The Mighty Musical Observations Thread

[Dr. Medulla]

I wonder that too. They broke up after War. Wonder whatever happened to them?

Didn't you hear? The continued to put out some pretty good albums but then they broke up after Pop.

Bono was lost at sea and I think dolphins murdered him. Oh well.

God but I envy dolphins.

[Kory]

This video makes living in this shitty, shitty world marginally better (but not by enough):

[gkbill]

This video makes living in this shitty, shitty world marginally better (but not by enough):

Hello,

I know the current Gang of Four is not this vital but I still am going to try to see them.

Man, Gang of Four....

[revbob]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CXcS1Lnl ... =copy_link

[WestwayKid]

I've said it before, but these guys are a treasure.

[JennyB]

I wonder that too. They broke up after War. Wonder whatever happened to them?

Didn't you hear? The continued to put out some pretty good albums but then they broke up after Pop.

Bono was lost at sea and I think dolphins murdered him. Oh well.

Poor dolphins.

[revbob]

I wonder that too. They broke up after War. Wonder whatever happened to them?

Didn't you hear? The continued to put out some pretty good albums but then they broke up after Pop.

Bono was lost at sea and I think dolphins murdered him. Oh well.

Poor dolphins.

Evidence seems to indicate the first half of Flex's statement to be an unfounded rumor and the second an unfulfilled dream.

[Dr. Medulla]

Yesterday I was typing up notes from a semi-recent piece that I plan on assigning in my punk seminar. There are a number of interesting ideas/speculations in these two paragraphs about how streaming has changed the way we regard music, including its significance w/r/t our identities. I think I'm too old to assess whether this is true or not (streaming is an alternative means for me, not the main) and I still love arguing about … well, lots of stuff, including music. But maybe this does ring true for young Millennials and Z's?

Back in the nineties, Kurt Cobain worried that Nirvana’s newfound fame would earn him the wrong sorts of fans; Billie Joe Armstrong was dismayed that Green Day’s popularity changed his relationship to the Bay Area punk scene that had nurtured him. But that was the CD-buying era, when consumers had to pay for their musical choices: this scarcity probably encouraged some listeners to think of their favorite bands as their exclusive property. Nowadays, in the Spotify era, you can stream whatever you like without buying anything, except an expensive phone and a relatively cheap subscription. No one seems to care so much about separating the part-time punks from the real thing.

I sometimes wonder whether the age of arguing about music—the age of purity tests and underground idealism and sneering at the mainstream—is coming to a close. Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism. Maybe, in a world where there’s so much to listen to, it makes more sense to celebrate what you love and ignore everything else. Maybe, from now on, most musical consumers will be omnivores, to whom the notion of loyalty to a genre seems as foreign as the notion of “owning” an album. I sometimes wonder, too, whether political conviction is replacing musical conviction as the preëminent marker of subcultural identity. Perhaps some of the kinds of people who used to talk about obscure bands now prefer to talk about obscure or outré causes. And perhaps political advocacy supplies some of the sense of belonging that people once got from tight-knit punk scenes. That would not necessarily be an unhappy development—although now, as then, there are likely to be plenty of poseurs mixed in with the true believers.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... -time-punk

[Marky Dread]

Yesterday I was typing up notes from a semi-recent piece that I plan on assigning in my punk seminar. There are a number of interesting ideas/speculations in these two paragraphs about how streaming has changed the way we regard music, including its significance w/r/t our identities. I think I'm too old to assess whether this is true or not (streaming is an alternative means for me, not the main) and I still love arguing about … well, lots of stuff, including music. But maybe this does ring true for young Millennials and Z's?

Back in the nineties, Kurt Cobain worried that Nirvana’s newfound fame would earn him the wrong sorts of fans; Billie Joe Armstrong was dismayed that Green Day’s popularity changed his relationship to the Bay Area punk scene that had nurtured him. But that was the CD-buying era, when consumers had to pay for their musical choices: this scarcity probably encouraged some listeners to think of their favorite bands as their exclusive property. Nowadays, in the Spotify era, you can stream whatever you like without buying anything, except an expensive phone and a relatively cheap subscription. No one seems to care so much about separating the part-time punks from the real thing.

I sometimes wonder whether the age of arguing about music—the age of purity tests and underground idealism and sneering at the mainstream—is coming to a close. Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism. Maybe, in a world where there’s so much to listen to, it makes more sense to celebrate what you love and ignore everything else. Maybe, from now on, most musical consumers will be omnivores, to whom the notion of loyalty to a genre seems as foreign as the notion of “owning” an album. I sometimes wonder, too, whether political conviction is replacing musical conviction as the preëminent marker of subcultural identity. Perhaps some of the kinds of people who used to talk about obscure bands now prefer to talk about obscure or outré causes. And perhaps political advocacy supplies some of the sense of belonging that people once got from tight-knit punk scenes. That would not necessarily be an unhappy development—although now, as then, there are likely to be plenty of poseurs mixed in with the true believers.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... -time-punk

All I can add from my perspective is when I bought those records back in the day I felt invested in the ideas the songs were addressing. Holding that piece of vinyl and looking at the sleeve and imagery of punk made me feel part of something. The whole package was incredibly important to me from the music and the art making a statement. Something I could never get from streaming or a download.

[Dr. Medulla]

All I can add from my perspective is when I bought those records back in the day I felt invested in the ideas the songs were addressing. Holding that piece of vinyl and looking at the sleeve and imagery of punk made me feel part of something. The whole package was incredibly important to me from the music and the art making a statement. Something I could never get from streaming or a download.

A number of people here have made similar arguments as you—Kory stands out in my mind—regarding the significance of something tangible. And I can relate in terms of how it was back in the day, especially finding something elusive. I was over the moon, for example, when I chanced upon a used copy of First Issue in a used shop in Regina. But I much prefer a download now that the option is available. The music and the act of hearing the music vastly outweigh holding something or looking at it on the shelf. I think it’s bound up to why I do intellectual history as opposed to social or material history. I’m good with the shit that rolls about in our heads and what we argue about; I’m not as drawn to what people do or to documents or objects. It’s not assertion of superiority, but preference.

[Low Down Low]

Yesterday I was typing up notes from a semi-recent piece that I plan on assigning in my punk seminar. There are a number of interesting ideas/speculations in these two paragraphs about how streaming has changed the way we regard music, including its significance w/r/t our identities. I think I'm too old to assess whether this is true or not (streaming is an alternative means for me, not the main) and I still love arguing about … well, lots of stuff, including music. But maybe this does ring true for young Millennials and Z's?

Back in the nineties, Kurt Cobain worried that Nirvana’s newfound fame would earn him the wrong sorts of fans; Billie Joe Armstrong was dismayed that Green Day’s popularity changed his relationship to the Bay Area punk scene that had nurtured him. But that was the CD-buying era, when consumers had to pay for their musical choices: this scarcity probably encouraged some listeners to think of their favorite bands as their exclusive property. Nowadays, in the Spotify era, you can stream whatever you like without buying anything, except an expensive phone and a relatively cheap subscription. No one seems to care so much about separating the part-time punks from the real thing.

I sometimes wonder whether the age of arguing about music—the age of purity tests and underground idealism and sneering at the mainstream—is coming to a close. Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism. Maybe, in a world where there’s so much to listen to, it makes more sense to celebrate what you love and ignore everything else. Maybe, from now on, most musical consumers will be omnivores, to whom the notion of loyalty to a genre seems as foreign as the notion of “owning” an album. I sometimes wonder, too, whether political conviction is replacing musical conviction as the preëminent marker of subcultural identity. Perhaps some of the kinds of people who used to talk about obscure bands now prefer to talk about obscure or outré causes. And perhaps political advocacy supplies some of the sense of belonging that people once got from tight-knit punk scenes. That would not necessarily be an unhappy development—although now, as then, there are likely to be plenty of poseurs mixed in with the true believers.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... -time-punk

There's a lot to unpack in those two paragraphs and i wouldn't have much insight into it. The bit where he talks about music criticism does strike me as interesting because the whole business of being a music writer seems to have a lot less cache these days than it used. I mean, 30-40 years ago, I knew who these guys were and, in some cases, they seemed to regard themselves as equals to some of the bands they covered. Nowadays, nobody seems to make their name being a rock critic or maybe I'm completely out of touch and missing it, which is entirely possible!

[Marky Dread]

All I can add from my perspective is when I bought those records back in the day I felt invested in the ideas the songs were addressing. Holding that piece of vinyl and looking at the sleeve and imagery of punk made me feel part of something. The whole package was incredibly important to me from the music and the art making a statement. Something I could never get from streaming or a download.

A number of people here have made similar arguments as you—Kory stands out in my mind—regarding the significance of something tangible. And I can relate in terms of how it was back in the day, especially finding something elusive. I was over the moon, for example, when I chanced upon a used copy of First Issue in a used shop in Regina. But I much prefer a download now that the option is available. The music and the act of hearing the music vastly outweigh holding something or looking at it on the shelf. I think it’s bound up to why I do intellectual history as opposed to social or material history. I’m good with the shit that rolls about in our heads and what we argue about; I’m not as drawn to what people do or to documents or objects. It’s not assertion of superiority, but preference.

I can totally accept it's an each to their own situation.

I could appreciate the Mona Lisa (I don't much) but I ain't ever gonna own it.

It doesn't need to be physical and if only downloads and streaming were the option available in 1977 then maybe for me things would be different. But the punk era was completely about expressing yourself. I can't imagine it having the same impact without it being physical. Would I have been inspired to make art or my own clothing with a download...unlikely.

[oliver]

Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism.

Is that right? I was always out-of-touch even at my most in-touch but it seems that we've gone from proper in-depth reviews of albums to a couple of lines or maybe, if you're lucky, a paragraph.

I used to like the old Melody Maker way of doing things where you'd get up to a whole page devoted to an album and no score or rating. You'd gauge your opinion based on reading the review rather than seeing a paragraph with 0/10 or 10/10 at the top. Seems like Robert Christgau won.

[Dr. Medulla]

Yesterday I was typing up notes from a semi-recent piece that I plan on assigning in my punk seminar. There are a number of interesting ideas/speculations in these two paragraphs about how streaming has changed the way we regard music, including its significance w/r/t our identities. I think I'm too old to assess whether this is true or not (streaming is an alternative means for me, not the main) and I still love arguing about … well, lots of stuff, including music. But maybe this does ring true for young Millennials and Z's?

Back in the nineties, Kurt Cobain worried that Nirvana’s newfound fame would earn him the wrong sorts of fans; Billie Joe Armstrong was dismayed that Green Day’s popularity changed his relationship to the Bay Area punk scene that had nurtured him. But that was the CD-buying era, when consumers had to pay for their musical choices: this scarcity probably encouraged some listeners to think of their favorite bands as their exclusive property. Nowadays, in the Spotify era, you can stream whatever you like without buying anything, except an expensive phone and a relatively cheap subscription. No one seems to care so much about separating the part-time punks from the real thing.

I sometimes wonder whether the age of arguing about music—the age of purity tests and underground idealism and sneering at the mainstream—is coming to a close. Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism. Maybe, in a world where there’s so much to listen to, it makes more sense to celebrate what you love and ignore everything else. Maybe, from now on, most musical consumers will be omnivores, to whom the notion of loyalty to a genre seems as foreign as the notion of “owning” an album. I sometimes wonder, too, whether political conviction is replacing musical conviction as the preëminent marker of subcultural identity. Perhaps some of the kinds of people who used to talk about obscure bands now prefer to talk about obscure or outré causes. And perhaps political advocacy supplies some of the sense of belonging that people once got from tight-knit punk scenes. That would not necessarily be an unhappy development—although now, as then, there are likely to be plenty of poseurs mixed in with the true believers.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... -time-punk

There's a lot to unpack in those two paragraphs and i wouldn't have much insight into it. The bit where he talks about music criticism does strike me as interesting because the whole business of being a music writer seems to have a lot less cache these days than it used. I mean, 30-40 years ago, I knew who these guys were and, in some cases, they seemed to regard themselves as equals to some of the bands they covered. Nowadays, nobody seems to make their name being a rock critic or maybe I'm completely out of touch and missing it, which is entirely possible!

This is true. Once upon a time, there were a number of Significant Rock Critics (e.g., Bangs, Marcus, Christgau, Meltzer) who established narratives and values of what we should listen for, what qualities made something good or bad. I can't think of anyone wielding that kind of influence now. I had a student this term observe that things are better now because of all the choice via things like Spotify, because it frees us from the tyranny of critics. I responded that algorithms that seek to steer us in various directions is arguably more sinister. As well, there is value in someone out there writing what something means and why. We don't have to agree, but it's good to have that in the back of our mind. If the option is to listen without critical voices, where it does become just a quick pleasure and then onto something else, that seems a tragic devaluing of art.

[Dr. Medulla]

Negative reviews of albums and concerts have largely disappeared from the outlets that publish criticism.

Is that right? I was always out-of-touch even at my most in-touch but it seems that we've gone from proper in-depth reviews of albums to a couple of lines or maybe, if you're lucky, a paragraph.

I used to like the old Melody Maker way of doing things where you'd get up to a whole page devoted to an album and no score or rating. You'd gauge your opinion based on reading the review rather than seeing a paragraph with 0/10 or 10/10 at the top. Seems like Robert Christgau won.

The bolded is just a flat-out beautiful phrase. Seems like it should be part of a song.

But, yeah, it's the social media/twitter effect that you get two paragraphs of attention and that's it. Which eliminates nuance and evaluation, just judgment. Proper criticism should be part of a conversation—the critic with the artist, the critic with the reader—that encourages a continuation of it all, not the final word. That's what I hate about Pitchfork—partly the insufferable decimaled numeric rating (is this a 5.2 or a 5.3, I dunno I dunno?) but the writing smacks of judgement rather than dialogue.