?

Log in

No account? Create an account
click opera
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sun, Nov. 8th, 2009 12:28 pm
Everything you know isn't a panda

63CommentReply


(Anonymous)
Sun, Nov. 8th, 2009 01:58 pm (UTC)

Why does "jettison the old, in with the new" sound like robotic statement to make?

Victorian moralism is no longer what the young need to fight, it is the tyranny of parents who have seen it all before, but never seem to leave them alone.

The way to avoid an Obama or Blair backlash is to not get sidetracked by representatives in the first place. Speak your own mind instead. Yes, you can.

The magazine timescale died with magazines. Decades are replaced by nows and eternities.


ReplyThread
st_ranger
st_ranger
Palimpsests of a Secret Whistler
Sun, Nov. 8th, 2009 09:43 pm (UTC)

Agreed. If we're going to jettison the old, why can't we start with the people?


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Sun, Nov. 8th, 2009 09:45 pm (UTC)

1957 sounded very different to 1967
1967 sounded very different to 1977
1977 sounded very different to 1987
1987 sounded very different to 1997

2007 sounded the same as 1997
Has digital created a Nietzschean eternal return.. of R&B and Britpop?


ReplyThread Parent
kineticfactory
kineticfactory
this is not your sawtooth wave
Tue, Nov. 10th, 2009 01:05 am (UTC)

I'm sure there were people in 1969 who said that 1967 sounded the same as 1957 (a statement followed by an implicit or explicit "and it's not even music but just noise", and perhaps "you kids get off my lawn!").

2007 sounded different from 1997; electro(clash) had come and gone and its commercial aftertaste was spreading through the mainstream, whereas an organic, faux-rustic folk sound was subtly permeating the underground, displacing the post-punk/new-wave angularity (which was only fit for the most cynically mass-manufactured alternative bands). Old definitions of "lo-fi" (based on (digital emulations of) old analogue kit) were being replaced by new ones (based on messing shit up natively on a laptop). Old theses and antitheses were synthesising in a Hegelian fashion: electronica and Afrobeat, grime and indie-rock, punk and Italo-disco and Prince-style glam-sleaze. Indie-pop was being increasingly defined by a new generation of kids to whom "pop" meant not the Beatles or Beach Boys but Michael Jackson and Madonna (leavened by the encyclopaedic knowledge of krautrock, shoegaze and yé-yé that the Wikipedia generation has). Even the sounds from the streets were changing: 2007 R&B sounds different from 1997 R&B (more Autotune, for one), and the old funk-sampling hip-hop sound is being displaced by the paranoid urban edge of grime and dubstep. And so on.


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Tue, Nov. 10th, 2009 10:48 pm (UTC)

I think there's been a constant re-focussing of elements which existed already. UK rock is standing still - are the Arctic Monkeys a quantum leap from Supergrass, are the Cribs a world away from the Stereophonics?


ReplyThread Parent
kineticfactory
kineticfactory
this is not your sawtooth wave
Wed, Nov. 11th, 2009 12:24 am (UTC)

The lowest common denominator, the commercial mainstream (which includes what is commonly known as "indie" in the UK today) moves more slowly than the avant-garde, or its numerous after-echoes, because it is a moving average of them (much like a low-pass filter), cutting out the weirdness and collecting the more marketable elements in a streamlined, dumbed-down form. It also imposes a delay; it took a quarter of a century for the Gang Of Four to make it to the mainstream (minus the Marxism and situationism, all of which were replaced by a sexualised narcissism marketable to cocaine-using bourgeois bohemians), in the form of Franz Ferdinand.


ReplyThread Parent