The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Pitchfork was a proponent of "poptimism," the idea that mainstream pop music has no less artistic merit than alternative music. They are their own victim.

Please let America post in this thread.

However, I think you're giving "poptimism" short shrift. At least as I understood it, it was the idea that you should judge a song based on what the artist tried to create. For instance, it stood for the proposition that making an argument like: all good songs have bridges, this rap song doesn't have a bridge, therefore it sucks, might not be the best reasoning.

It turns out, though, that the poptimists are just as proscriptive as the rockists. Poptimism has its own sacred cows, which are beyond challenge:

*The solo release by the member of a manufactured group is no longer the sad addendum to the imperial years; it is a profound statement of artistic integrity.


*The surprise release by the big-name act is in itself, a revolutionary act.


*To not care about Taylor Swift or Beyoncé or Lady Gaga or Zayn Malik is in itself questionable. It reveals not your taste in music, but your prejudices. In the worst-case scenario, you may be revealing your unconscious racism and sexism. At best, you're trolling.


*Commercial success, in and of itself, should be taken as at least one of the markers of quality. After all, 50m Elvis fans can't be wrong.


*Just as "authenticity" is worthless as a symbol of a music's worth, so contrivance and cynicism might be elevated and celebrated, as evidence of the maker's awareness of the game they are playing. (The pop South Sea Bubble that was the explosion of excitement around PC Music a couple of years back fits this bill.)


Poptimism's victory was sealed by the rise of algorithms and analytics. They meant editors and publishers, at the upmarket end as well as the downmarket, could see that stories about Beyoncé and Taylor and Rihanna and Justin et al were read, in a way that reviews of Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs weren't. But, if you're upmarket, you can't just be reporting that Bieber's fallen down some steps, or that Beyoncé sneezed. You need to be able to justify your coverage, and that meant thinkpieces hailing the cultural significance of the new pop stars. After all, if your publication is serious, and covers subjects because they matter, you have to prove those subjects matter. And once you've decided these subjects matter, it's hard to turn round and say: "Actually, you know what? This isn't much cop."

I know that to be true, because (as music editor of The Guardian) I've been commissioning those pieces, knowing they will be read, and knowing that someone more senior than me has noticed Justin Bieber has done something silly and will want some consideration of that fact. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, artists are taken seriously because they are treated seriously, and they are treated seriously because people want to read about them. If no one wanted to read about Taylor Swift, you would never see another thinkpiece about her. Instead, we enter an arms race of hyperbole, as we credit her with forcing Apple to change its streaming terms, dismantling the musical patriarchy, creating new paradigms in music and society.

Poptimism, in practice, has not meant championing those who do not get the acclaim they are due, so much as celebrating the position of artists who don't need their genius proclaimed, because the top of the charts rather than the underground is poptimism's home turf. And the default position of poptimism is to celebrate, rather than to critique. No one wants to be the killjoy, and that mood gets transmitted through the cultural conversation. Hence the uncertain but glowing reviews that poptimist causes celèbre receive from mainstream critics on releasing their new albums: no one wants to be the person who called the Beyoncé album rubbish after they had been allowed to listen to it once. Poptimism wants cheerleaders. It has got them, even among those who are not naturally cheerleaders. And those who benefit are not the outliers of pop, but the superstars and the major labels. Poptimism invites us to adore fame for its own sake, much as rockism invited us to bow down before Dylan and the Stones and Springsteen because, as any fule kno, they are the authentic greats.

Music shouldn't be about taking sides. Of course it shouldn't. And we all know that, which is why most of us bar the most genre-loyalist are happy to have multiple styles of music in our homes. We might even listen to Taylor Swift and Bob Dylan and The Fall on the same day. Most people aren't rockists or poptimists; they just listen to music, and they like it or they don't. But people are people: opinions might be shaped by the tone of a debate, or even by the fact that the debate is happening. If 5,000 thinkpieces appear about Beyoncé in any given week, by the end of that week, an awful lot of people are going to feel the need to have an opinion about Beyoncé, just as a previous generation felt they had to have an opinion about Dylan.

ow, when a pop star reaches a certain strata of fame — and we’re talking Beyoncé, Drake, Taylor Swift, Arcade Fire levels here — something magical happens. They no longer seem to get bad reviews. Stars become superstars, critics become cheerleaders and the discussion froths into a consensus of uncritical excitement.

This is the collateral damage of “poptimism,” the prevailing ideology for today’s most influential music critics. Few would drop this word in conversation at a house party or a nightclub, but in music-journo circles, the idea of poptimism itself is holy writ.

That’s because poptimists have spent the past decade righteously vanquishing a nagging falsehood: the idea that rock-centric songwriters with rough voices and “real” instruments are inherently more legitimate than pop stars with Auto-Tuned voices and choreographed music videos.

By and large, they succeeded. "Poptimism came of age in 2014 led by the unlikely figure of Taylor Swift," the Guardian wrote in December, explaining how a blossoming industry juggernaut came to be regarded as a cool, authentic, unassailable, planet-devouring super­genius.

Poptimism’s intentions are true blue. It contends that all pop music deserves a thoughtful listen and a fair shake, that guilty pleasures are really just pleasures, that the music of an Ariana Grande can and should be taken as seriously as that of a U2.

But in practice, the poptimist dogma has been misread and misused. Deployed reflexively, it becomes worshipful of fame. It treats megastars, despite their untold corporate resources, like underdogs. It grants immunity to a lot of dim music. Worst of all, it asks everyone to agree on the winners and then cheer louder.

This takes me back to the arguments that used to go back and forth between the "poptimists" and "rockists" on the old Sound Opinions Message Board.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Poptimism stood in opposition to rockism, which would have dismissed a rap song out of hand anyway. This sums it up well: https://thequietus.com/articles/22389-rockism-poptimism



This one is worth reading too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertai ... story.html




I love that there are like five or six of us here who used to be on the SOMB.

Even if you don't like pop music, that kind of thinking can pull you out of the classic rock canon and turn you on to some newer stuff or less critically acclaimed stuff that could be good.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

But that's just it: in practice, it doesn't. Poptimism abandons the less critically acclaimed in favor of mainstream music that they say is good because it's popular and popular because it's good. It's stan culture, it's "if you don't like this you're racist and sexist," it's tiresome culture-war bullshit.

I'm glad Pitchfork got me to check out Broken Social Scene.

Poptimism stood in contrast to the line of thinking that if you didn't like Revolver and Pet Sounds you were a dilettante and a philistine, which was also bullshit.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Well, I don't know about that one. You can't be like "teehee I just like when popular songs are good" and not love "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

These posts reinforce that I know next to nothing about the music scene

What exactly are you arguing here? Are you saying that anyone who is serious about music has to like Pet Sounds? That it's not negotiable?

I understand that current artists still release "albums" as in collections of songs, but I would argue that they aren't albums in the same way Pet Sounds or Let It Be are. Does anyone listen to an "album" from start to finish anymore? Does the sequencing even matter?

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I understand that current artists still release "albums" as in collections of songs, but I would argue that they aren't albums in the same way Pet Sounds or Let It Be are. Does anyone listen to an "album" from start to finish anymore? Does the sequencing even matter?

I understand that current artists still release "albums" as in collections of songs, but I would argue that they aren't albums in the same way Pet Sounds or Let It Be are. Does anyone listen to an "album" from start to finish anymore? Does the sequencing even matter?

How many albums are worthy of repeated start to finish listens? I came of age in the CD era, so it was always very tempting to skip. I would say maybe 1/5 of the albums I own are start to finish worthy.

In terms of sequencing, albums with notable sequencing are even fewer and farther between than albums that stand up to repeated start to finish listening.

most of the groups she likes are actual bands rather than hit-generating "pop stars".

What are some of them?

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Poptimism stood in opposition to rockism, which would have dismissed a rap song out of hand anyway. This sums it up well: https://thequietus.com/articles/22389-rockism-poptimism



This one is worth reading too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertai ... story.html




I love that there are like five or six of us here who used to be on the SOMB.

I used to be on SOMB too. A sombie if you will. I used to post that Greg Kot was gay for Jeff Tweedy, and Dero was a fat, humorless fuck who would drop at any moment.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

Well, I ask the question, because let's just take the Replacements' Let It Be, for example. "Tommy Get His Tonsils Out" and "Gary's Got A Boner" aren't songs I would typically listen to, they're filler at best. But as part of the larger artistic whole, the album would not be the same without them. They play a part and serve a purpose.

I would say the same thing about Pet Sounds. I consider at least half of the record to be comprised of trivialities. But the album is a single unit and designed to be listened to the way it is presented. If it weren't part of Pet Sounds, "Sloop John B" need not exist.

No you didn't.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.