On The Importance of Having A "Favourite Member" of A Group

Obviously, I do this a *lot* and consider it part of the inherent fun of fandom. Like, I find it really really hard to get seriously into a group and *not* try to choose a favourite member.

I remember a friend I used to go to a lot of concerts with, and she would always catch me, quite seriously studying any new band we saw, and she would laugh and accuse me "you're trying to figure out which one you fancy the most, aren't you?" and I was kinda like "yeah... but also, no. What I'm trying to do is figure out which member of the band is coolest / most interesting / which one I like the most."

And I have no idea why I do this, but it is, still, something which is clearly very important to me. And even find myself judging other fans, to figure out if we are compatible based on who their "favourite one" is. Yes, it's kinda silly. But it's also really, really fun.

I suppose it's important if you see a band live, a lot, because it tells you which side of the stage to stand on, in order to get the best view of your favourite musician. But I guess in order to care about this, you have to be the kind of fan that will wait in a queue all day and run down and get on the rail in the correct spot.

But, thinking back over my life as a fan, waiting in queues with other obsessive fans of the band have been some of the most wonderful, joyous experiences, both in terms of building friendships with other people (some of those friendships way survived my fandom of that particular band) but also the pre-Internet telegraph of "if you like the band you're going to see, other fans will also tell you to go and see band Y, as well.")

This depends on the genre of music, I think. If we're talking about, say, rock or pop, where the group is supposed to work tight as a unit, who cares about invidual musicians? Usually I don't even know their names. But when it comes to genres like jazz or rap. where individual expression within a group is typical, and part of the whole genre aesthetic, then paying attention to individual musicans makes more sense.

Like, I don't care which Beatle wrote which song, and their singing voices sound similar enough that I usually can't tell who is doing the vocals, but when it comes to acts like Wu-Tang, the individual voices and lyric styles of the rappers are a big part of the whole listening experience, so of course I'm gonna like some of them more than others.

And jazz fans, of course, might appreciate a record where they don't much care about the other musicians only because they want to hear solos from the one musician they do like.

Also, in rap it's often pretty hard to say to whether you like a particular rapper because of their musicianship or because their personality, because the two are so intertwined. A technically gifted rapper with a bland personality can be as boring as someone with a fascinating personality but little skills.

Or, let's put it this way: a part of the craft of a rapper is constructing a memorable personality (or more than one) for your music.

It depends on the band. Christine McVie is my favourite member of Fleetwood Mac because that's a band of distinct singer-songwriters, likewise Ghostface in Wu-Tang but generally I'm a whole >> sum of the parts person. I'm a fan of band chemistry more than individuals because it's such a mysterious, complex thing.

I Don't think I've ever thought about a band in these terms. Maybe for the sake of fun I've had the whole 'Which is the best Beatle?' argument, but really I'm not that interested in who's my favourite and acknowledge that as a band the Beatles was a product of confluence of ideas. Often I am interested - in the case of some bands - in the various members' personalities and back-stories, but only really when these relate to the music, but I don't really see the difference between wanting to know more about Brian Wilson or Tom Waits or whoever.

Band chemistry is a really important point, because sometimes the combination of personalities and songwriting styles, and maybe even the contrast between them, is a big part of the magic for some bands - I'm not a big fan of Fleetwood Mac, but they are fascinating as a group of individuals and musicians working with and against one another, where the particular combination of that group of people is way bigger than any individual - as big as the personalities involved in that group are.

I dunno, there's this weird thing in, like, Dude Canon, or Proper Rock Appreciation, where you're supposed to care ~only about the music~ and to care about the human beings that made it, at all, is somehow seen as "celebrity culture" and therefore BAD.

As if this music, with its emotions and (sometimes) its lyrics and narratives just floated up out of nowhere, carved into being from a block of marble, carried down from On High like the word of god toted on vinyl by Moses. And it's somehow diminishing of the Art to care about the people that made it. (Unless of course it's being discussed in a totally worthy and MUSIC focused way, like interviewing the Tape Ops who worked on Pet Sounds to find out what brand of cleaning fluid they used on the VU meters of the mixing desk.)

And I kind of understand the tension, because Art is distinct from its creators, and it takes on a meaning which is imbued entirely by the listener / fan when it becomes part of a cultural narrative as opposed to a personal one. And I do think it's a mistake to look too closely into the "story behind" any piece of music, like, yeah, it does strip some of the magic away to find out, that song was actually written about the bassist's dog. Because songs are never about just one thing, and to fix the meaning is to destroy other, just as important meanings.

But I DO also think that it's really pretty *human* to be curious about the people that created things you love. And people's lives and personalities do come out in the music that they make, though not necessarily in the way that the creator intended. It provides a very personal and emotional touch, to have a "favourite member" that feels like your mate, your friend, someone whose instincts and opinions you trust or look out for. I know, I do not actually have any kind of relationship with That Person, but I do often feel, when I have been a fan of a band for a long time, that I have some kind of personal interaction with my image of what they're like, which helps me appreciate the music even more.

Yeah, I mean it's not as though I've never read an artist biography that wasn't about VU meter cleaning fluid. I was amazed at how much more I appreciated the Beach Boys' lyrics, for instance, after reading a crappy Brian Wilson biography during the height of my fandom a few years back. But I don't think I'd have been any less of a fan without knowing about his life.

Similarly, an album like ABBA's Visitors is arguably all the more tragic and affecting when you know the back-story, but it's not as though it's not a great record in its own right.

So not having a 'favourite member' doesn't necessarily make one a rockist nerdboy, at least I don't think it does. Not all bands are made up of exciting individualistic personalities - they can't all be Blur, the Spice Girls, Wu Tange or the Beatles. Most bands have a good bunch of po-faced nonentities lurking around the back. Speaking of po-faced, actually, oh I just remembered I used to like Stone Gossard from Pearl Jam when I was a teenager because I was just learning to play rhythm guitar.

I do agree that it's normal and human to be interested in the lives and personalities musicians, but that doesn't necessarily translate to having a favourite musician in some group. Can't you just be interested them in general? I enjoy biographies of musicians and have read loads of them, but unless they reveal one person to be a total asshole and another one a saint (which they rarely do), the assessment of which musician like more is usually based on their musical skills, not the biographical background. Of course knowing about someone's personality and life history helps you understand their music, but history is full of artists who were kinda dickish, and yet their art can be much more interesting than that of someone who was a much better person in their private life. So yeah, knowing about their private lives can be illuminating, but usually that isn't related to my assessment of quality of their music, except for the rare cases where they've done something really vile in their personal lives (like that Norwegian black metal Nazi dude).

(x-post)

" the assessment of which musician I like more"

where groups are concerned, i think i'm most interested in the musicians whose work i like best, but my interest tends to be fairly dispassionate. i don't cling tight to favorite artists or revile the heels. they're just there, doing they thing. this isn't limited to music. i tend to be rather aloof (detatched?) in all my appreciations, typically feeling much more strongly about the art than the artist.

beneath all this, i make a basic distinction in my life between "real people" and "tv people". real people are those you know in life: friends, family, coworkers, acquaintances, etc. tv people ar those you know only second hand, as through media of some sort or another. tv people are categorically not real, though the distinction is fluid.

I dunno, there's this weird thing in, like, Dude Canon, or Proper Rock Appreciation, where you're supposed to care ~only about the music~ and to care about the human beings that made it, at all, is somehow seen as "celebrity culture" and therefore BAD.

I've never come across that attitude but that would be missing out on half the fun imo. When I hear music I love I always want to know what kind of person made it and under what circumstances.

When I hear music I love I always want to know what kind of person made it and under what circumstances.

In the case of a lot of experimental music, it's almost essential you know about these in order to appreciate it. It's why I subscribe to Wire magazine but rarely listen to the Wire Tapper compilations because half the time it's just a bunch of clunking, scuffling sounds which I'm not really prepared to enjoy in the context of a comp. That said I love reading about avant-garde weirdos like Okkyung Lee etc, because it's their ideas and personal narrative give their work context and therefore value.

I dunno, there's this weird thing in, like, Dude Canon, or Proper Rock Appreciation, where you're supposed to care ~only about the music~ and to care about the human beings that made it, at all, is somehow seen as "celebrity culture" and therefore BAD

I can see this, maybe more as an implicit position than explicit - because canon fans seem to love giant thick biographies of canon artistes, but there's a taking-this-seriously vibe to them - like by reading abt Dylan's divorce or McCartney's tea on the night of 23 April 1957 you are not just idly curious or fanning about, but ~studying culture~.

In the case of a lot of experimental music, it's almost essential you know about these in order to appreciate it.

I disagree.

I have a favourite member only if I appreciate that person for their songwriting / musicianship

Voted for this, as it's how it has most often applied for me. Occasionally, I've been attracted to individual band members for their charisma, particularly when I was a young kid. Like for example, I liked Scott Ian from Anthrax because he was the most expressive one in interviews and he had big puppy dog eyes and then a kooky beard. At the time, I wouldn't have really been able to tell you about his musical contributions to the group. Or like with Metallica, I was a big Lars fan, both because of his drumming (I know many will take exception to this) and because of the way he expressed himself in interviews, where I really enjoyed his mannerisms (ditto).

It's tough for me to do that because these days I just don't engage with musicians in visual contexts so much. I don't watch so many music videos or video interviews.

Eh, I probably shouldn't have brought up The Rock Biography ~Tone Of Importance~ because this is a digression, but I guess it's an interesting digression?

I confess, I *love* rock biographies. I used to have a whole collection of them, like, dozens of them, in my bathroom. And there's always this tension of reporting what is, basically, celebrity gossip, under the guise of ~This Is Serious Cultural Critique~ because, hey, knowing whether a certain Dylan song is about Edie Sedgewick or Suze Rotolo, that's not *gossip*, man, that's important insight into the oeuvre of Bob Dylan? (Except, well, it is and it isn't. I love knowing those details, because they reinforce the oft forgotten facts that these Creative Men of Genius do not exist in a vacuum, that they are influenced and shaped and taught by their wives and partners and lovers.)

((Y'know, like I *loved* Rolling Stones biographies that acknowledged and delved into that. Because for many years before I read a Rolling Stones bio, I always thought that Brian Jones was my "favourite member" of the Stones. After reading about 2 or 3 bios, I realised, actually *Anita Pallenberg* was my favourite member of the Stones.))

But, really, with appreciation of music, it doesn't matter on another level, if the song is about Edie or Suze, it matters whether it connects you to your memories of your high school girlfriend, because that's how music works.

I dunno, I guess maybe I'm giving it too much credit. Maybe what I respond to when meeting other fans of ~my favourite band~ isn't even that they share the same love of the bassist or the second guitarist or whoever, it's that they *care* enough about the band to know the name and details and history of someone that isn't just the singer or frontperson?

"Do you need to know anything about the musician, in order to *fully* appreciate the music?" is also a super interesting question that we explored a bit on the Image Bands thread, but is also completely legit here.

(Depends what you mean by "fully" doesn't it?)

I dunno, there's this weird thing in, like, Dude Canon, or Proper Rock Appreciation, where you're supposed to care ~only about the music~ and to care about the human beings that made it, at all, is somehow seen as "celebrity culture" and therefore BAD

I don't see this at all! If anything, boomers are obsessed with hagiography.

One of my most recent experiences with super-fandom is with Warpaint. Fell in love with them musically from pretty much the first note that I heard and have had few reservations in that regard since. Have paged through several tumblrs fan pages dedicated to them from start to finish. Know a lot of their gear. Can largely recognize what each band member is contributing to each song but don't have any strong preferences, because to me it's such a great blend (maybe I'm a little torn between Jenny and Teresa, but I wouldn't say I had a substantial preference). OTOH, whenever I do watch an interview with them on youtube, the only thing that stands out for me is how horrible they are at doing interviews. I think Stella Mozgawa is probably the best among them at handling the press, but I'm not like, itching for the latest Stella interview for more insights into their lives and music or anything.

I don't see this at all! If anything, boomers are obsessed with hagiography.

I'm not really thinking of Boomers here, I'm thinking of, like 90s era grunge kids anti rock star attitudes I guess, TBH, probably reacting against the Boomers' hagiographical obsessions.

i do this to some extent, but usually it's because either a) because I'm a drummer, and sometimes the drummer holds a big part of a band's appeal to me, but they're almost always the least famous/discussed/visible member of the band or b) i like bands with multiple singers and/or songwriters and often have a 'root for the underdog' impulse if there's one acknowledged frontman but other members also often sing and/or write great songs.

Mystery can be attractive too, Branwell. Some of my obsession with New Order in the early nineties stemmed from not knowing anything except the players' names, and the band liked it that way.

Yeah, it's funny how, for many, many years, I automatically always *loved* the bassist of any given band. Because I was for many years, a bassist and no one ever gives the bassist any credit. (And weirdly, how, when I switched to playing guitar, guitarists suddenly became this focus point of fascination! Especially ones with canoe-sized pedalboards!)

x-post

(and speaking as someone who created an entire *religion* around Bernard Sumner in the late 80s/early 90s, I'm not sure about that sense of mystery, but hey, I was clinically insane.)

the pre-Internet years made the cultivation of mystery easier. I mean, I had to read microfiche to learn anything about them.

Mystery can be attractive too, Branwell.

http://www.datingskillsreview.com/images/stories/jreviews/1342_MysterycreditStephenYiLin_1280304864.jpg

sorry.

i was about to type "this just isn't how i process music now but i'm pretty sure it's not always been like this". then it dawned on me i have become somewhat besotted with Pierre Akendengué over the last 12 months, to the point of trying to find as much biographical stuff as i can, mainly to try and get a handle on his beautiful music

normally tho i don't care - part of the interest with Pierre is the political and sociocultural background that's so prominent in his stuff

"Do you need to know anything about the musician, in order to *fully* appreciate the music?" is also a super interesting question that we explored a bit on the Image Bands thread, but is also completely legit here.

I've been an electronic music ever since I was a kid, so my answer would definitely be know. Back in the 1990s, when I was a teen, with many of my favourite electronic artists, I didn't really know anything else about them than what was said on their album sleeves. (I didn't have regular access to internet until 1998, and foreign music mags were mostly too expensixe and/or not available for me, so those sources weren't an option for me.) And since anonymity is a thing in electronic music, it was quite common that I didn't know what some of my favourite artists looked like, or even what their real names were. (Album credits typically had just something like "written and produced by Cosmic Baby", with no real names anywhere.) But that didn't bother me, the music and the album sleeves told enough of the producer's personality, I didn't feel like I was missing out on something. In fact, in the cases where I did see an image of some producer in a magazine or something, I was often a bit disappointed, because typically he turned out be some chubby, balding German dude, and not an astral dolphin churning out beats IN SPACE.

"I've been an electronic music fan"

"so my answer would definitely be no"

Gah, I can't write!

Relevant to thread subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxxkHmjTzGI

(Moldy Peaches - D.2. Boyfriend)

then it dawned on me i have become somewhat besotted with Pierre Akendengué over the last 12 months, to the point of trying to find as much biographical stuff as i can, mainly to try and get a handle on his beautiful music

― I never did nothing to no curry (Noodle Vague), Monday, March 3, 2014 1:38 PM

normally tho i don't care - part of the interest with Pierre is the political and sociocultural background that's so prominent in his stuff

― I never did nothing to no curry (Noodle Vague), Monday, March 3, 2014 1:39 PM

There's so much in this that I could unpack here, but you know all the kinds of things I'm going to say.

ach i know, i was more just noticing that this interest was unusual to my general MO nowadays. i definitely had my fanboy phase when i was younger

and more to the point i think that particular artist is evocative of a world i know bugger all about, where i'm less curious about artists whose world i lazily assume familiarity with

I dunno, there's this weird thing in, like, Dude Canon, or Proper Rock Appreciation, where you're supposed to care ~only about the music~ and to care about the human beings that made it, at all, is somehow seen as "celebrity culture" and therefore BAD.

It's interesting though, at what point does it turn from "celebrity culture" to "trying to understand what the artist had to say". Like, recently I've read a lot on classical music, and even the most academic texts often had parts like, "this piece reflects the torment in Beethoven's life when the composition was written", or "Bach wrote this piece in August 1712, when his 5th child had just died, so you can hear the sadness in them music". Does it help if the artist has already been dead for long, is the hagiography more acceptable then?

I dunno, I think it's more the "importance" assigned the artist. Like, it's OK to document Beethoven or Dylan, but just ~meaningless celebrity culture~ if you document Girls Aloud or Kanye West?

Voted "I always have a favourite member, it is half the fun of being a fan of a group" but I'm going to read this thread after the poll closes as I am writing an article about this very thing (well...sorta) and don't wanna accidentally crib anything

Tuomas, what texts are you reading? There is certainly no consensus on the importance of biography in classical music scholarship.

haha, I am writing a LOLnovel about this very thing at the moment, so basically all of these threads ("Tell me about image bands!" and "do you have a favourite member" and "lyrics, what do they mean to yoooouuuuu...?") are p much "DO MY RESEARCH FOR ME, ILX!

Like, there's no fucking way I would ever say something like this in a class:

"Bach wrote this piece in August 1712, when his 5th child had just died, so you can hear the sadness in them music"

I dunno, I think it's more the "importance" assigned the artist. Like, it's OK to document Beethoven or Dylan, but just ~meaningless celebrity culture~ if you document Girls Aloud or Kanye West?

i imagined an exception, and am now lost in a depressing parallel universe where Dave Eggers has co-written the authorised auto/biography of Kanye West and it is a Major Cultural Event.

this question is really about the difference between what individuals get from the same art, and how wide those differences can be. and because some kinds of fandom can feel very personal, two different fans of the same group can come to metaphorical blows about liking somebody "the right way" and maybe choosing individual members of a group is a concretized example of this difference. Lennon/McCartney have become very Shem/Shaun archetypes in this way, for example.

and the broader questions of identification or lack of interest in such is part of this too. it's interesting how Tuomas for example relates that identification to genre because it speaks to your way of apprehending different genres i think.

Oh! An Erne, not a Eme. I am dumb and cannot read.

*stuffs fist in mouth to stop making an Erne-ard Sumner joke*

(My favourite seabird is, in point of fact, a Puffin. This lead to about a billion tumblr posts about creepy weird shit from Puffin Annuals when we were all children.)

I voted 'some other option' but it's basically a combination of the second and third ones - sometimes there's a member whose songs/contributions to the overall sound are my favourite; sometimes there's someone I identify with or want to root for (could be an underdog type or the person who seems most affable or charismatic or yeah just the bass player). Sometimes I don't have a clear favourite though, I definitely don't have a favourite member of Steely Dan for example, Don and Walt are totally a double-act.

I really never thought much about this before but yes, I always, always have a favorite member of a band. For me, it's almost a reflex, maybe because I first became obsessive about rock music when I was 7 years old and it was the British Invasion and that's what you did.

And how's life otm about Jack Casady.

I tend to always have a favorite member of a band, if I really am a fan - otherwise, it's just a gradation of most to least famous in the band, from the lead singer/songwriter on down. For some reason (female attraction to deep, low sounds? not sure) when in doubt I go for the bass player, if I care enough to start figuring out who is my favorite. Exceptions go to The Smiths (Marr), Pavement (Malkmus), Blur (Graham) - which is to say, the guitarists can trump the bassists, at times. Certainly that's the case for me and Sloan (Patrick) and Lush (Emma) but not U2 (Larry), Broken Social Scene (Brendan) or New Pornographers (A.C. Newman - I do have a weakness for 'the guy/gal who writes all the songs' types, IF I like the songs). I love Stereolab but see them a true collective and just love them as that.

I think if I played an instrument or was learning to play one these would be different, but by how much I don't know. Also, with some bands there are more mysterious (shy? modest?) people in them and because I can identify with that shyness I tend to like them a lot, no matter what they do...

What a lovely post! Thank you for sharing that! (Chicks doooo dig bass. It's a thing, yeah.) :)

(I can't pretend I'm not a fan of a band once I realise I do actually have a favourite member, this really is a thing, too.)

"why don't people have a favourite member of Sonic Youth"

I'd say among Sonic Youth fans, there are definitely a section that prefers Lee's tunes. There are others that got opinions on 'Genetic' and why the heck wasn't that only on the album, it should have been the single.

Either way, Eric's Trip did pick sides in this contest.

Thanks! I agree, it is pretty much impossible for me to be neutral about a band if I have a favorite member; with some bands though, no matter how much I try I always see them as units, complementing each other, like The Beatles or The Who...

Ah, those low sounds of the bass...:-)

I ws at a Sonic Youth concert w a gay female friend once and she semidrunkenly yelled "I LOVE YOU LEE!", and tbh not just for that I'm p sure Lee is most SY fans' fav by miles

He heard and grinned embarrassedly btw

Haha that's actually really cute.

Yeah, ACG, sometimes it's the "nucleus" of the band that's the favourite, or sometimes I have more than one favourite, but the whole thing of knowing enough about each band member that the possibility of favouriting is there is the sign that I might be smitten, haha.

I liked Johnny Marr of the Smiths, because of some musical instrument piece that was on Radio 1, where they had a Sitar-Guitar and J wanted a go, and unselfconsciously played a bit of "This Charming Man" because *he* wanted to hear what it would sound like on that. (this was the current single)

Of course, later on Johnny became the "man" for all those lads who liked the Smiths, but were too afraid to appear to like Morrissey too much..

I liked Glen Mat of the Pis, because he seemed to get the rough end of the stick for not seeming to be rough or 'weird' enough, even though he provided the "base" that they lost when he went.

I guess those two are examples of the "nucleus" you were saying about.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I am going to see a band where I have two "favourite members". And they are on opposite sides of the stage. And I am not going to know where to stand or where to look and this is going to be so difficult!

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Well. Very 'srs fans, srs bznz" answers here.

Pfft don't believe that

Don't be silly, people on ILX aren't saying what they appear to be saying, they are saying ... ???*

*whatever we ~want to believe~ they are saying?

I've just never met anyone who had a fav bandmember for such a dull reason

Shoes and haircuts, man. It's all about shoes and haircuts. Oh, and pedalboards. Definitely pedalboards.

People lie in market research, and they don't understand their own motivations. So there's always that.

i think not being in touch with our own motivations is v much a thing but also "we are what we think we are" is also a thing so in the end you're left with what people think about what they think

i mean, the winning answer here comes across pretty stiff to me so i find it hard to imagine people adopting it as a pose but the mysteries of self-image are pretty much a shut book that's been left in a swamp for a month to me

"fandom" and "cultural appreciation wot wot" are separable concepts tho obv

In "market research" it's just as likely that the options were poorly phrased or do not express adequate answers, than that people like about their own motivations.

Are "cultural appreciation" and "fandom" even compatible? Because "cultural appreciation" requires a certain distance, a stepping back, looking on a thing from outside. While "fandom" requires a more immersive, emotional "I am part of this and I allow it to be part of me" experience which allows no distance.

People on ILM tend to be cultural critics, rather than fans. Which often saddens me.

i guess cult crit has its place when not trying to feign objectivity or canon-forming or whatever

some of fandom's lairier enthusiasms feel alien or embarrassing to me - weird choice of feelings, embarrassment presupposes a personal investment that's the opposite of alienation - i guess it's the embarrassment of reflecting on my younger self vs the alienation of never experiencing certain kinds of feeling - but on the whole i wd rather yay and boo than prove by science that my taste is immaculate

I think what I love most about ~fandom~ is the sense of overcoming embarrassment or abandoning any sense of shame or "I should not be feeling these things".

A big part of loving fandom, for me, is that sense that I don't have to be beholden to other people's ideas of what is embarrassing or shameful. (That said, I do still try to keep talking about That Band to a minimum on ILX, not out of embarrassment or shame, but... well, the sense that I will be smacked down and shunned even more if I actually expressed more than about a tenth of my enthusiasm. But I guess guilt and shame are powerful tools for making pleasurable things even more pleasurable sometimes?)

Well, imagine an Oasis fan: they might like Liam best for "attracted" reason, or "identify" reason. Alternatively, they might appreciate his singing voice, but.

Also BB it's incredibly boring, yr more interersting on threads like theseother threads in general that could use more female input (to me, anyway, do what you like)

I guess guilt and shame are powerful tools for making pleasurable things even more pleasurable sometimes?

i think this often overlooked

from my own experience in the last couple of years i have noticed an odd attracted/repelled energy when i contemplate or engage with things that code "youth-oriented" - like resurrecting a great reservoir of emotion that i thought was worn out (or safely compartmentalized away?) and thinking "this doesn't belong to me anymore" but at the same time "adolescence is the greatest rush" - i can't quite map how that fits here but for me it definitely does

I voted for the musicianship option but I think 'feeling a connection, maaaan' is there as well, but it's a bit nebulous and undefinable in how that happens for me.

― emil.y, Monday, March 3, 2014 10:51 PM (2 weeks ago)

Yeah, I'm not sure - the winning option sounds kind of boring, but... it isn't necessarily so. Appreciating someone's songwriting isn't just "I think this person is a very important and technically gifted songwriter", it's "these songs speak to me, resonate with me" or even "they're the reason why I like this at all". And appreciating someone's musicianship isn't just "I admire their technical prowess on their instrument", it's "these sounds that they make, make me ~feel~ something" or even "I <3 SYNTHS THEY PLAY SYNTHS <3 <3 <3".

But I'm possibly not the best person to make a defence, as I don't have proper favourite members all that often, I'm more a group interplay person.

Cool post,OK not so boring a choice at all necessarily

I get sick of feeling like the "token girl" (especially when I wrestle with gender constantly) I get sick of feeling like I have to either represent "a female viewpoint" (when I don't feel that female to start with) but I also get sick of feeling like I have to *defend* approaching music in a certain way (a "fangirl" way). It's complicated.

Like, obviously this is bunch of stuff dragged up by that whole argument about "my husband's dumb record collection" but it's also stuff that simmers in my head all the time. Like, I fucking hate going onto a thread like "Here's Branwell With The Fangirl Perspective" but at the same time, what I *really* hate even more is a bunch of clueless dudes who know nothing about the lived experiences of women going on a thread and talking bollocks in the name of "feminism".

I hate *worrying* that I'm gonna get a slap-down if I talk about Vampire Weekend's haircuts or Interpol's eyelashes. I hate the feeling that I'm going to get accused (either by dudes or by someone like Maura) that I'm "reinforcing female stereotypes" if I *DO* want to talk about Interpol's eyelashes. I feel like I have to whip out my totemic record-collection-cock or knowledge of guitar pedals to justify talking about a band as a collection of ~influences~ (am I crazy that I'm hearing Philip Glass in the repetitive piano riffs on this record?) but at the same time I feel like I am being dishonest if I don't talk about what a record I love does to my heart-region (or my genital-region) when the whole point of rock and pop and music is to *trigger* feels in the heart or genitals or hips. It's really complicated, and layered.

x-post to albvivertine and the below is x-post to NV

And yeah, the guilt and shame of engaging with youth-oriented stuff as an Old is different part of what I'm talking about but sure, it fits, I guess.

It is complicated. Most of us have a variety of identities and affiliations that will intersect and/or conflict with other posters, thread topics in different ways.

Re: the record collector husband discussion -- i was ambivalent about the whole thing -- do I respond as a woman who is often stereotyped as "could not possibly be interested in this nerdy dude stuff" or do I respond as a member of the community of people who are into that music that is often assumed to be for "dudes only"?

Yeah, it's like being forced to take sides between two conflicting parts of your own self, which is no fun at all. Which is much harder than being forced to take sides between your own self and others' preconceptions of what that self should be.

One of the reasons why I keep posting here is that I feel like I can express that ambivalence, that I'm not forced to pick one aspect of myself and stick with that for perpetuity

otm

Except in polls

I'm glad you feel like you have that freedom. I don't. Or, rather, I can say that I feel an ambivalence, but there are a ton of aspects of myself that I can't ... oh, I have tried to express this six different ways now and can't even find the words that someone won't object to. I give up.

Oh, never mind. I should just play the "hide behind irony so I never have to worry about anything" game all the time, too.

oh I have felt at times that I don't have that freedom, definitely during the hazing period, but then I step back, re-evaluate, and realize that this is just a message board and I really don't give a fuck at this point

And I am definitely NOT saying what works for me should work for you

No, it's just... I guess I'm feeling a bit down and projecting. And it's very easy for me to forget, when I'm feeling sad and a bit insecure, that ILX is the same old bunch of fools it ever was.

yeah but Ezra Koenig.

Yeah but dumb shit like this:

On The Importance of Having A "Favourite Member" of A Group

― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:10 PM

like what could possibly be the "importance" of that???

― james franco tur(oll)ing test (Hurting 2), Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM

SORRY I'M DOING MESSAGEBOARDS WRONG ON A BOARD WITH 5000 POSTS ABOUT A PITCHFORK REVIEW YOU TEDIOUS LITTLE WANKSTAINS.

But yeah, but Daniel Kessler and his cowlick. OK.

Then I go back and search for some of *that* person's ~classic thread titles of yore~ and it's like... uh-huh. Your opinion is noted and discarded.

have a fucking cookie.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/2390b0dccc066918aee2b301082c49fd/tumblr_n2eip8aSly1qmmuqeo1_500.jpg