the usefulness of disliking music, as a writer or as a listener etc.

I mean, I know some of us are more willing to be surprised by joy than others – I can list plenty of examples of artists who've suddenly recorded an impressive album after a not so impressive run. When I was an editor I'd sometimes encourage writers to listen to a record they wouldn't have downloaded/bought on their own just so I can read an entirely fresh take (also, you have to trust the writer to not file a two-dimensional review).

but now, like april, i have a limited interest in reading about something i haven't heard at least some of, because we now live in a world where it's almost as easy to hear it as it is to read about it.

― sandbox banned socks (Mr. Stevenson #2), Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Its only partly that, its also that if its a thing people are talking about a lot - or is...'important' then I feel like I can't really hear it for myself, I can't divorce it from all that - and then they might be the kinds of thing that people will also ask my opinion about - but I probably wouldn't have a very strong opinion and the opinion would really just be distilled from other people. It feels too dutiful that somehow I should hear certain things - almost for the sake of having an opinion - if I was a critic then yes maybe, but as a person I shy away from that

yeah...i imagine one of the biggest challengers for a music editor would be to try and get some writers out of their comfort zone without ending without ending up with a review where they just seem clearly out of their element in a bad way. (xpost)

yeah...i imagine one of the biggest challengers for a music editor would be to try and get some writers out of their comfort zone without ending without ending up with a review where they just seem clearly out of their element in a bad way.

i wish more publications would adopt the multi-voice panellist format of the jukebox - i think that's one of the best ways of doing that while also avoiding the problem of an out-of-their-element review standing as that publication's "official" line on an album.

Yeah I love that aspect of the jukebox, but I think it would get cumbrsome when trying to tackle a full album.

yeah...that's one of the weird things about Pitchfork these days is it feels like there's so much maneuvering to publish a review by one author that 'speaks for' the whole staff that feels distinct from the classic "Rolling Stone editor decides how many stars an album gets" kind of top-down decision-making. (xpost)

Maybe not putting it that well - but I look at the EOY lists and see Drake and Radiohead and Fleet Foxes and James Blake and all these people and even if I wanted to hear any of these people I don't know if I would be able to hear them people 'for myself' because I've already got everyone elses opinion about them whether I like it or not

i actually HAVE an idea for multiple-perspectives-on-an-album that i've wanted to try out for a while but just haven't had the opportunity or the resources to put it into action. it would definitely be trickier and more delicate than with singles, yeah. (xpost)

i don't see any reason a panellist format for an album couldn't work - but you'd have to untie it from the release date. which would probably result in better thinking and writing ANYWAY - i can't think of a single "quick get this review of the new lady gaga album up within an hour of hearing it for the first time" piece that has been worth a damn, anywhere. i did an off-the-cuff thing on the day i first heard the rihanna album and i already look back and cringe about my snap judgments.

#sonotgonnahappen though :(

^^^ I like that idea!

(i mean, certainly for albums that get the slightest buzz, multiple critics will have got round to hearing and opining within a couple of months of release anyway)

(it'd actually be a really good thing to do when publications do EOY lists! and would add a frisson of dissent even as they award an album the #2 spot or whatever)

(i understand that during the EOY all editors are overworked and there is no monet anywhere anyway)

a Jukebox format in which you give a half dozen critics a week to digest an album and ask them to post three or four sentences would be cool.

*MONEY

i always do that! fucking impressionists on the brain

Well, tbh, there's not enough Monets around either.

(xpost)

All this talk is really making me miss writing though. 2011 was the first full year during which I didn't have any freelance gigs and didn't do any writing about music, and I'm finding out how much I miss the more critical approach to my listening at times. In one sense its kind of liberating to not have to worry about what I'm going to write, but I do kind of miss having a structured reason to write. Sure, blogs etc etc, but I'm really finding it harder and harder to sit down and write without direction or structure.

i'm really glad nobody in history who criticises herd mentalities has ever noticed such behaviours in themselves, that'd really be embarrassing. luckily only absolute and true mavericks can recognise the sheep-like behaviour of others, otherwise where would we be?

lol

someone tell me what to like, i don't think other people are thick so i'm guessing i must be too thick to realise this??

sarcasm is a perfectly fine substitute for literacy

xp Lord Sotosyn

As a reader, I'd be much more interested in a friendly back and forth by 6 critics disputing an album's merits and responding to each other than a half-dozen capsule reviews.

we've been over this elsewhere but year you are too attuned to the media herd mentality. given that most of what i value in music is at odds with what 90% of current critics value, i see absolutely no point in giving a shit what they like or dislike - after all it's not like they seem to give a shit what i like or dislike! the feeling is mutual.

Lex the reasons I O_O'd at this is that you spend a lot of time on ILM and in reviews beating people over the head for liking some media herd option you deem awful when they could be liking (insert superior artist in roughly comparable area of music).

I totally agree that you are not overly swayed by herd mentality but that doesn't mean you aren't very attuned to it.

So am I obv. Though I still haven't listened to the Drake album.

ILX herd mentality keeping you from it! I kid...

oh you know what i meant tim.

ronan do fuck off, or at least stop being sarcastic in such a fucking basic way for the sake of it

Well i guess I'm curious then as to how you distinguish your approach from deej's (apart from in ways that aren't relevant to this thread).

i don't think i fret about it as much? my approach in this area is basically the same as al's

i'm 'fretting'?

i guess i do wonder to what degree increased coverage is simply forcing me to pay attention & bring more critical energy to bear, at which point it goes from 'this is good enough (because i'm glossing over weaknesses because they're just artists trying to make it w/ some novel ideas it i have no ill will)' to 'there are lots of flaws relative to the stuff i like a lot more'

like, it's important that a response to hype is about the music itself & not the hype. i guess that's something i try to make sure to dilineate

*and i have no ill will

that with increased coverage comes a more complete critical look -at a certain point you stop looking at what they do different and start looking at the complete package, at where it might start to grate or leave you uninspired to spin again, how someone you already listen to fills that void better, etc

ronan do fuck off, or at least stop being sarcastic in such a fucking basic way for the sake of it

yes "for the sake of it", this is all such a load of fucking shit. "herd mentality" is a term which is only entirely subjective and means nothing. you might as well be on here saying "my taste is actually better than the majority"

arguments like "herd mentality" are the sort of shit used to denounce all pop music ever made, if you can't see that then you're several fathosm too deep inside the critic snowglobe, time to get some air.

or maybe just keep swinging so far against the things you hate that you begin to ressemble them, all healthy adult behaviour...good luck.

you don't even read my stuff. i have no idea why you keep on trying to pick fights with me on ilx.

?? because ilx is where people discuss things, like on this thread.

So lex you're saying the diff between you and deej is that while you might get angry that the hivemind (of whatever hive) is wrong, you don't get caught up on the whys and wherefores of those differences?

(I am genuinely curious about all of this stuff for a variety of reasons so I'm not trying to be faux-dense or anything)

i don't really know what you're asking any more, it all seems a bit pedantic at this point? i don't want to end up boxing myself into a mode of thinking that i don't really subscribe to. i don't have any hard and fast rules when it comes to these things, i do whatever i feel like doing when i wake up.

ronan why on earth should i discuss my critical approach with someone who's not interested in reading my criticism? and who is being offensively rude even by the standards of people who dislike me?

take the high moral ground as you say "fuck off" as an opening gambit...and don't discuss anything anyway. really great...none of this stands up to any scrutiny so yeah, don't bother.

idk ronan yr whole first post seemed p mean spirited in a thread that acknowledges its failings in it's premise. I guess I can see yr problem with the lex but everyone finds themselves disagreeing with 'consensus' at times

also I think saying oh review the music not the hype is dumb I mean it's p indivisible anyway but lots of time they hype is really the meat of what's interesting/important to address

i don't really know what you're asking any more, it all seems a bit pedantic at this point? i don't want to end up boxing myself into a mode of thinking that i don't really subscribe to. i don't have any hard and fast rules when it comes to these things, i do whatever i feel like doing when i wake up.

oh well in that case I will simply disregard yr prior comments.

lots of time they hype is really the meat of what's interesting/important to address

this is sad

also I think saying oh review the music not the hype is dumb I mean it's p indivisible anyway but lots of time they hype is really the meat of what's interesting/important to address

― blah blah blah (є(٥_ ٥)э), Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:24 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

while i do agree -- i think i was more saying this as shorthand for, like, not forgetting to involve the music & its relationship to the hype rather than responding to the hype exclusively -- can i just make the easy zing here abt how its funny that this is what the chillwave thread guy thinks

Lex the reasons I O_O'd at this is that you spend a lot of time on ILM and in reviews beating people over the head for liking some media herd option you deem awful when they could be liking (insert superior artist in roughly comparable area of music).

the thing that pisses me off about this characterisation of what i do is that, actually, most of my posting and the VAST majority of my writing is about music and artists i love. in the nu-sandbox era alone i have been very active in the r&b thread in this regard. if you want to see me as someone who spends 90% of his time raging against the hivemind and their drake-loving ways, idk, it's just a warning sign not to involve myself in a discussion with you because you obviously don't know me or my work.

see i think its almost creepy to feign operating w/in some kind of rigid formal vacuum when yr listening to/writing abt music. i mean its at its base so clearly not true but why would you even want it to be true? i mean why not just listen to bach if you want music divorced from any kind of meaningful contemp social/experiential context

like i guess imm 'hype' is standing in for the lump of intangible elements that surround a work of contemp music which is fascinating and impt stuff!

lamp lex is arguing two opposing extremes here -- he completely ignores hype, but he will rail aganist what he recognizes as hype (somehow ... despite completely ignoring it) when given the opportunity

i'm not even sure who he's talking to here, it's not like there are any major Drake boosters in the audience or something. everyone contributing to this thread seems to discuss or write about largely underreported, niche or unexplored areas of music w/ great regularity.

can i just make the easy zing here abt how its funny that this is what the chillwave thread guy thinks

haha i think the funny thing abt this is i spend a lot my time listening to stuff that like a couple hundred other ppl are even going to hear, which makes things both harder cuz the conversation is so small but also easier cuz 'hype' is so easy to deflate and avoid

tbrr im critical of myself for choosing to mostly listen/write/care abt shit that comes in ltd cdr runs of 100 copies, i think in part its a way of escaping the whole debate like april sd upthread. its weird to get such a rep for being indie or w/e when like ive only heard mb 5 or 6 records from any of the indie mag lists, one of which is lol drake

yah i think w/ chillwave it strikes me bcuz my feeling w/ that genre that it was like, here's the revolutionary way of thinking, of music as distorted memory, now that we have that thesis we can enjoy some sweet easy listening tunes, and it struck me that you had to have the hype of the metanarrative in order to even engage in the 1st place

and i remember SR argued that we had it backwards; that first came the music, THEN the narrative -- but if someone reads about the narrative & checks out the music after, then that's the way it is for them, and his argument is simply no longer accurate! that most people listening to chillwave probably read about it & werent following the scene at all, right?

idk i'm just trying to move this away from talking abt lex

if you want to see me as someone who spends 90% of his time raging against the hivemind and their drake-loving ways, idk, it's just a warning sign not to involve myself in a discussion with you because you obviously don't know me or my work.

Haha, totally unnecessary hyperbole much?

To be fair to you, "raging against the hivemind" posts are mostly more memorable (regardless of whether they are right/wrong/good/bad) than positive posts so I am pretty sure in my head I do overestimate the extent to which this categorises a lot of people's (not just your) posts.

i think what i'm talking about in my post, rather than an excuse to dogpile on chillwave, is more that when you have a niche scene, and people are writing stories abt how it develops, then people hear the stories & decide that this stuff is Important because of these narratives rather than because the underlying scene is Important, there's some weird kind of disconnect in quality

or something

xp

haha well the term 'chillwave' was coined as a satire of critics need to taxonomize/structure music but atm there was def a rush to kinda provide a narrative or framework for a bunch of sounds/scenes/ideas that were coalescing. (and still continue to work themselves out, i guess) there was for listeners in on it a real sense of ~something~ connected and new happening ime. and i think part of it was a desire to present the music sorta fully-formed to new listeners so that it 'made sense', mb? a rush to history or w/e

anyway i think the 'other ppls memories' thing was overstated, really my big ~theories~ are abt technology and anxiety blah blah blah indeeed but there are also all sorts of counternarratives that are p dominant (lol lazy lol nostalgia lol hipsters mostly)

ugh idk we tell ourselves stories in order to hear &c &c &c