So somebody’s argument is invalidated because of the website it’s on? The writer of that piece is hardly the quintessential Pitchfork journalist.
Since you don’t know anything about him and as usual are assuming all other human beings are not qualified to make any point about music, because they fail the “not being Tom Pipecock” test, it’s worth mentioning his biggest work to date is a blog in which he discusses every British number 1 single since 1952. Doesn’t exactly make him seem the here today gone tomorrow child you wish he was.
Not that I should need to prove a writer’s credentials to make you actually try and use logic or other peoples arguments as a springboard for debate rather than what you already “thought” before reading.
Very interesting article, I’ve seen that subject touched on before but not articulated as well as it is there. Although he should be shot for crowbarring this pun in: ‘How does it flavor your life? (We might almost call that one the test of thyme.)’ lol
“The writer of that piece is hardly the quintessential Pitchfork journalist.”
but the point of Pitchfork is to hype new music and get paid by advertisers for doing so. for someone on there to say “there is no such thing as timeless music, let’s all live for today” is hardly a surprising viewpoint.
if you want me to criticise it strictly based on his ideas (which are mostly ridiculous), here’s one that stood out as particularly asinine:
“That’s not in itself a terrible question, but really it’s best applied when there’s a history to fit into.”
name me that music which has no history to fit into. go ahead, i wish you luck.
when you realize that ALL music has history, you can realize that his entire piece is nonsense. music that doesn’t understand it’s own roots becomes pastiche, nothing more. it apes sounds, it doesn’t resonate with feeling. that music does not last. it is not timeless music.
You’ve misinterpreted him, to be fair. He means that to say (to use his examples) MIA or Panda Bear will not stand the test of time is less worthwhile because they’ve only been around for a couple of years.
So while it may be worthwhile to look back and say how history did judge an act (eg the Smiths, Lionel Ritchie, to use the other examples), it’s worthless to look forward and try to predict how history WILL judge them.
Also, as I pointed out, he doesn’t say “there is no timeless music, let’s all live for today”, that’s your projection of the argument against this whole idea.
His point is that trying to second guess the music from now that will be timeless is mostly futile, and “a simple appeal to tomorrow to justify today’s opinions”. That says nothing about whether or not you listen to today’s music. He just says listen to the music you like, and don’t seek to “prove” it’s more worthy of listening to than other music because that’s false. You can’t prove that so just enjoy what you listen to, whatever era it’s from or however it shall be judged in the future.
Plus you know, I just linked to the blog he writes reviewing every number 1 single in Britain since 1952, hardly the action of a guy who thinks nothing more complex than “let’s all live for today” is it?
Tom, if your argument about the economic nature of Pitchfork invalidating its opinions on music is true, then it follows that you should stop commenting on any music that’s not from Detroit, as the purpose of your blog is to uncritically hype anything that comes from Detroit and is made by a producer over 35 years old…
“His point is that trying to second guess the music from now that will be timeless is mostly futile”
but it isnt second guessing. my criteria is very simple: is someone really expressing something in their music? if yes, it will last. if no, it will not. its that simple, and it applies constantly. music without feeling is just sound, sound is trendy. soul is not. soul lasts and lasts and lasts, whether you look at classical, folk, country, dance, experimental, etc.
“Tom, if your argument about the economic nature of Pitchfork invalidating its opinions on music is true, then it follows that you should stop commenting on any music that’s not from Detroit, as the purpose of your blog is to uncritically hype anything that comes from Detroit and is made by a producer over 35 years old…”
haha, i’m just playing by the rules that everyone else does, but on my own field.
“my criteria is very simple: is someone really expressing something in their music? if yes, it will last. if no, it will not. its that simple, and it applies constantly. music without”
But that’s all subjective really. What you deem “soulful” is just the music you like, in all those genres. There’s no uniting factor, or if there is, I’d be curious to hear your explanation of it.
“But that’s all subjective really. What you deem “soulful” is just the music you like, in all those genres. There’s no uniting factor, or if there is, I’d be curious to hear your explanation of it.”
you have the cause and effect switched up. i dont call things i like soulful, i only like the soulful things. the uniting factor is that the people who make it make music that is more than just some notes. it is expression. what is the difference between an abstract painting by a master and an abstract drawing by a little kid? surely they are not the same.
how do you decide the soulful things are “soulful”? Or more pertinently, how are they soulful without you having to decide they are? How can something sound objectively “soulful”? Your opinion has to play a role in the process.
“how do you decide the soulful things are “soulful”? Or more pertinently, how are they soulful without you having to decide they are? How can something sound objectively “soulful”? Your opinion has to play a role in the process.”
nah, it happens when the record is made. either the people playing and writing the song are feeling it and putting themselves into it, or theyre just playing some notes. it’s either in there, or not. i think its pretty obvious when you hear it.
not at all, actually. people who can’t hear it just haven’t listened to enough music. only people who can’t listen to music critically can make that mistake, though that is a large number of people consisting of all the morons who listen to most of what passes as “pop” music.
hahaha, i would argue that too, but that is not what i am saying now. what i am saying is that most people who listen to music have no fucking clue what it is they are listening to. music is not solely soundwaves, there is culture and ideas surrounding it that dictates its purpose and use. to listen to music in a cultural vacuum (which is what i would say alot of new house and techno is doing, it is so far from the original purpose of house and techno that it is not funny. this has been the case many times before with varying results: hardcore was not so bad, progressive house was so bad.) is to miss half the point right off the bat.
for example, i have a really easy time understanding urban american music as that is the place and environment in which i have lived my life. i can understand other music that is related to it or has been influenced heavily by it simply because i know reflexively what it is supposed to do. understanding other music would require studying of culture and ideas and whatnot, which i have done in many cases (reggae is a good example of this for me). but i wouldnt be the person to sit down and listen to something i’ve never heard before and insist that it is the greatest thing in the genre when i’ve never heard any of it before and don’t understand anything about the culture from which it came.
and THAT is why so many journalists covering mnml and electrohouse and whatever look like such fools. they dont have enough of a knowledge base to be able to understand why them touting artist X as “the next great thing” sounds ridiculous to people who do have that knowledge base.
let’s take a negative example, say, you. whatever it is that you have done has certainly been all wrong as your knowedge and understanding of dance music seem to be all fucked up. so that’s one way not to do it that we can check off the list.
it happens when the record is made. either the people playing and writing the song are feeling it and putting themselves into it, or theyre just playing some notes.
So does this mean, for example, that if Suburban Knight told you he was just twiddling knobs randomly when he made ‘Art of stalking’ you’d like it less? Or if Dubfire gave an impassioned interview talking about how ‘Ribcage’ is a cry from the heart about the oppression of Persian Americans under the patriot act you’d like it more?
“let’s take a negative example, say, you. whatever it is that you have done has certainly been all wrong as your knowedge and understanding of dance music seem to be all fucked up. so that’s one way not to do it that we can check off the list.”
Can you explain how your background has been so conducive to superior listening though? Everyone wants to know and it’d help them to improve their opinions!
Ideally you should do this in 1000 oblivious self aggrandising words as has been your style thusfar on this post. Feel free to take your time over it, it’s mainly for comic value I’ve been replying, you sure enjoy a soapbox!
Extra marks will be awarded for quasi-religious use of the word “soul”.
“So does this mean, for example, that if Suburban Knight told you he was just twiddling knobs randomly when he made ‘Art of stalking’ you’d like it less? Or if Dubfire gave an impassioned interview talking about how ‘Ribcage’ is a cry from the heart about the oppression of Persian Americans under the patriot act you’d like it more?”
people can make up any kind of nonsense, you can hear the truth in the music.
“Can you explain how your background has been so conducive to superior listening though? Everyone wants to know and it’d help them to improve their opinions!
Ideally you should do this in 1000 oblivious self aggrandising words as has been your style thusfar on this post. Feel free to take your time over it, it’s mainly for comic value I’ve been replying, you sure enjoy a soapbox!
Extra marks will be awarded for quasi-religious use of the word “soul”.”
the only comic value is reading you talk about music. that’s why i keep coming back! i like your comment in your new post about “If I knew the names of hardware synths i might hazard a guess”. just apply that to every comment you ever make about music, and you might one day get somewhere.
“i only i knew anything about music, i might hazard a guess that minimal deephouse label X is probably the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
tom/pipecock wrote:
as if Pitchfork is the place to read about music being timeless or not. unintentionally hilarious.
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 2:17 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
So somebody’s argument is invalidated because of the website it’s on? The writer of that piece is hardly the quintessential Pitchfork journalist.
Since you don’t know anything about him and as usual are assuming all other human beings are not qualified to make any point about music, because they fail the “not being Tom Pipecock” test, it’s worth mentioning his biggest work to date is a blog in which he discusses every British number 1 single since 1952. Doesn’t exactly make him seem the here today gone tomorrow child you wish he was.
Not that I should need to prove a writer’s credentials to make you actually try and use logic or other peoples arguments as a springboard for debate rather than what you already “thought” before reading.
I mean seriously, who’s the hack here?
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 9:57 am ¶
Stef wrote:
Very interesting article, I’ve seen that subject touched on before but not articulated as well as it is there. Although he should be shot for crowbarring this pun in: ‘How does it flavor your life? (We might almost call that one the test of thyme.)’ lol
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 10:28 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
Yes he really goes overboard with the puns in the middle!
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 10:30 am ¶
j wrote:
very interesting article, space and time can only be determined from each other, so to speak of only one is to miss the point imo
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 10:50 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
to speak of only either one surely!
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 11:01 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“The writer of that piece is hardly the quintessential Pitchfork journalist.”
but the point of Pitchfork is to hype new music and get paid by advertisers for doing so. for someone on there to say “there is no such thing as timeless music, let’s all live for today” is hardly a surprising viewpoint.
if you want me to criticise it strictly based on his ideas (which are mostly ridiculous), here’s one that stood out as particularly asinine:
“That’s not in itself a terrible question, but really it’s best applied when there’s a history to fit into.”
name me that music which has no history to fit into. go ahead, i wish you luck.
when you realize that ALL music has history, you can realize that his entire piece is nonsense. music that doesn’t understand it’s own roots becomes pastiche, nothing more. it apes sounds, it doesn’t resonate with feeling. that music does not last. it is not timeless music.
Posted 28 Jan 2008 at 10:15 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
You’ve misinterpreted him, to be fair. He means that to say (to use his examples) MIA or Panda Bear will not stand the test of time is less worthwhile because they’ve only been around for a couple of years.
So while it may be worthwhile to look back and say how history did judge an act (eg the Smiths, Lionel Ritchie, to use the other examples), it’s worthless to look forward and try to predict how history WILL judge them.
Also, as I pointed out, he doesn’t say “there is no timeless music, let’s all live for today”, that’s your projection of the argument against this whole idea.
His point is that trying to second guess the music from now that will be timeless is mostly futile, and “a simple appeal to tomorrow to justify today’s opinions”. That says nothing about whether or not you listen to today’s music. He just says listen to the music you like, and don’t seek to “prove” it’s more worthy of listening to than other music because that’s false. You can’t prove that so just enjoy what you listen to, whatever era it’s from or however it shall be judged in the future.
Plus you know, I just linked to the blog he writes reviewing every number 1 single in Britain since 1952, hardly the action of a guy who thinks nothing more complex than “let’s all live for today” is it?
Posted 29 Jan 2008 at 1:16 am ¶
JacobW wrote:
Tom, if your argument about the economic nature of Pitchfork invalidating its opinions on music is true, then it follows that you should stop commenting on any music that’s not from Detroit, as the purpose of your blog is to uncritically hype anything that comes from Detroit and is made by a producer over 35 years old…
Posted 30 Jan 2008 at 3:46 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“His point is that trying to second guess the music from now that will be timeless is mostly futile”
but it isnt second guessing. my criteria is very simple: is someone really expressing something in their music? if yes, it will last. if no, it will not. its that simple, and it applies constantly. music without feeling is just sound, sound is trendy. soul is not. soul lasts and lasts and lasts, whether you look at classical, folk, country, dance, experimental, etc.
“Tom, if your argument about the economic nature of Pitchfork invalidating its opinions on music is true, then it follows that you should stop commenting on any music that’s not from Detroit, as the purpose of your blog is to uncritically hype anything that comes from Detroit and is made by a producer over 35 years old…”
haha, i’m just playing by the rules that everyone else does, but on my own field.
Posted 31 Jan 2008 at 7:53 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
“my criteria is very simple: is someone really expressing something in their music? if yes, it will last. if no, it will not. its that simple, and it applies constantly. music without”
But that’s all subjective really. What you deem “soulful” is just the music you like, in all those genres. There’s no uniting factor, or if there is, I’d be curious to hear your explanation of it.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 4:23 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“But that’s all subjective really. What you deem “soulful” is just the music you like, in all those genres. There’s no uniting factor, or if there is, I’d be curious to hear your explanation of it.”
you have the cause and effect switched up. i dont call things i like soulful, i only like the soulful things. the uniting factor is that the people who make it make music that is more than just some notes. it is expression. what is the difference between an abstract painting by a master and an abstract drawing by a little kid? surely they are not the same.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
how do you decide the soulful things are “soulful”? Or more pertinently, how are they soulful without you having to decide they are? How can something sound objectively “soulful”? Your opinion has to play a role in the process.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“how do you decide the soulful things are “soulful”? Or more pertinently, how are they soulful without you having to decide they are? How can something sound objectively “soulful”? Your opinion has to play a role in the process.”
nah, it happens when the record is made. either the people playing and writing the song are feeling it and putting themselves into it, or theyre just playing some notes. it’s either in there, or not. i think its pretty obvious when you hear it.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 5:54 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
but not everybody will “hear it” the same way you will. hence it’s subject to opinion.
I mean, surely you can see that?
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 7:41 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
not at all, actually. people who can’t hear it just haven’t listened to enough music. only people who can’t listen to music critically can make that mistake, though that is a large number of people consisting of all the morons who listen to most of what passes as “pop” music.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
just to be totally clear, are you saying you hear music “better” than most other people?
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 8:04 pm ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
hahaha, i would argue that too, but that is not what i am saying now. what i am saying is that most people who listen to music have no fucking clue what it is they are listening to. music is not solely soundwaves, there is culture and ideas surrounding it that dictates its purpose and use. to listen to music in a cultural vacuum (which is what i would say alot of new house and techno is doing, it is so far from the original purpose of house and techno that it is not funny. this has been the case many times before with varying results: hardcore was not so bad, progressive house was so bad.) is to miss half the point right off the bat.
for example, i have a really easy time understanding urban american music as that is the place and environment in which i have lived my life. i can understand other music that is related to it or has been influenced heavily by it simply because i know reflexively what it is supposed to do. understanding other music would require studying of culture and ideas and whatnot, which i have done in many cases (reggae is a good example of this for me). but i wouldnt be the person to sit down and listen to something i’ve never heard before and insist that it is the greatest thing in the genre when i’ve never heard any of it before and don’t understand anything about the culture from which it came.
and THAT is why so many journalists covering mnml and electrohouse and whatever look like such fools. they dont have enough of a knowledge base to be able to understand why them touting artist X as “the next great thing” sounds ridiculous to people who do have that knowledge base.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 7:19 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
would your background that you mentioned be a good example of what people should have or go through to improve their listening habits or opinions?
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 2:05 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
let’s take a negative example, say, you. whatever it is that you have done has certainly been all wrong as your knowedge and understanding of dance music seem to be all fucked up. so that’s one way not to do it that we can check off the list.
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 2:46 am ¶
JacobW wrote:
it happens when the record is made. either the people playing and writing the song are feeling it and putting themselves into it, or theyre just playing some notes.
So does this mean, for example, that if Suburban Knight told you he was just twiddling knobs randomly when he made ‘Art of stalking’ you’d like it less? Or if Dubfire gave an impassioned interview talking about how ‘Ribcage’ is a cry from the heart about the oppression of Persian Americans under the patriot act you’d like it more?
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 10:09 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
“let’s take a negative example, say, you. whatever it is that you have done has certainly been all wrong as your knowedge and understanding of dance music seem to be all fucked up. so that’s one way not to do it that we can check off the list.”
Can you explain how your background has been so conducive to superior listening though? Everyone wants to know and it’d help them to improve their opinions!
Ideally you should do this in 1000 oblivious self aggrandising words as has been your style thusfar on this post. Feel free to take your time over it, it’s mainly for comic value I’ve been replying, you sure enjoy a soapbox!
Extra marks will be awarded for quasi-religious use of the word “soul”.
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 10:42 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“So does this mean, for example, that if Suburban Knight told you he was just twiddling knobs randomly when he made ‘Art of stalking’ you’d like it less? Or if Dubfire gave an impassioned interview talking about how ‘Ribcage’ is a cry from the heart about the oppression of Persian Americans under the patriot act you’d like it more?”
people can make up any kind of nonsense, you can hear the truth in the music.
“Can you explain how your background has been so conducive to superior listening though? Everyone wants to know and it’d help them to improve their opinions!
Ideally you should do this in 1000 oblivious self aggrandising words as has been your style thusfar on this post. Feel free to take your time over it, it’s mainly for comic value I’ve been replying, you sure enjoy a soapbox!
Extra marks will be awarded for quasi-religious use of the word “soul”.”
the only comic value is reading you talk about music. that’s why i keep coming back! i like your comment in your new post about “If I knew the names of hardware synths i might hazard a guess”. just apply that to every comment you ever make about music, and you might one day get somewhere.
“i only i knew anything about music, i might hazard a guess that minimal deephouse label X is probably the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
hahahaha.
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 9:33 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
it’s called modesty, give it a try sometime!
Posted 05 Feb 2008 at 9:37 pm ¶