Decades

A few days ago, I finished a quick piece for the fanzine I write for (FAN) about music from 1984, 'though in part it was also about how I feel 1980s popular culture have been misrepresented and treated with unfair disdain. I think, possibly, this was in part because many of the critics of 80s culture grew up in the 60s and 70s, a time where rock (and related) music was a shared thing - almost what you could call a monoculture - between most young people everywhere. Of course, there may have been Stones vs. Beatles feuds, but everybody knew who they were. (Now, I'm not saying there werent obscure and/or underground artists. Just wanted to set the record straight).

But by the 80s (or even late 70s), the shear amount of music - in part because of the spread of DIY on the one side and easier, cheaper, and faster ways to mass produce music (e.g. Stock Aitken Waterman) on the other - may have lead to the situation where the older critics just couldn't keep up. What had previously been a shared youth culture was by the 80s many separate youth cultures. Add to this, the birth of MTV lead to increased focus on image, something critics of rockist leanings would dislike, and images tend to stay in the consciousness for a while. So, since many popstars of that time wore bright colors and puffy clothes (to get noticed, you know), that's what they remember, and not the kids who wore jeans and Chuck Taylors at the R.E.M. gig, just what some might wear today.

Mostly, though, my gripe has been with Norwegian critics. I feel it's been different in other countries. The Brits have been proud of how the Smiths and the Housmartins were parts of their popular culture, while Americans have understood more than most others that there were several plains in popular culture in the eighties, e.g. the birth of AmerIndie, the birth of hip-hop, as well as mainstream giants like Springsteen and Prince (who at the same time, may have shared many values with the underground cultures at the time). Few critics have been better at writing about the music of the 80s than Robert Cristagau. He found, and still does find, values and sounds to be treasured or loathed all across the board. My kind of listener.

But I waffle. I just thought it a funny coincidence that I had just recently been writing about how a decade has been (mis-?)perceived, and that this week Pitchfork have started a 2000s countdown, with lists, essays and what not. Now, I like history and a can enjoy a good list like any other jerk, and I may have a "Best Jazz of 2000-09" or something to that effect by the end of the year myself, but I thought this was a bit too early. I had almost forgotten we'd come to the end of a deade.

Anyway. Decades, huh? Strange, isn't it.

Music Crits too tolerant? What's Indie? Informed opinions? Target audiences?

A post by Mike Barthel on Idolator yesterday, which starts off asking why it is Metacritic's average scores for records is higher than they are for movies, then proceeds to guess it has something to do with a indie mentality: "The indie audience and the critics that spring from it have become so catholic in their tastes that they can see the good in almost anything that's not bad on a very basic technical level." (My highlights).

And the piece kind of sprawls from there, taking in questions of how one can write about music without knowing enough "to have an informed opinion" with an "audience for my review" that "would be people that are highly informed".

The comments are all over the place too, but I liked Matos' point: I'd rather read a critic who's actually made an effort to understand something and then dismissed it gleefully and with malice aforethought (...) than "are you kidding?" disdain for something the writer plainly isn't getting."

If I had more time, I'd join in on the debate, and there may be some points, either made by Mike or in the comments, that I'm missing here.

But if there was one thing I'd hope would come out of the poptimist/rockist debate, whichever side you were on, it was that people would stop having such hangups with genres. And they're back at it here. Broad taste is defined purely by genre, as one commenter says " But I see kids with everything from Modest Mouse to Jack Johnson to Ciara to Trace Adkins to Mastodon. There's a healthy mix (...)".

One who calls himself RaptorAvatar is on to something: "Even if you're like me and know that you're partial to a certain set of values that often crystallize most readily in indie rock, chances are that you have at least an ethos-level sense that you should maybe listen to "Year of The Gentleman (...)" (=Ne-Yo's latest, my comment).

Only I'd add to his "indie rock", jazz, rap, pop, r&b... See, what I've found over the years is that the values and expressions I seek and like - not only in music but in literature and films as well - are not confined to one genre specifically (though I may concur that some values, which RA touches on, are probably more likely to be found in one genre over another). Similarly, what I don't like in music can be found in alomost every genre as well. E.g. indie as a genre does not in and of itself express one coherent set of values, nor do indie bands and musicians express them equally well. The same goes for any other genre.

Before I'm labeled as a relativist here, let me just say in one respect, one can claim that my taste is actually very narrow in that I know exactly which kinds of values, expressions etc. I like and dislike - though music has a way of surprising you sometimes.

This, I maintain, is what gives me the right to have an opinion on almost anything I want to write about. What I take the time, and money, to write about is another matter all together.

(A belated and retro-influenced Songs of the Week will appear shortly).