Frank Kogan

When Arcade Fire, grown-ass men 'n' women, act like little immature brats, they end up with their strongest & deepest material, when they go way too serious, their songwriting is strong as ever and I couldn't be bothered to give a crap. When Aly and AJ, not-quite-grown-ass women, act way too serious, they end up with etc., when they go immature brat, their songwriting is strong as ever and etc.

From:

martinskidmore.livejournal.com

Not hugely relevant, but I remember a friend of mine saying he didn't like the Beach Boys because they were too dumb, to which my response was "...says the Elvis fan."

This column is true, and it's certainly the case that our reasons are very frequently more complex, compromised and contextual than a brief statement can capture, and it is as far as most people go. I'm sure I could find examples in my own singles reviews, for instance, where I've abused some indie band for qualities I have exalted in an R&B or hip hop or pop track.

Sometimes we use different words to pretend our meanings are different. I recall a discussion about auteurism in movies, where one friend dismissed the idea that Capra was an auteur. I cited nostalgia for old values as one of his pervading themes, and he claimed that wasn't a theme at all, just weakmindedness. Soon after, he cited 'things aren't what they used to be' as one of Ford's great themes. I do the same thing, calling a mood sad or wistful when a soul singer expresses it, but whiney when I hear it in indie or emo. I can also find this within a genre - there are certain kinds of material that I dislike when it's a male R&B singer but love when it's a woman. This is like your Boney Joan thing - there is much more to say about why it works for me in one context and not another (in the last example the context is the sexism in society as a whole, mostly).

From:

To a very large extent, though, there are obvious differences -- I usually dislike a high whiny male emo voice (and I actually think that both MCR and FOB have found ways to "clean up" their voices along with their songs), but then when a woman sings similar material (cf. Paramore), it really hits. Sometimes you can write things off (somewhat) as a general taste difference, though there are always exceptions, and often the more interesting facets of taste happen in the "exception zones." Like what sort of emo do I like? How is it different from the stuff I don't?

From:

also surely there is a rather basic element in this which it's hard to find the right tone for (when addressing as it in yr role as 1 x kap-K Kritik = "omigod this singer is PHYSICALLY HOTTTT therefore however they present themselves is OK BY ME" cue exculpating general "theory" to cover up actual reason (which while real is not in context considered "valid")

From:

Susan from Fairytale in Supermarket called this "tacking on" after the fact in an interesting convo we had that ended up being about some of this stuff (seemed in a similar orbit to Frank's "What's Wrong with Pretty Girls" column). I agree with her that this is a common tendency, but I definitely wouldn't ascribe it specifically to what she's calling "poptimism," certainly not as a rule. (Bigger problem being that I don't think poptimism has any set-in-stone "rules.")

From:

koganbot

I don't know if I have ever fallen for music by a physically hot singer who was not also sonically hot. But then again, it is not impossible for the visual hotness to set in motion within me the internal biochemical changes that allow me to discern the previously overlooked* (and previously unnoticed) sonic hotness.

(*Too many of our standard metaphors are visual.)

From:

sound is also physical of course -- tho i will not pretend i was thinking along those lines when i selected the word

From:

koganbot

Mark, not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that physical hotness not considered valid?

Is social class (which maybe could be considered "social hotness") like physical hotness an actual but not considered valid reason? I've been saying that social class is too weak a reason, not experiential enough, but is nevertheless something that can open one up to the experiential reasons.

It would help if I knew what I meant by social class.

From:

i think the reason ppl do not say it out loud even when it is a primary reason is bcz they feel it makes them vulnerable: it's a bit naked, a bit predatory even

however i think the reason ppl tell themselves they are not saying it out loud is bcz it is "not valid as a useful area of critical discussion" -- i imagine the story behind this wd be some kind of "subjective is trumped by objective" argt (obv if the discussion was HOTTNESS it wd be no problem, but if the issue is say "is [x] a good singer?"

i am not defending this assumption of invalidity -- and don't share it -- but i think it is floating around out there as a spur to expression (or rather a block on it)

From:

I dunno, I thought there was a pretty interesting response to something along these lines ("how much of the music you like is determined by yr dick" was the question) on the 2006 Teenpop Thread.

---

i dont know how to ask this without being offensive, and i mean it with real and genuine respect, and while actually liking ashlee--how much of yr love of teen pop is connected to yr dick frank?
-- anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, May 9, 2006 10:59 AM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

The Lily Allen hype shifts into overdrive.
-- Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, May 9, 2006 6:39 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

Not a dumb question, Anthony, though not all love is genital, and I'd say that current teenpop is far from being the most sexualized music out there (compared to Europop and dance and r&b or even the teenpop of seven years ago). And also remember that I don't have a lot of access to the visuals - which isn't to say that the aurals can't be enticing. (Strangely enough, Ashlee's videos tend to fall flat for me.) But then, I definitely feel an emotional warmth towards the personas/bodies/human beings I hear in Ashlee's and Lindsay's and Kelly's sound - and from the words and the minds that those words reveal (or invent or construct or whatever). But my favorite Ashlee song is "La La," which isn't as sexy as it's trying to be, even if it's all about sexual role playing; and another favorite is "I Am Me," which hits me in the way that Courtney Love singing "Violet" and Grace Slick singing "White Rabbit" hit me, neither of which particularly convey "warm, wet, inviting pussy." In fact, the person who's singing really feels sexy to me is Lily Allen (whom I wouldn't call teenpop, though I'm glad to write about her on this thread, and she's in the teengirl's age group): the way her tone is almost deadpan but falls lazily from her lips. But I don't yet have the warm feeling towards her that I have towards Ashlee, Kelly, and Lindsay, which is certainly a feeling of love towards a feminized something. (Well, it's three distinct feelings: the Ashlee feeling towards Ashlee, the Kelly feeling towards Kelly, the Lindsay feeling towards Lindsay.) But then, I rate the Veronicas "4ever" as the song of the year so far, and though it has a very sexualized sound, it's not pulling that response from me. The feeling is more like being doused in sugar.

But then also, a lot of great music that I'd call "sexual" - Amber's "Sexual," for instance, and a lot of stuff by t.A.T.u., and "Don't Say Goodbye" by Paulina Rubio - might as well be performed by someone called Anonymous. I'm not feeling love (or much of anything one way or another) for the people who perform them. And it's great sexual music anyway. But then, it's wrong to think of musical sexiness necessarily pertaining to the relation between the hearer and the performer. Really, what we do with sexy music in our lives may be more crucial, even if it's easier to talk about the relationship to the performer.

Don't know if I'm answering your question. Over the years, most of my hero-frontman-performers have been guys: Jagger and Dylan and Iggy and David and Johnny and Eminem. This isn't to say there can't be anything sensuous in my feeling towards them, but since I'm not gay, it's not warm in the way that it is towards a feminized someone like Ashlee. But Ashlee is definitely in a Jagger and Dylan rock category for me - as opposed to being in the Cover Girls sexy dance-pop category, though those categories need not be mutually exclusive and in fact there's something in all my heroes' music that pulls in a Cover Girls sensuality at least somewhere. Or something.

So I've just written a lot of words without quite figuring out my answer to your question. I tend not to have sex fantasies about people I don't actually know in real life, which is why girlie mags don't do anything for me. But that doesn't mean sex isn't a part of my feelings towards a singer.

-- Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, May 9, 2006 7:48 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

Anyone else willing to address this issue?
-- Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, May 9, 2006 7:52 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

(Should note taht no one else was willing to address this issue!)

From:

haha how does that not prove my point!?! frank in being willing to go where others dursnt shockah!

of course it undermines it also a bit -- in that anthony is gay, and gay men (and women) ARE more likely to allow that this is a very proper territory to be being interested in...

this also sort of crosses over with the discussion of "shippy" on

diggerdydum last week

From:

koganbot

Also notice that Anthony owing to basic goodheartedness is able to ask questions that from other people (e.g., Al Shipley) are destructive and useless but from him are inspiring and worth following up.

I think that Tim Finney also answered the question somewhat, though not in the way that I did given that Tim, like Anthony, is gay, hence his Ashlee love is not at all likely to be dick specific.

In general, "sexy" is a compliment when aimed at rock music, though punk challenged the sex emphasis somewhat.

From:

koganbot

Comment 2009: was unfair of me to single out Shipley; at the time in my brain I was running Shipley together with some of the ilX scum who were doing much worse (e.g., Ch4ki and Enr!qu3 and g3rshy, obviously, and d33j, unfortunately, and - I hate to say it - Jess).

From:

koganbot

Comment 2010: Further, the way I wrote that thing implied that Shipley had come in with a line of attack that went "You like it owing to your dick," when he wasn't one of the ones doing so.

From:

koganbot

Nor was d33j, unless I'm misremembering.

From:

I used to give Consistency an awful lot of importance, especially as a teenager and a student. It's much less vital now I've grown up a bit and trust my own opinion as to whether something is good or not.

Within the super-broad sphere of dance music there are plenty of different genres that are so divisive for very inconsistent reasons. To illustrate what I'm getting at, on Thursday I'm going to a dance music festival. This festival has a number of stages according to 'genre': Techno, House, Breaks, Psy-Trance, Wrong Music Mentalism, Chillout, Roots (world music, hip-hop, salsa etc). I can tell you now without even looking at the lineups that I will stick to Techno, House and the Wrong Music (like I did last year!). Other dudes won't leave the Breaks tent all weekend. The goths like Psy-trance and Wrong music but not Techno. Fair enough - everyone has different tastes. But ask them WHY they like Techno and not Psy-Trance but still like Breaks, and they'll go 'ummm Psy-trance doesn't have a pounding 4-4 beat like Techno.' Ah but neither does Breaks! 'But Breaks has whooshy bits and has more variety in the beats.' Psy-trance is ALL whooshy bits & the beats are all over the place! Personally I like bibbly squelch noises common to Techno and Psy-Trance but dislike the latter genre for its lack of structure and flow. However I'm sure that Psy-trance enthusiasts would ALSO say that Techno has a lack of structure and flow, but mean something quite different! Basically my point is that two styles of music can be very similar indeed (my Mum certainly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Techno and Psy-trance at all) but polarise opinion nonetheless - and those opinions are based on different interpretations of the same reasoning. Does that make sense?

From:

After reading this comment out to Rick, he mentioned 'so you're applying this to a group rather than individual opinion' - indeed I am. But it could apply on a personal level too - to tie it in to your example: 'I like Joan Baez's clear voice' could mean the listener likes the way her voice resonates in comparison to the backing music, while 'I like Liz Mitchell's clear voice' could mean her enunciation or the way it sounds like she's speaking down a tube directly into your ear or whatever. Same reason + different interpretation = cause for many arguments & resulting division!

From:

freakytigger.livejournal.com

I always get the feeling that these fairly small feeling-divisions in dance music sects are a lot more intangible and social than anyone bothers discussing - surely some of it, like any dancing, boils down to "I want to dress up like *this* when I go out - will other people be doing the same or will I feel out of place?"

From:

A lot of it is down to that, yes. Funky House & Hardcore = stereotypical binge drink Britain girls with scraped back hair and skimpy outfits (plus as laydees they are likely to get in free before 11!), it's all about going out dancing and getting drunk as a lord. Techno and House seems much more up itself intellectually and its listeners are quite happy to either sit at home & chin stroke whilst listening to mix cds OR go out on the bosh drugged up to the eyeballs. And Psy-trance is full of goths trying to have sex with each other, of course.

I think that's why I like Techno and House tbh - I love dancing but I also love plugging in my headphones and contemplating it. There's much less of a 'scene' and even at its most go-there-to-be-seen-not-to-dance (ie Fabric) the clientele is split fairly evenly between jeans+trainers and smart shirts+skimpy dresses (with the odd smattering of pink fairy wings) and no-one is really bothered - because they are either concentrating on the music or nattering to their own little clique of mates. It's actually quite insular in that respect as opposed to Wrong Music/Hardcore where for some reason everyone is Really Friendly...

I must admit though that I've only really started going out to dance clubs in the last two years or so, and as such my sweeping generalisations may be factually inaccurate. I'm quite prepared to be corrected on this!

From:

is this what simonR means by "scenius" -- i always liked that idea, but have only skipped and dabbled thru "3n3rgy fl4sh", cz i was "never yet ready" to "apply my brane" to it (and as always w.SR fear it being a potentially strong idea followed up by his own immediate dumbing down and conventionalising of it)

From:

(disclaimer: as i haven't read EF it shd be emphasised this is MY FEAR not simon's failing -- necessarily! -- tho my fear does have actual real roots in his real actual critical practice, albeit 45 million years ago when Phytopunkton Rooled the Arth)

From:

freakytigger.livejournal.com

No, "scenius" as I understand it is to do with the motor of innovation in music scenes. He contrasts it with "genius" - the auteur in the studio - whereas in scenius innovation is a collective process, & I *think* it's more to do with the DJ, and producers making records which will both fit in with and stand out in a mix, rather than stand-alone "sonic statements"

(pauses in explanation to save rabbits as heavens open outside)

i.e. "It's the vibe, man".

He struggles in Energy Flash w/ conflict between the wish to embrace this as the motor of the 'hardcore continuum' and the desire to list loads of good individual records, the latter (inevitably perhaps) wins more often.

The problem with genius/scenius as I understand it (which may be a poor understanding!) is that the pure forms of either basically don't exist, and also in order to privilege the "massive" in dance fandom he has to invent by implication an incredibly passive version of the non-dance consumer.

From:

boyofbadgers.livejournal.com

Yes and no. There are definitely places where genre divisions work like this: the neo-rave bangfacery/hardcore-as-is/drum'n'bass triple point immediately springs to mind. Massive overlap in sound between the three, but a v.big difference in the attitude of the punters (and DJs for the matter). But then you have social scenes which encompass several musically distinguishable genres. For example, in 96/97/98 most London acid techno, psy trance and hard house nights had exactly the same crowds going to all of them.

Psy trance is an interesting case here, in that I wd estimate that nowadays 80%+ of psy-ppl have no interest in any other dance music whatsoever, which IME of ppl-who-like-dance is rly rly odd. It seems to operate in its own little insular hippy groove. It's a bit of a shame, cos I wd like to see some of its values infecting other genres, not least the seemingly compulsory provision of cups of tea at psy venues.

From:

koganbot

Ha! I have not heard many of these genre terms: "breaks" and "psy-trance" and "wrong music mentalism." I am from Mars.

From: