mistaking principles for music?speakerstressAugust 10 2007, 19:19:59 UTC
"I thought the Animals’ and Stones’ social commitments sounded better."
Isn't this what your friend Nathan would say about Nirvana vs. Back Street Boys; or all alt-rock vs. teenpop? There is to the former a grit, mystery, rawness, fucked-upness, where the latter is all polished, vacuum sealed emotions. The latter comes from the mall, the former a Saturday market. The latter an afternoon speical, the former a late, late show. Nirvana's more unbridled, dark social commitments sound better to him, right?
This sound of social commitments stuff seems very contextual. I always remember being struck the first time I saw some macho latino guy in a wife-beater tank listening to some flaming horns and congas salsa, a sound I liked but knew where I came from was not what guys were supposed to like. Saw a Malcolm in the Middle rerun recently where liking Abba was a gay thing. To this day, Jess, who I don't want to make out as some music bigot (these associations are common), ribs me for the gayness of my affection for dance music. So are the social commitments of disco that I think sound so good?
Again, I like when you ask how society would benefit from ridding the world of Paris and pretty-teeny dance pop? Classic, Frank. For me the problem w/ people dismissing teenpop and dance music out of hand is that they allow their principles (however inchoate) to get in the way of musical pleasure, where such distinctions are unnecessary at best and at worst a little like this interminable aethetic hangover of 'social realism' and 'folk music' from the Stalin era.
Viva la revolution but not one w/out room for beauty and dancing and beauty and humor, of course! So, why? And this maybe gets to your "corruptible" idea. It's like their instincts are right-- i.e., there isn't enough beauty and dancing and humor in the world-- but somehow they turn this into actions and choices that seem to say, 'we want a world w/ less beauty and dancing and humor.' Maybe they think there are things more important than beauty, like injustice et al, but, again, back to your original question- how would society benefit from less beauty and dancing and humor, or how would that reduce injustice?
At the same time, psychologizing the question away-- they don't think they are worthy of beauty and dancing b/c the pretty girls/boys shunned them once or b/c their own dancing always felt to them more funny than sexy-- makes some sense but is still dissatisfying to me.
I don't remember it off-hand, but I'd probably have liked that delicate Monkee's ballad. I liked Pitney's "A Town Called Pity" or Lou Christie's "Lightening Strikes," from them days. I like Scritti Politti's "Boom Boom Bap" or "Road To No Regret." I like guys singing bathetic ballads in high-pitched voices. I think this affection for this kind of sound, and dancing sounds as well, were formed b/f I could make associations ab the social commitments of musical sounds.
Re: mistaking principles for music?koganbotAugust 10 2007, 20:13:59 UTC
Welcom back! Just wrote a long response and lost it when pressing the wrong button while trying to put the umlauts in Hüsker Dü. But anyway, I love both "Teen Spirit" and "Backstreet's Back," don't buy into either of their social commitments, I don't think, but buy into something: the screaming denial at the end of "Teen Spirit" which for the final 45 seconds is a raving lava flow of intensity. But "Backstreet's Back" is more rock 'n' roll, is basically Bell Biv Devoe and Boyz II Men revved-up through glammy Europop, has a big whomping sound but also those harmonies that go back through doo-wop to the black gospel quartets. Doesn't sound so antiseptic to me, actually, the beats and Nick's aching voice (seems as if he'd listened to Stevie B and the Cover Girls back in the '80s). But I can understand Nathan's reaction, for sure, he being a teenager at the time of "Teen Spirit." Whereas I was nearing 40 and had been in no wave and postpunk bands and had heard scads and scads of Hüsker Dü and Flipper and Black Flag not to mention Guns 'N' Fuckin' Roses hurrah! and was good and alienated from alienation. "Teen Spirit" has its force (in fact, in my heart I give it a tiny edge over "Backstreet's Back," though not necessarily over Corina's "Temptation" or Lisette Melendez's "A Day In My Life (Without You)," which came out the same year as "Teen Spirit"). And it isn't as if there's no dance in "Teen Spirit," but it's not as strong a dance as it could be. Seems to me that if you don't like the conditions of dancing and dating the solution isn't to turn off the dance but to find your way to a better dance. Which at least the Stones and Who et al. tried to do.
Isn't this what your friend Nathan would say about Nirvana vs. Back Street
Boys; or all alt-rock vs. teenpop? There is to the former a grit, mystery,
rawness, fucked-upness, where the latter is all polished, vacuum sealed
emotions. The latter comes from the mall, the former a Saturday market.
The latter an afternoon speical, the former a late, late show. Nirvana's more unbridled, dark social commitments sound better to him, right?
This sound of social commitments stuff seems very contextual. I always remember being struck the first time I saw some macho latino guy in a wife-beater tank listening to some flaming horns and congas salsa, a sound I liked but knew where I came from was not what guys were supposed to like. Saw a Malcolm in the Middle rerun recently where liking Abba was a gay thing. To this day, Jess, who I don't want to make out as some music bigot (these associations are common), ribs me for the gayness of my affection for dance music. So are the social commitments of disco that I think sound so good?
Again, I like when you ask how society would benefit from ridding the world
of Paris and pretty-teeny dance pop? Classic, Frank. For me the problem w/ people
dismissing teenpop and dance music out of hand is that they allow their principles (however inchoate) to get in the way of musical pleasure, where such distinctions are unnecessary at best and at worst a little like this interminable aethetic hangover of 'social realism' and 'folk music' from the Stalin era.
Viva la revolution but not one w/out room for beauty and dancing and beauty and humor, of course! So, why? And this maybe gets to your "corruptible" idea. It's like their instincts are right-- i.e., there isn't enough beauty and dancing and humor in the world-- but somehow they turn this into actions and choices that seem to say, 'we want a world w/ less beauty and dancing and humor.' Maybe they think there are things more important than beauty, like injustice et al, but, again, back to your original question- how would society benefit from less beauty and dancing and humor, or how would that reduce injustice?
At the same time, psychologizing the question away-- they don't think they are worthy of beauty and dancing b/c the pretty girls/boys shunned them once or b/c their own dancing always felt to them more funny than sexy-- makes some sense but is still dissatisfying to me.
I don't remember it off-hand, but I'd probably have liked that delicate
Monkee's ballad. I liked Pitney's "A Town Called Pity" or Lou Christie's
"Lightening Strikes," from them days. I like Scritti Politti's "Boom Boom Bap" or "Road To No Regret." I like guys singing bathetic ballads in high-pitched voices. I think this affection for this kind of sound, and dancing sounds as well, were formed b/f I could make associations ab the social commitments of musical sounds.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment