I am as suspicious of "prestige by association " -which I've jokingly referred to as "rock & roll McCarthyism " as I am of guilt by association. I'm also against the opposite of ad hominem attacks -the idea that someone's life (or viewpoint ) validates or ensures the value of their work ... I'm trying to keep everything extraneous to the work itself ,outside of my judgement of the work When bands or authors become too cool this becomes more difficult -but more necessary . Is it the thing itself that's inspiring - e.g.masterworks like Howl -or is it the artist's aspirations, and the sense of identity that being a fan of or hip to this particular author/"subculture" generates in the listener /reader. I don't think artists should be judged on on their aspirations -and I don't think their aspirations should be allowed to intrude upon the judgements-but that the judgements should be made on "the things themselves" -what has actually been created ,achieved ...(Of course there's no need to make judgements if you're not a critic)
Quite a complicated case, Dave, but I do think that Thurston Moore has been far more his own man than a piggybacker on previous artists’ achievements e.g. those of the Beats. I admire his single-mindedness and think he valued the outsider examples of Ginsberg and Burroughs without necessarily want to emulate them. Friendships that emerged with those writers felt more organically sown than forced by raw ambition, I feel.
SIMON: Thank you for your response to my comment - In my response to your review-my fundamental bias, the animus that drives my reactions to much post 1975 music became more clear to me. I have no doubt that what you say is true about Thurston Moore when you point out that he went his own way . My axe to grind is my opposition to the widely accepted triad, -beat to hippie to Punk ,as if this were a natural ,relatively unproblematical harmonious chord of opposition to the Mainstream. It wasn't & it shouldn't be so casually assumed that it was because they followed chronologically. The Punks hated the hippies. That's one of the reasons they flaunted their nazi swastikas ,and indulged in racist epithets. (I always remember Lester Bang's great groundbreaking article in the Village Voice when he took the Punks to task for that) .I realize that that has nothing to do with Moore's politics, but like any axe grinder I'll do whatever I can to shoehorn my obsession into the discussion no matter how far fetched it may seem because I feel that it is an essential and overlooked truth that has somehow been forgotten in the interests of a simplifying ,agreeable narrative that overemphasizes a few beat connected performers -Patti Smith & Lou Reed-while ignoring the tenor of so much else that's considered Punk.But your review points to the orientation of Moore's music -which like so much Punk - is utterly distinct from and actively hostile to"Hippie music" -because most - Punk fundamentally eschews the Americana roots music of Jazz/Blues /Gospel/Country/ Folkthat Hippie music lovingly and respectfully furthered . Punk opts for something that seems to me to in large measure to fundamentally reject the influence of the musical sensibility that was the basis of rock & roll in favor of -an "art" music ,a reverence on the one hand for avant garde complexity and intellectuality -conceptual if you will .) and ,on the other hand (Punk obviously not being monolithic), the willful musical neo-primitivism of some Punks that failed to musically improve upon or matchthe original rockabilly primitives -Gene Vincent ,Eddie Cochran ,Buddy Holly and others . The innovations of the original rockers, beat poets and jazz greats -form this aesthetic triumvirate -that doesn't need to be "anti-art" to establish its artistic viability. Early beats and Hippies were real. Punk was, with a few exceptions granted, a an extremely derivative pose that hasn't been backed up by much more than mere talk and self immortalization by a phalanx of music journalists who for the most part admit that they actually don't know anything about music.
I am as suspicious of "prestige by association " -which I've jokingly referred to as "rock & roll McCarthyism " as I am of guilt by association. I'm also against the opposite of ad hominem attacks -the idea that someone's life (or viewpoint ) validates or ensures the value of their work ... I'm trying to keep everything extraneous to the work itself ,outside of my judgement of the work When bands or authors become too cool this becomes more difficult -but more necessary . Is it the thing itself that's inspiring - e.g.masterworks like Howl -or is it the artist's aspirations, and the sense of identity that being a fan of or hip to this particular author/"subculture" generates in the listener /reader. I don't think artists should be judged on on their aspirations -and I don't think their aspirations should be allowed to intrude upon the judgements-but that the judgements should be made on "the things themselves" -what has actually been created ,achieved ...(Of course there's no need to make judgements if you're not a critic)
Quite a complicated case, Dave, but I do think that Thurston Moore has been far more his own man than a piggybacker on previous artists’ achievements e.g. those of the Beats. I admire his single-mindedness and think he valued the outsider examples of Ginsberg and Burroughs without necessarily want to emulate them. Friendships that emerged with those writers felt more organically sown than forced by raw ambition, I feel.
Fantastic review
Thanks, Dave.
Marvelous review Simon. Very well written and thoroughly engaging. You bring the apparent doorstop brightly to life.
Your words appreciated, Marc.
SIMON: Thank you for your response to my comment - In my response to your review-my fundamental bias, the animus that drives my reactions to much post 1975 music became more clear to me. I have no doubt that what you say is true about Thurston Moore when you point out that he went his own way . My axe to grind is my opposition to the widely accepted triad, -beat to hippie to Punk ,as if this were a natural ,relatively unproblematical harmonious chord of opposition to the Mainstream. It wasn't & it shouldn't be so casually assumed that it was because they followed chronologically. The Punks hated the hippies. That's one of the reasons they flaunted their nazi swastikas ,and indulged in racist epithets. (I always remember Lester Bang's great groundbreaking article in the Village Voice when he took the Punks to task for that) .I realize that that has nothing to do with Moore's politics, but like any axe grinder I'll do whatever I can to shoehorn my obsession into the discussion no matter how far fetched it may seem because I feel that it is an essential and overlooked truth that has somehow been forgotten in the interests of a simplifying ,agreeable narrative that overemphasizes a few beat connected performers -Patti Smith & Lou Reed-while ignoring the tenor of so much else that's considered Punk.But your review points to the orientation of Moore's music -which like so much Punk - is utterly distinct from and actively hostile to"Hippie music" -because most - Punk fundamentally eschews the Americana roots music of Jazz/Blues /Gospel/Country/ Folkthat Hippie music lovingly and respectfully furthered . Punk opts for something that seems to me to in large measure to fundamentally reject the influence of the musical sensibility that was the basis of rock & roll in favor of -an "art" music ,a reverence on the one hand for avant garde complexity and intellectuality -conceptual if you will .) and ,on the other hand (Punk obviously not being monolithic), the willful musical neo-primitivism of some Punks that failed to musically improve upon or matchthe original rockabilly primitives -Gene Vincent ,Eddie Cochran ,Buddy Holly and others . The innovations of the original rockers, beat poets and jazz greats -form this aesthetic triumvirate -that doesn't need to be "anti-art" to establish its artistic viability. Early beats and Hippies were real. Punk was, with a few exceptions granted, a an extremely derivative pose that hasn't been backed up by much more than mere talk and self immortalization by a phalanx of music journalists who for the most part admit that they actually don't know anything about music.