[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by ni'k

seriously name me some good thurston noise releases because i can't think of ONE.

Here we come to taste again though. I like Flipped Out Bride a lot. Other people don't and I can't really offer an intellectual argument to convince them why they should.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Glice

I'm really enjoying your posts of late ni'k. I think there's a certain irony to people saying they don't like music journalism on a message board which has as its central nexus discussion about music.

I think it's a very conservative, antiquated aesthetics that wants to see music as a rarefied craft hermetically sealed off from external influences; often, there's so little going on in rock music that it's impossible to talk about anything but external influences. Writing like the above, while not entirely too my taste, definitely contributes more to our understanding (even if entirely negatively) than a vapid assertion of personal affection like 'oh, I just love it because it's good'. That's what 9-year-olds do.

I don't think it's at all conservative or antiquated when recognizing that qualia is externally influenced in the sense that who we are is externally influenced. It's beyond personal affection when someone says "Oh, I just love it because it moves me." Of course, then once qualia moves from an impression to an expression, it becomes an external influence in itself that is involved in the external influences that originally spawned it. However, the locus of change remains in the individual by the virtue of who that individual is in both intellect and spirit. This is the commonality I see between the artist and the audience.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by ni'k

From Howard Slater's mute music column http://www.metamute.org/node/12853

Tellingly Inarticulate (1)

When Mark E. Smith semi-sang ‘Let's get this thing together, let's get this thing together... and make it... bad' and when Sun Ra spoke of there being no mistakes, that ‘if someone's playing off key... the rest of us will do the same' we're not only in the terrain of an affinity dynamic that permits the impermissible and defies expectation whilst creating collective bonds, we are in the presence of what poet Nathaniel Mackey called ‘telling inarticulacy'. There have been many terms for this: dirty timbre, dirt music, freak playing, skiffle, punk, messthetics, noise etc. So when Mackay speaks of the way that some jazz playing conveys a sense of ‘apprehension and self-conscious duress by way of dislocated phrasings in which virtuosity mimes its opposite' we are in an area where music assumes an acutely political mantle. Militating against expected industry standards of production (the Fall's Dragnet as well as the Slits' Y album spring to mind) as well as against an alleged musical coherence that befits those automated by a common sense consciousness, this approach to non-virtuosity and ‘making it bad' is a direct affront to notions of specialisation and commodification that not only restrict our confidence to participate but dull our senses. The self-same creates a lull and a dulling of the senses that can be awoken by the sudden shocks of an off-note or a staggered, stuttering rhythm. There's something enchanting about Sun Ra's percussive tracks on Atlantis that sound, to too trained ears, like a bunch of kids randomly banging stuff in a room. Or, the way King Oliver, a lot less smooth than Louis Armstrong, suddenly seems to have stuffed some broken glass down his trumpet. Such a reference to the beginnings of jazz is not without relevance as ‘telling inarticulacy' is there at the root of it all: sandpaper used on a snare drum before brushes were invented, the intrusion of the saxophone into the New Orleans combos as if it were an alien instrument. This inarticulacy not only seems to respond both to the ‘non tempered psyche' and to an emotional polyphony by means of its putting strict meaning into abeyance and addressing the affective, but it also seems to place us in the presence of a coming-to-articulation; something that could be prior to commodification. This latter, because it is a result of an ‘affinity dynamics' that legitimates it, carries a sense of meaning as being made in the collective moment. So, ‘telling inarticulacy' is a constant reminder that our creative powers need not be alienated by some debilitating version of virtuosity and, in that there is always a guaranteed audience for telling inarticulacy in the fellow musicians, that these creative powers have a constitutive force that's based in shared precarity...
__________________________________________________ _________

i think this makes it clear why the fall where inexplicably namedropped as an influence by so many shitty 00's indie bands. their very "inarticulacy" made themdrop completly off the radar for years, it must have seemed completly outdated, like the very thing that modern bands had surpassed with the technological and stylistic "innovations" that are mistaken for such because they are so widely spread over the present as to give it a character that can only really be noticed once it's gone. like how people growing up in the 90's fetished the type of now dated filmstock used in the 70's and 80's, how the signs of the present become the signifiers of the past. what is so false about the lo fi stuff of the 00's is that the worst of it (pens) simply tries to recreate the conditions of the past as a reaction against the uncertainties of the future, while the best stuff, like zola jesus, tries to create new palates out of the sound of datedness. if you listen to what the fall are doing now, in a way the stuff off country on the click and imperial wax solvent and whats surfaced from our future -your clutter sounds like they are only catching up with the alterna rock crunch sound of the 90's. i always thought what sounded "off" in the fall was the result of the intensly individual and facistic tendencies of m.e.s. it wasn't contrived, it was in a way completly natural because the fall were never feeding off their influences, (until their latter days), they always believed what ever they did was better than their influences because of the very fact that they did it. and by they i mean m.e.s. of course. it was this kind of arrogance and narcissism that sheds light on m.e.s.'s mysticism and the appeal of the fall, because it is the appeal of an individualism that will always react to any attempts to collaborate with it and never truly reveal its foundations or stance because it's very stance is ruled by the law that whatever is happening is centred around it and is malleable enough to be shaped by it. this explains why m.e.s. says things like "i had horrible dreams before 9/11". we know he's probably making it up, but he is always right because his very individualism and refusal to see the world as a reflection of himself but rather reflect the world back onto his self creates a kind of isolated schizoid fiction. wherein manchester becomes a haunted kingdom with m.e.s. as the only lone siren who can truly see it. some posters here have said that they can't really understand the fall and they think it's because they are american. this is in a way quite accurate. when you see cut out characters from coronation street in the inner lp art of fall heads roll it means something that only the fall could make it mean. if any other band from manchester (where coronation street) is filmed did that it would just look stupid and cheesy. when people call the fall conservative or right wing they miss the point entirely. m.e.s. singing victoria and lording it in old victorian era costumes in the video isn't some sort of imperialist arrogance, it's not the same as an american band playing against the backdrop of the flag. in the fall's universe, reality is distorted in such a way that it looses its moralistic options, it becomes more like how we actually expieriance reality because there is only really our will and we don't know what's going to happen, but we'll go on into the unknown and decide what we did was correct because we did it. it's a kind of nihilism that comforts us. i am trying to explain why the fall seem to always mean something of the utmost importance despite having little effect on anything. it's like when you're drunk and getting home and eating chips and doing stupid shit seems so filled with importance and feel so much more consequential. reality opens up to meanings of indivdual interpretation that allows you to twist and project it into terrifying or wonderful meanings.

What?

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Glice

I'm really enjoying your posts of late ni'k. I think there's a certain irony to people saying they don't like music journalism on a message board which has as its central nexus discussion about music.

I think it's a very conservative, antiquated aesthetics that wants to see music as a rarefied craft hermetically sealed off from external influences; often, there's so little going on in rock music that it's impossible to talk about anything but external influences. Writing like the above, while not entirely too my taste, definitely contributes more to our understanding (even if entirely negatively) than a vapid assertion of personal affection like 'oh, I just love it because it's good'. That's what 9-year-olds do.

Who said they don't like music journalism? I must have missed that. I agree with the last couple sentences of your second paragraph, but sometimes I find 9 year olds more refreshing than people who take their personal tastes decided on a similar basis and justify them with pages of psuedo-post graduate justifications.

Journalism tells, recommends, uncovers, connects the dots. Critique, which is something entirely different, is not valueless either. But there is good and bad critique as well.

I love both Sonic Youth and the Fall. I've had more bad experiences with the Fall, including the one time I saw them live, but that seems to be the risk taking nature of what Mr. Smith is all about so I can't complain. SY seem to take their biggest risks in the SYRs and solo releases (which is why Thurston's noise albums are going to be hit and miss). As for comparisons between the two, both groups seem to have thought that was some combination of annoying and amusing back in '84-'86 and individually addressed it rather well at the time. Makes as much sense to me today as comparing the Sex Pistols and Ramones does.

[pbradley]

I've criticized music journalism before, particularly in attempting to present grand narratives of quality.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by Glice

I'm really enjoying your posts of late ni'k. I think there's a certain irony to people saying they don't like music journalism on a message board which has as its central nexus discussion about music.

I think it's a very conservative, antiquated aesthetics that wants to see music as a rarefied craft hermetically sealed off from external influences; often, there's so little going on in rock music that it's impossible to talk about anything but external influences. Writing like the above, while not entirely too my taste, definitely contributes more to our understanding (even if entirely negatively) than a vapid assertion of personal affection like 'oh, I just love it because it's good'. That's what 9-year-olds do.

Musical appreciation is sort of childish and primal. Of course there's reasons beyond "it's good" for liking music. It has to do with past histories and such. The heavy interpretations of the Fall have no bearing on my appreciation of them. I like "Industrial Estate" because of that blend of that manic guitar playing with those keyboard notes. I think the keyboard notes are what sells it to me.

I'm not sure why I like that, possibly because it reminds me of the crazy music I made up in my head when I was a toddler that I only very vaguely remember. Maybe it speaks to my more primitive instincts. I'm not 100% sure.

Who MES is, MES's England, etc. have affected how the music sounds, but it doesn't really have an effect on me liking it.

Maybe this is just me, but the music I liked when I was a child, I still like. And music I like now that I didn't know, I think I would have liked as a child.

This doesn't apply to every art form though. Though I like much of the television and film and literature that I liked as a child, there's a point of divergence. I don't like Captain Planet or Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers or Berenstein Bears anymore. And I don't think I would have liked Annie Hall or Dostoyevsky when I was young. At the same time though, I think I could have found things to appreciate in them as a child.

My taste in paintings, sculpture, and architecture has remain largely unchanged through my life, much like music.

But in most forms of art, there are two sides. The best way to put this is that when I was a kid there was a lot of comedy I liked: Kids in the Hall, Spaceballs, etc. but I didn't get the jokes. I guess I could say that about music, literature, film, painting, television, etc.

[Dead-Air]

I guess it's the "and punk" part that is particularly ridiculous. Punk may have meant something when Mark E. Smith and Thurston Moore were using their allowances to buy 7"s but today could you pick a more subjective and ultimately irrelevant term? Who's more punk Christ on Parade or the Subverts? Bikini Kill or Television? Pussy Galore or Unrest? Sonic Youth and The Fall are both undoubtedly more punk than Lynyrd Skynyrd and less than Cr@ss, and who could possibly care? Do the guitars ring like bells in your ears? Does that get you off? Good, you are like me (or "yr." like me if you absolutely have to prefer).

[DeadDiscoDildo]

Punk is fed.

To retards.

[PAULYBEE2656]

but you can see the blatant bias in this post because some of my criticisms of sy can equally be levelled at the fall. and there's a lot more i havent said about the fall that shows them up as well. it's just that i still care about the fall's music because it can still have an affect on me. whereas sy are just about keeping up with the latest so called art trends....



iwas with the posting until i read that last bit.... so a band are now demonized for doing what they want? keeping up with latest art trends..if thats true then sonic youth would all have beards, wear sandals and use acoustic guitars and sing about shit like religion and collaborate with iron and wine, will oldham and fleet fucking foxes..... cant agree... its all a bit "too much" for me... as for the bits on the fall, yeah ok, but you have to rememeber that the fall are more of an institustion than a long running band.....anyway..... over intellectualising the fall is kinda missing the point isnt it? its like writing a book called the wisdom of john lydon.

very very well written tho! thanks for posting it!

[infinitemusic]

Originally Posted by ni'k

taste can obscure substance but it also can re-energise substance with interpretations that would not become available otherwise. i was talking about dead airs comment about how music sounds and i took this to mean a superficial vantage point where the first impression of music is negative because it is not familiar to the usual style the listener is familiar with. i don't think taste is the base substance of music. i got into sy because of stupid ideas that their particular sound must be so great and mean so much more because i was judging it in contrast with the mainstream. to me then it was as if sy where choosing to sound like this in opposition to the very things i wanted them to be in opposition to.

Well that was your mistake in the first place. I found your post interesting and insightful in some ways, but you came to your conclusions based on the fact that you appreciated Sonic Youth for entirely shallow reasons. I like Sonic Youth because they make good music (or at the very least made good music), not because they choose to make the music the way they do because they have some political stance or are anti-mainstream. I think we all know by now that Sonic Youth are not anti-mainstream and haven't been for a very, very long time- if ever. But does it really matter? Music is just music, when it all comes down to it. As important as music is to my life, I don't listen to it in order to learn about politics or society or anything really. And yet it's taught me a little about about all of those things.

[ni'k]

music is just music!

of course! why didnt i think of that!
its like x=x not y.

its all so clear now.

thank you .

thank you so much.

thank you.

[Glice]

I vote we give infinitemusic the insightful post award. That really cleared an awful lot up for me too.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

too bad there's not an entry for "Clueless interpretation" to link as well.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

You're making fun of infinite music and not me right?

I'm pretty sure I'm referencing New Criticism in a way that is valid to this thread.

I don't 100% agree with it. I think that there is importance in external and contextual evidence, but that it's not paramount.

[breligion]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

This seems to hit the nail on the head. For those who didn't bother to click the link, it means fallacy concerning intention, not fallacy made purposefully.

Originally Posted by ni'k

its all so clear now.

thank you .

thank you so much.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

You're making fun of infinite music and not me right?

I'm pretty sure I'm referencing New Criticism in a way that is valid to this thread.

I don't 100% agree with it. I think that there is importance in external and contextual evidence, but that it's not paramount.

I don't think I was "making fun" per se. Criticizing the critique on which the thread was started, yes.

[pbradley]

I thought about posting Ray Brassier's essay "Genre Is Obsolete" but thought again that that was going too far.

[Dead-Air]

there's really no way to be in this thread without "going to far".