Home / Arts / Books /  Is Today's Pop Culture Living in the Past?
  Share
Monday, September 19,2011

Is Today's Pop Culture Living in the Past?

Simon Reynolds delivers insightful 'Retromania'

By Martin Jack Rosenblum
 
Nostalgia has become the password for entry into contemporary music. With ease and elegance, Simon Reynolds describes this complex condition in Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to Its Own Past (Faber & Faber) and delivers an insightful polemic against it. Retromania serves as a forceful, definitive status report on today's music as well as an implied warning to critics who do not know their subject matter adequately.

"Music has been depleted of meaning through derivativeness and indebtedness," Reynolds writes. Ironically, the past is recycled without any sense of musical history, often by critics who don't even realize how shallow and subjective they are. Reynolds delves into his subject with the creative audacity of one who seeks to expose a problem at the root of contemporary culture. "Rock (and rock writing) was always energized and focused by being against. But animosity...has gone now, everywhere," he adds. Rock has been turned into an interactive museum, the essence of the music stabilized, and instead of forward-moving anger and angst we have dusty record collections unheard but preserved and giant landmarks to what was once an apocalyptic sound and narrative.

Retromania
identifies contemporary pop culture as "'memory work,' Freud's term for the grieving process." The music is "self-consciously playing with a set of bygone cultural forms." The cutting-edge movement has been dulled. The problem isn't only that what's marketed as new is actually old, but also that it's not recognized as repeating what's already been done better.

Reynolds' innovative analysis is rife with impatience and sadness. Retromania calls for action, but is not so much a manifesto as an explanation for why music is recycling and not reinventing. At the center of his commentary are the "Groove Robbers" who find "the past inside the present" and have lost the need for a wider contemporary sound and the need for a future sonic universe resulting from deep, spatial exploration rather than remaining on the narrow surface of remembrance.

 

POST A COMMENT
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
2fs
Ironic indeed that Rosenblum's reviewing this...since the only stuff he ever likes is backward-looking. Anyway, I think he (or perhaps Reynolds - while I've read other of his works, I haven't yet read this one) has a curious idea of music criticism: he seems to think it can be "objective" (else why dun critics for being "subjective"?) and that that objectivity settles status and rank (as if "what's already been done *better*" is universally agreed upon...rather than being, as it in fact is, entirely subjective). Certainly, it's a bad thing when critics are outright ignorant: I recall Paul Weller (then of The Jam) openly laughing at a critic who asked him whether he agreed that "Disguises" sounded sort of like a Who song (the song, of course, being a *cover* of a Who song). But facts are not the same as taste, and the notion that something just is better than something else, rather than one critic arguing it's better, is absurd. Please recall that everyone from Shakespeare to Beethoven to Melville was considered a hack at one point in history, by an era's most eminent critics. But I'm wondering: Does Reynolds offer any ideas as to what might be "new"? The fact is, rock, hip-hop, and so forth have voraciously consumed a world of influences ever since the Beatles...and there's almost no music or instrument or style that hasn't been integrated or worked with. That is, the very overflowing availability of music that Reynolds appears to criticize means that nearly anyone can hear nearly everything...and recognize that "new" is more a function of what the listener hasn't heard than what hasn't been done, or what has no predecessor.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Have not read the entire book, yet, but he is writing about a symptom rather than the core issue which is the atomization of American popular music. The loss of the single popular music marketplace would naturally lead to our continued obsession with the past, after all -- there was meaning there -- while today we are left only with an unnavigable ocean of sound. 2fs should maybe do some actual reading and then write a book. Though his comments are murky and internal, he may have some actual insight to share eventually.

 

 
 
Today in Milwaukee
CityGuide2012_banner_410x93_040512.jpg
SpringGuideToHigherEd2012_410x93.jpg
SAG_Click2012.jpg
Express234x120.gif

Join Us at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Flickr


 
 
 
*/?>