Can't help Falling in Love

Giving Janet Devlin that doom laden sound she so obviously desires


Can't Help Falling in Love - Janet Devlin (JZA remix) by TheJza

Pale Sun

Just seen this very long criticism of David Foster Wallace - a few points -

Firstly the criticisms are generally contradictory, it's the scattergun approach to criticism, and given the long and unwieldy nature of the piece it's no wonder that logic is lost somewhere (I'm wondering whether the long and unwieldy nature of the piece is a nod to David Foster Wallace's style of writing, if it is it certainly makes the point of how hard it is to write in such a style successfully).  So he criticises DFW for being pretentious, too clever by half, and purposefully opaque.  But on the other hand he criticises him for being over-simplistic and for making stupid mistakes with facts.  There's also the claim that DFW is "anti-intellectual," but this is immediately followed by a snide comment about people who like DFW - "Hobo torture porn for postgraduate smirkers."  Maybe I misread this bit but it seems to be suggesting that people read DFW too intellectually - which seems like an "anti-intellectual" stance.

There's a bizarre bit where the writer slags off DFW for his musical taste. And then slags him off for not liking things ironically, because that's we we generally slag off "hipsters" for, and he actually likes things! And yes, read the piece, if you can get through to that bit, it does slag him off for liking music.

It also lumps together DFW with other writers (laziness). Dave Eggers, I've never been a fan of, but DFW is an infinitely better writer than DE.  Just by mentioning them together doesn't prove shit.  DFW questions more, uses irony in an entirely different to DE. 

A lot of the criticism amounts to "DFW grew up comfortable white and middle-class" and yet what DFW is trying to do is to transcend that, it's a slef-criticism of that.  A desire-to-feel, a desire for their to be something else.  By the standards of this criticism DFW wouldn't be able to win, if he didn't write about feelings of wanting to escape then he'd be considered ultimately smug, he does, so he writes from a position of smugness.

It's a similar thing with the criticisms of the little mistakes DFW made in the details which are pedantically listed, again, perhaps as a nod to DFW's writing.  Here we should turn to The Pale King, where the battle seems to be to render the boring in literature.  How does one do it?  And here the answer seems to be by including large sections that are boring.  One works through these sections, the pedantry and the details.  It is boring, but then the brilliance emerges afterwards, in the writing elsewhere.

The whole thrust of The Pale King seems to be in finding creativity in the boredom, not being creative as a distraction from the boredom.  The details of these sections, do they matter?  I'm not sure they do  In Infinite Jest aren't the footnotes and the details there to get us lost in the labyrinth and to feel the book as a thing.  So the criticism of this piece that DFW wants to find something away from the intellectual is only half true: he may want to find something else, but it is through reason, through the intellect that one must find it, otherwise he'd have settled for writing little pieces of homespun wisdom (which to be fair, some of his later non-fiction pieces were in danger of becoming, but this shouldn't distract from the fiction).

Still Standing

JR Writer - still Dipset, still tapping the same sound, still sounding fresh, still standing -




Cop that mixtape - it's damn good.

Blissed out

The bliss of sleep perhaps. Her performance the dream to prevent her waking up. We dream to continue sleeping, or sometimes we wake to continue dreaming.

Here she gets her second chance, and her performance so shallow, so pointless, even for Britain's Got Talent. The detail is in the judges though, the comments saying (or her interpretation of them, her secondary revision) that if she'd stuck to the original mode of performance. She had (again, in her interpretation) sold out, changed her act to reflect what she thought others had wanted, demanded, desired (ceded in regard to her desire?), in the process ruining the act.

 

So she's out of Britain's Got Talent. And yet not been judged. Her "true" act, her true self has not been judged, she still has the comfort of knowing she could have done it, could have won it, if only she'd stayed true. In essence she hasn't commited anything of herself to this performance. She still had the purity of the act. She can still dream of one day winning Britain's Got Talent with her one true act.

Her call back to the semi was not so much her chance to make it, but her chance (given the 3 nos of her first audition, her only chance) to carry on dreaming.

The Birth of Chuggatron

Chuggatron.  Inspired by Alexis Jordan and the fact that "Happiness" and "Good Girl" have the driving force, the forward momentum of trains, the relentless pursuit of whatever is up-ahead.

Chugg-chugg-chugg-chugg chugg-chugg-chugga-chugg

This is kind of a proof of concept video

Trout

The guy in this Digitalism video -



has the same mouth as the guy from Glee

Never thought I'd see two such...
(good video/tune btw)

The Last Gang in Town

I was prepared to hate the Tyler the Creator album, Goblin, after the first listen, and conceived a review based on that listen. Then I went back to it a second time, to listen more closely, ready to write the review, and began noticing a depth I hadn’t seen the first time, or maybe not a depth, just that the trend I’d isolated at first didn’t run as deep as I’d first thought, and that even in the most crass bits of the album there was always an intelligence at work.

It’s maybe where the Eminem comparisons come in; that sometimes Eminem can just write silly tracks, celeb satires and the like, yet there’s an intelligence at work throughout which sets him apart from just another comedy rapper, or, in Tyler’s case, from the way he seems to perceives “Horrorcore.” On “Radical” for instance where the “Kill people, burn shit, fuck school,” refrain is to the fore, it is in a context which is revealed later in the track: “Fuck your tradition.” The “fuck school” thing becomes less nihilistic and more, if you like, un-constructive criticism.

“Fuck your tradition” is also directed at hip-hop and established rappers, continuing from the criticisms on the first album of “40 year old rappers talking about Gucci...” Here, on his first “established,” or “entering-the-mainstream” album, Tyler still remains true, refusing the easy lure of getting established, famous guest rappers, instead opting for the rest of the Odd Future when a different voice is needed. Going against the cosy, incestuous, quid pro quo nature of modern hip-hop - not that I’m calling for full-scale serious “beef” between rappers, but a bit of healthy rivalry rather than everyone guesting on everyone else’s album making every rap album sound the same, rappers doing anyone’s songs if the price is right - fuck that tradition - (note a tweet he sent about other rappers going in over “Yonkers”.) An identity at odds with the mainstream, a novelty in modern hip-hop.

(Oddly it is this “Kill people, burn shit, fuck school” which the Pitchfork review picks up -

the "kill people, burn shit, fuck school" refrain of "Radicals"-- is particularly cringe-worthy; stock phrases shouted with no larger purpose

rather than say, just off the top of my head, the “Bitch suck dick” song.)

This refusal of hip-hop’s cosiness adds to the insular feeling of the album. It is an album which is not always easy going, claustrophic in places, perhaps even overlong, both as a whole, and some individual tracks outstay their welcome, but think there is a sense that it is meant to be hard work, it’s not meant to be easy listening - it could be a challenge to fans, “will you still love me after this.” It’s a progression from Bastard, rather than a departure, but a progression into a darker place, sonically and emotionally. So the insularity, the Odd Future-against-the-world vibe questioned as Tyler shoots the others late in the album, continuing the feeling through the album of Tyler being uncomfortable with everyone.

Here’s where the accusations of misogyny and homophobia perhaps go astray. It’s like the Courtney Love quote about Steve Albini when asked if he was a misogynist, “he hates everyone equally.” There is some misogynistic and homophobic lyrics on the album (some is quite the understatement...) but we also have mentions of nazis, criticisms of white kids - it’s a scattergun approach to offending people. Given his nods to the Sex Pistols and, in particular, Sid Vicious, this is quite the obvious tactic. He’s trying to offend. His misogyny is a part of this. I think there’s also a sense of a teenager’s problematic relations with women and sexuality coming out in the form of misogynistic fantasy, which is recognised on the album - one of the striking aspects of the album is the self-awareness - on the track “Her” where he is rejected by a girl, his desire for intimacy (and not just sexually, emotional as well) expressed and then thwarted, he then suggests he could wallow in self-pity and stay in his room, or, he could make stuff up. Elsewhere he says “When life gives you lemons/ throw them at pedestrians.” And that’s what happens on the album, misogynistic fantasy rather than teenage self-pity. Is that excusing it? Probably...

Yet, as I say, there’s a questioning of all the positions taken already contained within the album. It strikes me that there’s two types of distance that Tyler takes to the content of the album, on the one hand, there’s a questioning of everything, an awareness of his position, his fantasies as lyrics and his position as “celebrity” and an awkward teenager etc., a continual self-questioning. This questioning is represented throughout the album as talking to his analyst, and at the end it is revealed that the analyst is just another voice in Tyler’s head, it is a self-questioning of every act. Interestingly the analyst is equated with “Tron-cat,” the violent voice in his head - if we view this as the two extremes, the cartoon devil on one shoulder, angel on the other, we see that there’s no moral voice here, Tron-Cat takes the role of the devil, but the analyst simply listens, tries to understand, he is the friend, rather than an authority moral figure.

Then, on the other there’s a certain distance sometimes expressed towards the contents of the album - for instance the disclaimer at the start of “Radicals,” “it’s fiction,” “don’t do anything I say on this song. ” It is this second distance that put me off the album in the first place. I would like an artist to take responsibility for his work. There’s a similar thing with Eminem, disclaimers littering his albums (especially early ones), but, and I’m saying this from memory, he always undercuts them, a layering of jokes meaning you’re not sure whether to take it seriously or not. This distance is a problem because it means that the offensiveness losses context, and becomes nothing but casual misogyny or homophobia. The disowning of the offensiveness makes the misogyny and homophobia somehow less acceptable, as if there’s no thought gone into it, no artistic context, no offensiveness as weapon for dealing with life, just dumb, thoughtless bigotry. However, on further listens I think this aspect of the album is undecut, it’s not as prevalent as I thought on first listen, but also, the sheer volume of misogyny, homophobia and general offensiveness makes it impossible to not take it seriously.

It is only the element of fantasy that prevents the worst excesses of the album being what the critics say they are. The fantasy connects the excesses with growing up, with rage, frustration, killing the past etc.. Remove that and you’re just left with casual songs about killing women. 

The point Lacan makes about Choang-tsu and the butterfly is relevant here:

"In fact, it is when he was the butterfly that he [Choang-tsu] apprehended one of the roots of his identity- that he was, and is, in his essence, that butterfly who paints himself with his own colours- and it is because of this that, in the last resort, he is Choang-tsu.

This is proved by the fact that, when he is the butterfly, the idea does not occur to him to wonder whether, when he is Choang-tsu awake, he is not the butterfly that he is dreaming of being. This is because, when dreaming of being the butterfly, he will no doubt have to bear witness later that he represented himself as a butterfly. But this does not mean that he is captivated by the butterfly- he is a captive butterfly, but captured by nothing, for, in the dream, he is a butterfly for nobody. It is when he is awake that he is Choang-tsu for others, and is caught in their butterfly net."

This is the aspect of fantasy which must be borne in mind throughout the album. This is why the disowning of the fantasy as “just a joke” is wrong, the fantasy is Tyler, it makes him what he is. He is most Tyler when he is fantasising. And it is a fantasy. He says at the start he’s neither a rapist or a role model. It is his inner fantasy (and here we have to remember that fantasy is not necessarily a desire to carry out an act, indeed, Lacan points out that nothing is more frightening than coming face to face with one’s fantasy in real life).

We can see on the album the attempt by Tyler, the fleshing out of,

he is a captive butterfly, but captured by nothing, for, in the dream, he is a butterfly for nobody. It is when he is awake that he is Choang-tsu for others, and is caught in their butterfly net

Taking on the artwork, the music, the videos, the DIY vibe, it’s all trying to free himself from shackles, the shackles and pressure of being-for-others. Is the album always successful? No. But better to try than conform. What makes Tyler interesting is the difference, the not going down Hip-hop’s tried and tested routes, forging it for, and by, himself.

And if the difference between dreaming of being a butterfly and the violent fantasies of Goblin are noted, then I cite my favourite line on the album:

“ I'm a fucking Unicorn...”

Everyone's got a Price Tag

Jessie J's "Price Tag" is a song ostensibly about forgetting about money and just dancing. However, I think it's mode of forgetting is slightly different than it at first appears.
It starts:

Seems like everybody's got a price,
I wonder how they sleep at night.
When the sale comes first,
And the truth comes second,
Just stop, for a minute and
Smile

First off the use of "truth" in the first verse is at odds with the rest of the song's "dance". Dancing seems, in the song, a way of forgetting (the serious), enjoying life; truth would seem to be the opposite - a need for truth at whatever cost to personal enjoyment.The only way this really makes sense in the context of the rest of the song is to put the first few lines in quotation marks:

"Seems like everybody's got a price,
I wonder how they sleep at night.
When the sale comes first,
And the truth comes second,"
Just stop, for a minute and
Smile

Now we have Jessie telling whoever is making the complaint to just "smile," forget truth, forget criticising people for "selling out," just smile and (the rest of the song says) dance.
Thus the song is less about her saying, "I just want to make people dance, I don't care about the money," and more about her saying, "don't worry about the money I'm making or my motives for making music, just dance." Indeed, it goes slightly further to say "don't worry about the truth, concentrate on the sale, and smile..."

Head under water on the weekend

This Rebecca Black video that everyone is (quite rightly) laughing at -

reminds me of a song by Northern Uproar - "Head Under Water" - The literalness of both is amazing. "Friday" completely fails because it doesn't say anything - it has no meaning, hidden or otherwise - the much quoted "Yesterday was Thursday, Thursday/
Today is Friday, Friday/ ... Tomorrow is Saturday/ And Sunday comes afterwards" - shows this, a simple recounting of days - this is, it is true, on a most basic level, what constitutes a week-end, however, as a song, it fails absolutely to tell us anything. Does there have to be at least some level of metaphor for a song to work? Is this the difference between art and non-art?
No. Let's look at the Northern Uproar song, which is even more remarkable. It is a song about having a shower - "I head across the landing floor/ I head to the shower door" - Not as a metaphor for cleansing or for a waking up, or anything really - "Feeling water run down my spine/ Gives me a shiver but I feel fine..." - the brilliant thing is that it doesn't just recount the physicality of the shower - like the Rebecca Black song, which goes through the motions of the day (cereal, bus, car) without any interiority - it recounts the feelings in the shower - "...and I get flashbacks of a life that I left behind what a time" - not as metaphor but as simply descriptive of how his shower was. It's just not a metaphor, it's not a bad one, it's simply his thoughts in the shower. And in a sense it makes it fresh (like his head under the water), ignoring the easy metaphors of the shower, the washing away of sins etc., for, if you'll pardon the pun, a stream of consciousness...