charmianland because random is good enough for most

Was intrigued by this article about Pitchfork. via mefi.

I have no grounding to properly evaluate the claims made, as I fall into the category of “have heard there is a well-known website known as Pitchfork.”

The main criticism it makes of Pitchfork is that they are fans, and not critics, and exert a malign influence upon their favorite genres because they elevate a sort of ‘meta’ (cultural capital, memes) strain, as if referring to things improves the quality of your art. (once again, I have no idea whether they are guilty of this.)

1. This prompted me to reflect on internet culture, and fandom, in general. The meme has become the hallmark of internet culture(s); it has been found that in-jokes are the most hilarious jokes, and memes are loved like that. Places like reddit also often seem to emphasize nostalgia and a shared past, and hyper-referentiality/memes. (the article notes that many of these indie bands “lionize childhood.”) Perhaps this is just part of the current cultural style? The article criticizes this yearning for the familiar, and not for the new.  (“We need a form that doesn’t think of itself as a collection of influences. We need musicians who know that music can take inspiration not only from other music but from the whole experience of life.”)

2. Maybe one of the essences of the idea of fandom is the triviality of the object of obsession. We don’t call people “fans” of things that are important, such as politics or religion. (I have sometimes said that what makes fandom is taking seriously something that doesn’t really deserve it, or disproportionality.)

3. Also, comparing this type of fandom to anime/manga fandom:  there, we’re under no illusion (generally, except for the delusional) that what we like is very significant at all to our culture. Economically, it’s a very small phenomenon. Culturally, mostly irrelevant (in the West…). However indie rock has made the leap out of subculture to major stream of culture, I get the impression (at least from this article).

4. Is it wrong to be fans? Even if you have a Heisenberg effect? Do people in fact perhaps prefer fans to critics, as far as reading things on the internets goes?

5. A good point about the article is that since music is free and “in the air” if you have internet access, so to speak, is that you don’t really NEED cogent reviews because there isn’t as much of a justification for your time/effort you need to just listen to something. In other words, if you hear about it, you can listen in 10 seconds, and find out what you think. Whereas with a book or a movie, you need to put in potentially hours and dollars, and your “investment” might not pay off. Before deciding whether to read a book by an unknown author, I typically read at least five reviews (admittedly, probably really short ones).