Article Response: "They're Out There Somewhere"

MJ ist rad. And how right he is! Though for some reason this is making me think of all the loser bands we mocked that were opening for the headliners at shows in 1991 or so. "Ladies and gentlemen, Ionescu!" "Fuck you! Play 'Bela Lugosi's Dead!'" You don't want to know more.

good article - FT great at the mo.

"The final new development is that we're linking up with I Love Music and I Love Everything again."
Did anyone even notice these links were ever severed?

I didn't like the ARTICLE's FREQUENT use of capitalisation.

I didn't like the ARTICLE's FREQUENT use of capitalisation.

I kept being reminded of this guy I know who'll declare trends GRATE at the drop of a hat.

The interesting question becomes whether the bandwagons upon which we hopped as youth were actually any good or not. We could read M.J.'s opinion to be either (a) well, no, but that's entirely beside the point, or (b) well, yes, and so are the new ones, only some of us are too old to tell. Or, of course, (c) who cares, listen to what you like and quit fretting, which is good advice on a personal level but maybe iffier on a critical one. (Although who knows? Maybe there's something to be said for a broad swath of criticism that elects not to try for objectivity and just makes its gut-level points broadly, unworried that others will come along and accuse it of being short- sighted or blind or old or naive or "just not getting it." Subjective criticism works so long as there are enough people doing it to cover all perspectives, and so long as all of them are okay with the possibility that they'll be really good at it but everyone will think they're fools -- criticism as art, I suppose.)

So, are we to be wary of both youngsters and their most passionate devotions and oldsters and their disinterested nay-saying? If we are attempting some measure of critical objectivity, how do we grapple with the importance of Being There, of being involved in something? Will we have to admit that our criticisms of, say, nu-metal are completely meaningless, because there's the possibility that while it's dumb, it's actually perfect and meaningful for those who are with it? (I can think of plenty of personal youthful loves that were in fact critically ridiculous but I still believe are valuable and in some cases brilliant.) Or ... or subjectivity? Putting all of this on the table and saying "this is where I happen to be," accepting that our supposedly "critical" voices may soon fail to have any relevance? This seems to be the FT approach, and it seems to be MJ's, and at the end of these long paragraphs, it's looking pretty good to me, too.

I think the point i was thrashing about for was not that we must accept our own subjectivity to _allow_ ourselves to be relevant. e.g. if i were to say Westlife were rubbish because they do not playing their own instruments, write political critiques, nor speak to ME directly about MY life i would, of course, be a BLOODY IDIOT who should be KILLED. However, if i recognise that that's not the point of them, that have a market that very much does NOT include me, then i can merrily criticise them for being an pound-shop quality version of music that insults us all as human beings quite happily.

To put the whole thing more succinctly, reading aging tits moaning about how things aren't as good as they used to be is BORING and i wish they'd USE their age and experience to describe what they hear, rather than denying it.

Sorry, typo there - the point i was thrashing about for WAS that we must accept our subjectivity. That was a stray "not".