Trouser Press
 
Back to: HomeReviewsWhat's New
 
 
 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 The NYT has our number. . .
Author: erikalbany 
Date:   04-06-12 20:50

This one speaks to me in a big way, though I'm not on board with the central premise, and I'm all for "crabby elitism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/magazine/why-the-old-school-music-snob-is-the-least-cool-kid-on-twitter.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&smid=fb-share&pagewanted=all?src=tp&adxnnlx=1333759221-9QRqgQxnVvqPWAVLSraYag

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: totaji 
Date:   04-06-12 21:35

Great article. I've never tried to tie my ego or got off on being "in the know" with music.
Its all about the art. It aint about you or me.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: hoip chiggs 
Date:   04-07-12 11:05

Look, if you want to impress people, say Coco before Chanel. Coco always came before Chanel.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: Jermoe 
Date:   04-08-12 11:03

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, but I can't get with this quote:

"...knowing one thing about everything is much more important than knowing everything about one thing."

Also, when she called out the movie High Fidelity, how lame was that? The book was so much better. Tosser. Okay, that was actually tongue in cheek...sort of.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: breno 
Date:   04-08-12 11:30

I quit reading after "When the movie “Garden State” came out, the Shins — whose song “New Slang,” according to Natalie Portman, was going to change Zach Braff’s life — were dead to us. To our minds, fake obscure was even worse than popular."

I have no idea if the writer goes on to redeem herself with the rest of the article - I suspect she does, otherwise what's the point of writing it in the first place - but I couldn't stand to read any more of it. Anyone who admits to ceasing to like something simply because it was discovered by a wider audience deserves to be cast into whatever level of Hell is reserved for asswipes who like the things they like solely to feel superior to everybody else. Screw this whiner who's seemingly upset that she can't have exclusionary tastes anymore or, probably more to the point, she continues to have exclusionary tastes but her illusion that anyone actually gives a shit has been shattered.

Boo fucking hoo, Alexandra. I guess this means maybe you'll just have to like stuff you actually enjoy now rather than stuff that validates your self image of being hipper than those poor benighted fucks who don't know any better than to like the stuff that makes them happy to listen to.

Which again, I'm sure is probably the exact conclusion she draws by the end of the piece, but I've no desire to be told something I already know by an idiot.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: Delvin 
Date:   04-09-12 13:20

Two passages in this article that said it all for me:

"The bands were often lousy, but that didn’t matter to us. What mattered to us was that no one else knew anything about them."

I might have had a similar attitude for the first year or so, after I discovered punk and new wave ... but that had a lot more to do with the way my schoolmates mocked the music, than whether or not they knew about it. And those all were artists who'd either managed to break through to pop radio or had gotten a musical guest slot on SNL, so my classmates knew just as much about them, to start, as I did. (And that first "wave" of bands included Talking Heads, Devo, The B-52's, Joe Jackson, Nick Lowe and Blondie — definitely not lousy bands.)

The more I got into the music, the more eager I was to share it ... and the more exciting it became to introduce a friend to something I liked, and to find that they liked it too.

Of course, that snob attitude exists in all the arts. Whether it's painting or sculpture, film or literature, some people always value willful obscurity, and sneer at whatever's popular (even if it's good).

"... Being cool was no longer about what you knew and what other people didn’t. It was about what you had to say about the things that everyone already knew about."

How many times do I have to say it: Cool plus seventy-five cents will buy you a soda at the vending machine. And if all it takes to be cool is to have the inside line on a musical artist (who, as she said above, might be lousy), then it's not even worth the price of that can of soda.



Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: Jermoe 
Date:   04-09-12 13:38

In her defense, I think the writer of the piece is pointing out the narrowmindedness (is that an actual word?) of the views she once held.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: breno 
Date:   04-11-12 16:34

Quote:

In her defense, I think the writer of the piece is pointing out the narrowmindedness (is that an actual word?) of the views she once held.


Possibly, but once I forced myself to read the entire article she still comes across as having arrived at that bit of enlightenment unwillingly. Once she's confronted with the fact that she's not quite as elite as she thought she was, she's perfectly willing to write an article slamming the entire notion that anyone should ever have been an elitist in the first place.

That's not some noble bit of personal growth on her part. That's just patting oneself on the back for grasping the obvious. It's the equivalent of a politician holding a press conference to announce his defection from the Whig Party in 1873, 17 years after it ceased to exist.

If she'd not been horrified to discover that a couple hundred thousand people had heard of Azealia Banks before her, I suspect she'd have spent the time she took on this article instead writing one bitching and moaning about how Bon Iver sucks now that the name was spoken on network tv.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: Delvin 
Date:   04-12-12 11:23

That attitude was driven home for me about 20 years ago, when Nevermind broke. My wife & I were visiting her old graduate school turf, where (for a while) she had managed the university's radio station. She introduced me to one of her old friends from the station, and he and I started talking music. I don't remember which one of us first mentioned Nirvana, but he said, "Oh man, I love Nirvana. I can't wait for their popularity to fade, so I can play them on the air again."



Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: nosepail 
Date:   04-12-12 11:57

Its hard to compete with the New York hipsters. A band that you consider semi-obscure or below-the-radar...you go to NYC and they show is sold out. The internet and the omnipresence of Pitchfork has accelerated this trend exponentially. Much easier to be hip in hick towns like Boston.

All in all, I sympathize with the willfully obscure.

Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: Delvin 
Date:   04-12-12 12:54

> Much easier to be hip in hick towns like Boston.

Boston is a hick town? I guess we measure "hickness" differently.

Maybe that's part of why the attitude never took root with me. Colorado Springs is an ultra-hick town. Forget about an artist being under the radar; in that town, there's no radar! KRCC does its best to spread the word about cool new music — not just through its broadcasting, but through hosting concerts and other events. The Independent, the local weekly paper, makes its contribution too. And I've seen some cool shows in that town, no question about it. But the buzz rarely approaches a widely audible level. So there's no point in trying to be a hipster there.

Besides, once the house lights go down, the über-hip, the hopelessly square and all the audience members in between look pretty much alike ... except for those with tall hairstyles.



Reply To This Message
 
 Re: The NYT has our number. . .
Author: erikalbany 
Date:   04-12-12 18:51

Incidentally, I just got back from Boston this morning, and I saw not one hick the whole time I was there. Maybe it was because I was only in the Beacon Hill area and the TD Garden.

Though I did comment to my father on the way home that I'd rather spend an hour in Boston than a week in NYC (having lived for lengthy periods in both).

The Pixies and Mission of Burma would have never evolved comfortably in NYC. And Patti Smith wouldn't have lasted a year in the Boston clubs. (That's all speculation and opinion, of course.)

Reply To This Message
 Threaded View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 


 Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.

phorum.org