Premier Rock Forum

Gramsci wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:55 am FFS he’s still replying with inane bullshit no one responds to right?

penningtron wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 12:08 pm

Gramsci wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:55 am FFS he’s still replying with inane bullshit no one responds to right?

Yeah. I'm glad the thread turned into something worthwhile, and after one too many of his "Look at me!" type threads and declarations, only to act like they never happened 2 days later was an instant Foe List update for me.

losthighway wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 1:40 pm I LOVE some threads of this conversation, there are too many to diligently quote in what I'm referring to here, but I think you guys get me.

First, I think the idea that human curated content will connect more with the viewer, reader, listener etc is absolutely true. Algorithms have turned up a good listen for me now and then, but it's just not how I want to be introduced to music. Art should be a conversation.

Which brings me to 'the gatekeeper'. I don't want to be Polly Anna here any more than I mean to, When I spoke of the cultural shift and how we don't need the same kind of elitism or snark that was a punk rock reflex in the 20th century, I did not mean that we don't need experts. I think the difference between a gatekeeper and a curator is one purely of attitude. One is a curmudgeon who seeks personal value by being combative, the other finds their value in engaging other people in quality work. They might actually be listening to the same records, watching the same films, and reading the same books.

I also think that there can be a false high art/low art thing about difficulty versus ease of consumption. I personally don't put Glenn Branca on a higher shelf than Motown at all, and certainly not because his work is harder to "get". I do think anyone curious and serious about music should probably explore both. I think an enthusiasm for an art form doesn't necessarily place discord above melody, or shame romance or comedy, abstraction vs economy etc etc.

There was a sociologist (can't recall the name) who theorized that there are three categories of how an individual interacts with their power structure:
A. The authoritarian who automatically assumes that the powers that be are wise and should be followed.
B. The rebel who automatically assumes that the powers that be are foolish and should always be opposed.
C. The information oriented person, who perceives virtuous and nefarious qualities to be equally possible, and available in different measures in any situation.

I think art is the same way. To assume that something popular is excellent because of popularity seems a little basic. But to assume the opposite doesn't seem any more thoughtful to me. At points I have found more clever harmonic progressions in a Disney song, and definitely grew to a point of finding a hardcore punk rock musical orthodoxy that seemed pointlessly limited in the 90's. There is a surprisingly wide middle area where artistic ambition and popular acclaim meet. It's The Coen Brothers, it's Dostoyevsky, it's R.E.M. I think there are numerous critical merits and potential critiques for anything in that area, but the last reason to reject them is their popularity.

This doesn't even mention the phenomenon of the "gateway" artist who represents a different scene or movement, but happens to do it in a way that is slightly easier to grasp, or somehow more universal than their family of creators and serves as an entry point for the curious.

Gramsci wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 11:55 am FFS he’s still replying with inane bullshit no one responds to right?

Some folks are “getting the message” divergent

zorg wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:17 pm So, obviously there are still Facebook Group, which I don't use, and the BBQ's and Thundersnows, which I've never attended. To Jeff's point is that scene also fractured by this point?

enframed wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2024 8:02 pm One was basically "jumped in."

InMySoul77 wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 3:08 pm

losthighway wrote: Wed Jan 10, 2024 1:40 pm I LOVE some threads of this conversation, there are too many to diligently quote in what I'm referring to here, but I think you guys get me.

First, I think the idea that human curated content will connect more with the viewer, reader, listener etc is absolutely true. Algorithms have turned up a good listen for me now and then, but it's just not how I want to be introduced to music. Art should be a conversation.

Which brings me to 'the gatekeeper'. I don't want to be Polly Anna here any more than I mean to, When I spoke of the cultural shift and how we don't need the same kind of elitism or snark that was a punk rock reflex in the 20th century, I did not mean that we don't need experts. I think the difference between a gatekeeper and a curator is one purely of attitude. One is a curmudgeon who seeks personal value by being combative, the other finds their value in engaging other people in quality work. They might actually be listening to the same records, watching the same films, and reading the same books.

I also think that there can be a false high art/low art thing about difficulty versus ease of consumption. I personally don't put Glenn Branca on a higher shelf than Motown at all, and certainly not because his work is harder to "get". I do think anyone curious and serious about music should probably explore both. I think an enthusiasm for an art form doesn't necessarily place discord above melody, or shame romance or comedy, abstraction vs economy etc etc.

There was a sociologist (can't recall the name) who theorized that there are three categories of how an individual interacts with their power structure:
A. The authoritarian who automatically assumes that the powers that be are wise and should be followed.
B. The rebel who automatically assumes that the powers that be are foolish and should always be opposed.
C. The information oriented person, who perceives virtuous and nefarious qualities to be equally possible, and available in different measures in any situation.

I think art is the same way. To assume that something popular is excellent because of popularity seems a little basic. But to assume the opposite doesn't seem any more thoughtful to me. At points I have found more clever harmonic progressions in a Disney song, and definitely grew to a point of finding a hardcore punk rock musical orthodoxy that seemed pointlessly limited in the 90's. There is a surprisingly wide middle area where artistic ambition and popular acclaim meet. It's The Coen Brothers, it's Dostoyevsky, it's R.E.M. I think there are numerous critical merits and potential critiques for anything in that area, but the last reason to reject them is their popularity.

This doesn't even mention the phenomenon of the "gateway" artist who represents a different scene or movement, but happens to do it in a way that is slightly easier to grasp, or somehow more universal than their family of creators and serves as an entry point for the curious.

Extremely well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.