?

Log in

No account? Create an account
ENTRIES FRIENDS CALENDAR INFO PREVIOUS PREVIOUS NEXT NEXT
The Start of It All - De File
Does Collecting Make You Feel Dirty?
cbertsch
cbertsch
The Start of It All
I'm one of those people -- I'm not sure how rare -- who has taken music critics seriously since I was a teenager. There are good reasons for this. I grew up listening to my father read the opera reviews of John Rockwell and Andrew Porter out loud. When I was an exchange student in Germany, homesick for the English language, I found magazines like Spin and The Face provided me an easy yet long-lasting fix, since I could read them over and over and didn't need a lot of time to do so. After I returned to the States, I started reading Melody Maker and New Musical Express religiously as a way to fill in the gaps in my musical knowledge, just as I was roaming the aisles at Rasputin's, Tower, and Leopold's -- the future home of Amoeba was still a run-down Mexican restaurant -- to fill in the gaps in my CD collection. Most importantly of all, though, was the fact that music criticism helped me to find words, however close to the vest I held them, for the one area of my existence where I was trained to feel passion at its fullest. For some, metaphor-laden descriptions of sex serve that function. For me, music was sex. In many ways it still is.

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?

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.
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.

Tags: , ,
Mode: gassed
Muse: Wings and Forwards - Glitter Mini 9 - Break Up At The Ro

8 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: e4q Date: February 22nd, 2006 02:27 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

tuppenceworth...

i think 'we' as a generation/genre took music journalism seriously because it was often good. specially, if you were into it at all then there was a strict heirarchy about what you could be seen to read, and the NME was top of the tree, and the writing there was pretty cool, funny and literate, as far as i remember.
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:06 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

Re: tuppenceworth...

Absolutely. I didn't quite perceive the hierarchy as an American, but I could tell where the best writing was. "We" are a "we!" Nice to have you on board my generational boat. . . :-)
From: e4q Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:16 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

Re: tuppenceworth...

haha - generation and subculture, no less!
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:21 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

Re: tuppenceworth...

I'm still going to reply to your missive, BTW. I just got caught up in other correspondence. It was great to have that exchange. Off to Kentucky. . .
From: e4q Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:37 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)

Re: tuppenceworth...

anytime. that subject matter is never off topic, i am always in process, wherever i am with that process...
elizabeg From: elizabeg Date: February 22nd, 2006 04:43 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
I really liked reading this. Really. More soon.
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:04 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
I'm glad. It's off to Louisville for me. . .
sisterblister83 From: sisterblister83 Date: February 22nd, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
After just hearing a rather strange rant about Derrida's madness and the misuse of theory and philosophy in relation to history and literary history, your own exposition on ahistoricity and the use of concepts in English departments sparked my interest. I guess, this professor at Columbia, who had received his PhD from Yale had been a student of Derrida's and had been scarred by the experience, which forced him into this reductive way of thinking and perceiving texts of all kinds. He is also a big stickler for "history", as am I. I follow Levinas when it comes to history entwined so much with responsibility and unearthing these strands of logic that has run throughout our own subjective history that have helped produce such moments as the Third Reich. So, in applying, let's say the rhizome to a subjectivity that existed before its conception, I would have a hard time agreeing with. Though, I can certainly see its relevance to the punk scene, and now musing upon it, the most adamant Deleuzians I have come across have been or are heavily involved in the punk scene.

I can see the relevance of punk, as it pertains to American culture and beyond, social and personal politics, etc. Yet, I have a hard time placing Britney Spears within that same understanding of worth for critical and cultural studies. I guess I have been inundated by classes that show Silence of the Lambs, play "Ooops I did it Again" without stressing what is provoked by these "texts", how are these texts a reading of our current culture, etc etc. It just divulges into some Lacanian reading everything as jouissance, also without really putting pressure on something like Lacan. Is everything jouissance? How is jouissance itself limited in this specific cultural moment?
8 comments or Leave a comment