Tonight in Aesthetic Stalinism, er, Trotskyism
When I think of a nice bedtime story, I think of Trotskyite music reviews. Here’s a lovely review of the new Alicia Keys from noted music publication World Socialist Web Site:
“Girl on Fire” is the album’s most recognizable single and its title track. One hears it everywhere. The song lifts a section of its melody from Berlin’s 1986 power ballad “Take My Breath Away.” Like that song, the single features its share of melodramatic qualities, as Keys’ reaching vocals herald the triumphs of a girl—any girl will do—against the odds. A repetitive and bombastic work.
“Girl on Fire” was also the song played by Keys during her recent performance at President Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural ball. As the president and his wife looked on, Keys sang and changed her song’s lyrics to celebrate them. “He’s living in a world and it’s on fire,” Keys sang, “filled with catastrophe. But he knows he can find a way.” “Everybody knows Michelle is his girl,” she added, “together they run the world.”
This was pretty shameful, although predictable as well. Keys belongs to an affluent layer for whom race, gender and sexuality—and themselves, mostly—are the chief concerns in life and who have no difficulty at this point accommodating themselves to the actions of the Obama administration. Unfortunately, in fact, they hardly give the matter a thought. Such an accommodation with power and money, however, does not go hand in hand with serious artistry and an important treatment of life.
Is it any wonder so much of this music feels so thoroughly empty?
Sleep tight.
That is fantastic. Also, with a few changes (names etc.), it could be used to review virtually any pop album (you’d have to tinker with the bit about the inauguration to suit) or, really, anything for that matter.
Why do they bother making a comment about the melody, when what matters to them is only a (certain type of reading of the) text? I’m not sure it’s worse than most reviews, but it’s more obviously off-target.
Indeed. One wonders what a proper Socialist melody is like nowadays, since everyone knows Stockhausen Serves Imperialism.*
*this, of course:
http://www.ubu.com/historical/cardew/cardew_stockhausen.pdf
You all are familiar with the Maoist International Movement’s movie reviews, yes?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: “This Disney-esque fantasy film deserves not to be banned under the
dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Holy crap that’s awesome.
I particularly enjoyed the review of “The Matrix.” (Not as good as Zizek’s takedown though.)
“Humyn”?
To show their disdain for the patriarchy, MIM always spelled it that way. And spelled “women” “wimmin”. And “America” either “Amerika” or, if they were feeling especially venomous, “Amerikkka”. “United States,” obviously, was spelled “United $tates” or abbreviated “U$”. All of the pieces were published under a pseudonym: MC(numeral), where “MC” stood for “Maoist Comrade”. First among equals, as I recall, was MC0. They really were a special bunch.
That’s “United Snakes,” not that amateur stuff w/ the $.
Dumb kids.
Oh, God. I remember reading MIM Notes in high school and college and marveling at their reviews of movies and music. Unsurprisingly, the only movie I remember ever getting a positive review from them was Alexander Nevsky.
They call Conan the Destroyer “outright progressive.” It all seems pretty terrific.
Needs more rambling about how anyone who claims to like Alicia Keys must be a Doritos-eating hipster.
Wow, really touched a nerve by daring to criticize the great Beyonce, huh?
Afraid someone’s going to post that video of you singing “Single Ladies” into your hairbursh on YouTube?
You didn’t so much criticize her as say, “I don’t like her, so no one is allowed to like her.” It reminded me of my kids when they were younger. They were cuter though.
Bullshit. My inital comment was the TGB is “not that talented,” and really a throwaway in a comment meant to agree with the point of the OP. The rest of your paraphrase is how you took it personally.
Look, if you want to have another 100+ comment thread about Beyone’s awesomeness or the lack thereof, I think I’ll pass. But do please try to avoid lying about me in a public forum.
I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter where you explain how Madonna was a musical trailblazer.
Subscribe to this instead, Clever Dick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)#Legacy
No one could have expected a copypasta from Wikipedia.
I never claimed to be a student of her music, or her influence. But only a moron couldn’t notice the relative absence of dance-pop divas from the popular music scene in the late 70′s and the locust-like infestation of them after she hit it big. Hello, John Protevi.
And at least I backed up my claim with something. Care to take a stab at arguing she hasn’t been hugely influential? Or is more obnoxious snark the best you can do?
And no, “because Camille Paglia said so” doesn’t count.
But only a moron couldn’t notice the relative absence of dance-pop divas from the popular music scene in the late 70′s and the locust-like infestation of them after she hit it big.
Yep, if there was one genre the late 70s lacked, it was female disco singers.
the relative absence of dance-pop divas from the popular music scene in the late 70′s
I think there’s a “white” missing in there.
Your inability to support your positive assertion does not entail an obligation on my part to prove the negative counterpart to that assertion. This is a handy primer on the burden of proof and attempts to shift it.
In any case, your copypasta shows Madonna to have been commercially successful, not that she was a trailblazer. Even her being influential doesn’t show that.
[response to Malaclypse, Hogan]
Not sure Madonna should be considered a “disco” singer, but OK, before her there was Donna Summer and…
But arguing that Donna Summer or Chic was more influential than Madonna is like arguing that Arthur Crudup was more infuential than Elvis Presley. All of the biggest that worked that dancepop vein came after Madonna.
You said there were no female dance divas. In the 1970s. Now you decide that some don’t count. That blur you see? Goalposts.
All of the biggest that worked that dancepop vein came after Madonna.
Post hoc ergo what now?
You’re the one who reacts nastily if anyone says anything complimentary about her.
Rather than relying on your selective memory, why don’t you go back over that thread? The people I reacted “nastily” to weren’t saying nice things about her. They were lobbing ad hominem attacks at me for the apparent thought crime of saying the she “wasn’t all that talented.”
There were a few people who objected to what I said about her that I agreed with or didn’t respond to at all. What I mostly responded to were repeated personal attacks.
You didn’t address the fact they don’t make the kind of socks I like anymore.
I have found some mid-weight ones at Target that nicely fill out the hiking boots I wear in winter weather. Beyond that, I got nuthin’.
Do you remember who makes ‘em?
I don’t particularly care for Beyonce; I’m just amused by people who think that anyone who doesn’t share their particular musical tastes is either a hopeless consumer drone or an insincere “hipster.” It’s perhaps the laziest and most irritating form of argument not regularly practiced by Tom Friedman.
I won’t say that no one has ever heard “hipster” used to deride someone who does not have “mainstream” musical tastes, but I have mainly heard it used to refer to someone who derides other people’s “mainstream” musical tastes, for very flexible values of “mainstream.”
Given I was commenting on a blog that recently lauded the very laud-worthy Robbie Fulks, I made the assumption that the crossover between regular readers of LGM and ardent fans of Beyonce to be exceedingly small. Hence my skepticism as to the sincerity of many of the objections (mainly of the “if you don’t like Beyonce, you’re a narrow-minded, boring old fart” variety) to my comment.
If that assumption was in error, and my skepticism misplaced, please accept my apologies.
Dude, I didn’t really see that many “ardent fans of Beyonce” in that thread. I thought my own take was the much more common one: “Not my cup of tea, but enormously talented.” Or if you prefer, “I don’t particularly like what she does, but there’s no denying she does it damn well.” Somehow you turned that into the Official Beyonce Fan Club raking you over the coals for thoughtcrime.
And “trailblazer” or no, I’ve seen enough live footage of Ms. Ciccone to conclude that she’s a truly mediocre singer at best. You can like her music better than Beyonce’s and no one’s going to take that away from you, de gustibus and all that, but c’mon.
I’m puzzled by your assumption that if you like Robbie Fulks you therefore couldn’t like any music that doesn’t involve white guys playing guitars.
I’m puzzled by your assumption that not liking Beyonce and liking Robbie Fulks means “you therefore couldn’t like any music that doesn’t involve white guys playing guitars.”
There are oceans of music between generic dance-pop and a white guy with a guitar. You should check it out sometime.
Absurd as they are, those music reviews (and the site they’re on) would be Trotskyist, not Trotskyite.
Just sayin’.
#sectarianleftistnazi
Anyone who says Trotskyite is a filthy Stalinist . . .
They didn’t say what a drone The Rising was
Running dogs of Springsteenism.
That’s actually a better review of Springsteen’s body of work than 99% of the stuff that’s written about him. It’s as leaden as Max Weinberg’s drumming, but I suppose that can’t be helped.
Awful as the review was, those special lyrics for the Prez were even more vomit-inducing. On so many levels.
Awful as the review was, those special lyrics for the Prez were even more vomit-inducing.
Can’t argue with that. Yeeesh.
Dismissing race, gender, and sexuality as concerns of a privileged elite is….well, it’s an interesting rhetorical move, if nothing else.
If you have time to wonder about gender discrimination against you, you’re obviously not working in the same gulag is me!
GGkk!
I might take this post seriously if its author hadn’t written this a couple days ago:
“What’s very much not a good class-conscious novel is Ken Kesey’s Sometimes a Great Notion, which is about as anti-union as American literature gets. Big unions, mean state hospital nurses, just another institution bringing down our independence, right Ken? Better to pass out acid like candy I guess. Was shocked to see one of the people surveyed list it.”
Dismissing one of the great post-war American novels because its politics aren’t to your liking would seem to be the very definition of aesthetic Stalinism. That you obviously didn’t understand the novel in the slightest only adds to the absurdity of the critique.
I didn’t dismiss the novel. I dismissed as a good labor union novel. The novel itself is excellent, although I’m not the biggest Kesey fan in the world. But as a “class-conscious novel,” no.
I wonder what Marx would make of the attempts of his disciples to ensure that all forms of culture and entertainment are properly Marxist. The relentless ideologizing of everything is one of the great weakneses of many Marxist movements and theorists. Sometimes people need to relax and be able to enjoy non-ideological entertainment.
True, but the “personal is political” basically ended any such ideas among “progressives.”
Yep, because Maoists=progressives.
Is there anyone to the Left of Attila the Hun that you don’t despise, J. Otto?
Is there anyone
to the Left of Attila the Hunthat you don’t despise, J. Otto?Much better.
That was never intended to mean “the personal is nothing but political,” and very few people outside of the fringe left take it that way.
If the fringe left didn’t exist, J. Otto would’ve invented it.
Yeah. Too bad it can’t exist.
Well, true, but people still need to relax and enjoy entertainment, and quite often the ideological component of said entertainment is outweighed by aesthetic, nostalgic, or other components. Even radicals have “guilty pleasures.”
All you can really do is encourage people to recognize the ideological underpinnings and factor that into their tastes. Going all-out against anything that’s not ideologically “pure” gets you nowhere.
Its also important to note that its possible to misinterpret the author’s ideological component or point. Mad Men, which I never really liked, is clearly meant to criticize the rampant sexism and generally oppressive society of the early 1960s. Many of its fans are attracted to the show because of the glamor of being a mad man.
I’d also argue that there are some forms of entertainment that do not have an underlying ideology. A zany movie like Airplane or the Naked Gun has very little if any in ideology behind it.
Wow.
I agree with this particular subset of Marxists on this issue. No, really. Western progressives really are obsessed mostly with race, gender, and sexuality, mostly relating to themselves and their liberal urban elite overclass. Exhibit A: Erik Loomis.
The Trotskyists are spot on, and the lyrics used were in fact a disgusting, slobbering suck-up to political power.
You mean the Eric Loomis who writes regularly about labor and economic justice?
Alicia Keys could have just sung a nice little ditty about waffles, but noooooo…
It could have been worse . . .
Here is a paen to the cinema, Leninist, of course.
Ooh, he got you good, Erik!
Why don’t you ever write about class issues, huh?
It’s like organized labor doesn’t even exist to Loomis!
“….mostly relating to themselves and their liberal urban elite overclass.”
IOW, the “liberal urban elite overclass” is made up of women, GLBT folks, and folks of color. The proletariat is nothing but straight white cisgender dudes.
Glad we cleared that up.
I don’t know what GLBT is (is that some kind of sanwich? Gravy with Lettuce Bacon and Tomato?). But gay men are, indeed, on average wealthier, better educated, and more urban than the population at large. They are, by far, the most influential minority in correlation to their actual miniscule percentage of the population in perhaps all of American history.
Gravy on a BLT sounds nasty. Gravy belongs on mashed potatoes, just as syrup belongs on pancakes and waffles. I’m all for fusion and experimentation but there’s a limit.
But you most admit, the way he almost managed to use “in correlation to” in a correct manner showed a bit of effort that we don’t normally see Jennie use. Dagchester is rubbing off on him.
Dagchester is rubbing off on him.
Do you think they might be the same person? Maybe JenBobSpeakCarbon is just Dagchester when drunk? Or vice versa?
I think they are different – dagchester is genuinely flakey, while jenbob is just dumb. But I’m not sure.
The portmanteau “Dagchester” sounds like a sandwich. Some kind of variation on a Dagwood. Whether it’s more delicious than pancakes, of course, is a matter of taste.
They are, by far, the most influential minority in correlation to their actual miniscule percentage of the population in perhaps all of American history.
Yeah, that’s probably true.
Please to be ignoring the 1% of the US population that controls 40% of the wealth. I guess they’re not a minority.
Controlling the media is a far more powerful tool than wealth, and Gays influence a good portion of it. Look at how over 1/3 of characters on primetime tv are now gay or lesbian, when they’re (at most, very generously) 2.5% of the population.
Also, the “one percent” you speak f is almost unanimously pro-gay. The Koch brothers openly favor homosexual “marriage”.
I am the 99%–heterosexual.
Keep telling yourself that, Jennie dearest. But know that God loves you anyway.
By that standard, an even smaller minority with even greater influence would be the undead.
Look at how over 1/3 of characters on primetime tv are now gay or lesbian
Okay, so I’m an urban elitist who only watches Mythbusters and Doctor Who, but is it safe to assume that this is not even sort of close to being true?
It’s absolutely true on primetime network TV. There are even whole shows now that are almost entirely gay, i.e. Glee.
So you count the characters you think are gay? Good thing you’re not obsessed.
I think the counting goes “one, two, oh my God look at them all.”
Where you been, Homer? The entire steel industry is gay. Eh, aerospace, too, and the railroads. And you know what else? Broadway.
Apparently it’s on the high side. Unless charismanews.com is a stealth gay site.
Nah, Episcopalians.
Point taken, but there’s a huge overlap between gays and Episcopalians. It really is The Gay Church now.
That sounds like Lyndon LaRouche talking, which would explain a lot of things about our organic(in the scientific sense) friend.
Gay men, of course, are the only non-heterosexual, non-cisgendered people in the world. Lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and gender-fluid people don’t count. Also, all gay men are well-educated and affluent.
The ones on TV, anyway.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
I think we need to close the Pancake Gap before we start worrying about the Cotton Ceiling. Priorities.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
You’re really into this, aren’t you? Go for it, JenBob.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
I don’t care.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
Go for it, JenBob.
I just hope he cleared it with his mom before he went posting her private emails all over the place.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
Closet case, please.
WHY WON’T PEOPLE RESPOND TO JENNIE’S REASONABLE QUESTIONS? EVERYBODY HERE BUT JENNIE IS GAY! THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE AND EPISCOPALIANS EVERYWHERE!
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
So the Ts are really G? Although they think they’re L? Actually, never mind. Why should I be trying harder than you are to make sense of what you’re saying?
We’ll meet again,
Don’t know where,don’t know when.
But I know we’ll meet again, some sunny day.
MY POINT EXACTLY.
CENTRAL TO IT.
I’D ADDRESS IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I’M FACING A TIGHT DEADLINE!
hehe, he said tight, hehe
For the genuinely interested lurkers, because there’s always one:
Let us begin with first principles, because JenBob is an ignorant little shit.
Trans people exist; they are neither ridiculous nor frightening. A woman is a person who self-identifies as a woman. A lesbian is a woman who expresses her sexuality with other women. A man may have a vagina, a woman may have a penis.
None of the foregoing is a problem.
JenBob’s Gotcha moment is frankly bullshit; tribalism to the extent of “support everyone with the right hat” is not a progressive value. Identifying as LGB doesn’t automatically get you Trans 101. There’s nothing that says women aren’t allowed to be misogynist, particularly when misogyny and transphobia are mainstream values.
Regarding sexuality, there’s nothing wrong, nor inherently transphobic, with being a woman that doesn’t like penises. You’re into what you’re into. But if you’re not interested in a woman, or even an entire class of women, you don’t have to say that they’re not really women at all.