December 22, 2009

correlation versus causation

johnlempka:

And re the original post that spawned this: come the fuck on.  Creed’s selling 42 million albums in four years was driven by a host of sociological factors.  People don’t consume Creed albums in a vacuum.  I’m sure tons of people are legitimately bananas over Creed and I’m sure there’s a billion others who want to have Chad Kroeger’s baby, and I personally think that’s largely innocuous, but music critics and Grizzly Bear fans aren’t orchestrating cultural hegemony, they’re reacting to it.  I mean, seriously.

That said, that the music said music critics and Grizzly Bear fans actually like and recommend (ie instead of Creed) is predominantly for and by upper-middle class white people is, yes, waaaaay problematic.  But thinking Clay Aiken is a shit singer and, say, listening to hip-hop aren’t exactly mutually exclusive.

First, let’s not conflate “music critics” and “Grizzly Bear fans,” whoever did that.  Second, music critics recommend lots of things aside from music by and for upper-middle class white people.  (See year-end lists from Maura and Sasha Frere-Jones for but two examples.)  It’s just that the readership is primarily middle-class (why does it have to be upper?), and so by definition, taking them only as an aggregate, they tend to respond most uniformly to music that falls into that category.  There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that people liking the kind of music people like them like is not really a bad thing (do we roll our eyes at bodega owners in Washington Heights playing nothing but salsa nueva, thinking “Oh that’s so Dominican“—well, we probably do if we’re Dominican music snobs, which certainly suggests something!), even though “we” (“we”!) tend to think it is.  But this is just because of a very particular set of values that priviledge individualism and uniqueness, ones that are almost impossible to live up to without engaging in a healthy amount of self-deception.  Once a stereotype has been identified, especially an accurate stereotype, if we fit the mold of that stereotype we try to figure out ways to differentiate ourselves from the specifics of that (“Well I may like the Arcade Fire but at least I don’t like Grizzly Bear”) or abandon the identity entirely, epecially if the people associated with the stereotype are not the kind of people we think of ourselves as.  For music, everyone likes to think they have particular and unique tastes so the identification with anyone who falls into a stereotype is a non-starter simply because anyone who falls into a stereotype must have unoriginal taste.  We like being part of communities of listeners that can have slightly different opinions on the objects we’ve collectively decided are part of the conversation, but this requires actual interpresonal or parasocial contact through message boards or reading something like criticism.  If our exposure to a taste-group is through a stereotype, however, we put the cart before the horse and assume the conscious adoption of a style comes before the slow building of a particular taste and express our disgust.  It’s destructive and constructive at the same time, but mostly constructive, because by being the kind of people who dislike hipsters, we both strengthen our identity and strengthen the identity of the other taste group as people who are not-us.  As long as you stay within your own bubble and have crossover interactions only within certain agreed-upon forms, this works.  Whether it’s healthy or not is another matter.

As for the Creed/Nickelback stuff, I’ve just been flummoxed by people expressing their differential distaste about the latter being named Billboard’s band of the decade, in part because Bilboard is by definition something that just measures stuff and in part because Nickelback selling a shit ton of albums should not be news to anyone who’s been paying attention to music, but mainly because I though we had this debate already with the whole “flyover rock” thing.  Here’s Ann Powers’ original article, and here…uh, here would be Marc Hogan’s excellent response, if it was still where I thought it was.  Hmm.  Well then, self-indulgently, here’s my post about it from the horrifyingly redesigned Idolator.

Comments (View)
December 20, 2009
The Parks Department has declared today a “snow day” and opened hills for sledding and snow making throughout the city with some parks offering sleds and free hot chocolate.

NY1, “City Shovels Snowy Streets Clean

Rachel: “The federal governent doesn’t think everyone has the right to health care, but New York thinks everyone has the right to sleds and hot chocolate!”

Comments (View)
Jesus fucking Christ, Virginia.

Jesus fucking Christ, Virginia.

Comments (View)
From this Rachel correctly guessed Picasso.

From this Rachel correctly guessed Picasso.

Comments (View)
December 17, 2009

No take-backs. Stick a needle.

magicmolly:

I remember distinctly when I figured out the secret of tabloids, which is that tabloids are only interesting if you read them serially, and that the amount you read is proportionate to the interest they generate. Basically, you have full control over whether tabloids draw your interest. Knowing this, it is easy to not read tabloids and therefore to not want to read tabloids.

The same rule applies to Gossip Girl, celebrity blogs, Gawker, AM talk radio, and Wall Street Journal op-eds. This implies that all of these things belong to a common category— but what category is that?

Serial narratives, girl, serial narratives.

Comments (View)
Comments (View)
December 16, 2009
Comments (View)
Look, I know, OK?  It was overpraised and “quirky” and everyone liked it so we—we, us, us, you know, the people who know better and earlier—can’t like it, right?  (Because some quirky things this decade were bad, all quirky things this decade were bad!  Uggggh.)  But now that we have maybe a little distance from it, I hope we can all acknowledge that Little Miss Sunshine really is a hell of a movie.  Aside from pointing to just how well it was written (read the script sometime if you get a chance), I would narrow in on one particular point.  There is a character in this movie who is a dark, brooding teenage boy.  He likes Neitzsche and is intelligent and special.  But he is not the center of the movie.  Instead, he is a running joke, being more or less relegated to Harpo.  Instead of being taken seriously and focused on in order to make the movie seem “meaningful” to the kind of people who decide whether or not movies are meaningful (who tend to be, or have been, teenage boys who thought they were special), he is mercilessly made fun of.  Maybe this lack of Seriousness dawned on us eventually and we turned on it (did we turn on it? am I making this up?), finding various ways around the basic sentiment that “it’s not like The Dark Knight.”
Instead, the moral and emotional center of the movie is the person pictured above: a little girl who loves beauty pageants, not because she wants to be a princess or because she needs approval or because her parents have pushed her into it as a way of validating her self-esteem, but because she thinks beauty pageants are awesome.  Olive’s desire becomes the center of the film because all the other characters are beaten down, mopey and sullen or quietly desperate, and having a hard time seeing beyond their immediate circumstances.  Olive is the only one who is enthusiastic, and so the ultimate message is not about the importance of family or the need to be different or anything else.  It is, rather, this: enthusiasm wins, especially sincere enthusiasm about things that would not seem to merit it.  This is a movie that acknowledges the awfulness of life without dwelling on it, and providing a way to get through it.  This is very different from most of the other quirkfests, which tended to end on a note of resignation or failure—or worse, settling.  (The one obvious exception would be Adventureland, another great little film that’s easy to overlook.)  It was a hard decade to be realistically optimistic in, to sound sunny without sounding crazy, but Little Miss Sunshine did that, and it’s no small feat.

Look, I know, OK?  It was overpraised and “quirky” and everyone liked it so we—we, us, us, you know, the people who know better and earlier—can’t like it, right?  (Because some quirky things this decade were bad, all quirky things this decade were bad!  Uggggh.)  But now that we have maybe a little distance from it, I hope we can all acknowledge that Little Miss Sunshine really is a hell of a movie.  Aside from pointing to just how well it was written (read the script sometime if you get a chance), I would narrow in on one particular point.  There is a character in this movie who is a dark, brooding teenage boy.  He likes Neitzsche and is intelligent and special.  But he is not the center of the movie.  Instead, he is a running joke, being more or less relegated to Harpo.  Instead of being taken seriously and focused on in order to make the movie seem “meaningful” to the kind of people who decide whether or not movies are meaningful (who tend to be, or have been, teenage boys who thought they were special), he is mercilessly made fun of.  Maybe this lack of Seriousness dawned on us eventually and we turned on it (did we turn on it? am I making this up?), finding various ways around the basic sentiment that “it’s not like The Dark Knight.”

Instead, the moral and emotional center of the movie is the person pictured above: a little girl who loves beauty pageants, not because she wants to be a princess or because she needs approval or because her parents have pushed her into it as a way of validating her self-esteem, but because she thinks beauty pageants are awesome.  Olive’s desire becomes the center of the film because all the other characters are beaten down, mopey and sullen or quietly desperate, and having a hard time seeing beyond their immediate circumstances.  Olive is the only one who is enthusiastic, and so the ultimate message is not about the importance of family or the need to be different or anything else.  It is, rather, this: enthusiasm wins, especially sincere enthusiasm about things that would not seem to merit it.  This is a movie that acknowledges the awfulness of life without dwelling on it, and providing a way to get through it.  This is very different from most of the other quirkfests, which tended to end on a note of resignation or failure—or worse, settling.  (The one obvious exception would be Adventureland, another great little film that’s easy to overlook.)  It was a hard decade to be realistically optimistic in, to sound sunny without sounding crazy, but Little Miss Sunshine did that, and it’s no small feat.

Comments (View)

“A loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter.”

Comments (View)
December 15, 2009
Not to diminish his status as a serious newsdude (although, uh, he is on CNN), but I really like it when Anderson Cooper is subbing for Regis.  He just seems to be having such a good time, as does Kelly.  This morning, they talked about The Bachelor!  Can’t do that with Regis.  And then, of course, they played with a toy that “flings balls,” I’m serious.
It’s not like when Brian Williams does a comedy cameo.  There, part of the joke is that he’s staying in character as Brian Williams, serious newsdude.  You never get the sense that he’s not able to immediately go back and be an anchor.  (“Do you know how to get to Connecticut?”)  Cooper always seems to be much more relaxed, somehow, with Ripa, like a different person.  He’s also sharp and sarcastic, and while I love Regis’ Krusty the Clown charm, that’s nice too.
Speaking of, I know it’s pointless to complain about Alessandra Stanley, but what the fuck was up with this article?  Why should we be praising George Stephanopoulos for failing to act properly on a morning show?  We all know TV morning shows are stupid and awful, but that’s the point.  It’s not like his bland seriousness is going to improve anything.  And he’s actually less qualified as a journalist than Diane Sawyer.  She actually trained to do that job and worked her way up; George is just a political celebrity who got his own talk show.  WTF?
(Expect lots more of these thrilling updates now that I have nothing to do in the morning.)

Not to diminish his status as a serious newsdude (although, uh, he is on CNN), but I really like it when Anderson Cooper is subbing for Regis.  He just seems to be having such a good time, as does Kelly.  This morning, they talked about The Bachelor!  Can’t do that with Regis.  And then, of course, they played with a toy that “flings balls,” I’m serious.

It’s not like when Brian Williams does a comedy cameo.  There, part of the joke is that he’s staying in character as Brian Williams, serious newsdude.  You never get the sense that he’s not able to immediately go back and be an anchor.  (“Do you know how to get to Connecticut?”)  Cooper always seems to be much more relaxed, somehow, with Ripa, like a different person.  He’s also sharp and sarcastic, and while I love Regis’ Krusty the Clown charm, that’s nice too.

Speaking of, I know it’s pointless to complain about Alessandra Stanley, but what the fuck was up with this article?  Why should we be praising George Stephanopoulos for failing to act properly on a morning show?  We all know TV morning shows are stupid and awful, but that’s the point.  It’s not like his bland seriousness is going to improve anything.  And he’s actually less qualified as a journalist than Diane Sawyer.  She actually trained to do that job and worked her way up; George is just a political celebrity who got his own talk show.  WTF?

(Expect lots more of these thrilling updates now that I have nothing to do in the morning.)

Comments (View)