I'm reposting two of my earlier entries with some content updates and new links/embeds, and an entirely new blogger profile - check them out to relive the glory you basked in when you read them the first time. Working on fixing formatting issues like hyperlinks being invisible - will update ASAP!
Why is it so weird to hear a recording of your own voice? Because we express our thoughts through speech, so our individual voice is the personification of our thoughts (and our thoughts are our being), so hearing a recording of your own voice is like being yourself while being outside yourself. Did I just blow your mind?
A couple weeks ago I wrote about Mark Richardson’s tumblr as a source of inspiration for this fine blog you’re now reading. After continuing to read Mark’s blog, I’ve decided to dig a little deeper: in this post I’m going to talk specifically about Mark’s voice and how it contributes to the success of his blog.
My first post about Mark focused on the style that is portrayed through his blog, specifically as a result of his content choice. What I have come to realize, though, is that Mark’s nuanced voice is the main vehicle for this style, allowing it to emanate off the page through the subtext of his writing. But this mention of subtext illustrates exactly why Mark’s voice is indeed so nuanced: it truly manifests itself as a lack of voice.
Conventionally, voice is perceived like extra credit – it’s the extra jokes, the personal opinions, the parenthetical digressions that a writer adds to his piece to show personality and make it less boring. Mark doesn’t really do that, at least in his personal blog. He writes in a succinct, to the point manner, stating things as fact. A good example of a typical short post is this link to an album review he did for Pitchfork. His comments are limited to the dry:
“I
reviewed this fine album for Pitchfork.”
Another example:
"This was a revelation the first time I heard it. I own this 10”.”
He is linking to this song by Kid Koala, calling it a “revelation,” and not expanding upon that comment at all? You’d think it would be a big deal for such a seasoned music critic to call a song a “revelation,” and you would expect him to at least give some explanation, some insight - he’s a critic for christ’s sake! Those guys live to see their prose in print. And yet, Mark is self-restrained. Even his longer story-oriented posts sometimes read like a police report, a mere collection of facts. And at first, he comes across as cold, even boring.
In my first Envy post I said “he makes a point without making a point,” and allows the reader to make his own conclusions. In a very similar way, it is in his reserved, no-frills manner of writing that Mark’s personality comes across – he allows the reader to infer his personality, and if the reader dedicates himself to consistent reading of his blog the collection of personality-inferences come together to form a picture of a man who is far from cold and boring.
Take this, for example:
“When I worked as an apprentice butcher my mentor was Mr. Wu.” That’s it. No back story, just a fact stated as such, with no context except this photo.
Another example:
"This was a revelation the first time I heard it. I own this 10”.”
He is linking to this song by Kid Koala, calling it a “revelation,” and not expanding upon that comment at all? You’d think it would be a big deal for such a seasoned music critic to call a song a “revelation,” and you would expect him to at least give some explanation, some insight - he’s a critic for christ’s sake! Those guys live to see their prose in print. And yet, Mark is self-restrained. Even his longer story-oriented posts sometimes read like a police report, a mere collection of facts. And at first, he comes across as cold, even boring.
In my first Envy post I said “he makes a point without making a point,” and allows the reader to make his own conclusions. In a very similar way, it is in his reserved, no-frills manner of writing that Mark’s personality comes across – he allows the reader to infer his personality, and if the reader dedicates himself to consistent reading of his blog the collection of personality-inferences come together to form a picture of a man who is far from cold and boring.
Take this, for example:
“When I worked as an apprentice butcher my mentor was Mr. Wu.” That’s it. No back story, just a fact stated as such, with no context except this photo.
But
LOOK AT THAT PHOTO! A young Richardson in butcher’s attire, dwarfing the tiny
man who we can only assume is Mr. Wu. It’s a fucking awesome photo, and every
aspect, from the men’s smiles to the “Genuine Fresh American Lamb” sign in the
background exudes an interesting story and palpable personality. Mark’s genius,
then, is recognizing that the photo doesn't need any context or back story,
that the photo is in fact more effective when accompanied by a boring old
sentence like “When I worked as an apprentice butcher my mentor was Mr.Wu.” That
sentence leads to questions. This photo answers all of the questions that
Richardson cares to, and leaves the rest for the reader to fill in.
Another:
“Personally, I like the older, more obscure stuff.” Then he links to this 12 second audio of “the first sound ever recorded.”
“Personally, I like the older, more obscure stuff.” Then he links to this 12 second audio of “the first sound ever recorded.”
What would seem to be a cryptic, nonsensical comment about an even less sensible video becomes (to a smart reader) a hilarious comment on the modern cultural phenomenon of defining one’s coolness by the obscurity or “originality” of the art he references and enjoys.
Mark’s use of written voice gives his reader credit. It’s effective, and his writing never comes across as forced. He’s not trying to entertain the reader with standard “LOOK HOW FUNNY AND CULTURALLY AWARE I AM” shtick that so many bloggers (including myself) fall prey to.
Mark is a professional writer with a professional blog where he publishes his professional opinions. His personal blog is not that space. It’s just a space for music, art, and thoughts he finds interesting, about which he can simply say “this is interesting.” In its straightforwardness it feels organic and distinctly personal and he comes across as a very genuine person.
Do I think I’ll take this approach? Nope. It’s effective for Mark, but it doesn't fit my personality. Though I do think I can learn a lot from the concept of “voice from lack of voice,” maybe not try so hard to force my personality into my writing and let it occur more organically.
Blog Envy - REDUX!!
A wise man once said, “Those who can’t do, teach.” But a lot
of wise men have said a lot of stupid shit over the years.
So I’ve forsaken this hogwash phrase and decided to try to
learn from those who can do, and do do, what I’m doing – writing a blog. In
this post I’m going to be profiling Nate Patrin, music critic and contributor
to music blogs like Pitchfork, emusic, and citypages. But it’s
not his critical work that I’m going to talk about (depending on how you define
‘critical work’); rather, it’s his personal blog, which can be found at: http://natepatrin.wordpress.com/
In early 2010, Nate abandoned this blog in favor of his
Tumblr ‘Problem World’. But his use
of Tumblr, as one would expect, is comprised primarily of links to
music/photos/videos and contains much less long-form writing. So, for the sake
of this post, I’m going to ignore these calendarical issues and write about his
good old wordpress, especially since it’s much more similar to my blogging
style than this newfangled Tumblr ‘micro-blogging’ – I think that’s what the
kids are calling it these days. While Patrin posted on his wordpress relatively
infrequently (only 12 posts from Sep. 2008 to Oct. 2009), his posts are rich
and discussion-worthy.
Nate’s blog seems to serve mostly as an extension of his
professional work. That is, many of his posts are in reference to or about work
he is doing for other outlets, like the blogs mentioned above. Take this post,
‘Don’t
Blame Me, I Voted For…,’ for example: he comments on Pitchfork’s staff listof the top 200 albums of the 2000’s, to which he contributed, and offers his
full ballot for the list. What at first seems like an attempt to disassociate
himself from Pitchfork’s published list (partly due to the post’s title, which
clearly turns out to be sarcastic) ends up being a comment on the very nature
of these year-end or decade-end lists that are so prevalent in the internet age
of music criticism. He says:
I’m neither overjoyed nor underwhelmed with the final results...but it is a pretty clear indicator of what happens when you get an aggregate of a couple dozen critics with somewhat divergent tastes: the mid-ranking consensus picks outrank the high-ranking individual favorites....at the end of the day it’s not really a granite-etched validation/invalidation of my taste or anyone else’s — at its core it’s really just a staff poll with some interesting blurbs. (Which, in my opinion, are worth more attention than the rankings themselves.)
I find it particularly effective how he seamlessly links his
personal opinion to a larger conclusion about an industry-wide phenomenon. This
conclusion is presented with an air of objectivity, which strengthens and
validates his opinions, which he comes back to at the end (“which, in my
opinion…”). Thus, the blog runs a fine line between critical/professional and
personal, which is underscored by his self-categorization of each post as
“criticism,” “music,” or “uncategorized/miscellaneous.” This filing system is
vague, however, as posts like ‘Alerts
and Whatnot’ are filed under “criticism” but come across as much more
miscellaneous than critical, as the post’s title suggests. (Although this post
did bring Laser Daft Punk to my attention, calling for an immediate
flight-booking to Seattle. I still don’t quite understand what Laser Daft Punk
is, but put the words ‘laser,’ ‘daft,’ and ‘punk’ together in any order and I’m
there.)
Many other posts stand alone from any specific professional
work of Nate’s and instead talk about the online-music-critic-world in general.
One of my favorite posts is ‘Adventures
in the Hype Cycle,’ which discusses the concept of indie music “hype,” an
individual’s acceptance or rejection of hype, and the process of music
appreciation. The process Nate describes is a very specific and detailed one,
one that is only relatable for people who are obsessive about music, music
criticism, and the “buzz” in the “scene” as he calls it. This post reveals the
blog to be an “insiders’ blog” à
Patrin’s main audience is insiders who, if they are not critics themselves, are
as deeply entrenched in the world of music criticism.
That is ultimately what the blog amounts to: comments on
music criticism, its nuances, its ticks and tocks. Given this limited scope though, I think
Nate’s writing here is most interesting for its self-awareness – he is a critic
who goes out of his way to explicitly discuss the intricacies of being a
critic. This self-awareness is on display in the aptly titled ‘Reaffirmation
of Existence, Part Argh,’ in which he confronts his blog’s purpose head-on:
“So what’s it like to
come to the conclusion, even if it’s potentially inaccurate, that you don’t
have a hell of a lot to say on your blog?…The less enthused I am about the idea
of being some kind of Internet Personality, the less interested I am in the
whole blog-as-public-blather-venue deal, and the more I value the circle of
friends I already have and, fortunately, continue to expand via more
traditional face-time venues.
However: I think that,
even if this is more or less just an occasional outlet for notions that don’t
fit on a messageboard or a Facebook status update, I’m going to find some way
to maintain this thing and make it worth visiting for some reason or another…I
don’t actually have any real big idea notion for it yet. And maybe I don’t need
one. We’ll see where this goes.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I started my blog
with the same “we’ll see were this goes” mentality, and I hope I end up with a
blog as poignant as Nate’s. At the same time, since starting to blog and
“seeing where it’s gone,” I don’t think my blog will become as focused as
Nate’s – while I’d love to craft posts with his level of detail and depth, I
want to give myself creative freedom to post about a wide range of topics that
may not explicitly relate to the LA Beats Scene, per se. Still, I hope to be as
self-aware as Nate and end up with a blog that accurately represents my position
in the music world: fan more than critic, curious observer more than activist.
The LA Beatnik
When
I stepped through the doors of the Echoplex, a dark, low-ceilinged venue that feels like a huge WWII bunker, I didn’t
know what I was getting myself into. As always, the room was shaking with bass
that could be heard from blocks away. But what stood out was not the music’s
volume or even the music itself; it was the packed crowed of twenty-somethings
going ape-shit as Salva played his remix of Kayne West’s Mercy.
The
show’s headliner was the LA-native beat producer Shlohmo, but it was hard to imagine how he would follow
the set by Salva, which relentlessly brought the house down for a solid hour, who is also an Angelino. Still, Shlohmo held his
own, offering his spin on the hip-hop and dubstep influenced genre that is
known simply as “beats.” This was easily the best of the three beats shows I
had been to that week, and a standout show of the entire summer; moreover, it
was a show that defined the “L.A. Beats” scene in many ways, from the crowd,
the intensity, and, of course, the music; and ironically, it was while waiting
in line for this show that my brother and I were comparing the L.A. Beats scene
to Seattle’s 90’s grunge scene…
As a lifelong music aficionado (aka music snob teenager who checked Pitchfork daily and thus knew about ALL the hip bands…), I was excited to get a taste of LA’s music scene when I moved here for college in 2009. With nightly shows for less than ten dollars, I instantly fell in love and began to dedicate much of my free time to seeing live music. I quickly found, however, that the styles of music I was most interested in and knowledgeable about, indie and alternative rock, were becoming less and less prevalent, quickly being replaced by electronic music which was rapidly gaining mainstream popularity. This pretty much sums up my initial feelings towards laptop-DJs:
I
was skeptical to adopt techno, dubstep, and house music into my musical lexicon
but I didn’t have much of a choice: not only were DJ shows taking over the best
local venues, they stood out as much more energetic and fun shows. At a rock
show, I would be one of the few crowd members head-bopping and dancing to the
music. At an electronic show, most of the crowd was there to dance, or at least
down to shake a leg or two even if it wasn’t their express raison d’etre. Thus,
slowly but surely, electronic music shows became, if not the norm, a more than
viable alternative to rock shows.
When I first heard dubstep, I made a prediction: the way to make this grimy, disorienting style of music popular for the mainstream audience, I hypothesized, was to put the ridiculously bass-heavy beats under rap verses. I am proud to consider myself prophetic, as this is the basic concept behind the “beats” style of music which has burgeoned in popularity over the past two years, with weekly beats clubs and nightly shows springing up all over LA. What’s more, the scene is getting international attention, reputation, and praise. When I made my prediction, though, I had no idea that producers at clubs like Low End Theory, the most famous of the LA beats clubs, had been throwing rap verses on top of dubstep beats for years.
And now, with the Beats scene blowing up, I’m in the heat of it, going to shows nonstop, always more and more intrigued by the artists and fans of this growing genre. The LA Beatnik is my attempt to convey my experience of LA music culture. I’ll talk about beats, about beat producers, and about beat clubs. But I’ll also talk about rock music and how it intersects with the Beats movement. I’ll talk about hipster culture and beat culture (Kerouac & Ginsberg beat culture, that is) and how they relate. I’ll talk about whatever I feel like talking about when I feel like talking about it. And I hope you’re willing to talk (or at least comment) too.
“In
10 years,” my brother said, “we’ll look back on this and think LA was to Beats
what Seattle was to Grunge.”
Ladies
and gentlemen, we’re on the brink of something big. So put on your seatbelts…it’s
going to be a wild ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment