Of all the critics I read back in those fondly recalled days of discovery -- Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Throwing Muses -- my favorite by far was Simon Reynolds. Long before I had any sense of the field of music criticism, or how frighteningly youthful he was compared to luminaries like Greil Marcus, I learned to look for his byline. Indeed, my habit of seeing who wrote the thing I'm about to read was born out of the desire to read everything he wrote. When many of his best pieces from the late-1980s heyday of alternative culture were collected together in Blissed Out: The Raptures of Rock, I was besides myself with delight. Indeed, I vividly recall seeking out those artists he mentioned that I was not yet familiar with as I read it, while at the same time eagerly listening to his current favorites with his words in mind, most prominently a certain band -- or, more properly, "band" -- from Stockton, California called Pavement.
Years later I had the pleasure of reviewing Reynolds' exhaustively researched and beautifully written history of techno and rave culture, Generation Ecstasy, then got to interview him for Punk Planet. Sadly, that interview, in which he discussed the research he had begun for a new book on post-punk, never appeared. Despite the obvious relevance of the material discussed, Punk Planet's imperious impresario Dan Sinker decided that he wasn't interested in running interviews with critics, since he would rather concentrate on "real artists."
My feelings about Dan never recovered from the disappointment of having that excellent interview rejected, not least because he had agreed to the assignment in advance with full knowledge of who Simon Reynolds was and what he was going to be talking about. I continued to contribute to Punk Planet for a while after that, but Dan's treatment of me -- "neglect" might be a better word -- increasingly reflected a lack of respect for what mattered most to me, whether in music or politics. Maybe he had simply realized that I would never agree with him that critics were inherently inferior to artists or, more pointedly, that the categories were distinct to begin with. I still read the magazine -- when I can find it in this post-Big Top alternative mediascape -- but with a reserve that saddens me. If I could only find a way to separate the personal torment that I associate with Punk Planet, I would find it easier to appreciate the publication on its own terms.
Anyway, this roundabout bit of autobiography is the path I needed to walk to announce that the American edition of Reynolds' new book Rip It Up and Start Again is now out and to draw your attention to a fine interview with him that went live today. Having recently followed his back-and-forth with K-Punk in the blogosphere, I'm very interested in many of the specific points he makes. But it's his comments on cultural theory that resonate most powerfully for me:
Andy Battaglia:Your writing about rave culture drew on a lot of academic critical theory. How much of that stemmed from post-punk?It's no exaggeration to say that I found validation for my own use of theory in Reynolds' unapologetic but compact reference to people like Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, and Julia Kristeva. It's also no exaggeration to say that I followed a trajectory similar to the one he describes here, abetted by the culture in a Department of English where the ahistorical application of abstract concepts was strongly frowned upon. By now I've come out the other side and feel comfortable applying theory across historical divides. But I have to second his self-description and acknowledge that, yes, he has managed to refine his language so that he conveys his points more economically than ever before without sacrificing the philosophical rigor that attracted me to his writing in the first place. If you have any interest in the period covered by Rip It Up and Start Again, I strongly advise you to pick it up. He'll make it worth your while.
Reynolds: I got really into critical theory after, but I started picking up on it because of post-punk critics. The main theory guys were Ian Penman and Barney Hoskyns, who were au fait with all the French stuff: Derrida, Barthes, Kristeva, Bataille. By the time I had assimilated it, music had changed, so I started adopting it for this neo-psychedelic music—My Bloody Valentine, A.R. Kane, all these groups that were in some ways the opposite of post-punk. I was trying to react against post-punk at that point, espousing this quite apolitical, escapist music. By the time of rave I had read Deleuze and Guattari, and it all just seemed to genuinely be there in the music, at the heart of how it operated. The idea of rhizomatic networks applied to the world of white labels and pirate radio and record shops serving as hubs. And also the dementia involved. Deleuze and Guattari came out of the idea that normal life screws you up and that madness is a sane response to our civilization.
In Rip It Up, I only used theory to explicate the bands who were using it. A lot of these concepts in the past have genuinely helped me come up with new ways of thinking. But I think, in other ways, I've often used theory as a sort of rubber stamp for something I could have just left in my own words. It's funny—for the first time in my life, people are calling my writing unpretentious.