We come as envoys of Marquee Moon
Ah, this is the Mark Sinker passage I was looking for but not finding last weekend when I wrote my little critique of Spin's "Top 100 Alternative Albums Of The 1960s." It was here at koganbot, four years ago, down in a comment thread, coming later in the overall discussion than I'd realized:
here's what i'm objecting to, cast as a fable: [band xyz] arrives in our purlieu, announcing that it comes as envoy of the emperor ["We are influenced by Television"]
the assumption seems to be that (i) the emperor's writ runs -- viz that you the listener respect and acknowledge his power; and (ii) that the emperor's imprimatur is discernible -- that the envoy can and does act in the emperor's name; not to mention (iii) that in so far as [band xyz] are not the emperor, they can nevertheless be taken to extend and deepen his power
how and why do envoys get their power? what is the cultural equivalent (if any?) of political power? what is it about [band xyz] that demands they cede authority to others, rather than seek to foster their own?
in all of these -- in cultural terms -- the key bit, where the interesting questions lie, can be cast as something like: "if power is here, how and why is it here? in what way is it passed on? in what way is difference not the opposite of 'being influenced'"
(this doesn't even begin to tackle examples where the envoy claims the imprimatur of rival emperors: "we are influenced by Television and Funkadelic")
Here's how on Saturday I rephrased in my memory, emphasizing Mark's "extend and deepen his power," which I called a feedback loop, missing Mark's idea of "emissary" but inserting his complaint that too many think that the phrase "influenced by" is sufficient in itself (so as Mark would say the story of actual modelling and power channeling and rebelling and refashioning goes unexamined):
The New Indie Rock Band proclaims, "We are influenced by the Velvet Underground," thereby calling down the spirit of the Lord, the God, the VU and asserting that this spirit now inhabits New Indie Band; and when enough new indie bands make this assertion, they serve to confirm that the Lord, the God, the VU is indeed the Lord, the God, the VU. So it's a feedback loop; and nothing more need be said, or can be said, this, an invocation of G-d, not being about analysis or understanding.
But actually, not only can something more be said, in my case it needs to be. That is, if someone asks me to list four influences, without giving me space to say more, I'm happy to list, e.g.:
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Richard Meltzer
Lester Bangs
And I'm glad to invoke their power, such as it is - though in my musicwrite world the first two invocations may come off as lame - Kogan as emissary of stodge - and the second two cloudy, despite Meltzer's and Bangs' deification. And my Stones, Dylan, Meltzer, and Bangs aren't the same as everyone else's, this having two aspects. The first is that the various things I drew from those four are quite different from what many other people drew, or the general impression that most people have of those guys. So I need to assert my Stones, Dylan, Meltzer, and Bangs in order to assert my claim to them. In the process I may well also undercut other people's claim, interpose my interpretation between them and their emperor, sever their lines, so to speak, in order to establish mine.
The second aspect is simply to do right by history. Performers usually come off as smarter, more complicated, and more coherent when viewed in relation to their times and their contemporaries than when viewed as a precursor to us, or to their own later work, or to their place in the canon. Also, I think it likely that if I get my predecessors right, what I draw from them will likely be stronger than if I'd distorted them to meet my needs of the moment - though whether or not this is the case in a particular instance, I owe it to myself and to the readers to seek the truth about the Stones and the rest.
Hearing the Velvet Underground as precursors to the Fall or the Jesus And Mary Chain (or, on a more obscure level, to the Pillowmakers or to Red Dark Sweet) is necessary history if you're writing about the Fall et al., but it's very bad history if you're writing about the Velvets. [This of course needs to be elaborated on in further posts.]
"what is it about [band xyz] that demands they cede authority to others, rather than seek to foster their own?"
Well, this isn't always true, that [band xyz] are ceding their authority to others. Stones and Beatles weren't citing Chuck Berry in order to invoke his authority but to give some of their authority back to him. Christopher's and/or Spin's calling all this '60s stuff "alternative" was more to shine attention on the '60s stuff than to add luster to later "alternative." As I said, there's a feedback loop ("list of later luminaries who validate the Velvets and in turn are validated by the Velvets"), but I'm assuming that putting the Peter Brötzmann Octet on a list with the Stooges and calling that list "alternative" is basically directing curious Spin readers who don't know about him to Brötzmann, with Stooges and "alternative" as enticement.
Even how we speak, what vocabulary we choose, what we choose to write about, invokes a heritage, and whatever social authority and social weakness come with it. And when we do cite our influences, there's no simple either/or between citing authority and fostering one's own. Authority is never entirely one's own. (I assume Mark would agree with my last three sentences.) The task is to be honest about the process, and not to smudge our truth and the truth of the past.
The rival emperors thing: I remember an Apollo Smile presskit circa 1991 citing Public Enemy and the Mamas And The Papas, which I took to be a declaration not merely of what she liked or aspired to or wanted to invoke but also of the right to choose and continually rechoose whatever ancestry she wanted.
P.S. I remember seeing Television that same year, I think (1978), and my mouth was gaping open the whole time. (Saw 'em in '74 as well; they seemed a lot more tentative.)
here's what i'm objecting to, cast as a fable: [band xyz] arrives in our purlieu, announcing that it comes as envoy of the emperor ["We are influenced by Television"]
the assumption seems to be that (i) the emperor's writ runs -- viz that you the listener respect and acknowledge his power; and (ii) that the emperor's imprimatur is discernible -- that the envoy can and does act in the emperor's name; not to mention (iii) that in so far as [band xyz] are not the emperor, they can nevertheless be taken to extend and deepen his power
how and why do envoys get their power? what is the cultural equivalent (if any?) of political power? what is it about [band xyz] that demands they cede authority to others, rather than seek to foster their own?
in all of these -- in cultural terms -- the key bit, where the interesting questions lie, can be cast as something like: "if power is here, how and why is it here? in what way is it passed on? in what way is difference not the opposite of 'being influenced'"
(this doesn't even begin to tackle examples where the envoy claims the imprimatur of rival emperors: "we are influenced by Television and Funkadelic")
Click to viewHere's how on Saturday I rephrased in my memory, emphasizing Mark's "extend and deepen his power," which I called a feedback loop, missing Mark's idea of "emissary" but inserting his complaint that too many think that the phrase "influenced by" is sufficient in itself (so as Mark would say the story of actual modelling and power channeling and rebelling and refashioning goes unexamined):
The New Indie Rock Band proclaims, "We are influenced by the Velvet Underground," thereby calling down the spirit of the Lord, the God, the VU and asserting that this spirit now inhabits New Indie Band; and when enough new indie bands make this assertion, they serve to confirm that the Lord, the God, the VU is indeed the Lord, the God, the VU. So it's a feedback loop; and nothing more need be said, or can be said, this, an invocation of G-d, not being about analysis or understanding.
But actually, not only can something more be said, in my case it needs to be. That is, if someone asks me to list four influences, without giving me space to say more, I'm happy to list, e.g.:
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Richard Meltzer
Lester Bangs
And I'm glad to invoke their power, such as it is - though in my musicwrite world the first two invocations may come off as lame - Kogan as emissary of stodge - and the second two cloudy, despite Meltzer's and Bangs' deification. And my Stones, Dylan, Meltzer, and Bangs aren't the same as everyone else's, this having two aspects. The first is that the various things I drew from those four are quite different from what many other people drew, or the general impression that most people have of those guys. So I need to assert my Stones, Dylan, Meltzer, and Bangs in order to assert my claim to them. In the process I may well also undercut other people's claim, interpose my interpretation between them and their emperor, sever their lines, so to speak, in order to establish mine.
The second aspect is simply to do right by history. Performers usually come off as smarter, more complicated, and more coherent when viewed in relation to their times and their contemporaries than when viewed as a precursor to us, or to their own later work, or to their place in the canon. Also, I think it likely that if I get my predecessors right, what I draw from them will likely be stronger than if I'd distorted them to meet my needs of the moment - though whether or not this is the case in a particular instance, I owe it to myself and to the readers to seek the truth about the Stones and the rest.
Hearing the Velvet Underground as precursors to the Fall or the Jesus And Mary Chain (or, on a more obscure level, to the Pillowmakers or to Red Dark Sweet) is necessary history if you're writing about the Fall et al., but it's very bad history if you're writing about the Velvets. [This of course needs to be elaborated on in further posts.]
"what is it about [band xyz] that demands they cede authority to others, rather than seek to foster their own?"
Well, this isn't always true, that [band xyz] are ceding their authority to others. Stones and Beatles weren't citing Chuck Berry in order to invoke his authority but to give some of their authority back to him. Christopher's and/or Spin's calling all this '60s stuff "alternative" was more to shine attention on the '60s stuff than to add luster to later "alternative." As I said, there's a feedback loop ("list of later luminaries who validate the Velvets and in turn are validated by the Velvets"), but I'm assuming that putting the Peter Brötzmann Octet on a list with the Stooges and calling that list "alternative" is basically directing curious Spin readers who don't know about him to Brötzmann, with Stooges and "alternative" as enticement.
Even how we speak, what vocabulary we choose, what we choose to write about, invokes a heritage, and whatever social authority and social weakness come with it. And when we do cite our influences, there's no simple either/or between citing authority and fostering one's own. Authority is never entirely one's own. (I assume Mark would agree with my last three sentences.) The task is to be honest about the process, and not to smudge our truth and the truth of the past.
The rival emperors thing: I remember an Apollo Smile presskit circa 1991 citing Public Enemy and the Mamas And The Papas, which I took to be a declaration not merely of what she liked or aspired to or wanted to invoke but also of the right to choose and continually rechoose whatever ancestry she wanted.
P.S. I remember seeing Television that same year, I think (1978), and my mouth was gaping open the whole time. (Saw 'em in '74 as well; they seemed a lot more tentative.)