ..."

Oh, and my answer: I don't agree with Norman because, although I have no more love for the business tactics of the multinationals than any other socially-concerned individual, I don't see what we "lose" or are "denied" by their existence; it's all a lot more complicated than the casual anti-capitalist, hard-left argument makes out. I would also agree with Momus that the "multinationals" in fact open people to more choice *despite themselves*; are we to be denied the universe of music opened to us by Napster simply because computers are powered by the products of multinationals? It's an extreme argument, and not one I'd imagine Norman would subscribe to, but it's where his comments end up if you take them as far as you can.

I don't know why I was pulled up so much by Norman's comments; I suspect it'd be my dislike for sentimental idealisation of the past and my opposition to the belief that absence of choice or harder access to new things *in themselves* make people concentrate harder or innovate more. Isolation does not lead to greater creativity.

i don't think you could get proper punk/ska bands these days. Not like the late 70s - i could be wrong, but they all seem to be horrible middle-aged americans pretending to be 20 years younger (Offspring/Green Day) or people who mean well but without the political smah-it-up feel. I don't think dub reggae will sound the same again cos the technology's improved, losing that rawer sense in the 70s.

I don't know why I was pulled up so much by Norman's comments; I suspect it'd be my dislike for sentimental idealisation of the past and my opposition to the belief that absence of choice or harder access to new things *in themselves* make people concentrate harder or innovate more. Isolation does not lead to greater creativity. (Robin)

Not necessarily *greater* creativity, but uniquely slanted creativity stemming from different sets of cultural reference points (and possibly unusual use of technology - in the example of 70's Dub).

But equally I can see the argument that if people are now exposed to more different types of music they're freer to develop new hybrids (especially in a climate where the whole idea of hybrids is commonplace).

Oh yes, I'm not denying that being in a particular environment puts a unique slant on people's creativity, and sometimes a part of that slant may come from the narrow range of things to which they are exposed hence greater concentration. My point was more that, just because something is added, that doesn't mean that anything is taken away - the material which inspires geographically-specific or time- specific creativity is still there, and if you want to, you can still concentrate obsessively in your vision however many channels there are on cable TV, and there will always be people who want to concentrate. And I would agree that, the more people have access to, the more the tone of music will shift away from obsessive concentration and towards hybridisation - concentration on a specific territory will continue, but it will become more marginal.

British folk-rock (and possibly the US country-rock of the same era, but then I know next to nothing about that genre) is one of the very few genres where I would go along with Norman, in the sense that its protagonists were both the first real rock / pop generation *and* the last generation to grow up when traditional songs were a key part of a shared culture. Of course economic / technological globalisation is a factor here, but it's certainly not the only one.

I think the exhaustive availability of styles of music does make it easier for a band to extensively plot their creative efforts within the framework of that which has gone before, so there's a lot of less creative types who caper in amazement when they make one plus one equal two. The amount of creative types who are doing new things is probably about the same though.

As for the actual question: could all those seminal albums (NMTB, Nevermind, Tago Mago, *whatever*) be made today? Easily. Would they have the same sort of socio-cultural impact they had when they actually did come out? Probably not, no. The argument that (for example) the Beatles albums could never be recreated is baseless, as thirty years of phony beatlemania has proven. Could they have the same effect? Of course not.

Robin you’re slipping! How can you argue that British Folk Rock is part of some authentic tradition? I always thought the problem with the British Folklore movement was that it was an urban movement that harked back to a pre-industrial society. Revivalism was its credo. Most of Fairport were cockneys, and if they’d gone for a roots tradition they would have sounded more like Chas n’ Dave.

Guy:

"How can you argue that British Folk Rock is part of some authentic tradition?"

Never said it was. Just suggested that the post-war years in which its protagonists grew up were the last few years in which such songs were part of a common culture *anywhere* in Britain, though admittedly that was mainly in rural areas.

"I always thought the problem with the British Folklore movement was that it was an urban movement that harked back to a pre-industrial society."

Funny that you should mention that, Guy, because I've been listening to Radio 3's evening of programmes on the countryside, which has had a lot about this whole thing of urban dreamers of an ideal world, and it occured to me shortly before reading your message that folk-rock was in many ways a part of this, a direct descendent of those who left the city and lived the William Morris-inspired "utopian communal ethos" of the early 20th century. The difference is that I don't see the escapist thing as a point against it, and it's better than some dangerous and irrational pretence that you can live a totally innoculated rural life.

"Most of Fairport were cockneys."

I did have that in mind when posting, but I think my point holds.

Hey, maybe we should take this to email?

We can move this to email if you wish but part of the point of posting is to open discussions up. The points you’re making have qualified your original position and bear direct relevance to the thread.

I agree that some of the 1960s generation in Britain were the children of the ‘Cider with Rosie’ set. However my impression is that folk culture in Britain has been politically manipulated for centuries – the English creation of tartan is a classic example – and I simply don’t know whether ballads and madrigals were a living tradition or not. Being preserved by folklorists counts as half alive perhaps..

I went to see Sigur Ros play last night. Their music relates directly to this thread. They make interesting points in Wire about the roles of folk song in Icelandic culture and in their own composition, but they are also very clearly part of a global culture. I think maybe they backup your point that global culture need not take away from rooted culture if you don’t wish it too. Fairport started off wanting to be Bob Dylan – so in a way they support your argument about globalisation rather than being a final exception.

Literary Culture has been global since the printing press (if not before – Chaucer was very widely read and travelled) and it hasn’t stopped people being resolutely regional when they wish.

What was that Radio 3 programme and when’s it on?

Christ. I'm off work for *one day*, and I come back to this? ;-)

Anyway, robin, you seem to have mistaken my motivations for that statement. Here's a story I read in an old copy of "zig-zag" that I've got at home, that might serve as a metaphor. it's from an interview with Man, who I thought were rather good, as long as ther weren't playing dopey west-coast pub-rock. In this interview, man describe how, bored with playing r&b (or whatever) they were looking for something different to do. They heard about a type of event in america called a "freak out". To them, this sounded quite appealing, but they had no idea what a "freak out" actually was, so (and this is the crux of it) THEY MADE UP THEIR OWN VERSION. Now imagine germany in the mid-late 1960's. No-one "hip" plays there. No-one gives a shit about it. Most of the singles & album charts are full of locally-generated MOR. Now imagine you're (to use a well- known example) Edgar Froese of tangerine dream. You play in a dismal stones cover band (The Ones). You are so poor that on a series of gigs in paris, you have to buy low-grade horse meat, and roast it on an open fire otherwise you'll starve (this is actually true, BTW), IE things are so bad that SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE. You get back to berlin where you hear about pink floyd. Maybe you hear a couple of their records, and see a pic or a clip. You have a couple of pieces of the jigsaw - this band in britain is playing freeform freaky music, and is having a great time. You could do that, but you're going to have to invent a lot of it yourself, because you've got just about nothing to refer to. I suppose I could refer to jamaica in the early '70's - some little island that most people couldn't even point to on a map, where the music played on the radio would be regarded as laughably archaic anywhere more "with it", and where the recording studios were just incredibly primitive, yet we got some of the most incredible music & sonic weirdness BECAUSE of that.

So, I believe it was the lack of any local inspiration, combined with isolation from that which was "happening" in the rest of the world that IMO led to krautrock & dub/reggae. Nothing to do with some magical spark of inspiration. That's the kind of self-serving bullshit promoted by (stop me if U've heard this one before) BBBY GLLSP when he talks about buying lee perry's old mixing desk, or some such crap.

To-day, though, one of the things that's changed is the reach of the global media, and specific to this argument, the extremely efficient way in which the major labels can target their wares to the great majority of the market. Because of the limited range of the wares they're peddling, and the powerful control they have over the means of promoting them I do *not* see this as a good thing in any way whatsoever. It sucks, in fact. Now, robin mentioned that the multinationals he assumes (correctly, as it happens) that I think are a bunch of fascists made the computers that we use to browse the net, and to find new music. That's all very well, but I don't think it work's in such a simplistic way. Hey! I can use myself as an example! I make music of an extremely underground/culty/kilo-unfashionable sort, right? Now, I'm on the verge of pressing up 500 copies of our second proper album, and since we did our last one, the internet explosion has happened. There is an upside to this, which is that I can reach more fans _of_that_music_style_ than I could before. Many more, I hope. BUT, what about everybody else? You see, I've got this weird little pride issue. If someone were to hear my record, like it and buy it, that would mean a whole lot more to me than some k-obsessive progrock fan, who buys everything, regardless of merit. How can I reach the former, who and let them know that there's this record I've made, and that it sounds like this, and you might like it? THAT'S the hard bit, and the internet has actually made this MORE difficult. I'm sure you've read momus' account of his meal with howard devoto? In this, devoto (who rules IMO) likens the internet to a huge line of cottage industries stretching into the distance, and peddling their wares as hard as they can. It makes it rather hard to make yourself heard. It also makes it rather hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff if you're looking for something new to listen to.

I seem to have got rather long-winded here, so I'll stop!

x0x0

Think you're right about creatvity often being a misunderstanding of, or a tangent from, someone else's creativity.

Think you're completely wrong about the development of reggae and dub.

The whole discussion feels like a big hall of mirrors to me.

Guy:

"my impression is that folk culture in Britain has been politically manipulated for centuries"

Well, certainly since the Industrial Revolution, and especially since the massive "flight from the land" in the late 19th / early 20th centuries. However the "politically manipulated" line has many possible meanings - it has been as much manipulation by urban liberal types believing in "rediscovering oneself" (from William Morris through Fairport and on) as by Conservatives believing in some idea of ethnic authenticity.

"I think they maybe back up your point that global culture need not take away from rooted culture if you don't wish it to."

Don't know Sigur Ros at all, but exactly; the two can be fused with each other. I only started this thread because I don't believe that globalism is in itself a destructive force to rootedness and geographical affiliation. If you use it in a certain way, it can boost rooted culture. The world is large.

"Fairport started off wanting to be Bob Dylan - so in a way they support your argument about globalisation rather than being a final exception."

Oh, exactly, and what I like about their early records is the openness to whatever influences they were exposed to at the time. I suppose I was on shaky ground citing them as a final exception, though I think you *could* cite them as such had they grown up in the post-war years in isolated areas of Devon, Norfolk, Cumbria etc. (where things like commercial TV came considerably later).

All good points about literary culture as well.

"What was that Radio 3 programme and when's it on?"

You missed it, I'm afraid - it was a 3-and-a-half hour sequence of programmes last night called "In A Green Shade" on the general theme of artistic / social / cultural perceptions etc. of the British countryside and its future. If you're interested, mail me privately.

I see what you mean, Norman, and I think your theory on isolation making people more determined and concentrated, at least in the context of that time, has some strength (one point re. your comment on German "locally-generated MOR" hits in the 60s - I realise you're not necessarily saying that similar music wasn't popular in the UK, but the UK charts circa 1967 were full of such material from the likes of Engelbert Humperdinck, Val Doonican, Des O'Connor and Vince Hill).

However, I think the world has changed and, whether we feel these changes are for better or for worse, we have to acknowledge that. Some people did indeed concentrate more and isolation and become more creative, but many more people felt very depressed through isolation; it did as much to make people feel trapped as to make them feel inspired to relieve the boredom.

Of course the internet sets up new, small cults (or "elective affinities", in Momus's phrase) and, yes, it does challenge the idea of universality and assert the idea of targeting the "obsessives". But maybe that is a natural change. Perhaps we have to be content with targeting our specific audiences and, if someone else discovers our creative work, congratulating them for being bold enough in their exploration of uncharted territory to find it.

I get the impression that you see the disorder and difficulty of making yourself heard of the internet as something to fear. I see it as something to embrace wholeheartedly, and however intimidating a massive endless line of cottage industries might be if you're just one of those cottage industries, surely you'd prefer it to a few massive corporations?

I get the impression that you see the disorder and difficulty of making yourself heard of the internet as something to fear. I see it as something to embrace wholeheartedly, and however intimidating a massive endless line of cottage industries might be if you're just one of those cottage industries, surely you'd prefer it to a few massive corporations?

I don't see the "disorder and difficulty of making yourself heard on the internet" as something to fear (or perhaps ph33r? :) but I do find it to be a big pain in the ass/arse. I mean that both as a independent producer of music, and as a consumer. Anyway. Your comments that the world has changed since the heyday of krautrock and dub I think does tend to prove my point - that is the original one from the krautrock thread, that copping a bunch of poses, and ripping off music from those scenes today is a rather futile exercise, and IMO no better than oasis or weller's dreary brand of retro-ism, despite the greater kudos one would get from shouting about Can or Augustus Pablo being your primary influence. Unless you add something to it, of course, which not many people do. Strangely enough, I would put Stereolab in the latter category, and coincidentally I don't recall them ever grandstanding about how cool they are because they own Neu! albums....

Nick Dastoor has a theory that Stuart Murdoch's lyrics could only have been written in the 1990s. Is he ever going to substantiate it for us, with footnotes and full bibliography?

No.

Thoughtful thread from Robin C. How have our views changed since?