Being Cultured"

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/74307-create-new-genres/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1847936

This post made me think:

what if culture becomes so expansive, so massive that it is impossible to be "cultured' and share common reference points with other people.

That's what subcultures are all about! (and subreddits for that matter :P )

that happens all the time

Oops, sorry guys, I wasn't able to write my entire thought because I accidentally pressed 'return' and posted like three words and then had to quickly edit in my allotted time (because I'm not yet a paying member, because I'm currently poor, but I will throw down bones once they are good and plenty).

And then I had to go drive somewhere for a bit.

Anyway, that left this thread looking very 'half-baked,' as they say.

What I was gonna say was that if you grew the population even more and pumped out exponentially more culture, in the current climate of ever-increasingly-accelerated lifespans of trends and movements...

Douglas Hofstadter said that certain music and art (e.g. John Cage) requires culture reference points, and that's why aliens wouldn't/couldn't understand, say, an Andy Warhol piece.

What does the music of a world look like if it doesn't have a culture to reference...in the electronic world we have Kraftwerk, AFX, or whoever, take your pick....but take those away and what do things look like?

Bah, I'm tired, I might not be articulating my thoughts well.

This is the cause of what the fictional Plinkett calls the "blurring effect on modern pop culture."

In a Malcolm Gladwell sort of way, part of the reason why Kraftwerk and AFX are as popular as they are, and not other people equally talented but from slightly different eras, is because they were at the right place at the right time. The Beatles aren't better than every other rock band, but they got in on the action early enough to be one of the best by default, before so many other people started playing the electric guitar that playing it well wasn't enough to get noticed. This is why really people should be focusing on the next big thing, rather than imitating the last big thing, as fun as it is to reminisce about your (older) idols.

In my opinion we're already there, music has been diluted into sub cultures. Movies and TV hasn't gotten there because the production and distribution (especially) hasn't become cheap and available to everyone. The old monoliths of the past still hold because there haven't been many new ones to replace them, due to the distribution model being almost totally flat. Any central trusted points of distribution receive recognition within their sub cultures, but not beyond them.

Even though it may not seem that way, I think this is a lot better than previous years. Each individual has to find their own reference points, rather than being forced to have them through giant distribution towers that shine lights over the entire landscape. This liberates artists and connects people who are into the same thing without blurring it with other areas of culture that doesn't have anything to do with it in the first place. You end up with 5 people starting off with their own agreed upon 'monoliths', and then they can find others online and at gigs etc, but it never spreads beyond that. I think that ultimately it will isolate people who don't go looking for other types of music, but torrent sites / soundcloud / digital distrubution helps with that.

The quality of the music is still there. I'd be more worried about peoples perception and 'consumption' of music rather than the bigger societal landscape. Good music tends to need some work to build up memories and emotions in the mind, and if people switch to a purely utilitarian 'listen a few times and then move on' model then I feel that could be a big loss to how magical music can be over terms of years... Old distribution tended to force you to focus more on a specific album or track and they would each leave a bigger imprint on you

Does anyone in this thread consider themselves "cultured"?

I'm pretty cultured

  On 12/6/2012 at 4:02 PM, luke viia said:

Does anyone in this thread consider themselves "cultured"?

 

 

I meant to use quotation marks in the thread title. If one looks close, there remain remnants of my efforts.

What I was getting at is if it was possible to be "cultured" in a sea of infinite culture. In alot of disciplines--like novel-writing or detroit house or stand-up comedy or jazz--it is usually required that one is more or less familiar with the history of the respective discipline.

What I'm asking is if being 'cultured' (in the sense described above) is going to be impossible at some point, when culture becomes so large, and if it's even important to begin with.

what?

lol

Bahh, nevermind.

When I think of "cultured" now I think of forums like this, and the diverse tastes of people on them, and then I think of the millions, especially in America, who insist on mentioning that Justin Bieber is not real music and that [insert pop music genre here] from [insert decade here] was "good music."

I think it's really hard to articulate, but I would say right now is a critical point because the line of people who seek out new music/art/etc and those who are content to absorb whatever mass media feeds them is blurring. Up to the 20th century high and low culture was pretty much a class thing, with an added aspect of "folk culture" tied with how localized societies were. Up until the 2000s, like when I was growing up in the late 90s and early 00s, I still felt like there was this magical barrier between pop music - whether it be classic rock or alternative or Top40 or movie osts, etc - and "indie" music, electronic, punk, metal, underground hip-hop, etc. You had to actively enter those scenes and subcultures. Now with social media, file-sharing, etc. it's easier than ever. At some point too, pitchfork started sincerely reviewing albums by people like Lil Wayne (but not say, Kenny Chesney, LMFAO or Nickelback). I also have nostalgia for when many of my friends were really into post-hardcore/screamo bands, all that "emo" genre/scene stuff, which now seems like forever ago (yet was only back in 2004/5). I don't feel like those kind of subcultures and "scenes" exist much anymore - thankfully fan and label loyalties seem strong though - just look at how many artists put out cassettes and vinyl or upload music to bandcamp. And beyond there is still "high art" exhibits and performances in major cities - the kind of things I'd read about in Wire or New Yorker but never get around to checking out. But then again, some of it might be ironically highlighted on Real Housewives on Bravo or some shit. I dunno, I'm ranting now.

Also, as I've mentioned in the vaporwave thread, my favorite music journalist/historian, Simon Reynolds, has been writing about this a lot, particularly things ZoeB and coax mentioned about the seemingly lack of innovation in music coupled with a plethora of "retro" references and influences in just about all genres.

Yeah I'm cultured

I think this idea is kind of bullshit, and overly contemporary. (Not knocking you Limpy - it's because of the way I enjoy art and music.) Only since the 20th century has intellectual exercise been a big part of art. Not all art since then requires it; only some.

Humor is pretty much the only thing which I enjoy ONLY BECAUSE I can consciously link the work to its references.

I have always thought Warhol's art was boring. The statement doesn't interest me. Looking at his reproductions is boring.

I think Cage was a genius, and I genuinely enjoyed listening to 4:33 after understanding his intention. But most of his work is not aesthetically interesting to me. I've heard piano pieces of his I thought were beautiful.

In my opinion, the best art/music is enjoyed by a place other than the intellect. You can say the heart, the soul, the reptile mind, whatever. Intellectual art is like math to me (and in the case of music, often very much like math). I don't enjoy math on the level that I enjoy great music.

TLDR; I don't think good art needs a cultural reference point. It can be enjoyed on its own merits.

  On 12/7/2012 at 4:10 PM, joshuatx said:

When I think of "cultured" now I think of forums like this, and the diverse tastes of people on them, and then I think of the millions, especially in America, who insist on mentioning that Justin Bieber is not real music and that [insert pop music genre here] from [insert decade here] was "good music."

 

I think it's really hard to articulate, but I would say right now is a critical point because the line of people who seek out new music/art/etc and those who are content to absorb whatever mass media feeds them is blurring. Up to the 20th century high and low culture was pretty much a class thing, with an added aspect of "folk culture" tied with how localized societies were. Up until the 2000s, like when I was growing up in the late 90s and early 00s, I still felt like there was this magical barrier between pop music - whether it be classic rock or alternative or Top40 or movie osts, etc - and "indie" music, electronic, punk, metal, underground hip-hop, etc. You had to actively enter those scenes and subcultures. Now with social media, file-sharing, etc. it's easier than ever. At some point too, pitchfork started sincerely reviewing albums by people like Lil Wayne (but not say, Kenny Chesney, LMFAO or Nickelback). I also have nostalgia for when many of my friends were really into post-hardcore/screamo bands, all that "emo" genre/scene stuff, which now seems like forever ago (yet was only back in 2004/5). I don't feel like those kind of subcultures and "scenes" exist much anymore - thankfully fan and label loyalties seem strong though - just look at how many artists put out cassettes and vinyl or upload music to bandcamp. And beyond there is still "high art" exhibits and performances in major cities - the kind of things I'd read about in Wire or New Yorker but never get around to checking out. But then again, some of it might be ironically highlighted on Real Housewives on Bravo or some shit. I dunno, I'm ranting now.

 

Also, as I've mentioned in the vaporwave thread, my favorite music journalist/historian, Simon Reynolds, has been writing about this a lot, particularly things ZoeB and coax mentioned about the seemingly lack of innovation in music coupled with a plethora of "retro" references and influences in just about all genres.

I would like to give you a dollar for saving this thread.

  On 12/8/2012 at 8:55 AM, cloudbreaker said:

 

  On 12/7/2012 at 4:10 PM, joshuatx said:

When I think of "cultured" now I think of forums like this, and the diverse tastes of people on them, and then I think of the millions, especially in America, who insist on mentioning that Justin Bieber is not real music and that [insert pop music genre here] from [insert decade here] was "good music."

 

I think it's really hard to articulate, but I would say right now is a critical point because the line of people who seek out new music/art/etc and those who are content to absorb whatever mass media feeds them is blurring. Up to the 20th century high and low culture was pretty much a class thing, with an added aspect of "folk culture" tied with how localized societies were. Up until the 2000s, like when I was growing up in the late 90s and early 00s, I still felt like there was this magical barrier between pop music - whether it be classic rock or alternative or Top40 or movie osts, etc - and "indie" music, electronic, punk, metal, underground hip-hop, etc. You had to actively enter those scenes and subcultures. Now with social media, file-sharing, etc. it's easier than ever. At some point too, pitchfork started sincerely reviewing albums by people like Lil Wayne (but not say, Kenny Chesney, LMFAO or Nickelback). I also have nostalgia for when many of my friends were really into post-hardcore/screamo bands, all that "emo" genre/scene stuff, which now seems like forever ago (yet was only back in 2004/5). I don't feel like those kind of subcultures and "scenes" exist much anymore - thankfully fan and label loyalties seem strong though - just look at how many artists put out cassettes and vinyl or upload music to bandcamp. And beyond there is still "high art" exhibits and performances in major cities - the kind of things I'd read about in Wire or New Yorker but never get around to checking out. But then again, some of it might be ironically highlighted on Real Housewives on Bravo or some shit. I dunno, I'm ranting now.

 

Also, as I've mentioned in the vaporwave thread, my favorite music journalist/historian, Simon Reynolds, has been writing about this a lot, particularly things ZoeB and coax mentioned about the seemingly lack of innovation in music coupled with a plethora of "retro" references and influences in just about all genres.

 

I would like to give you a dollar for saving this thread.

Yeah, joshuatx is a smart cookie. My ears always perk up when he posts.

terrance mckenna says culture is not your friend

  On 12/8/2012 at 8:57 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/8/2012 at 8:55 AM, cloudbreaker said:

I would like to give you a dollar for saving this thread.

Yeah, joshuatx is a smart cookie. My ears always perk up when he posts.

 

aww shucks guys

  On 12/6/2012 at 2:15 PM, coax said:

The quality of the music is still there. I'd be more worried about peoples perception and 'consumption' of music rather than the bigger societal landscape. Good music tends to need some work to build up memories and emotions in the mind, and if people switch to a purely utilitarian 'listen a few times and then move on' model then I feel that could be a big loss to how magical music can be over terms of years... Old distribution tended to force you to focus more on a specific album or track and they would each leave a bigger imprint on you

... that's already happening, also with films, art and life-styles and world-views in general, right?

Interesting thread and thoughts by the way!

according to spengler being cultured is the opposite of being civilized

I think if anything what we will see a reversal in the current trend of trying to apply as many subgenres and create as many subcultures as possible. One of the defining aspects of previous subcultures was its relative obscurity and the ability to identify with opposition and rebellion. Acquiring rock and roll records was a difficult task, as was coming across shared home made punk cassettes or attending raves. That dedication and immersion within a specific musical genre gave you status within a very narrow subset of people, as well as place you on an oppositional stance to those that 'don't get it', which in itself gave an individual a sense of legitimacy.

Today what we're seeing IMO is a shift that everything is becoming more mainstream. These subcultures are essentially dying out, purely because it's so easy to obtain music of any genre without actually having to immerse yourself within a specific culture defined by those that also listen to the same music. This is why I find places like WATMM so interesting, if anything we are a very prominent minority of people that listen to the music we praise so much. And yet, it's very easy to think of this place as a cultural hub who discover and share in secret all this amazing music and information, when we all know the opposite is true. It's just a very specific congregation of information that's widely available to anyone, who probably have come across it as much as we have.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the illusion of the underground no longer exists, everything is pretty much mainstream now. Maybe we're just finally becoming aware of Adorno's point that all popular music consumption is a passive act. Maybe genres such as vaporwave are just desperate and immature attempts to distance ourselves from this theory, pointlessly trying to argue we are political consumers that question authority when it's just another attempt to show how weird and 'cultured' we are in to be involved in such a subgenre. I can't exactly say for certain, but consuming music certainly does seem to be becoming a more passive "I'll listen to anything" as opposed to "I will only listen to said genre and I decide which artist is good or not within said genre or I will lose credibility among my community of music fans".

Before you know it, Windowlicker will be scrobbled along with Foo Fighters and Lady Gaga on our personalised radio stations as the hits of yesteryear, purely because genre or subculture won't matter. It'll be the individuals (or essentially celebrities) that matter.

/drunk rant

Some nice thoughts here.