BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Hip-pop 2: Misogyny, politics, the 'underground' and the bling bling

  
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)89

 
 
illmatic
11:02 / 27.06.06
It’s not necessarily Marxism per se, (though Bruno is killing off any desire I’ve ever had to read Marx) it’s the shoehorning it in where it simply doesn’t work or isn’t justified, (see the “Humatons” thread in The Temple for another example) - and in this case, working to simply justify the position of the critic as the one with a privileged understanding.

.. but yes, I’d definitely like to hear Jackie’s thoughts on this one.
 
 
Bruno
11:02 / 27.06.06
I can only hint, not point, it seems beyond words for me right now
Possibly meaning you can no longer construct a consistent argument?

Is it unreasonable to suggest that certain aspects of music cannot be expressed adequately by words?
Where am I not consistent?

I think it is tied intrinsically to social conditions, including the effects of ideology on the artist, listener and music industry
… and here we go again, Bruno attempts to shoehorn Marxism and false fucking consciousness into every category of analysis.

You really are a moron if you think the creation and appreciation of music is not linked to social conditions. Everything is interconnected, it's like the first fucking thing you learn in magic isn't it. Fucking hell. Shouldnt you be practicing disidentification exercises or something.
 
 
Bruno
11:08 / 27.06.06
though Bruno is killing off any desire I’ve ever had to read Marx

What a clever thing to say.

and in this case, working to simply justify the position of the critic as the one with a privileged understanding.

This claim is absurd since I have made clear that
"It is problematic for me to draw a divide between 'those who love and appreciate music' and 'those who consume it without respect or sensitivity' (i.e. what I previously called 'shitty taste').
The reality is much more dynamic.
Thinking introspectively, at times I have also consumed music without respect or sensitivity."

Sorry if I make you feel underprivileged Ray but it's not my fault.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:21 / 27.06.06
Easy, children.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is a mystical element in musical appreciation. I mean, one might substitute "intuitive" or "irreducibly personal", but the principle's the same. I can't feel exactly what Lester Bangs felt when listening to a particular song, or at least if I do I can't be sure that I do. On t'other hand, we can attempt to express what we are feeling and why to the best of our ability using imperfect cues - like words, gestures, vocalisations.

However, we're back on objectivity and subjectivity. If it's inmpossible to communicate why something is good with relation to other objects, it's a good sign, I think, that a subjective judgement is being made rather than an objective assessment.
 
 
illmatic
11:32 / 27.06.06
Where am I not consistent?

With statements above that subjective, unnameable and indescribable feelings be used in an objective way.

You really are a moron if you think the creation and appreciation of music is not linked to social conditions

Well, thank Goodness for that, I’m not a moron. Wow! Music is reflected and linked to that society that produces it, y’know what, that never would’ve occurred to me. Duh! Thank God for you and your GCSE in Marxism.

What is not immediately apparent, however, is how the Marxism you are trying to apply brings you any real insight here. So, how is this unnameable, subjective whatever-it-is – y’know, the rush that surges through you loins when you hear REAL MUSIC and think TRU THOUGHTS - linked to social conditions? Or can’t you talk about that either?

Also, you haven’t in any sense made it “clear” – your statements are some of the most muddled I’ve ever seen, and you’ve only made any sort of retraction when consistently challenged. And even here, the retraction is hedged around with all kinds of caveats (see also your comments about women’s “shitty taste”). All we have is an admission that your statements are “problematic”, and reality is more “dynamic” which is just a mealy mouthed crapping out of admitting that you’re wrong. As Haus said, “own your words, Dude”.
 
 
Bruno
12:29 / 27.06.06
Also, you haven’t in any sense made it “clear” – your statements are some of the most muddled I’ve ever seen, and you’ve only made any sort of retraction when consistently challenged. And even here, the retraction is hedged around with all kinds of caveats (see also your comments about women’s “shitty taste”). All we have is an admission that your statements are “problematic”, and reality is more “dynamic” which is just a mealy mouthed crapping out of admitting that you’re wrong. As Haus said, “own your words, Dude”.

Since I restarted the thread only Haus has engaged with my posts, and everytime has made me think and change/reformulate my position. This is not 'consistently challenged' but simple dialogue. And on the one hand you seem to be saying I should change my statements but on the other hand when I do so you still criticize me. I am willing to discuss and this is clear. You are primarily using name-calling tactics and have not really engaged with any arguments since the thread re-started.
You seem to be fixated around the word WRONG, like you wish Bruno would say "SORRY I AM WRONG", is that for pointscoring or some kind of satisfaction, I don’t understand.

Here I used 'it was not phrased well' 'fault' 'wrong' as ways of indicating mistakes:
"I accept that it was not phrased well and the fault was in my writing as well as in some readers. I think as a statement it's true for certain types of music for sure, but I was wrong to generalize about all music."

Here I used 'you are very right' and 'I foolishly equated' to indicate the same thing:
"But I see the point about the 'hardcore fan' you are making, you are very right.
What I meant to get across is the difference between appreciating and loving music (which I foolishly equated with being a hardcore fan) rather than just consuming it without much sensitivity or respect for it."

Here 'it was phrased quite badly' and 'i am unsatisfied [with both my previous positions] thanks in part to your criticism':
"I will agree that it was phrased quite badly.
Let's leave it at that, because anyway right now I am unsatisfied with both positions, thanks in part to your criticism of the implications of 'hardcore fan' (which I acknowledge)"

Here 'it is problematic'
"It is problematic for me to draw a divide between 'those who love and appreciate music' and 'those who consume it without respect or sensitivity' (i.e. what I previously called 'shitty taste')."

Here 'you are also correct [in his criticism]'
"You are also correct that it is possible that I simply 'just don't get' HOW to respect or be sensitive to a certain song or genre (your example with Randy Newman). Constant self-critique is important, listening to new sounds, changing."

I am sorry if you consider these phrases caveats, to me they express admission of mistake.

What is not immediately apparent, however, is how the Marxism you are trying to apply brings you any real insight here.
As far as I can see the only vaguely 'Marxist' argument I have used since the thread re-started was this:
I think it is tied intrinsically to social conditions, including the effects of ideology on the artist, listener and music industry
and this
"As for the question "who is the pimp?" Well, the entire culture industry, from the CEOs to the DJs and VJs to the producers to the A&Rs and the marketting people, the distributors, the exploitation involved comes from a huge range of people. And it is not really the conscious agency of one or another person which is to blame, but an institutionalized ideology which is not questioned by its agents. It's a way of thinking that has been internalized by many people (including of course many artists and listeners) and replicates itself in a vicious circle because the masses buy what is being sold, while the companies produce what will sell."
Shall we discuss it? Do you want to start by defending the music industry? Which by the way is a capitalist enterprise working according to capitalist logic. I must really be shoehorning Marxism into the discussion.

And I think the only threads I have brought Marxist analysis into are this one, Pop-Culture Magic, Marxism & Magic, & the sheeple,scum,humatons
all of which are marked by your chickening out of engaging with the ideas, in particular the last one.
If you don't have time or if you find it boring that is perfectly ok with me, but either do it or don't.

So, how is this unnameable, subjective whatever-it-is – y’know, the rush that surges through you loins when you hear REAL MUSIC and think TRU THOUGHTS - linked to social conditions?

Briefly, in the same way that
(a) any consumer choice (such as what music you buy or listen to) and
(b) any taste or value (such as what music you like or don't) and
(c) any social act (such as dancing) and
(d) any act of artistic creation (such as making songs)
are linked to social conditions. Big topic for discussion and I am quite tired.
 
 
illmatic
13:06 / 27.06.06
Bruno, I think I am perfectly entitled to object to you changing the meaning of your words as you go along. It was an attempt to do that which sparked off this latest bout. Perhaps you should think a little more about the assumptions you are loading your posts with and then we wouldn’t have to bother.

Re: The threads in The Temple, I left them because I got bored of trying to talk to with you, when you clearly didn’t/don’t understand the point I was trying to make. It appeared you’d rather talk about your unique and idiosyncratic reading of Marxism than actually talk about experience. Please revive them if you wish.

Briefly, in the same way that
(a) any consumer choice (such as what music you buy or listen to) and
(b) any taste or value (such as what music you like or don't) and
(c) any social act (such as dancing) and
(d) any act of artistic creation (such as making songs)
are linked to social conditions. Big topic for discussion and I am quite tired.

It is a big topic for discussion but I feel I feel like your answer is a little too broad. So, again, could you explain to me – with specifics, use examples if you wish, knock yourself out - how an unknowable, and indescribable something (which you still don’t quite accept is subjective but won’t say why or how) is linked with social conditions?
 
 
illmatic
14:39 / 27.06.06
Re-reading Bruno’s posts, especially this one:

An example: I like to dance. Sometimes when I danced, I was kind of pushing myself into dancing without 'really wanting to', without 'really feeling it', but for various reasons I did. Other times I danced and it was very special, even life-changing. I could say that the latter was a celebration of life and of unity with other dancers. But the former wasn't, it was alienated, and in fact a few times even made me feel physically ill afterwards.

So here, I think you’re ascribing your personal feelings and reactions with alienation. Did you nearly throw up or whatever, because something was built into the music or is this largely you projecting your own feelings and discomfort? What’s the point of difference between the two? Personally, I’ve danced to music I love and music I hate and have frequently had a great time with both.

some musicians express vitality, honest expressions of the human condition, others are formulaic, unimaginative, inhuman and mechanical. And I also know this from practical experience when playing an instrument, because I have felt both states.
And I have played with other musicians and 'felt' them, sometimes the room is full of energy, you can physically feel it. Sometimes they are unimaginative posers and hence boring musicians and the atmosphere is dull.

What is this quality that makes music special? Is it not just a product of the situation and potentially lurking in any situation once you get off your high horse and enjoy it? How in linked with “energy” (a word which cover a multitude of sins)? And again, in what way are you linking this to social conditions? I ask because I feel there is the usual Marxist logic dichotomy lurking under this statement with an “authentic” situation as opposed to one generated by “false consciousness” (possibly me dancing to Abba at Carwash?).
 
 
Bruno
15:26 / 27.06.06
Bruno, I think I am perfectly entitled to object to you changing the meaning of your words as you go along.

Can you give me copy-pastes of where I have changed the meaning of my words.

Perhaps you should think a little more about the assumptions you are loading your posts with and then we wouldn’t have to bother.

Can you give me copy-pastes of the assumptions.

Can you generally try and back up your accusations with quotes.

Re: The threads in The Temple, I left them because I got bored of trying to talk to with you, when you clearly didn’t/don’t understand the point I was trying to make. It appeared you’d rather talk about your unique and idiosyncratic reading of Marxism than actually talk about experience. Please revive them if you wish.

I disagree but this is not the right place to discuss it.

I will reply to the rest of your questions after I tackle Flyboy's/Haus's. It will probably be a few days since I am going camping tomorrow (arent I lucky).

But I'd like to add one last thought, in response to So, how is this unnameable, subjective whatever-it-is – y’know, the rush that surges through you loins when you hear REAL MUSIC and think TRU THOUGHTS - linked to social conditions?

In addition to the factors I gave before, there's a very clear parallel between 'this unnameable, subjective whatever-it-is – y’know, the rush that surges through you loins when you hear REAL MUSIC' and what has been called the 'life force' or orgone. As to how this is linked to social conditions may I refer you to "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich. (-:

-bruno
 
 
Bruno
15:35 / 27.06.06
PS Kelis's Trick Me is banging.
the 'i hate you so much right now' one is also pretty good.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:54 / 27.06.06
But again, I have no objection to the idea that when you (one) hear music you love, you feel the orgone energy flowing. That seems as good a way as any to me of describing an experience that does resist articulation.

The problem is that way back when, Bruno took the view that the majority of people do not know this experience, and if I understand you correctly Bruno, you are also saying that the majority of contemporary commercial hip hop and r&b is inherently unable of providing this experience.

I'm a bit confused though, because surely this isn't the first time you've heard 'Caught Out There' and 'Trick Me'? I mean, you wouldn't make big sweeping negative generalisations about a genre or two of music without having listened to some of biggest singles from one of those genres in the past 5-6 years... would you?
 
 
illmatic
15:56 / 27.06.06
Just because I'm into Reich doesn't mean I take at face value all his claims re. energy. The jury is still out for me. And - if (and it's a big "if") we assume for a moment that there is something in Reich's theories of energy - for him, this was something measurable and testable - and I don't think this is true regarding our perceptions of music.*

Also, what then is the difference between you feeling this excitment when you're jamming or whatever, and someone experiencing excitment in an "alienated" situation? Surely the physiological excitement/energetic experience is the same? Again, I ask how can you make a value judgement that one is real/unalienated and one isn't? I think there's a huge amount of subjectivity (that word that keeps on coming up) that is occluded by our usage of the word "energy".

*I might add this is a use of Reich's work - and the word "energy" that I don't like - it's such a loose, subjective and undefined term, that it can picked up and used to butress anyone's crazy theory, and doesn't take into account the experimental methodology he applied to his work.
 
 
Jackie Susann
22:40 / 27.06.06
I know this went by a whole page and eight hours ago, but since Ill asked specifically... (this is going to sound like a cop-out answer) I think the problem is about shoe-horning Western marxism into the discussion - i.e., the tradition of french/anglo/etc. academic interpretations of marx that focus monomaniacally on questions of ideology/subjectivity etc.

Meanwhile, I want to make two points that seem obvious to me. One is that if:

(a) any consumer choice (such as what music you buy or listen to) and
(b) any taste or value (such as what music you like or don't) and
(c) any social act (such as dancing) and
(d) any act of artistic creation (such as making songs)
are linked to social conditions.

then, so is the distinction - I mean, the attempt to draw a distinction - between the subjective and the objective. Outside, maybe, the hard sciences and the actual flow of consciousness inside your head, that distinction is only ever a social one. (And again, a passing familiarity with contemporary theories of ideology should make this perfectly clear - cf. Althusser, interpellation, etc.)

Second, the best Kelis song is Mafia by a mile.
 
 
Bruno
23:02 / 27.06.06
Haus/Flyboy:
Can you imagine the kind of open scorn that the white music press would pour on a white female rock singer of Missy’s build, let alone one who dared sing about their need to find a man with enough staying power to sacrifice their sexual appetite?

This argument has been squashed by Missy Elliott herself (video).

Women are allowed to have a wide variety of body types and still be sexy. It's the only area of pop where you can be fat, or really short, or kinda weird looking. It's the only area of pop where men are allowed to be overweight and not be ridiculed...

I'm no expert on R&B, but whatever catches my eye on TV & magazines is basically young girls who look like models dressed revealingly. The same for 99% of women in hip-hop videos.
It's not as bad for men, but look at 50 cent for example who is just a bodybuilder with street credibility who can't rhyme for shit.

The fact is that appearance plays a huge role in getting a record deal. It's no secret.

and women are allowed to be sexually aggressive and assertive without necessarily doing it for the sake of sales, or being coy. Women are allowed to own their sexuality.


Woman's sexuality has been repressed for ages and the only acceptable sexuality was a passive role. This is obviously very wrong. What I consider healthy is where both men and women balance an active sexuality with a passive sexuality. Active sexuality is not the same as being aggressive as I understand it, aggressiveness is a negative term.

I think it's not irrational to assume that certain expressions of sexuality (or asexuality for that matter) are not allowed by the recording industry while others are vital if you want to sell; therefore female artists do not 'own' their sexuality (a strange term, 'own'). And do male artists 'own' their sexuality? Can a male MC come out as gay? I recently read an interview with Eugene McDaniels who thought that a lot of male MCs talk shit about women because it sells and not because it expresses them. That seems like one of the roles for the male MC, expressing society's covert sexual aggression in a form which is virtual and hence acceptable - much like some porn.

My impression is that a lot of female artists are often doing it for the sake of sales. This might be very deliberate or it might be because they are told to. This also applies to male artists.

One favourite technique is for the critic to assume that he can speak for the female artist, usually in a way that devalues her: she’s stupid; she’s ‘fake’; she’s being manipulated (by men) and doesn’t realise it; her sexuality and creativity are not her own… Often these assumptions are presented without comment, as self-evident. “How do you know she’s not making her own decisions about how she presents herself?” “Well just look at what she’s WEARING!” I’d say this falls pretty squarely into the category of “misogynist feminism”, or more accurately misogyny wearing the doctrinal disguise of feminism.

Being 'fake', being manipulated (by men) and doesnt realize it, hir sexuality and creativity are not hir own - really often applies to artists irrespective of gender in my opinion.

My analysis is really based on this, especially the last sentence:
"As for the question "who is the pimp?" Well, the entire culture industry, from the CEOs to the DJs and VJs to the producers to the A&Rs and the marketting people, the distributors, the exploitation involved comes from a huge range of people. And it is not really the conscious agency of one or another person which is to blame, but an institutionalized ideology which is not questioned by its agents. It's a way of thinking that has been internalized by many people (including of course many artists and listeners) and replicates itself in a vicious circle because the masses buy what is being sold, while the companies produce what will sell."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:13 / 27.06.06

I'm no expert on R&B, but whatever catches my eye on TV & magazines is basically young girls who look like models dressed revealingly.

I make like Frank Lampard.
 
 
Bruno
23:15 / 27.06.06
Jackie:

I think the problem is about shoe-horning Western marxism into the discussion - i.e., the tradition of french/anglo/etc. academic interpretations of marx that focus monomaniacally on questions of ideology/subjectivity etc.

Can you give me an example of the shoe-horning and generally expand on your argument because that reads like an insult.
 
 
Bruno
23:20 / 27.06.06
I make like Frank Lampard.

I never understand barbelith one liners.
 
 
Jackie Susann
23:50 / 27.06.06
Bruno, if I get you, you're basically saying the generic constraints of rnb etc. are too limiting and reactionary. I'm willing to accept that, to an extent, but that just means the creativity happens somewhere else.

Like, in 30s Hollywood the Hays Code was an intensely restrictive and artistically idiotic set of restrictions on what you could put in a film. But - as a gazillion or so film theorists have pointed out - the ways directors, etc., worked around these constraints produced fascinating and brilliant art.

I think you get something similar within the conventions of rnb and all that. So, I agree that 50 Cent is a musclebound idiot who can't rhyme for shit. But he is also tighter on the beat than almost any MC going these days - something his slurry flow often disguises. I still don't like him, but he has something artistically impressive going for him.

Now I'm gonna cut and paste from something I was writing the other day, but take Bobby Valentino's Tell Me. I am pretty sure it's the kind of song you would write off straight away, without really listening, for its frankly inane lyrics - the hook goes, 'ooh ma, tell me/how did you get that in those jeans?'. But the vocals work against taking those lines straight, like you would in most rnb tracks. He seems uncertain, his phrasing is tentative, and there's a yearning quality to the way he delivers the lines. And since it's prima facie obvious that 'yearning' is not a description of the attitude of a guy surprised by the arse-to-jeans ratio of a woman in a club, it seems to speak to a deep lack of confidence, spiritual uncertainty, that he's just not capable of articulating.

I really like songs where the actual subject matter is never addressed. (See also Gwen Stefani's Cool - the lyrics are all about how glad she is that her ex is moving on, but just under the surface is a barely suppressed mess of resentment, fear and loneliness.) Like that famous Hemingway story where this couple has a raging argument about whether or not the woman should have an abortion, but it's never said anywhere either what they're arguing about or even that they're arguing. You have to read that in.

And I think the inability to express how you feel is a fascinating subject for any artform to tackle. I mean, look around - it's everywhere in our society. No one is saying what they feel. Not just because they don't want to; people legitimately don't know how. One of the most deeply personal experiences we have, one of the hardest to communicate, is what it feels like not to be able to say how you feel. And as a rule, I love anything that expresses a deeply personal, but widely shared, emotional experience.

Now, I am not saying that's what Bobby meant when he wrote/sang those lines. I don't know or care what he meant. My point is, within a very tight set of constraints on what rnb lyrics can be about, it's possible to generate really complex ideas. That is not contradicted - if anything, it's strengthened - because you can dance to it, or the artists are pretty. Maybe I am just a reactionary fuck, but I prefer my artists good-looking.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:06 / 06.07.06
So, in this thread about possible racial offence caused by Sony, Kay said:

I suspect it won't make an awful lot of difference to public perceptions so long as the airwaves are brimful of upbeat, cheerful depictions of black Americans. Shooting each other and fucking their "ho"s, that is. Why bother letting other people charge you with violent misogyny when you can proclaim it for yourself? With friends like these...

There was some discussion over what this meant, and ultimately Kay helpfully clarified:

Oh, come on. I'm saying that perceptions of black people are less likely to be influenced by some naff posters for a couple of video games than by the very large numbers of very influential artists who make their living by embracing a violent and sexist ethos. I am not for one second attributing blame to those artists; obviously the whole picture is very complicated, but I am saying that these pictures are a drop compared to the %self inflicted% ocean.

That is, that the greatest single cause of negative perceptions of black people is black people who produce rap that is violently misogynistic. Compared to this, any other representation of black people has a negligible impact. Also, and rather usefully, this means that negative attitudes to black people are the fault of black people.

Whether this view is valid, in terms of its picture of rap or its view of how representations of blackness are formed, has already been challenged, but in a thread where ongoing discussion would constitute threadrot. So, I'm moving it over here.

Another interesting element here is:

I am not for one second attributing blame to those artists

I'd be excited to hear to begin with why one would not for one second attribute blame to very large numbers of very influential artists who make their living by embracing a violent and sexist ethos. I have a few ideas on this one, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
 
 
Char Aina
18:01 / 06.07.06
That is, that the greatest single cause of negative perceptions of black people who produce rap that is violently misogynistic.

lets be fair, though.
ze didnt say the 'greatest single cause' or 'any other representation' so much as 'depictions in music are a much bigger cause than videogame advertising'.
i'm not arguing that what was said was pure bang on the money, eh.
i just think it helps no one(except perhaps the terrorists, and even then i'm not sure) to exaggerate.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:37 / 06.07.06
The precise metric employed, toks, was "drop" to "ocean". I think that allows me to stand confidently by my gloss. However, if you'd like to alter the settings, that's cool. Is so far the largest identified, for preference?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
22:32 / 06.07.06
ets be fair, though.
ze didnt say the 'greatest single cause' or 'any other representation' so much as 'depictions in music are a much bigger cause than videogame advertising'.

Just so. And I stand by that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:41 / 06.07.06
Sorry, Kay, but which one of these threads would you like to conduct this discussion in? I think the other will shortly be moved to Music and retitled...
 
 
Char Aina
22:42 / 06.07.06
to continue in the fairness, i dont think it makes too much difference to haus' point.
i was asking for altering, not stemming, mostly to make it all sound a bit less dramatic.

to me, obviously.
i cant abide the drama.
 
 
Char Aina
22:46 / 06.07.06
and yeah, i like 'so far the largest'.
i like the way it leaves room for growth, if and when we do.
 
 
Bruno
09:36 / 07.07.06
Flyboy:
I'm a bit confused though, because surely this isn't the first time you've heard 'Caught Out There' and 'Trick Me'? I mean, you wouldn't make big sweeping negative generalisations about a genre or two of music without having listened to some of biggest singles from one of those genres in the past 5-6 years... would you?

I heard Caught Out There on the radio maybe it was 6 or 7 years ago? I remember liking the chorus a lot then, it is syncopated weirdly and phrased nicely. Delivery is powerful too and it is catchy as fuck. (anyone know any other R&B songs that have similar styles to that chorus).
First time I heard Trick Me was when I d/led it.
My knowledge of R&B is generally from listening to the radio, rarely knowing the names of the artists or songs, and I never listen to the radio on my own, only when I am somewhere the radio happens to be playing (which at points in my life has been very often). (plus the 2 times I went to an R&B club).

What I meant to get across is the difference between appreciating and loving music (which I foolishly equated with being a hardcore fan) rather than just consuming it without much sensitivity or respect for it. And I think the latter is much more common among both sexes.
What has led you to the conclusion that the latter is more common?

This seems like a big point of divergence between us.
I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary, uncritical in their thinking, unaware of their needs or desires and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general. I agree with psychology that considers modern society itself mentally ill. I acknowledge that I myself am also a part of modern society and am also estranged and mentally ill in many ways, but (for some reason, perhaps historical accident) I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection and can thus work at transcending the limits of society. I am not saying that anyone participating in this thread does not possess the same faculty. And I am definitely not saying that I should 'dictate' what people should do.
And I also know that while people are on one level sick, alienated, reactionary etc, on another level "every man and woman is a star" and there is a very special quality to each person you ever meet, and that everyone has something to teach you if you are open in the right way.

Generally when I listen to music on the radio I find the vast majority to be very superficial and soulless. This also applies to a lot of 'underground' music too.

To take an example I gave a while ago, look at Kenny G and look at John Coltrane. Kenny G is the best selling 'jazz' artist of all time (although calling his narcissistic sentimental crap jazz is an insult to the history of music) and many more people listen to him than Coltrane.
Coltrane is I think someone we can all agree is a "true" musician? Someone who really opened his soul to the universe when he played.
I realize that there is a relative subjective element involved, for example I am often not in the mood to listen to Coltrane. And I _can_ listen to Kenny G and interact with the experience (but why would I want to??), and I would argue that this is not in depth when compared to the level one can get with Coltrane.

The problem is that way back when, Bruno took the view that the majority of people do not know this experience, and if I understand you correctly Bruno, you are also saying that the majority of contemporary commercial hip hop and r&b is inherently unable of providing this experience.

Yes I was saying something like that.
I am a bit reluctant to make such huge generalizations any more... it is obviously foolish to say that a genre is 'inherently' unable to provide this experience, especially since genres such as "r&b" or "commercial hip-hop" are so broad.
I do still think that, in general, the more capitalist ideology invades the part of us that creates music, the more alienated the music is and the less truth it can express.
I think it is also fair to look at music in historical terms and say, for example, X genre had its peak at a certain point and after that it was co-opted/commodified/watered-down.
 
 
Bruno
09:36 / 07.07.06
Haus:
I don't get your last post to me about the football player. Would you like me to back up the statement you quoted?
 
 
Bruno
09:37 / 07.07.06
Illmatic:
I will reply to your posts soon, but you could please make the effort to back up the following posts with quotes:
Bruno, I think I am perfectly entitled to object to you changing the meaning of your words as you go along.

Perhaps you should think a little more about the assumptions you are loading your posts with and then we wouldn’t have to bother.

your statements are some of the most muddled I’ve ever seen

I am genuinely interested in learning to communicate better and would like to know which statements are 'muddled', where I am unclear, etc.

Jackie: Will reply to your post later.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:52 / 07.07.06
Well, "almost everybody is stupid and reactionary, but everybody is a star" seems pretty muddled to me...

I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary, uncritical in their thinking, unaware of their needs or desires and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general.

Can I encourage you not to take anything for granted? Especially something so arrogant and misanthropic?

I agree with psychology that considers modern society itself mentally ill.

Which "psychology" would that be, then?

I acknowledge that I myself am also a part of modern society and am also estranged and mentally ill in many ways, but (for some reason, perhaps historical accident) I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection and can thus work at transcending the limits of society.

This level of self-awareness and humility is really quite staggering.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:08 / 07.07.06
I'm sorry, I feel like I'm getting caught up in the Crazy World of Bruno and dragged off topic and letting the level of debate fall down again... Can we just stick to talking about actual music (and yeah, the culture that surrounds it)? I mean, Bruno if you've decided that generalisations are bad and that hip hop and r&b are broad genres, that's great. It would also be great if Kay could do the same...
 
 
Bruno
10:10 / 07.07.06
Flyboy, you've ignored everything I wrote about music and have focused on the social/psychological aspects. Looks like a Headshop thread?

Well, "almost everybody is stupid and reactionary, but everybody is a star" seems pretty muddled to me...

Why?

I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary, uncritical in their thinking, unaware of their needs or desires and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general.
Can I encourage you not to take anything for granted? Especially something so arrogant and misanthropic?

Explain why it's arrogant and misanthropic.
And I don't see why "do not take anything for granted" applies to my position any more than it does to yours?

I agree with psychology that considers modern society itself mentally ill.
Which "psychology" would that be, then?

Reich & Fromm for starters.
I think it's a bit obvious really if you look at current international politics and the general history of the human race, people do very sick things on massive scales.

I acknowledge that I myself am also a part of modern society and am also estranged and mentally ill in many ways, but (for some reason, perhaps historical accident) I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection and can thus work at transcending the limits of society.
This level of self-awareness and humility is really quite staggering.

You are not interacting with the arguments man.
 
 
Bruno
10:13 / 07.07.06
Flyboy it's not the Crazy World of Bruno but the Crazy World full stop.
You are resorting to name calling (you're losing points baby). If my arguments can be dismissed so easily then try doing it in a couple of paragraphs with arguments.
 
 
Char Aina
10:21 / 07.07.06
Explain why it's arrogant and misanthropic.

uh... because you say everyone is dumb except a few, and you happen to be one of those few?

misanthropic?
everyone is stupid;
I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary, uncritical in their thinking, unaware of their needs or desires and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general.


but, in your arrogance, not you!

I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection


you do know what the words mean, right?
i understand that you say you are as estranged and ill as anyone else*, but you then say what seems like "...but not really", ruining the effect of your stab at showing humility.



*
i think you really need to clarify all this obvious psychoguffoonery to those of us who arent in the evolved category of understanding you seem to have attained.
i for one have less of an idea what you mean by it than you seem to assume as standard.
 
 
Jackie Susann
10:23 / 07.07.06
I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary, uncritical in their thinking, unaware of their needs or desires and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general... I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection and can thus work at transcending the limits of society.

I think this pretty much rules you out of contention for any reasonable discussion. And based just on this statement, I am inclined to think your capacity for self-reflection is very average indeed.
 
 
Bruno
10:28 / 07.07.06
toksik I am often psychologically not well and I know it.
Sometimes I am very dumb.
I am often unconsciously reactionary, uncritical, estranged from life and art, and confused about my needs and desires.
OK?
I assume all of us are, sometimes anyway? Anyone want to say they aren't any of the above, ever?

The word I used before 'dynamic' is important. We are in flux. Sometimes I am sick and sometimes I'm not.

What I find strange about both toksik and flyboy's approach is that they are criticizing Bruno as being bad because he is an elitist rather than defending the world which Bruno is criticizing as being sick.

I don't know if I can explain this better right now, but your point of departure seems backwards to me. The starting point for the argument is that the world is a very sick place. Explain from there. Attacking Bruno because he is a bad arrogant elitist without engaging with the arguments is babyish especially if you gang up on me.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)89

 
  
Add Your Reply