9.23.2015

Claire and the Grimes


I'm thinking. Maybe this has already been said, by me, probably by others but.

Part of the problem with genres or styles not disappearing is that it's really not quite possible to react to some problem within one genre without simply becoming part of another one.

How can there be a dialectic, or a narrative, when all is always all present?

Well, there can't be.

Like, lets say that you were in a noise scene and then became infatuated with pop music, not only because, you know, at least, aesthetically, it can be excellent, but also because noise just doesn't feel especially radical. Well, cool. But then, what if you feel that the post-noise embrace of pop has gotten a bit mediocre and it's all becoming too, well, pop, and that you want to do something more radical in reaction. Maybe you want to react against the strictures of pop songwriting, maybe you want to push sonically into more abrasive territories. Well, then, maybe you've gone and made yourself a noise record, in which case, your attempt to be, well, the negation of an assertion only leads you to assert the thing you were trying to negate in the first place. In rebelling against the conformity of the post-noise embrace of pop, you have now re-conformed.

There's no total rebellion without a totality.

How can a new social subject come to exist?

EDIT:

Another way of pondering:

Exactly what set of extrinsic principles are there to be valorized or refuted, celebrated or defied, by the actions of individuals?

No comments: