From R. Lim Sent Fri, Apr 9th 1999, 17:32
From R. Lim Sent Fri, Apr 9th 1999, 17:32
This thread already seems like it's on its last legs, but it seems as if there's enough confusion/wounded feelings/knee-jerk reactions floating around that a further explication may be in order. (and Brock, your understanding of the World According to Simon is one of the more clear-headed I've read). Our friend Simon has actually bothered to come up with a succinct thesis that captures his worldview and drives his writing (it would behoove many mainstream crits to try to do likewise, though it would most likely expose the permanent adolescence of their perspective- so much the better) . I don't know if it'd land the guy a PhD or anything, but it's there. This thesis is generally never explicitly stated in his word count articles, but it usually can be derived by reading carefully (though in this particular article, its presence is somewhat phantom). It is set out clear as day in the intro to _Energy Flash_, but since I'm very far away from my copy right now, you'll have to do with my summary; any fuzziness or malaprops are undoubtedly mine. (according to Reynolds:) Basically, the acid house revolution in the late 80s of Britain embodied a kind of brushfire of youth culture in which older forms of expression were swept away and supplanted by something particular to this generation. Initiations that belonged to the past (acid test or, uh, first safety pin through nose or what have you) were now supplanted by THE RAVE and the quintessential experience of taking ecstacy and bonding with the universe, etc. Part and parcel of this is (simplification alert) rave music, which (Reynolds claims) has a unique interaction that heightens the E trip (much in the same way that wah-wah and delay interact with acid). Reynolds views this as ground zero of an authentic cultural experience, of which music is part and parcel. He believes that one of the unique characteristics of rave music is that it's presented in through a mediator that obscures the music's authors (the DJ). In other words, you don't know who laid the track down originally and you don't care, as long as it's making you mental. The crux of understanding the Reynolds thesis is the following: ANY attempt at appropriation or integration of this music with extra-cultural approaches (that results in its losing that narrowly-defined function in rave culture) is considered to be violating its essence and therefore abominable. If you remember, his chief gripe against Squarepusher is that Jenkinson eliminated the bone-rattling drums and chest-vibrating bass of drum 'n bass in favor of wank-bass and diddly drum patter. In this model, any aspiration of the populist rave music to loftier goals (as represented by "high art" values, e.g. valorizing experimentation, cross-pollenation of genres, cult of genius/auteur) is despicable. Note that there's sort of an implicit critique of the bourgeois (which he doesn't really delve into too deeply, probably for the better). This is not an unknown perspective on things- I know plenty of people who basically think that progressive rock destroyed the essence of psychedelic rock by importing classical forms of composition and orchestration to a music that allegedly tapped directly into your soul (and I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who think that psych is pure wankery and that (say) garage is a much more pure expression of real rock 'n roll spirit... so forth and so on). In this sense, Simon Reynolds is actually espousing an old-fashioned (pre-mechanical reproduction) model of music production. Which is probably why most people find his ideas abhorrent (even though, as Bannister noted, this puts him in the same general league as his more rock-oriented contemporaries, though I'd argue the details). I should note that I find it utterly baffling that this same backlash hasn't been extended towards Harry Partch (who's basically a neo-classicist caught in a bind, but revered by hipsters as an important "avant garde" composer). This perspective is hardly without its contradictions (it's not particularly trivial to discern visceral reaction from well-conditioned mental reflexes- using drugs is about the only way you can "escape" from this state of mind. See his "speed garage- lam3 or r00lz" part of the best/worst of 1997 for a particularly amusing manifestation of his torment. Anyway, that's my book report on Simon Reynolds. Bearing all of the above in mind, here's some responses to recent comments on the list: From: Sharon Maher <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: (idm) Reynolds' most overrated music of 1998 (IDM, anyone?) > (1) Would someone like to explain to me why "wilful obscurantism" is a bad > thing? Because it's just a whim away from in-joke hell. If you've ever caught a college radio show hosted by self-appointed personalities, you know how tedious this can be. The operative word is "willful." > (2) If "geektronica" is hobbyism, what do you call the massivly larger > population who obsessivly collect Beatles or Prince music, bootlegs, and > memorabilia? The distinction is that neither the Beatles nor Prince intentionally directed their music towards a limited audience. Again, "willful." Besides, blaming artists for their fans is pointless (I'm sure in an alternate universe, the Grateful Dead's _Anthem of the Sun_ is being hailed as a "musique concrete masterpiece." Basically it's everything that Pierre Henry + Spooky Tooth wasn't. > (3) Sounds to me like Reynold's isn't concered with "geektronica" at > all, but rather the precident that it could set, ie that music becomes > increasinly non-commerical entity. In which case his position in the > music industry heierchy as a lofty and rather pompus music critic > would be rather unimportant. I'm fairly certain that his appeal to editors is that he has his finger on the pulse of a certain subculture (which he does) and can relate it beyond its (more) limited audience. The DIY aspects of IDM that you espouse actually drives music consumption further into niche territory, which probably got him his job in the first place. From: david turgeon <xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: (idm) Reynolds' most overrated music of 1998 (IDM, anyone?) > > Momus recently suggested that rather > > than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be > > famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we > > should be getting worried. > [...] > in packaging. the worry issue disturbs me, though. the whole point > behind underground music is that it allows people to make music _without > being famous_. i think that's a great thing. I don't think that's really a concern for him (I mean, ltd dubplates and white labels are the very foodstuff of DJs, c.f. the anonymity of author in my summary above- you'd be hard pressed to find a more obscure way of distributing the actual physical "release"). I think the problem (for him) is that nobody really aspires to anything with more appeal than outside their circle of friends. From: Warren Lapham <xxxx@xxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: (idm) Reynolds' most overrated music of 1998 (IDM, anyone?) > To me, the whole problem with this commentary is evident from the get-go. > Am I being naively disconnected from the self-reference that drives a lot > of modern pop culture when I expect a critique of a style of music to > focus on the music? That critique is sort of implicit in any Reynolds piece (see thesis above). Thinking that the music alone is the only thing that controls your perception of it is pretty naive, depending on how far you take it. On the other hand, it is in step with modern concepts of division of the arts (speaking of Partch, there's a great rant on this subject in his verbal introduction to "Oedipus" on the 3CD set on Innova. From: Sharon Maher <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: (idm) mr scruff, reynolds rant > As for the present day, i see an artistic movement that directly > counters the highly-commerical record industry very revolutionary. If > your aim is to release challenging music and open minds as opposed to > making money, isn't that challenging the status quo? I would argue > that subverting the record industry is far more I get your point and sympathize to some degree, but on the other hand, putting out limited stuff and (more importantly) limiting distribution to a handful of people isn't going to open minds because it isn't going to be heard. That argument has been rehashed numerous times on this list, but I should point out that (at least in the US), the more effective strategy to challenge/subvert the record industry is to work on an alternate means of distribution. When you can market and distribute your music much more efficiently than the "industry," then they might be in trouble. MP3s are a step in the right direction, but who the hell is going to be satisfied with an MP3. For what it's worth, this is why I think labels like diskono are selling their ideas by sticking with old forms of marketing (limited! vinyl only!) and distribution (limited presence in "standard" store distribution, plus a handful of specialty mail order places). That said, _I'm So Bored With the USA_ is about as fine a mesh of 80s European experimentalism and current IDM practices as you could possibly hope for (except for the Passarani 2099 cut, which sticks out like the withered thumb likeness it is.. actually, it does have its charms, never mind). OK, thanks to all of those who have read this far. -rob