But I didn't really want to dwell on RATM, because I've been thinking further about about how people react to hype. Last week I criticised music writers who have purposefully avoided Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion even though there's a good chance they'd really like it. These other people, I said, were reacting against the hype, refusing to even take part in the discussion out of some sense that they were fighting the cause of a greater good. How silly! And some who did listen, only to review, were forced to trawl the depths of their creativity to come up with criticisms, out of a belief that someone ought to be damn criticising it, even if it meant overlooking a lot of positive qualities.
Make sure you're sitting down for this, cos it's a shocker: I, the accuser, have been guilty of similar transgressions too. It's true. I have met and interviewed Vampire Weekend, for an extended cover feature on them for The Skinny. I have seen them live twice -- once in a mid-sized Edinburgh club called the Bongo Club, I was there to interview the local support band; and once in the Californian desert, after I had met them, at Coachella. Confession: I have never listened to their debut album. Yeah, I probably would like it, even though I wasn't too impressed by them live. What can I say? I couldn't be arsed. I wrote the feature and still didn't feel compelled to acquire it (you might call that unprofessional, but you get what you pay for. I wasn't given a promo of it, and I don't like downloading things. My feature said nothing about the album, only about the background. Now, I would fire up Spotify, of course). I've never listened to any Arctic Monkeys' album either, actually. Of course I've heard individual songs by both, but never out of choice.
Why did I opt-in to the Animal Collective conversation but not the Vampire Weekend or Arctic Monkeys' ones? I have a hunch it's because I already knew and enjoyed two AC records, so I was more receptive to the idea that I would enjoy MPP; whereas Vampire Weekend and the Monkeys were new bands with hugely hyped debut albums. I hadn't invested any time in them before the hype-rush.
Guess I should get round to the Monkeys at least by now, eh?
I realise that instead of trying to put people on some kind of hype-reaction spectrum, I should've just linked to these two Wikipedia pages:
Reactance
Reverse Psychology
In summary:
"Reactance is an emotional reaction in direct contradiction to rules or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. It can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended."
"Reverse psychology... relies on the psychological phenomenon of reactance, in which a person has a negative emotional response in reaction to being persuaded, and thus chooses the option which is being advocated against."
Hype is encouragement, lots of hype leads to lots of persuasion, but too much hype invokes reverse psychology: everyone wants you to listen to and love this album so much that you dig your heels in, because it's no longer encouragement, it's pressure, and it feels like a curtailment of your freedom to choose whether to like it or not.
Makes perfect sense, put like that.
But it's still an emotional response to outside factors, and so it should still be discouraged from entering the mindset of a music writer. Although I never bothered with the Vampire Weekend or Arctic Monkeys, I've never claimed to dislike them for their hype. I didn't react against it, I just didn't react to it, in either direction.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
The Pernicious Influence of Hype
So it was exciting to have Simon Reynolds give the Stylus comeback a shout-out in his latest Guardian decade round-up yesterday. Also, he's participating, which was a surprise. I know he did an article for Stylus when it first opened, but he wasn't a regular contributor, unlike one or two of the regular writers who I believe can't take part. Anyway, one of the things Reynolds talked about was ex-Styluser Ian Cohen's Funeral blurb on Pitchfork's Decade list, which posited that Funeral was "the last of its kind", a unifying consensus-builder whose reception was so positive that it gave birth to a cynicism and contrarian-impulse in today's blogosphere that makes such unifying "event" records near-impossible now.
But cynicism and contrarianism have been a plasma through the internet's venous system since it came to life. Was Funeral's reception really cynicism-free? I liked Reynolds' phrasing that the blogosphere's "greatest liability" was that "there's no cool or ego-burnishing value to be generated from agreeing with other people". He's right: saying "I agree" doesn't impress anyone. Saying "no, you're wrong, and here's why..." is potentially very impressive. It's how you prove how smart you are, how different you are, how you tend to be right whilst everyone else is fooled by a variation of the same mysterious osmosis which fools the idiot public into believing the Black Eyed Peas are amazing. Look how smart I am, I see through it all. But that all depends on the "and here's why..." explanation being convincing.
Third gratuitous Stylus reference: the still-going Singles Jukebox last week caused a minor music blog kerfuffle by being very critical of the Animal Collective song "My Girls", being retrospectively analysed as it was missed on initial release. Of course, no record in the world could be loved universally, and there are surely lots of very good reasons to be unimpressed by Animal Collective, Merriweather Post Pavillion and "My Girls". But they weren't articulated well here; instead we got nit-picking rants, generalisations, assumptions and a lot of imagination. It looked less like genuine musical distaste and more like personal rep building. It wasn't "this is what I think of the music" it was "this is how uniquely I think".
It seems to me that a person's mode of reacting to music can be placed on a spectrum. At the far left, there are people who are very tolerant of and receptive to hype, who convince themselves that whatever their own most credible source says about a record is how they feel too; positive, negative or indifferent. These people rarely admit to being so influenced but to them, the canon is self-evidently accurate. At the other end, there are people who are very intolerant of and suspicious of hype. They convince themselves that the conventional wisdom on a record is dead wrong. If a record is well-hyped, it's probably shit, because other people get excited about rubbish things. People rarely confess to this position either (though Frank in my office does - which is maddening, but refreshing). To these people, the canon is self-evidently boring.
[Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple as this (so help me refine this if you can), because we have to work out what counts as "hype", a "credible source" and a "canon", because none of these things are the same for everyone. Also, I suspect a lot of people react differently, left-or-right, based on many different factors.]
Well, any critic who wants to be better at his job should strive to sit in the middle of that spectrum. The ideal is that no review should be influenced by other, prior reviews. I know I've been guilty of that in the past (and I probably don't know that I have, too), but people who put themselves forward as reviewers should at least attempt to adopt that mindset: of being equally as skeptical of hype as of dismissal. I don't think Ian Cohen is right that Funeral was the last of its kind, because I've read convincing rebuttals of that album's status, whilst the only Merriweather Post Pavillion backlash I've read has been straw-clutching and self-serving.
I admit it: I love Merriweather Post Pavillion; I don't care if you think I'm just another bee in the hivemind. I love Funeral too. So mock me.
Finally: to go further, the ideal is that no review should be influenced by any external factors at all. This reviewer must live in a cave with only a record player and a selection of fine headphones for company. Is Amy Winehouse's second album actually one of the best of the decade, as OMM and The Times have claimed? I always avoided it because I suspected she was mostly famous for being a fuck-up. Is it humanly possible to listen to that album without her tabloid persona influencing your reaction?
But cynicism and contrarianism have been a plasma through the internet's venous system since it came to life. Was Funeral's reception really cynicism-free? I liked Reynolds' phrasing that the blogosphere's "greatest liability" was that "there's no cool or ego-burnishing value to be generated from agreeing with other people". He's right: saying "I agree" doesn't impress anyone. Saying "no, you're wrong, and here's why..." is potentially very impressive. It's how you prove how smart you are, how different you are, how you tend to be right whilst everyone else is fooled by a variation of the same mysterious osmosis which fools the idiot public into believing the Black Eyed Peas are amazing. Look how smart I am, I see through it all. But that all depends on the "and here's why..." explanation being convincing.
Third gratuitous Stylus reference: the still-going Singles Jukebox last week caused a minor music blog kerfuffle by being very critical of the Animal Collective song "My Girls", being retrospectively analysed as it was missed on initial release. Of course, no record in the world could be loved universally, and there are surely lots of very good reasons to be unimpressed by Animal Collective, Merriweather Post Pavillion and "My Girls". But they weren't articulated well here; instead we got nit-picking rants, generalisations, assumptions and a lot of imagination. It looked less like genuine musical distaste and more like personal rep building. It wasn't "this is what I think of the music" it was "this is how uniquely I think".
It seems to me that a person's mode of reacting to music can be placed on a spectrum. At the far left, there are people who are very tolerant of and receptive to hype, who convince themselves that whatever their own most credible source says about a record is how they feel too; positive, negative or indifferent. These people rarely admit to being so influenced but to them, the canon is self-evidently accurate. At the other end, there are people who are very intolerant of and suspicious of hype. They convince themselves that the conventional wisdom on a record is dead wrong. If a record is well-hyped, it's probably shit, because other people get excited about rubbish things. People rarely confess to this position either (though Frank in my office does - which is maddening, but refreshing). To these people, the canon is self-evidently boring.
[Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple as this (so help me refine this if you can), because we have to work out what counts as "hype", a "credible source" and a "canon", because none of these things are the same for everyone. Also, I suspect a lot of people react differently, left-or-right, based on many different factors.]
Well, any critic who wants to be better at his job should strive to sit in the middle of that spectrum. The ideal is that no review should be influenced by other, prior reviews. I know I've been guilty of that in the past (and I probably don't know that I have, too), but people who put themselves forward as reviewers should at least attempt to adopt that mindset: of being equally as skeptical of hype as of dismissal. I don't think Ian Cohen is right that Funeral was the last of its kind, because I've read convincing rebuttals of that album's status, whilst the only Merriweather Post Pavillion backlash I've read has been straw-clutching and self-serving.
I admit it: I love Merriweather Post Pavillion; I don't care if you think I'm just another bee in the hivemind. I love Funeral too. So mock me.
Finally: to go further, the ideal is that no review should be influenced by any external factors at all. This reviewer must live in a cave with only a record player and a selection of fine headphones for company. Is Amy Winehouse's second album actually one of the best of the decade, as OMM and The Times have claimed? I always avoided it because I suspected she was mostly famous for being a fuck-up. Is it humanly possible to listen to that album without her tabloid persona influencing your reaction?
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Cancer Is Not Courageous
I don't want to say too much about Jade Goody, but I will say this.
If you can't think of anything genuine and nice to say about a seriously ill person, please don't patronise them with allegations of "bravery" or "courage". There is nothing brave or courageous about getting cancer. This The Onion report is fictional (and very funny, because we know that it's fictional). But it points to a truth: Cancer patients don't have a choice: to be brave and courageous, or to not. You can only possess a virtue, like bravery, if you choose to exercise it where someone lacking in that virtue may not. A cancer patient's "choice" is this - the Doctor says "you've got cancer"; then you deal with it. That's it. No virtue required.
I know that it's well-meaning, but it's a platitude. For what it's worth, a better compliment to reach for is probably "strength". It takes extra mental strength to get through something like cancer, to remain emotionally stable and to attempt to live as normally as possible despite it all. But unless our hypothetical cancer patient has run into a burning building or saved a drowning child from a lake, calling them "brave" or "courageous" is meaningless.
edit: this probably seems like a mean-spirited, unhelpful post, but it's just a personal bug-bear of mine. I had Leukaemia when I was younger and being constantly told I was brave was nice, but I knew it wasn't true.
If you can't think of anything genuine and nice to say about a seriously ill person, please don't patronise them with allegations of "bravery" or "courage". There is nothing brave or courageous about getting cancer. This The Onion report is fictional (and very funny, because we know that it's fictional). But it points to a truth: Cancer patients don't have a choice: to be brave and courageous, or to not. You can only possess a virtue, like bravery, if you choose to exercise it where someone lacking in that virtue may not. A cancer patient's "choice" is this - the Doctor says "you've got cancer"; then you deal with it. That's it. No virtue required.
I know that it's well-meaning, but it's a platitude. For what it's worth, a better compliment to reach for is probably "strength". It takes extra mental strength to get through something like cancer, to remain emotionally stable and to attempt to live as normally as possible despite it all. But unless our hypothetical cancer patient has run into a burning building or saved a drowning child from a lake, calling them "brave" or "courageous" is meaningless.
edit: this probably seems like a mean-spirited, unhelpful post, but it's just a personal bug-bear of mine. I had Leukaemia when I was younger and being constantly told I was brave was nice, but I knew it wasn't true.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Glory of Secondary Importance to Football PLC
Last week both Spurs and Aston Villa played weakened sides in the UEFA Cup and were subsequently knocked out; and Manchester United played a weakened side in the Carling Cup Final against Spurs and only won on a penalty shoot out. The message is clear - no tournament apart from the Premiership and Champions League is worth a damn to English teams, because those are the only two tournaments worth any money. Forget that Spurs or Villa winning a European trophy would be worthy of glorious celebration from their fans: it doesn't earn the club enough money to be taken seriously. It's far more important to Villa to finish 3rd instead of 4th, or 4th instead of 5th, in the Premiership, than it is to win a European trophy. It's far more important to Spurs to finish 14th instead of 15th, 16th instead of 17th, than it is to win a European trophy. Why? Because of the cash cow of the Premiership. The potential celebration of the fans means nothing. In 20 years, in 50 years, nobody will remember that Spurs achieved 14th in the Premiership in 2009, but they certainly would remember if they won the UEFA Cup in 2009. But it's only fans who care about such irrelevancies as trophies these days: clubs, managers, owners, only care about cash flow.
The English Premiership is so money-swollen that no other competition can matter to EPL clubs, bar the Champions League. Man United's Carling Cup Final appearance meant nothing to them - key players like Rooney, Berbatov, Fletcher (!) and Van Der Sar weren't even named on the bench for such an inconsequential match. If winning a Cup Final means nothing to Man United where it doesn't come with a huge financial pay-off, there's only one conclusion: football is a tangential operation to Manchester United plc.
What has happened to football? When money becomes more important than glory, the integrity of the game dies. When AC Milan care more about mid-season glamour friendlies in Dubai than they do European trophies like the UEFA Cup - because guess which one is more financially lucrative - the whole structure of the game is left in doubt. This breathtakingly ignorant article by Paul Wilson in yesterday's Observer exemplifies the problem. I could honestly tear apart every single sentence he's written there. He claims that the UEFA Cup is a total waste of time, basically because it doesn't provide as much money to competitors as the Premiership or the Champions League.
Yes, and? The aim of a game of football is not to earn money; the aim is to score more goals than the other team and to win the match. Not every club in Europe is either a) in the English Premiership or b) in the Champions League. That doesn't make those clubs or their football meaningless. Paul Wilson's stance ascribes irrelevance to any club unfortunate enough to not have access to the most moneyed competitions in the world; so fool him, this so-called football journalist, who seemingly thinks football outside the very highest level is not worthy of anyone's time. I'm sure Zenit St. Petersburg, who won the UEFA Cup last year, were incredibly proud of their on-pitch achievements; the financial rewards were, as they should be, a secondary consideration. Sadly that's no longer the case for desperate English clubs whose only aim is to remain in the Premiership.
Well, if you can spend £17m on a player like David Bentley who can't even simply put a penalty on target, it's no wonder finances are tight.
Paul Wilson's views on the matter are scandalous, and it's sad that they were even deemed publishable. Clearly it was naive to think a football journalist might actually love the game of football.
The English Premiership is so money-swollen that no other competition can matter to EPL clubs, bar the Champions League. Man United's Carling Cup Final appearance meant nothing to them - key players like Rooney, Berbatov, Fletcher (!) and Van Der Sar weren't even named on the bench for such an inconsequential match. If winning a Cup Final means nothing to Man United where it doesn't come with a huge financial pay-off, there's only one conclusion: football is a tangential operation to Manchester United plc.
What has happened to football? When money becomes more important than glory, the integrity of the game dies. When AC Milan care more about mid-season glamour friendlies in Dubai than they do European trophies like the UEFA Cup - because guess which one is more financially lucrative - the whole structure of the game is left in doubt. This breathtakingly ignorant article by Paul Wilson in yesterday's Observer exemplifies the problem. I could honestly tear apart every single sentence he's written there. He claims that the UEFA Cup is a total waste of time, basically because it doesn't provide as much money to competitors as the Premiership or the Champions League.
Yes, and? The aim of a game of football is not to earn money; the aim is to score more goals than the other team and to win the match. Not every club in Europe is either a) in the English Premiership or b) in the Champions League. That doesn't make those clubs or their football meaningless. Paul Wilson's stance ascribes irrelevance to any club unfortunate enough to not have access to the most moneyed competitions in the world; so fool him, this so-called football journalist, who seemingly thinks football outside the very highest level is not worthy of anyone's time. I'm sure Zenit St. Petersburg, who won the UEFA Cup last year, were incredibly proud of their on-pitch achievements; the financial rewards were, as they should be, a secondary consideration. Sadly that's no longer the case for desperate English clubs whose only aim is to remain in the Premiership.
Well, if you can spend £17m on a player like David Bentley who can't even simply put a penalty on target, it's no wonder finances are tight.
Paul Wilson's views on the matter are scandalous, and it's sad that they were even deemed publishable. Clearly it was naive to think a football journalist might actually love the game of football.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
