Well, you're correctly pointing out that intention isn't the crucial issue here. And I think what's on my mind was the question Jesse Lerner asked straight off upon reading my original "PBS" essay in Why Music Sucks: "Are you saying that PBS is inevitable?" I responded by saying correctly that PBS isn't a matter of course but rather is a matter of what's going on right now. But that actually sidestepped the question. We shouldn't assume that PBS is a matter of course, or that what we're doing these days (c. 1987) was an inevitability and will inevitably be carried into the future. But that doesn't mean that I've shown that it wasn't/isn't inevitable, or have good ideas how to counteract it.
In general I think it's a Good Thing that I live in a culture that valorizes a certain amount of disturbance and uneasiness, and that turns "disturbance" and "creates uneasiness" into praise words when applied to art and ideas. But the (inevitable?) result has been that the words "disturbing" and "creates unease" are now owned by the teacher's pets.
There's a difference between making a disturbing record and making a record that people will recognize and categorize as "disturbing" rather than as mere "sentimental drivel." That's the difference you're pointing out, right? But (1) in the long run this difference might not matter, and (2) this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do both.
My guess is that Toop was trying to do both, to disturb people's perception of ballads and also to change the discourse. (And he doesn't have to rely on liner notes to do the latter; I have no idea if the album has liner notes.)
The thing is, while I may choose my words so as not to use teacher's-pet words, I have to do my best to communicate what's going on - not just out of abstract duty to the truth, but because by knowing what's going on we can then ask why it's going on and what else could be going on instead. If that brings better valuation and recognition of neglected music, it also makes the music more likely to be moved into the province of the teacher's pets. But is that the only possible way to preserve the music and get its value recognized, by giving it to the teacher's pets? Can the pets learn to behave in ways that are less likely to neuter what they extol? After all, to some extent we are the teacher's pets (and there are worse things to be).
But that brings me back to Jesse's question.
intending to AshBritify the ____ discourse" may end up PBS-ifying it
You could elaborate on this. (I have ideas how this can happen, but I'd like to see yours first.)
no subject
In general I think it's a Good Thing that I live in a culture that valorizes a certain amount of disturbance and uneasiness, and that turns "disturbance" and "creates uneasiness" into praise words when applied to art and ideas. But the (inevitable?) result has been that the words "disturbing" and "creates unease" are now owned by the teacher's pets.
There's a difference between making a disturbing record and making a record that people will recognize and categorize as "disturbing" rather than as mere "sentimental drivel." That's the difference you're pointing out, right? But (1) in the long run this difference might not matter, and (2) this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do both.
My guess is that Toop was trying to do both, to disturb people's perception of ballads and also to change the discourse. (And he doesn't have to rely on liner notes to do the latter; I have no idea if the album has liner notes.)
The thing is, while I may choose my words so as not to use teacher's-pet words, I have to do my best to communicate what's going on - not just out of abstract duty to the truth, but because by knowing what's going on we can then ask why it's going on and what else could be going on instead. If that brings better valuation and recognition of neglected music, it also makes the music more likely to be moved into the province of the teacher's pets. But is that the only possible way to preserve the music and get its value recognized, by giving it to the teacher's pets? Can the pets learn to behave in ways that are less likely to neuter what they extol? After all, to some extent we are the teacher's pets (and there are worse things to be).
But that brings me back to Jesse's question.
intending to AshBritify the ____ discourse" may end up PBS-ifying it
You could elaborate on this. (I have ideas how this can happen, but I'd like to see yours first.)