I would be skeptical of the word "inevitably." I think some of my PBSification idea (or "idea") was to try to understand how importance tends to sabotage itself in the broader U.S. culture, but one reason it's something to figure out is that there are counterexamples and it's not obvious that importance would necessarily sabotage itself
( ... )
Maybe, and this could be the problem with my blog post about the canon concept, is that this applies more firmly to more contemporary music within the "rock"....genre? And not Dylan/Beatles/Stones? The cultural and contextual shifts since then are potentially significant.
The key gap I think, is...well. Dylan certainly wanted to address important issues. Did he want to be important? Was there a sense at the time as there is now of the (ostensible) immense power of music to affect society? Sam Cooke's A Change is Gonna Come or Dylan's agitpop is radically different in content, context, and intent from Do They Know It's Christmas?, We Are the World or um...these examples don't exactly correlate
( ... )
I just reread this, and I fail to see how this counteracts our thesis. Isn't your parallel with Berkeley meant to suggest that the true importance of Dylan (and Civil Rights) happened concurrent with their attempts to copy standard importance/civil rights discourse, but not due to them? Dylan's importance happened while he wasn't paying attention, in other words.
So he makes himself the issue. And he starts to develop a wildstyle of lyrics that don't come across as so mannered in their "poetry," what we'd call "finding his voice." So in effect he becomes more important than when he was copying standard importance, in that he's doing something no one else is.Whereas his attempts at importance are focused on political importance and civil rights agitation. Thus, what we would label the true importance of Dylan wasn't consciously being crafted as important. In the same way one of your recent posts somewhere (poptimists, perhaps?) suggested that the key to Ashlee's poetry is that it doesn't think of itself as such
( ... )
Well, the way I think of it is that Bob Dylan (or Frank Kogan or Alex Or The Lex Or Xander or whatever you call yourself) decides he wants to be important, he first latches onto the standard models of importance, becomes important along those standard lines but then, for whatever reason, he reaches their limits and, with his drive towards importance still in full effect, he develops his own models, that - his having the sole franchise on them for the time being - make him even more important
( ... )
The idea of a "post-Ciara era" makes me smile a lot.
James Joyce is the only one that comes to mind, and maybe some rappers, but there's a breed of narcissist artist who can keep a "great statement" pure by thinking it's the word of God.
But it seems true also, how bands peak and fade because success makes them self-conscious -- not the nervous self-conscious, but the kind where you overthink and work for an audience. I am a stickler for the idea that the best stuff wasn't made for an audience.
Got a rant saved on the other computer, tries to use Ratatouille to explain why genre music is less artistic than formless music. I actually did write it the same night I promised to.
I read "post-Ciara" properly the first time around and only caught the "sense that she should die" after your comment. Which is now really really funny in an uncomfortable way.
And why can't she be like punk or WWII? I mean, clearly I'm using her as a stand-in for the conglomeration of Lil Jon, crunk('n'b), and certain production trends that she incorporates but doesn't originate, but the idea still stands.
The other kind of post-[singer] era is certainly another interesting idea though. Note Aaliyah and how her death both opened up space for a variety of imitators and also broadened sonic influence of Timbaland and her template.
To be fair, singles aside, Ciara hasn't done enough mind-blowing stuff yet in my eyes to be worthy of a "post-" but the shoe fits, in this case.
Sidenote: in indie-ist news, I'm really enjoying the new Wolf Parade, which has kind of given me an entry point into Apologies to the Queen Mary which never quite clicked with me. It's more cohesive, less ragged (where I often prefer more ragged) but works
( ... )
Think that the lyrics to "You Can't Always Get What You Want" are "Heart Of Stone" reduced to platitudes and obfuscation, and the music is made relatively lame and unfocused by being stretched-out. And the whole thing has the gassy air of being an Important Statement that "Heart Of Stone" lacks. However, I could say that "Street Fighting Man" has an air of Importance as well, and other than that it has none of the faults of "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Wouldn't say it's as good as "Heart Of Stone" or "Under My Thumb" or "Back Street Girl" or "Complicated" or "Get Off Of My Cloud" or "Satisfaction" or "Jumping Jack Flash" or "She Said Yeah" or "The Last Time," but that's just because the riff and rhythm aren't as strong, not because it's going for importance. Of course, one thing that's going on is that the words to "Street Fighting Man" are deliberately undercutting the song's sound of world-important aggression
( ... )
Comments 31
Reply
The key gap I think, is...well. Dylan certainly wanted to address important issues. Did he want to be important? Was there a sense at the time as there is now of the (ostensible) immense power of music to affect society? Sam Cooke's A Change is Gonna Come or Dylan's agitpop is radically different in content, context, and intent from Do They Know It's Christmas?, We Are the World or um...these examples don't exactly correlate ( ... )
Reply
So he makes himself the issue. And he starts to develop a wildstyle of lyrics that don't come across as so mannered in their "poetry," what we'd call "finding his voice." So in effect he becomes more important than when he was copying standard importance, in that he's doing something no one else is.Whereas his attempts at importance are focused on political importance and civil rights agitation. Thus, what we would label the true importance of Dylan wasn't consciously being crafted as important. In the same way one of your recent posts somewhere (poptimists, perhaps?) suggested that the key to Ashlee's poetry is that it doesn't think of itself as such ( ... )
Reply
Reply
James Joyce is the only one that comes to mind, and maybe some rappers, but there's a breed of narcissist artist who can keep a "great statement" pure by thinking it's the word of God.
But it seems true also, how bands peak and fade because success makes them self-conscious -- not the nervous self-conscious, but the kind where you overthink and work for an audience. I am a stickler for the idea that the best stuff wasn't made for an audience.
Got a rant saved on the other computer, tries to use Ratatouille to explain why genre music is less artistic than formless music. I actually did write it the same night I promised to.
Reply
(It makes me smile in both an obnoxious way and a happy way.)
Reply
And why can't she be like punk or WWII? I mean, clearly I'm using her as a stand-in for the conglomeration of Lil Jon, crunk('n'b), and certain production trends that she incorporates but doesn't originate, but the idea still stands.
The other kind of post-[singer] era is certainly another interesting idea though. Note Aaliyah and how her death both opened up space for a variety of imitators and also broadened sonic influence of Timbaland and her template.
To be fair, singles aside, Ciara hasn't done enough mind-blowing stuff yet in my eyes to be worthy of a "post-" but the shoe fits, in this case.
Sidenote: in indie-ist news, I'm really enjoying the new Wolf Parade, which has kind of given me an entry point into Apologies to the Queen Mary which never quite clicked with me. It's more cohesive, less ragged (where I often prefer more ragged) but works ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment