SPIN magazine prog article
daveroxit1
cover) there is a page-long feature on Essential Prog albums---a rather
shocking thing to find in a usually hipper-than-thou magazine. As best as I
can remember, the featured albums discussed (all with sincere admiration,
rather than the usual smarmy "this stuff actually sucks--wink wink" stance)
are...
Genesis FOXTROT
Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
King Crimson RED
ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
Yes FRAGILE
Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
Can EGE BAMYASI
Gong FLYING TEAPOT
Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
...and probably one or two others that I'm having a brain-fart on right now.
Richard Barnes
--
Richard Barnes
"daveroxit1" <daver...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031205121644...@mb-m13.aol.com...
bob...@penthouse.com
<ric...@barnes-assoc.co.uk> wrote:
>Tortoise?
Like, it's Spin, dude.
Man In Space
much more important to me.
It's the same old paradox : if there's new music that's truly progressive,
it won't resemble the old prog, and thus won't be accepted by fans of the
original sound.
Tortoise is an excellent example of what's happening today, and isn't
obviously based on the first wave.
Jan
"Richard Barnes" <ric...@barnes-assoc.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:bqs4k5$k6f$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
J.B.L.
>Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
>King Crimson RED
>ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
>Yes FRAGILE
>Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
>Can EGE BAMYASI
>Gong FLYING TEAPOT
>Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
I actually have quite a few of those, unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS or some such title. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
"In here" -- he tapped his head -- "it's Halloween all the time."
Great deals on PC components: www.tcguywv.com
R. Totale
>Genesis FOXTROT
>Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
>King Crimson RED
>ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
>Yes FRAGILE
>Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
>Can EGE BAMYASI
>Gong FLYING TEAPOT
>Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
Except for Tortoise who I admit I've never heard or even heard of,
I've got all of these, and listened to them faithfully 20+ years ago.
I can't imagine actually putting on more than one or two of them
today, though. I might enjoy "Red", it's been a while. "Teapot" would
have its moments. The rest are well past their sell-by date.
daveroxit1
Rush CHRONICLES.
Alex Temple
/Ege Bamyasi/ is so nice and harmless, though!
--
Alex Temple
fiber_optiq NO [at] SPAM yahoo PLEASE [dot] com
http://www.isomerica.net/~electricwalrus
"Memes don't exist. Tell your friends."
no.nine
> I can't imagine actually putting on more than one or two of them
> today, though. I might enjoy "Red", it's been a while. "Teapot" would
> have its moments. The rest are well past their sell-by date.
Good music has no sell-by date.
J.B.L.
I've been asking myself that question since 1970...
np: Spiral Architect - A Skeptic's Universe. neato over the top math metal.
Vocalist reminds me of Ian Gillan, who never impressed me too much, but it's
interesting just listening to him navigate the maze. Lyrically, well, they're
sort of skeptical about the universe or something. Remember the Motto:
We Don't Buy This Stuff For The Lyrics (TM).
Steven Sullivan
> >Genesis FOXTROT
> >Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
> >King Crimson RED
> >ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
> >Yes FRAGILE
> >Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
> >Can EGE BAMYASI
> >Gong FLYING TEAPOT
> >Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
> I actually have quite a few of those, unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
> 500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS or some such title. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
Well, gee, I guess that means you're very much a *prog fan*.
I have most of the above AND many of the RS 500. Nyah.
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Alex Temple
> stood...@aol.com (J.B.L.) wrote:
>
> > unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
> > 500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
>
> Good grief. What the hell have you been buying? ;)
Here's something interesting: Out of the RS top 500, I had twelve. Of
those, eight were released before 1970. However, the majority of rock
albums I own are from the 90s and 00s.
Jeff Blanks
> It's the same old paradox : if there's new music that's truly progressive,
> it won't resemble the old prog, and thus won't be accepted by fans of the
> original sound.
I don't think that's necessarily so. OTOH, it seems that a lot of
people go out of their way to relate some of today's music to the '70s
stuff. When, then, it's accepted, someone will say that that's because
it *so obviously relates to the '70s stuff*.
> Tortoise is an excellent example of what's happening today, and isn't
> obviously based on the first wave.
>
> Jan
What little I've heard was OK, but didn't really move me. Apparently
they're a "post-rock" band, which strikes me much the way someone once
described "post-modern" (at least in the immediate, pop-cultural sense)
as "really pre-modern, but unwilling to admit it".
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
Mivarsh Faz
:>Genesis FOXTROT
:>Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
:>King Crimson RED
:>ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
:>Yes FRAGILE
:>Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
:>Can EGE BAMYASI
:>Gong FLYING TEAPOT
:>Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
:
:I actually have quite a few of those, unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
:500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS or some such title. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
I have owned six of the above listed nine albums. Never owned
WOIIFTM, Tortoise or the Moodies album. Technically, I no longer own
_Flying Teapot_, either, as I sold my vinyl copy (kneaded the dough)
and haven't yet replaced it with a CD.
From the RS list, I owned about 25 or so of the albums. If we
factor in albums I owned at one time, but don't anymore, probably over
30.
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
To reply, put a cereal box over your head, bang on a pot with a spoon
and shout "Poisson! Poisson!" Should that fail, consult [nickname] AT
"Ess Bee Cee" Glow-bull period net.
"Fetch Daddy's hard, plastic eyes, so that he can see the TV"
--Carl, of Carl & Sons.
N.P.:"F l o s s e n e n g e l" - N o v a l i s
Alex Temple
> What little I've heard was OK, but didn't really move me. Apparently
> they're a "post-rock" band, which strikes me much the way someone once
> described "post-modern" (at least in the immediate, pop-cultural sense)
> as "really pre-modern, but unwilling to admit it".
At the risk of taking a quip far too seriously, I'd say "post-modern" is more
like "recognizing that to simply be unselfconsciously pre-modern would be
naïve, and so self-consciously and ironically citing elements of the pre-modern
in a revised and meaning-altering context."
Public Image Ltd
>
> What little I've heard was OK, but didn't really move me. Apparently
> they're a "post-rock" band, which strikes me much the way someone once
> described "post-modern" (at least in the immediate, pop-cultural sense)
> as "really pre-modern, but unwilling to admit it".
The thing with Tortoise is that they change style on every album.
_Millions etc_ is the one that made the critics (and a few people
here) sit up and take notice, but I find that despite its lengthy
tracks, it is a little uninspired. The dub thing doesn't do too much
for me either. Their later jazzier stuff hits the mark a lot better
IMHO, and I would be inclined to say that they do jazz a lot better
than fellow travellers such as Stereolab.
greblracr
>here) sit up and take notice, but I find that despite its lengthy
>tracks, it is a little uninspired.
Plus, it's only impressive if you're unfamiliar with Cluster.
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > What little I've heard was OK, but didn't really move me. Apparently
> > they're a "post-rock" band, which strikes me much the way someone once
> > described "post-modern" (at least in the immediate, pop-cultural sense)
> > as "really pre-modern, but unwilling to admit it".
>
> At the risk of taking a quip far too seriously,
Maybe. But that *is* how the music/art/wardrobe/whatever seems to want
to be taken.
> I'd say "post-modern" is more
> like "recognizing that to simply be unselfconsciously pre-modern would be
> naïve, and so self-consciously and ironically citing elements of the
> pre-modern in a revised and meaning-altering context."
I think that's a good definition, too, though it's important for me to
add that I don't think the two definitions conflict. OTOH, taking the
long historical arc into account, what's modern isn't necessarily that
obvious. Most pop "postmodernism" seems to be into simply an older idea
of the modern. The real problem is when, as I just *knew* would happen
even back then, it becomes the default cultural stance, thereby robbing
it of its meaning and becoming merely earnestly reactionary, as earnest
reactionaries who don't get the inside joke hop along for the ride. By
now, I think most people simply don't get the joke. Or else, we *all*
get it and we're just *very good* at keeping it a secret.
Pat Buzby
> J.B.L. <stood...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Genesis FOXTROT
> > >Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
> > >King Crimson RED
> > >ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
> > >Yes FRAGILE
> > >Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
> > >Can EGE BAMYASI
> > >Gong FLYING TEAPOT
> > >Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
>
> > I actually have quite a few of those, unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
> > 500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS or some such title. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
>
> Well, gee, I guess that means you're very much a *prog fan*.
>
> I have most of the above AND many of the RS 500. Nyah.
Kinda interesting that Jethro Tull's Aqualung made the RS 500,
but is not in the Spin list above. (BTW, I have a bit of idle
curiosity - would true Moodies fans pick one of their later albums
over DoFP?)
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
Morten Tornes
Movie monsters, or what it`s called, one of their first).
I really like Tortoise, have all of their albums. But I actually like their
last one best, Standards. It`s a bit more straightforward, more funky and
rocking. If you like Tortoise, you could check out the Norwegian band Jaga
Jazzist ( www.jagajazzist.com ) I love them, they mix jazz and electronica
in a really cool way. They are a ten piece ensamble, real instruments, lots
of horns and woodwinds and stuff. Really cool. Think Tortoise with less
guitar and more jazz instruments.
in article 20031205121644...@mb-m13.aol.com, daveroxit1 at
daver...@aol.com wrote on 05.12.03 18:16:
Anthony Nance
Which Cluster/Kluster would you recommend? I have "One Hour", and it
bores me to tears. I'd be glad to hear I grabbed the wrong one.
Tony
J.B.L.
>curiosity - would true Moodies fans pick one of their later albums
>over DoFP?)
I probably don't qualify as a "True Moodies Fan", but I prefer Every Good Boy
Deserves Favour and Seventh Sojourn. It would be hard to judge between those
two, though...
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > I'd say "post-modern" is more
> > like "recognizing that to simply be unselfconsciously pre-modern would be
> > naïve, and so self-consciously and ironically citing elements of the
> > pre-modern in a revised and meaning-altering context."
>
> I think that's a good definition, too,
(Props to Umberto Eco.)
> OTOH, taking the
> long historical arc into account, what's modern isn't necessarily that
> obvious.
I think it's misleading to consider the post-modern to simply be post +
modern. Usually it would be more accurate to say that it's post + modernist,
with "modernist" defined as "placing great emphasis on its status as modern."
> Most pop "postmodernism" seems to be into simply an older idea
> of the modern.
Example(s)?
Zero the Hero
> Which Cluster/Kluster would you recommend? I have "One Hour", and it
> bores me to tears. I'd be glad to hear I grabbed the wrong one.
Oh, you definitely grabbed the wrong one. Try _Zuckerzeit_ or maybe _Sowieso_.
0
Mivarsh Faz
:> Which Cluster/Kluster would you recommend? I have "One Hour", and it
:> bores me to tears. I'd be glad to hear I grabbed the wrong one.
:
:Oh, you definitely grabbed the wrong one. Try _Zuckerzeit_ or maybe _Sowieso_.
I'll second the _Sowiesoso_ recommendation. Haunting and
beautiful. I also dig _Cluster 2_, but it's pretty gritty, noisy,
proto-industrial stuff and definitely not for everyone. If you're into
stuff like Throbbing Gristle or Nurse With Wound, on the other hand,
I'd recommend *starting* there!
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
to reply, See Beautiful Corners GLOBAL-ly, "dot" your I's and above
all, don't get caught in the NET
"You can take the war out of the soldier, but you can't raise that
soldier from the dead."
--Shona Laing
N.P.:"Blazing Lace"- S e c r e t O y s t e r / F u r t i v e P e a r
l
Jeff Blanks
> I think it's misleading to consider the post-modern to simply be post +
> modern. Usually it would be more accurate to say that it's post + modernist,
> with "modernist" defined as "placing great emphasis on its status as modern."
True.
I wrote:
> > Most pop "postmodernism" seems to be into simply an older idea
> > of the modern.
>
> Example(s)?
Too many to count; you could walk outside and encounter one within five
minutes probably just by raiding everyone's trash. The elements that
most pop postmodern gestures employ tend to come from the immediate
pre-Summer Of Love period, which I think is telling; you can see it in
everything from Elvis Costello to *Edward Scissorhands* (speaking of
which, hi, Richard!). :-) It's so prevalent (and by now so bound up
with mere earnest conservatism) that we don't notice it anymore.
Lately it's been going back a bit farther, to the (non-rock'n'roll) late
'50s and even '40s, what with the khakis and crewcuts and bowling shirts
and all. I guess I don't quite agree with Eco's reference to a
"meaning-altering context", because the original meanings tend to come
through loud and clear, just with an "ironic" edge to them regarding how
There's Nothing New Under The Sun.
FunkyM
> In this month's issue of Spin (the one with Chris Martin of Coldplay on the
> cover) there is a page-long feature on Essential Prog albums---a rather
> shocking thing to find in a usually hipper-than-thou magazine. As best as I
> can remember, the featured albums discussed (all with sincere admiration,
> rather than the usual smarmy "this stuff actually sucks--wink wink" stance)
> are...
Wow! Sounds groovy, like, really mellow, man!
> Genesis FOXTROT
FunkyM got it, it's cool stuff!
> Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
Don't got it but will get it in the future probably.
> King Crimson RED
Gots it, one of their best IFMO (in FunkyM's opinion)!
> ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
Got it. FunkyM likes ELP, they are wild and crazy guys!
> Yes FRAGILE
Got it. FunkyM likes the Yes Album and Close to the Edge better than
this one but it's not bad!
> Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
Got it, it's pretty cool.
> Can EGE BAMYASI
> Gong FLYING TEAPOT
> Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
Don't got these yet, but Can and Gong are groovy!
> ...and probably one or two others that I'm having a brain-fart on right now.
So it WAS you in the elevator!!
Jeff Blanks
> At the risk of taking a quip far too seriously, I'd say "post-modern" is more
> like "recognizing that to simply be unselfconsciously pre-modern would be
> naïve, and so self-consciously and ironically citing elements of the
> pre-modern in a revised and meaning-altering context."
Oh, one more thing: Why would one want "to simply be unselfconsciously
pre-modern", hmmm?
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > At the risk of taking a quip far too seriously, I'd say "post-modern" is more
> > like "recognizing that to simply be unselfconsciously pre-modern would be
> > naïve, and so self-consciously and ironically citing elements of the
> > pre-modern in a revised and meaning-altering context."
>
> Oh, one more thing: Why would one want "to simply be unselfconsciously
> pre-modern", hmmm?
I don't know /why/, but lots of people apparently do. Look at the whole "bring
back the 1950s" subset of American conservatism.
Zaragon
> stood...@aol.com (J.B.L.) wrote:
>
> :>Genesis FOXTROT
> :>Zappa WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY
> :>King Crimson RED
> :>ELP BRAIN SALAD SURGERY
> :>Yes FRAGILE
> :>Moody Blues DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED
> :>Can EGE BAMYASI
> :>Gong FLYING TEAPOT
> :>Tortoise MILLIONS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE
> :
> :I actually have quite a few of those, unlike the recent Rolling Stone list of
> :500 ESSENTIAL ALBUMS or some such title. I think I had 3 or 4 of those.
>
> I have owned six of the above listed nine albums. Never owned
> WOIIFTM, Tortoise or the Moodies album. Technically, I no longer own
> _Flying Teapot_, either, as I sold my vinyl copy (kneaded the dough)
> and haven't yet replaced it with a CD.
> From the RS list, I owned about 25 or so of the albums. If we
> factor in albums I owned at one time, but don't anymore, probably over
> 30.
I own the *music* of all but the Tortoise from the list above, and
about half the titles from the RS top 500. Granted, I only have most
of them now in a more, urr..., *compact* medium, as I could have never
managed to leave Portland with all that vinyl in tow!
TS
Zaragon
> Here's something interesting: Out of the RS top 500, I had twelve. Of
> those, eight were released before 1970. However, the majority of rock
> albums I own are from the 90s and 00s.
Off the top of my head, I think the only pre-1983 titles I don't have
from the RS 500 are the Dylan albums and some of the pre-Beatles rock
n' roll. I have virtually none of the post-1985 shit, though. The
majority of my rock comes from the 70's and very early 80's.
TS
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh, one more thing: Why would one want "to simply be unselfconsciously
> > pre-modern", hmmm?
>
> I don't know /why/, but lots of people apparently do. Look at the whole
> "bring back the 1950s" subset of American conservatism.
Exactly. What I'm saying is that ISTM that a lot of these people who
present themselves as "postmodern with a premodern facade" *really are
premodern deep inside*.
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Blanks wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oh, one more thing: Why would one want "to simply be unselfconsciously
> > > pre-modern", hmmm?
> >
> > I don't know /why/, but lots of people apparently do. Look at the whole
> > "bring back the 1950s" subset of American conservatism.
>
> Exactly. What I'm saying is that ISTM that a lot of these people who
> present themselves as "postmodern with a premodern facade" *really are
> premodern deep inside*.
I just don't see it. "Bring back the 50s" conservatives aren't the same
people as "bring back the 50s" retro-hipsters.
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > What I'm saying is that ISTM that a lot of these people who
> > present themselves as "postmodern with a premodern facade" *really are
> > premodern deep inside*.
>
> I just don't see it. "Bring back the 50s" conservatives aren't the same
> people as "bring back the 50s" retro-hipsters.
They're close enough to make the difference, IMNSHO. Either way, the
'50s get brought back. Better the retro-hipster variety, but that's
still just the lesser of two evils.
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Blanks wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm saying is that ISTM that a lot of these people who
> > > present themselves as "postmodern with a premodern facade" *really are
> > > premodern deep inside*.
> >
> > I just don't see it. "Bring back the 50s" conservatives aren't the same
> > people as "bring back the 50s" retro-hipsters.
>
> They're close enough to make the difference, IMNSHO. Either way, the
> '50s get brought back.
But what aspect of them -- surf-rock and diners, or McCarthyism and women
confined to the kitchen?
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff Blanks wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I'm saying is that ISTM that a lot of these people who
> > > > present themselves as "postmodern with a premodern facade" *really are
> > > > premodern deep inside*.
> > >
> > > I just don't see it. "Bring back the 50s" conservatives aren't the same
> > > people as "bring back the 50s" retro-hipsters.
> >
> > They're close enough to make the difference, IMNSHO. Either way, the
> > '50s get brought back.
>
> But what aspect of them -- surf-rock and diners, or McCarthyism and women
> confined to the kitchen?
Looks like both sides want surf-rock and diners. In fact, it seems the
McCarthyites use surf-rock and diners to create a context in which they
can be cool again. Besides, nostalgia and progressivism of any sort
just seem like a really iffy mix, so I just don't think it's a good
tactic for progressives to employ. And beyond any political
considerations, deciding that surf-rock and diners should be king of the
hill again with no other contenders is in its own way just another kind
of reaction; it may not be as bad as McCarthyism, but it's still bad.
Alex Temple
> And beyond any political
> considerations, deciding that surf-rock and diners should be king of the
> hill again with no other contenders is in its own way just another kind
> of reaction; it may not be as bad as McCarthyism, but it's still bad.
It seems to me that anyone who focuses /only/ on the 50s as a period of
idealization is far from postmodern(ist). The pomo thing always struck me as
being about combining ideas and images from various eras somewhat willy-nilly.
Jeff Blanks
> It seems to me that anyone who focuses /only/ on the 50s as a period of
> idealization is far from postmodern(ist). The pomo thing always struck me as
> being about combining ideas and images from various eras somewhat willy-nilly.
Well, yes, but that's just not the way it's worked out, is it? (TBH,
I'd say the focus expands to include the entire middle third of the 20th
Century, from "nothing to fear but fear itself" to the British
Invasion.)
Tony Elka
Jeff Blanks <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
> strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
"Breakfast is ready!" --Sir Francis Bacon & Eggs
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that anyone who focuses /only/ on the 50s as a period of
> > idealization is far from postmodern(ist). The pomo thing always struck me as
> > being about combining ideas and images from various eras somewhat willy-nilly.
>
> Well, yes, but that's just not the way it's worked out, is it? (TBH,
> I'd say the focus expands to include the entire middle third of the 20th
> Century, from "nothing to fear but fear itself" to the British
> Invasion.)
The focus of /what/? Who exactly are you classifying as postmodern?
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me that anyone who focuses /only/ on the 50s as a period of
> > > idealization is far from postmodern(ist). The pomo thing always struck
> > > me as
> > > being about combining ideas and images from various eras somewhat
> > > willy-nilly.
> >
> > Well, yes, but that's just not the way it's worked out, is it? (TBH,
> > I'd say the focus expands to include the entire middle third of the 20th
> > Century, from "nothing to fear but fear itself" to the British
> > Invasion.)
>
> The focus of /what/? Who exactly are you classifying as postmodern?
The focus of the effort to appropriate "retro" (as opposed to
"historical") imagery. *Whose* idea of retro is important here, as well
when something stops being retro and becomes historical.
It's hard to classify anything as "postmodern", because it always struck
me as a *word* first. The way it's developed, postmodernism seems to be
about little more than updated retro. I tend to agree with Umberto Eco
definition-wise, except for the bit about "new meanings". But then,
postmodernism in practice seems to be all about ambiguity.
A cultural conservative will tell you that mid-century imagery is
"timeless" but post-'67 imagery is "retro." A postmodernist will, it
turns out, do much the same thing. They may have slightly different
reasons for employing the elements that they do, but they both
ultimately appear to have a sort of anti-hippie restorationist mindset
to them. Anyone who tells you that "the '60s are over" likely wants to
go even farther back than the '60s in spirit. I guess what I'm saying
is that the whole concept of postmodernism sometimes strikes me as a
sort of dodge. It doesn't really address the mid-'70s what-do-we-do-now
impasse as much as comment on it. Maybe my thinking just isn't that
clear as it should be given how much I've ruminated over it.
Tony Elka
Jeff Blanks <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
> strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
"Join me for lunch?" --Sir Francis Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato
Alex Temple
> > The focus of /what/? Who exactly are you classifying as postmodern?
>
> The focus of the effort to appropriate "retro" (as opposed to
> "historical") imagery. *Whose* idea of retro is important here, as well
> when something stops being retro and becomes historical.
>
> It's hard to classify anything as "postmodern", because it always struck
> me as a *word* first. The way it's developed, postmodernism seems to be
> about little more than updated retro. I tend to agree with Umberto Eco
> definition-wise, except for the bit about "new meanings". But then,
> postmodernism in practice seems to be all about ambiguity.
>
> A cultural conservative will tell you that mid-century imagery is
> "timeless" but post-'67 imagery is "retro." A postmodernist will, it
> turns out, do much the same thing. They may have slightly different
> reasons for employing the elements that they do, but they both
> ultimately appear to have a sort of anti-hippie restorationist mindset
> to them. Anyone who tells you that "the '60s are over" likely wants to
> go even farther back than the '60s in spirit. I guess what I'm saying
> is that the whole concept of postmodernism sometimes strikes me as a
> sort of dodge. It doesn't really address the mid-'70s what-do-we-do-now
> impasse as much as comment on it. Maybe my thinking just isn't that
> clear as it should be given how much I've ruminated over it.
I feel like we're talking about three different things here and conflating them
because of the stupid P-word.
First of all, there's what Eco calls the postmodern condition. That's a
description of the (supposed) state of society, a state of lost innocence, and
lost faith in the modernist project (i.e. the attempt to perfect humanity
through cultural innovation), in which irony is the only way to bring back the
past. Anyone who believes in this vision of society is clearly not a cultural
conservative; if there's one thing cultural conservatives are not friendly to,
it's irony. (When you say that postmodernism is more of a comment than a
solution, this seems to be what you're talking about -- and I agree with you.)
Secondly, there's postmodernist art. Thomas Pynchon, John Zorn, Jeff Koons,
Michael Graves. These are people who combine elements from different eras and
especially from different levels of cultural status in their work. This is
postmodernist because it rejects the high vs. low culture assumptions of
modernism, as well as modernism's belief (viz. Adorno) that only forward
progress is acceptable in art, and looking back to the past is retrogressive and
worthless. (This is problematic, though, because Stravinsky also used past
materials ironically, and was condemned by Adorno as retrogressive as a result,
but he's certainly a modernist of some sort.)
Then there's postmodernist literary criticism -- Derrida and so on. I don't
know much about this, but as I understand it the basic idea is that all cultural
products can be read like texts, but that all texts refer only to other texts,
not to the world itself. I don't think this really relates to any of the things
we're discussing.
And you've also brought up the whole retro thing. I don't really see that as
relating to postmodernist art, because the artists who get filed under that are
usually heading at things from a "high culture (which must be destroyed)" angle
rather than a "pop culture" angle. (This will probably change, as the vitality
of avant-garde pop culture (Laurie Anderson or whatever) is increasingly
recognized by art historians.) It doesn't seem to have anything to do with pomo
lit crit either. So the only thing I can think of is that people who are into
retro imagery are using irony to cite a lost past, much like the "As Barbara
Cartland would say, I love you madly" bit in Eco's postscript to /The Name of
the Rose/. And what you seem to be saying is that these people really want to
bring back the past out of a deep opposition to recent developments. But first
of all, I've never met a hipster who wasn't very proud of being au courant, nor
one who wasn't in some sense a successor, as all subcultures are, to the hippie
movement; for them, 50s imagery is kitsch, it's goofy fun -- it's certainly not
an ideal, nor any sort of anti-60s sentiment in action. And secondly, anyone
who actually believes what Eco says can't possibly make a sincere attempt to
bring back the past, because according to that worldview it's impossible to do
so.
Jeff Blanks
> I feel like we're talking about three different things here and conflating
> them because of the stupid P-word.
I agree.
> First of all, there's what Eco calls the postmodern condition. That's a
> description of the (supposed) state of society, a state of lost innocence,
> and lost faith in the modernist project (i.e. the attempt to perfect humanity
> through cultural innovation), in which irony is the only way to bring back
> the past....(When you say that postmodernism is more of a comment than a
> solution, this seems to be what you're talking about -- and I agree with
> you.)
Right. I'd say what I'm talking about here is art that tries to express
the postmodern condition by employing retro-as-irony.
> Secondly, there's postmodernist art. Thomas Pynchon, John Zorn, Jeff Koons,
> Michael Graves. These are people who combine elements from different eras
> and especially from different levels of cultural status in their work. This is
> postmodernist because it rejects the high vs. low culture assumptions of
> modernism, as well as modernism's belief (viz. Adorno) that only forward
> progress is acceptable in art, and looking back to the past is retrogressive
> and worthless. (This is problematic, though, because Stravinsky also used past
> materials ironically, and was condemned by Adorno as retrogressive as a
> result, but he's certainly a modernist of some sort.)
Still, the use of past materials can fairly be considered *potentially*
reactionary. More likely it's an attempt to find "a future for the
past", so to speak. All the same, when people who consider themselves
progressives at heart try this, they probably can't help but be struck
by the (yep) irony of the situation. So retro-as-irony can have more
than one way of arising.
And then there's Paul Hindemith, who looked to the past in earnest in
the service of creating something new. Same goes for, say, Ralph
Vaughan Williams. I think the key here is in looking at what the people
of the past did without being caught up in its being THE PAST. You just
have to remember why you're looking back to the past--to see if there
are things there that can open up new paths, not close them.
> Then there's postmodernist literary criticism -- Derrida and so on....
> I don't think this really relates to any of the things we're discussing.
True.
> ...the only thing I can think of is that people who are into
> retro imagery are using irony to cite a lost past, much like the "As Barbara
> Cartland would say, I love you madly" bit in Eco's postscript to /The Name of
> the Rose/. And what you seem to be saying is that these people really want
> to bring back the past out of a deep opposition to recent developments.
Largely, yes. Either that or their art is anti-esthetic and can be
appreciated only as subtext.
> But first of all, I've never met a hipster who wasn't very proud
> of being au courant, nor one who wasn't in some sense a successor,
> as all subcultures are, to the hippie movement;
> for them, 50s imagery is kitsch, it's goofy fun -- it's certainly
> not an ideal, nor any sort of anti-60s sentiment in action.
Well, I know it's kitsch, but kitsch usually isn't the driving force of
a cultural movement. It seems to me a universal inside joke (especially
among scenes that have connections to punk, that is to say all of them
these days that could possibly be "hip") to make digs at "dirty, smelly
hippies" and some such; I certainly see them occasionally on the
Goth-scene e-mail list I'm on, albeit not in a totally serious way
(befittingly enough). And besides, for the last quarter-century it's
seemed that to be *au courant* is to employ postmodern. It seems the
conventional response to what's been called the exhaustion of the
avant-garde.
What do your hipster friends do when they're *not* having goofy fun? Or
are they having goofy fun all the time? Do they ever come across as
actually *liking* anything? Or are they so completely convinced of the
absurdity of the entire enterprise that they think it's not worth it?
This is gonna sound odd, but: What do they *wear*? Is it the
neo-beatnik look based on the artsy '50s scene? Is it the indie-rock
plaid-and-khakis look based on the mainstream early '60s? When they
play music, what instruments do they use? Am I stereotyping too much?
> And secondly, anyone
> who actually believes what Eco says can't possibly make a sincere attempt to
> bring back the past, because according to that worldview it's impossible to
> do so.
So much for that worldview. Obviously as long as there are
conservatives and reactionaries it'll be considered perfectly possible.
I guess the question is: What made Eco et al. think such a thing in the
first place? Just because humanity can't be PERFECTED, that doesn't
mean the modernist project or its artifacts suddenly have no value.
Whether they're right or not, it's obvious that retro-as-irony has
proven to be an awfully powerful idea--perhaps *too* powerful for our
culture's overall good.
Alex Temple
> > First of all, there's what Eco calls the postmodern condition. That's a
> > description of the (supposed) state of society, a state of lost innocence,
> > and lost faith in the modernist project (i.e. the attempt to perfect humanity
> > through cultural innovation), in which irony is the only way to bring back
> > the past....(When you say that postmodernism is more of a comment than a
> > solution, this seems to be what you're talking about -- and I agree with
> > you.)
>
> Right. I'd say what I'm talking about here is art that tries to express
> the postmodern condition by employing retro-as-irony.
Like Jeff Koons? (He actually fits better here than where I placed him below.)
> > Secondly, there's postmodernist art. Thomas Pynchon, John Zorn, Jeff Koons,
> > Michael Graves. These are people who combine elements from different eras
> > and especially from different levels of cultural status in their work. This is
> > postmodernist because it rejects the high vs. low culture assumptions of
> > modernism, as well as modernism's belief (viz. Adorno) that only forward
> > progress is acceptable in art, and looking back to the past is retrogressive
> > and worthless. (This is problematic, though, because Stravinsky also used past
> > materials ironically, and was condemned by Adorno as retrogressive as a
> > result, but he's certainly a modernist of some sort.)
>
> Still, the use of past materials can fairly be considered *potentially*
> reactionary. More likely it's an attempt to find "a future for the
> past", so to speak. All the same, when people who consider themselves
> progressives at heart try this, they probably can't help but be struck
> by the (yep) irony of the situation. So retro-as-irony can have more
> than one way of arising.
>
> And then there's Paul Hindemith, who looked to the past in earnest in
> the service of creating something new. Same goes for, say, Ralph
> Vaughan Williams. I think the key here is in looking at what the people
> of the past did without being caught up in its being THE PAST. You just
> have to remember why you're looking back to the past--to see if there
> are things there that can open up new paths, not close them.
Sure, and I think that's equally true of Pynchon, Zorn and Graves. The only reason
they're not modernists is that they seem less interested in The New as such and as
superior to anything previous -- but they're still trying to be original.
> > ...the only thing I can think of is that people who are into
> > retro imagery are using irony to cite a lost past, much like the "As Barbara
> > Cartland would say, I love you madly" bit in Eco's postscript to /The Name of
> > the Rose/. And what you seem to be saying is that these people really want
> > to bring back the past out of a deep opposition to recent developments.
>
> Largely, yes. Either that or their art is anti-esthetic and can be
> appreciated only as subtext.
I have a hard time calling something anti-aesthetic "art." I'm pretty open in my
definitions, but isn't aesthetic intent the very element that distinguishes art from
non-art?
> What do your hipster friends do when they're *not* having goofy fun? Or
> are they having goofy fun all the time? Do they ever come across as
> actually *liking* anything? Or are they so completely convinced of the
> absurdity of the entire enterprise that they think it's not worth it?
Well, my hipster-est friend has a deep love for literature (Pynchon, Faulkner,
Joyce, Calvino, Kundera, Stoppard) and film (Lynch, Truffaut, Lang, Jeunet). I'd
say he counts as a hipster insofar as he listens to hip music (The Books, The
Decemberists, Deerhoof, Captain Beefheart, Sonic Youth, Xiu Xiu, Les Savy Fav, John
Zorn, The Velvet Underground) and dresses like an indie rocker and reads Pitchfork
and goes to shows a lot. Actually, he's not particularly into retro-kitsch, though
he does like terrible movies a lot more than I do.
Of course, I would have a hard time being friends with someone who was interested
/only/ in goofy fun. Such people usually start seeming pretty dull after a few
weeks.
> This is gonna sound odd, but: What do they *wear*? Is it the
> neo-beatnik look based on the artsy '50s scene? Is it the indie-rock
> plaid-and-khakis look based on the mainstream early '60s? When they
> play music, what instruments do they use? Am I stereotyping too much?
The people I know who I would classify as hipsters tend to go for the glasses + odd
T-shirt + maybe a suit jacket + canvas sneakers + pants that aren't blue jeans
look. As for instruments, Yale's indie scene has included everything from the
Tourettes (all-girl indie-punk, standard vox + gtr + bass + drums + kbd) to Larkin
Grimm (voice + solo acoustic bass, with another guy on water jug percussion last
time I saw her play). I certainly wouldn't claim to be an authority on hipness,
though, since I tend to find most "real" hipsters intimidating and thus shy away
from them.
> > And secondly, anyone
> > who actually believes what Eco says can't possibly make a sincere attempt to
> > bring back the past, because according to that worldview it's impossible to
> > do so.
>
> So much for that worldview. Obviously as long as there are
> conservatives and reactionaries it'll be considered perfectly possible.
No, I know. I think Eco was being (ironically enough) naïve.
> I guess the question is: What made Eco et al. think such a thing in the
> first place? Just because humanity can't be PERFECTED, that doesn't
> mean the modernist project or its artifacts suddenly have no value.
Some aspects of the modernist project were very naïve. I would point to both the
high/low culture opposition (the one that rejects everything we talk about in this
newsgroup as irrelevant) and the idea of art history as teleological as highly
problematic views. Ironically enough, a teleological view of history can often
stifle innovation, because once we've moved "beyond," say, representative painting,
or tonality, then anyone who employs them is rejected as reactionary -- even if what
they're doing is completely new (e.g. Lucian Freud, or the minimalist composers).
So in that sense, I think rejecting modernism as such is a good move. But rejecting
too much of it also creates huge problems, as you say. The real solution, I think,
lies in a less purist approach involving the appropriation of elements from both
modern and postmodern art -- something I (somewhat obnoxiously) call
post-post-modernism.
Alex Temple
http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
Steven Sullivan
> I can sum up this entire discussion in two cartoons!
> http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
> http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
Just the word 'Tang' makes me laugh,
since last Sunday night.
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Ben Wolfson
>I can sum up this entire discussion in two cartoons!
>
>http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
>http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
BOO TO CAT AND GIRL
--
BTR
The Glass Marble, mistaking the No. 37 Penpoint for the Four-Holed
Button, pushed it into the Yawning Chasm.
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > I'd say what I'm talking about here is art that tries to express
> > the postmodern condition by employing retro-as-irony.
>
> Like Jeff Koons?
Like the Knack. Like Devo.
That's probably a good enough definition of "modernist". John Adams
once said the difference between him and the other leading "minimalists"
was that he wasn't a modernist.
> > > ...what you seem to be saying is that these people really want
> > > to bring back the past out of a deep opposition to recent developments.
> >
> > Largely, yes. Either that or their art is anti-esthetic and can be
> > appreciated only as subtext.
>
> I have a hard time calling something anti-aesthetic "art." I'm pretty open
> in my definitions, but isn't aesthetic intent the very element that distinguishes
> art from non-art?
These days, it would seem to be observation, inner meaning or depth, not
esthetics, that establishes something as art. (IOW, all art is to be
taken as text.) Something that's meant to look mega-cool but isn't
meant to have an inner meaning (say, Roger Dean's drawings) wouldn't
qualify as art, but Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell's Soup can
would. Dean's art, the reasoning goes, doesn't get you to ask questions
about the world, whereas Warhol's does. In short, what it is is just a
vessel for what it's *about*, which really dovetails with Eco's
conception, when you think about it. But this has, it seems, long since
gotten to the point where concern for what it is is itself considered
improper, and you must look a certain way that supposedly indicates the
right set of priorities if you're to have any "credibility". Just look
at the slogan of www.overtype.com:
"ugly design for beautiful people". It just makes explicit what's been
implicit for, by now, decades. If you ask me, that's farther up one's
own artistic backside than anything any prog-rock band ever did.
> > What do your hipster friends do when they're *not* having goofy fun? Or
> > are they having goofy fun all the time? Do they ever come across as
> > actually *liking* anything? Or are they so completely convinced of the
> > absurdity of the entire enterprise that they think it's not worth it?
>
> Well, my hipster-est friend has a deep love for literature (Pynchon,
> Faulkner,
> Joyce, Calvino, Kundera, Stoppard) and film (Lynch, Truffaut, Lang, Jeunet).
> I'd
> say he counts as a hipster insofar as he listens to hip music (The Books, The
> Decemberists, Deerhoof, Captain Beefheart, Sonic Youth, Xiu Xiu, Les Savy
> Fav, John
> Zorn, The Velvet Underground) and dresses like an indie rocker and reads
> Pitchfork
> and goes to shows a lot. Actually, he's not particularly into retro-kitsch,
> though
> he does like terrible movies a lot more than I do.
If he "dresses like an indie-rocker", and if it's like the people in
that *Cat and Girl* strip, I'd call that retro-kitsch. It's simply the
sort of thing that has surrounded us now for so long that we don't
recognize it as such. It's certainly a look that calls to mind, say,
1962 in a way that it doesn't call to mind subsequent eras (except, of
course, the present, which is exactly my point).
> > I guess the question is: What made Eco et al. think such a thing in the
> > first place? Just because humanity can't be PERFECTED, that doesn't
> > mean the modernist project or its artifacts suddenly have no value.
>
> Some aspects of the modernist project were very naïve. I would point to both
> the high/low culture opposition (the one that rejects everything we talk about in
> this newsgroup as irrelevant) and the idea of art history as teleological as
> highly problematic views. Ironically enough, a teleological view of history can
> often stifle innovation, because once we've moved "beyond," say, representative
> painting, or tonality, then anyone who employs them is rejected as reactionary -- even
> if what they're doing is completely new (e.g. Lucian Freud, or the minimalist
> composers). So in that sense, I think rejecting modernism as such is a good move. But
> rejecting too much of it also creates huge problems, as you say. The real solution, I
> think, lies in a less purist approach involving the appropriation of elements from
> both
> modern and postmodern art -- something I (somewhat obnoxiously) call
> post-post-modernism.
--
Alex Temple
> In article <3FFB2B2B...@hayoo.moc>, Alex Temple wrote:
> >I can sum up this entire discussion in two cartoons!
> >
> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
>
> BOO TO CAT AND GIRL
BOO TO YOU, WANKER.
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > Jeff Blanks wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say what I'm talking about here is art that tries to express
> > > the postmodern condition by employing retro-as-irony.
> >
> > Like Jeff Koons?
>
> Like the Knack. Like Devo.
I haven't heard the Knack, but you'll have to do a lot of work to convince me that Devo are
cultural conservatives.
Ben Wolfson
>Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
>> In article <3FFB2B2B...@hayoo.moc>, Alex Temple wrote:
>> >I can sum up this entire discussion in two cartoons!
>> >
>> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
>> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
>>
>> BOO TO CAT AND GIRL
>
>BOO TO YOU, WANKER.
Actually, a Cat and Girl cartoon is part of my desktop background.
But Dorothy Gambrell comes off as a little too self-satisfied and
easily knowing at times for my taste.
I'd like to take this opportunity to plug achewood:
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04092003
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04232002
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07172002
Bob Drake
>
> I haven't heard the Knack,
I was going thtrough some of my old unlabelled cassettes recently and at the
end of one was a snippet of a Knack song, "Frustrated". I don't know what it
was doing there, but I must say I was stunned, what a great sounding
recording and a really really great guitar solo...I rewound/played it about
5 times. I wonder if the rest of their stuff was as enjoyable?
Alex Temple
> In article <3FFBCDE4...@hayoo.moc>, Alex Temple wrote:
> >Ben Wolfson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3FFB2B2B...@hayoo.moc>, Alex Temple wrote:
> >> >I can sum up this entire discussion in two cartoons!
> >> >
> >> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?103
> >> >http://catandgirl.com/view.cgi?174
> >>
> >> BOO TO CAT AND GIRL
> >
> >BOO TO YOU, WANKER.
>
> Actually, a Cat and Girl cartoon is part of my desktop background.
> But Dorothy Gambrell comes off as a little too self-satisfied and
> easily knowing at times for my taste.
She's the prog of web comics. (Just don't tell her that.)
> I'd like to take this opportunity to plug achewood:
>
> http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04092003
> http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04232002
> http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07172002
Doesn't do much for me, sorry.
Jeff Blanks
> I haven't heard the Knack,
You haven't heard "My Sharona"??
> but you'll have to do a lot of work to convince me
> that Devo are cultural conservatives.
Fair enough. They certainly employ tons of retro-as-irony, though,
albeit in a less direct way than, say, Elvis Costello.
Then there are bands like the Rembrandts, who I suspect of being ironic
simply because their stuff is taken at face value as "modern".
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
>
> > I haven't heard the Knack,
>
> You haven't heard "My Sharona"??
Uh... maybe I have and didn't know it? I can't call it to mind, anyway.
> Then there are bands like the Rembrandts, who I suspect of being ironic
> simply because their stuff is taken at face value as "modern".
Not familiar with them either.
Steven Sullivan
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
> > Alex Temple <fibeREMOVE...@hayoo.moc> wrote:
> >
> > > I haven't heard the Knack,
> >
> > You haven't heard "My Sharona"??
> Uh... maybe I have and didn't know it? I can't call it to mind, anyway.
duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duhduh DADA duh DA
DAAAH duhDADA
c'mon, you must have heard it.
The Knack were one of of many who litter the catbox of history known
as 'The Next Beatles'.
bobbo ;p
> duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duhduh DADA duh DA
>
> DAAAH duhDADA
>
> c'mon, you must have heard it.
you left out one note steven its more like
duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duh-duhduh DADA duh DA
DAAAH duhDADA
can someone do the day tripper riff now thanks.
Steven Sullivan
> > duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duhduh DADA duh DA
> >
> > DAAAH duhDADA
> >
> > c'mon, you must have heard it.
> you left out one note steven its more like
> duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duh-duhduh DADA duh DA
> DAAAH duhDADA
dude I was just doing the drum part bass parts are boring
> can someone do the day tripper riff now thanks.
dum duhduhduhdeeDAH doDEEE doDAHDAH
bobbo ;p
> > > duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duhduh DADA duh DA
> > > DAAAH duhDADA
> > >
> > > c'mon, you must have heard it.
>
> > you left out one note steven its more like
>
> > duhduh DADA duh DA duh DA duhduh DA duh-duhduh DADA duh DA
> > DAAAH duhDADA
>
> dude I was just doing the drum part bass parts are boring
i tried to play along with the drum part but i dont have a drum set :(
> > can someone do the day tripper riff now thanks.
>
> dum duhduhduhdeeDAH doDEEE doDAHDAH
that is pretty good tho i might go with something more like
dum duhnanadeeDAH doDEE doDADA
especially cuz those three DAHs you wrote dont sound the same :(
this is the best topic EVER steven
Jeff Blanks
> Jeff Blanks wrote:
>
> > You haven't heard "My Sharona"??
>
> Uh... maybe I have and didn't know it? I can't call it to mind, anyway.
Steven Sullivan already tried this, but let's see here...
GG G G G GG G
GG G G GG GG G C--BbCBb-
F# F#
There's also "Good Girls Don't".
> > Then there are bands like the Rembrandts....
>
> Not familiar with them either.
Ever seen *Friends*? They play the theme song. It was a half-dozen
years old or so even before the show started.