Thursday, September 07, 2006

THE AWESOME MANIFESTO

This past July, my brother and I went to Chicago, along with a friend of ours, to attend the first annual Pitchfork Music Festival. We didn’t have to check the name of the station to know when to get off of the ‘L’ – we just followed the mob of tight jeans, tighter t-shirts, and Converse All-Stars towards Union Park. “Yes, I’m sure I’m going the right way,” I overheard one girl say into her cell phone, “there are hundreds of people wearing stripes and glasses.”

We were a little late, but we got through the gates just in time to secure some decent spots for the third main stage act of the day – Man Man. But before we were treated to their absurdly garish and exhilaratingly primitive live show, the emcee for the weekend came out onto the stage. He was a short, huffy man full of blustering energy and bombastic hyperbole. He must have been in his forties. Throughout the weekend he made overblown comments about the importance of each band, the importance of Chicago as a musical center, and the new musical revolution. He exhorted us all to start our own bands in the cafeterias of our high schools (underestimating the average age of festival attendees by an unjust 2-5 years, at least!). He enthused until his face turned red and the veins popped out of his neck.

The generation gap was painfully obvious to everyone in attendance. At first there were just grumbles and side comments to no one in particular, but as the day got longer (and the 21+ faction made more and more use of their wristbands, no doubt), the crowd got less and less polite. Soon our hyperactive Uncle Pitchfork was being peppered with audible impatience from the crowd – even boos and such clever remarks as “Get off the stage!” None of us were interested in listening to some dude who looked like our manager at the hardware store tell us about the importance of the music we enjoyed. If there’s one thing you’ve got to learn about indie rock, it’s that you can't over-hype it. And we certainly didn’t want any part in any kind of “revolution.” That’s the kind of crap that O.A.R. sings about. And we all knew that O.A.R. sucks. That’s why we were here, at the Pitchfork festival and not at 10,000 Lakes or some such hippyfest. You see, the word “revolution” no longer means anything in the syntax of pop music. It has become an empty signifier, no more meaningful than “baby baby” or “coo-coo-ca-choo.” Exactly what kind of revolution are O.A.R fans going to participate in after listening to “Crazy Game of Poker?” The "Hookah and High Life and Stay On Campus This Summer" Revolution?

The truth is, the concept of revolution (in any form) is no longer viable in popular music. There are no important artists in 2006. There is no music that must be made. There is no voice of our generation. For the first time ever, the best pop music being made is not serving any cultural or generational need. Warhol has become ubiquitous; all art is pop art, all art is accessible, and all art is commodity.

In the past, pop music has served some sort of social/cultural goal. In the fifties, early rock ’n’ roll music challenged the morals of its time – introducing hints of sex and danger to mainstream radio. Then in the sixties, not only were sexual mores pushed even further, but pro-drug and anti-authority ideals produced America’s first substantial counter-culture. It took most of the seventies to get over the aftershocks of the previous decade, but by 1977 punk was born. This introduced a new disillusioned counter-culture, tired of the hypocrisy of the hippies’ ideals and discovering their sense of humanity through a symbolic self-destruction. The eighties found bands funneling this disillusionment through more artistic and experimental structures and were dominated by post-punk and new-wave (note that I am concentrating on the “historically-significant” and not necessarily most popular music of these decades, though early on these were one and the same). The nineties were marked by the fad of grunge and the rise of indie rock as the most “significant” (critically/historically) music of its time. In my opinion, Pavement were the last “important” or “significant” rock band, because they combated the very idea of importance; they tore down the idea of significance as a viable characteristic of a rock band.

Which brings us to the present. Here we are in the 00’s, and popular (independent) music has only one purpose: to be awesome. There are no hippies. No punks. No posers. No ideals. Only good music and bad music (and awesome music). Sure, a lot of hipsters or scenesters dress kind of weird, at least when they get together in large groups. But for the most part, you can hardly tell them apart from straights. The only difference between hipsters and the mainstream is that hipsters are better-informed consumers. Our music is neither revolutionary nor dangerous, it is simply superior product.

On one hand, this seems kind of depressing. Shouldn’t our music have purpose? Have meaning? But though it may be culturally empty or impotent, this does not mean that it cannot be emotionally powerful. I mean awesome in the true sense of the word – inspiring absolute awe and wonder. I hear several albums every year that completely blow me away, that overflow with beauty and sadness, that subtly rearrange the landscape of my mind (or to put it in a clichéd Natalie Portman type way – that totally change my life). With the pretensions and ideals stripped from the proceedings, some of the most pure, beautiful, amazing, and fun rock music ever made is happening right now. Which is truly awesome.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very Nietzschean. I like.

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate the historical outlook - I've often wondered how the generation I participate in fits in to the larger scheme of American culture, and I think you really hit the nail on the head, Ryan.

You mention that:

"Here we are in the 00’s, and popular (independent) music has only one purpose: to be awesome. There are no hippies. No punks. No posers. No ideals. "

The artistic vangard has certainly shed any pretenions of hippie/punk culture - however, the value/ideal of "style" is certainly alive and well. It is the defining characteristic of our current counter-culture fad: the "hipster/scenester". You mention that:

"The only difference between hipsters and the mainstream is that hipsters are better-informed consumers."

I think that is a great summation of the current "counter-culture". However, I would ammend the statement slightly - hipsters are the premier conspicuous consumers of our (white, urban, middle-class) generation. They know and display their knowledge of the consumptive trends of the white, urban, middle class. If everyone from the suburbs took the time to develop their musical catelogue as the scenesters have, they would move away from the easily consumed popular trend (see: emo, jam band, "classic" rock, marley, etc) which permeates our popular media, and move into the indie/scenester realm. As Ryan said, scenesters are no different from us, they are just better informed.


Finally, I would broaden your assertion, Ryan, that:

"though [popular music] may be culturally empty or impotent, this does not mean that [popular music] cannot be emotionally powerful."

For some reason (Perhaps because the general population has the resources and time to explore) the role of "artistic expert" has been almost completely democratized. In the literary world, for example, a group of socially elite "experts" were given the previledge of deciding what novels were "important". The American educational system still ingrains these notions into contemporary society. However, for almost every other form of art, no such value system is perpetuated (maybe visual art is, I'm not sure). Without those "experts", a popular groundswell of approval for works of art will never exist.

I think this is a great thing - let the art speak for itself, and what lasts (and by "lasts" I mean people continue to listen to the music, without experts telling them they should) will be the untainted "important" works of our "pretension/ideal free" contemporary culture.

p.s. I'm sorry if my argument is muddled - I need an editor :)

ryanruff said...

Billy - thanks very much for your comments. I think you really clarified some points that were not fully fleshed out in my original post. I left out some qualifiers like "white, urban, middle-class" for the sake of concision, but they are necessary distinctions to make. I also agree that, given the time and interest, mainstream (white, urban, middle-class) consumers would move into the indie/scenester realm. My own musical tastes (starting in high school) actually evolved in precisely that way: top 40--> classic rock-->jam bands--> jazz--> experimental rock --> indie --> beyond.
Also, there are already symptoms of a broader shift of mainstream tastes towards indie, or at least "indier." The OC may be the best example of this - offering the most ironed-out, easiest-to-swallow indie bands (read: Death Cab For Cutie) to a prime-time young-adult audience. It reminds me of the early nineties when Pearl Jam (a watered down version of actual underground bands) were championed by mainstream media as being underground/alternative pioneers, despite being a derivative bore. Grunge became a marketable subculture demographic. I see the same thing happening with indie. But on the plus side, some very legit acts like the New Pornographers and The Shins have enjoyed some modest mainstream (college) success. Nothing wrong with that.
I also agree with you that the role of "artistic expert" has been democratized, primarily by internet media and mp3 blogs. My one worry is this...will the music criticism democracy go the same way as our political democracy? Will we be split into a two-party system? With Pitchfork emerging as the authority, there seem to be two factions - blogs that say the same thing as Pitchfork and blogs that say "screw Pitchfork! They're a bunch of snobs, and I don't like anything that they like." But I think this tendency to reject the de facto authority is natural to the hipster's revisionist mentality, and ultimately beneficial to bucking the "canon of classics" trend, as long as it doesn't get too extreme. Because most of the time, Pitchfork really know what they are talking about. Which is why they are so widely read.
And lastly, with such a vast volume of music instantly available, I agree that only the very best will last, proving itself important over time. But will it only be remembered by the elite consumers? What the hell is anyone else going to remember? Staind? I don't think so...so what does that say about our mainstream culture? That it cannot produce anything worthwhile or memorable? I'm not going to have to listen to Evanescence on oldies radio someday, am I?
If only for that reason, I hope that the trend of mainstream culture embracing indie music continues.

Oaph Uv said...

I usually don't like to read music reviews. I don't like people telling me what to and not to listen to... but I know you're not some self important egomaniac. I trust you. Also, your writing is quite enjoyable.
-Oanh

ryanruff said...

Thanks, Oanh!