Comments
Many of the things said here are very similar to what I was yelling at some dude at Justin’s birthday part concerning Girl Talk.
An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning.
Replace “hipster” with “girl talk” and it makes perfect sense.
I read this article several months ago, and can’t for the life of me figure out where I would have found it had it not been through here. This wasn’t posted here already?
I don’t think so…?
John said:I don’t think so…?
You’re right. I think I came across it when trying to figure out how to describe to this guy I work with what a hipster is.
The article is clearly doling out the hyperbole, but I’m actually kind of conflicted when it comes to my thoughts on this. One of his key points is that the clothing worn by members of previous counter-cultures distinctly symbolized those people’s ideologies and that hipsters, who have co-opted things from the past and sucked all the meaning from them, clearly stand for nothing. Don’t you think this is over-simplifying the issue? Couldn’t you also conclude that hipster clothing symbolizes depth and open-mindedness, as you can no longer make an assumption as to what that person believes in based solely on their dress?
Don’t get me wrong, I think skinny jeans, unlaced hi-tops and an overuse of the word “rad” are awful, but isn’t it on me to not make generalizations?
Girl Talk sucks too, so if you’re only intention was to replace hipster with Girl Talk, rather than start up the whole hipster argument, I wholeheartedly agree.
No, I definitely think the concept of hipsterdom is one worth discussing, especially since I’ve more than a few times been lumped in there with them. What kills me is that it could stand for something; something I stand for and that punk, in a way stood for: snobbery. And I mean that in a good way. I’m sure there’s a less negative word for it, but people who demand quality, who are opposed to superficial, commercial art, who are, in effect, the counterculture.
But I think somewhere along the line, a combination of overuse of irony and the marketing savvy of today’s young PR/ad wizards have commercialized the whole thing before it became anything of substance.
I am all for anything that is in favor of anti-Girl Talk. However, I think the part you excerpted regarding different styles and different eras could also describe a lot of things you and I like and probably the very reason we like them. The only real difference is that Girl Talk just samples those things outright while the bands we like perform their own appropriated approximations of those different eras. And that’s a big fucking difference in my opinion, but it could easily be argued that it’s just as hipster.
It also goes back to the question I always pose on this: Who determines what is quality and what is superficial? We’d all like to think it’s us (I know I would and I know you definitely do), but as I’ve said on here countless times, it’s all absolutely subjective and it’s all dependent on what we bring to the table of our own personal experiences. Music for example: The minute you leave the realm of classical or jazz music and start discussing rock music period, discussion of “the best” are absolutely moot. Same thing with movies, literature, etc.
Well, that’s what I like about it. Who decides? I do. For me. And I’m going to try to convince you I’m right. There’s a suspension of disbelief that we all have to maintain in order to have those discussions. I just think they’re fun to have.
Hmmmm….yeah, I guess so.
Kevin said:It also goes back to the question I always pose on this: Who determines what is quality and what is superficial? We’d all like to think it’s us (I know I would and I know you definitely do), but as I’ve said on here countless times, it’s all absolutely subjective and it’s all dependent on what we bring to the table of our own personal experiences. Music for example: The minute you leave the realm of classical or jazz music and start discussing rock music period, discussion of “the best” are absolutely moot. Same thing with movies, literature, etc.
The funny part, and this is the thing I find hardest to reconcile, is that quality is almost always deemed so by the vast, vast minority. Animal Collective is so far superior to the Miley Cyrus that it’s ludicrous to even mention them in the same sentence, but from a purely democratic standpoint, we all like the crap. Like you said, it goes back to “who determines” and how we define what quality is, but hipsterdom and “snobbery” are diametrically opposed to the leftist ideology that most of us here subscribe to. Majority rules, no?
I don’t think leftist ideology is always necessarily majority rules, no. E.g., minority rights.
And while many of is are fairly left, we’re also fairly elitist, a label I’m quite comfortable with so as it’s cut with a decent dose of fairness.
That said, art, music, and culture has always been the bastion of the elite. And by “elite” I mean “people who use the word ‘bastion’ in conversation.” And with good cause, I find. It’s the idea of the editor or teacher — that there are people who spend way more time thinking about and considering these things whose job it is to let us know what’s up.
The Miley vs. Animal Collective problem, however, has little to do with music, art, culture, or elitism and has everything to do with big business marketing. I firmly believe that Animal Collective could very well be a Miley Cyrus if they had the sort of financials behind them she does and whored themselves out like she does.
Kevin said:Hmmmm….yeah, I guess so.
Wait… DID I JUST WIN?!
Win what? We weren’t arguing. Plus it was more that I needed to cook dinner and didn’t have time to elaborate.
I just think that it’s one thing for like minded people to debate such things, but that debating it with people who don’t want or need the same thing from their music or movies or whatever, is a futile effort. Most people, as Jay alluded to just want their music to be catchy, escapist, or make them “rock out” or some such thing. In which case trying to explain to them what is “good” about Animal Collective is really just a complete fool’s errand. Yeah, maybe you’ll play them it and they might go “Yeah, well this is o.k.” but really if they don’t want to be challenged by music or entertainment and just want it to be escapist, I guess what old age has given me is the realization that there’s nothing more than that.
Plus, the other aspect of it is that we’ve completely lost the idea of the producer and/or songwriter as celebrity. I mean yeah, some of the old hits are sung by great singers. But producers like Phil Spector and songwriters who wrote the catchy songs were celebrities as well because that stuff is just as much a part of the art. I fully maintain that the people who write the songs for a lot of the top 40 acts who we all hate, and the people who produce and arrange a lot of that stuff are just as talented as many or most indie rock serious artists and bands with credibility. But because marketing has now built up this big facade about the singer as the sole source of celebrity and song, that stuff is lost and is not out there. Which is ironic since we live in an era where anyone and everyone else can and is a celebrity.
Also, I really hate the idea of the “expert” when it comes to a lot of this stuff. There’s no doubt a lot of people out there steeped in history and understanding, etc. but I think there’s just too much deference paid to certain institutions and I think that hipsters and indie rock elitists are just as much victims of marketing and subject to lemming like group think as anyone else.
I mean yeah, we all love that Bon Iver record. But if every music blog and their brother hadn’t decided that the whole thing had a really cool back story to it, and pumped that up endlessly, would any of us have heard about it? If we just heard it without any of that hype would we really have been blown away or would it have just blended into the woodwork?
So yeah, maybe there are hipster approved bands we don’t like but everyone else in our demographic does, or maybe there are bands that we flesh out that don’t come through that route, but the fact is that us putting our faith in Pitchfork or Stereogum or Brooklyn Vegan or whatever is just as much falling prey to marketing 101 and savvy record labels and things that have nothing to do with the art itself as someone who finds out about it through a radio station or in Rolling Stone or from background music on Grey’s Anatomy or whatever. We can spend days thinking it’s different and that it’s all so much more organic, but at the end of the day it’s really not.
I think snobbish is the right word. I find there’s an overtone here on theScrabbled that there are factual, absolute “good bands”, “good tv shows”, “good movies”, and “good art”, despite what people may personally think. I’m not sure why not liking those bands (who I will admit I am unfamiliar with) means one doesn’t want to be “challenged” by their music. Perhaps they just like what they like. I could list a slew of things I’m a fan of that I bet would put me in the “escapist” category, whatever that means.
Best article EVER.
Evan said:I think snobbish is the right word. I find there’s an overtone here on theScrabbled that there are factual, absolute “good bands”, “good tv shows”, “good movies”, and “good art”, despite what people may personally think. I’m not sure why not liking those bands (who I will admit I am unfamiliar with) means one doesn’t want to be “challenged” by their music. Perhaps they just like what they like. I could list a slew of things I’m a fan of that I bet would put me in the “escapist” category, whatever that means.
That’s what I was getting at, but my point is that it’s not and shouldn’t be a negative thing. There are things I like because I can listen to them or watch them and appreciate some sort of bold artistic vision or because it makes me go “Hmmm….how the fuck did they do that or come up with creating such a thing.” and there are other things I enjoy simply because they are catchy/funny/rocking/whatever and make me stop thinking about other things going on in my life (hence “escapist”). Most of the debates I have with John on here are because I don’t think one thing is “better” than the other and that different things have different times/places/ways of enjoying/whatever and that people bring their own lives and needs and whatever to something. I like a shit ton of stuff in terms of music, movies, tv shows, whatever that are either derivative, poorly done, and without what could be deemed artistic merit by most people.
no ang, no care
Evan, to be fair, 99% of the time when Im’ talking like you describe, it’s entirely for the fun of arguing. What’s the point of a blog if we all sit around going “well, you’re entitled to your opinions and I can see how you might think that.” Yaaaawwwwwwn. When I’m by myself or in the right mood, I can enjoy just about anything.
But when I’m bored, at work, and excited about something, I have fun in comparing it to other things and arguing about it.
I might believe that, except you do that in your non-blog life as well.
Evan said:I might believe that, except you do that in your non-blog life as well.
That’s only with certain people.
…Like you.