Great post, zigzigger. I am not very familiar with the music of Fountains of Wayne, so I don't have much specific to add to the consideration of their music. But I am curious about your thoughts regarding the following questions:1)Recently i have become aware of a resurgence of interest in the old Lionel Trilling "sincerity and authenticity" distinction, and a renewal of interest in the category of sincerity. Is it useful to pursue the question: Are Fountains of Wayne sincere? Or, given the means by which the impression of "sincerity" is constructed by musical artists, do FOW comply or violate the "rules"? I think that a few of the key criteria of "sincerity" are formal-- not so much the "content" questions of whether the growl of the voice or use of slang is "earned" through "real experience," but commitment to the presentation of a coherent vision by demonstrating stylistic integrity--for instance, maintaing "one sound" throughout an album, or even a career. (Consider the totally "inauthentic" rock band Kiss, who lost millions of fans when they made the "insincere" gesture of making the disco record "I Was Made For Loving You"). Jumping from one pastiche to another over the course of an album might indicate powerfully to listeners and consumers that artists are "insincere." Consider also the perhaps curious critical neglect of groups like Phish and They Might Be Giants, who otherwise would seem to fulfill at least a few of the criteria dear to music writers;2) Recently i have been rereading Peter Burger's Theory of the Avant Garde and revisiting his thesis regarding the crucial division separating the modernist avant garde from previous movements, by "reverse-engineering" the artistic process-- focusing on the question of what resources are available to different artists at different historical moments. In the twentieth century, a radically different situation confronts the creative worker from that of any artist in the history of representational and expressive practice. According to this way of looking at art, the pre-modern and modern artist worked with the tools and techniques available given the state of the art and the development of technique-- in a profound sense, we understand that a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt didn't "choose" between their style and Byzantine portraiture, Lascaux wall painting, or renaissance fresco. In contrast, we "know" that the 20th century artist has at her disposal all of the tools of expression that have ever been used or could theoretically be used. The notion that a certain set of techniques define a period-specific "state of the art" continues to be a powerful myth within rock discourse. Most fans don't imagine that Joey Ramone "chose" to chug away at power chords rather than play like David Gilmour or Chet Atkins, even though, of course, he did. They think of Joey Ramone as having used what was "available at the time" to fulfill his particular creative agenda. Strangely enough, this kind of thinking manages to make both heroic innovation and folk participation in a common culture--even obstinacy in the face of theoretically available musical resources--central to its understanding of artistic "greatness." Has any punk true believer ever seriously wondered why Joey Ramone wasn't interested in moog synthesizers or saxophones? This kind of thinking privileges an organicist narrative of rock development, which sits oddly against the postmodern conditions of its birth and development--if we think of postmodernity in art as precisely this new condition of indeterminacy regarding style and the theoretical availability of all historical materials and techniques. I am not sure how this all connects to FOW, but I feel like it might be an important part of the puzzle.
Post a Comment
1 comment:
Great post, zigzigger. I am not very familiar with the music of Fountains of Wayne, so I don't have much specific to add to the consideration of their music. But I am curious about your thoughts regarding the following questions:
1)Recently i have become aware of a resurgence of interest in the old Lionel Trilling "sincerity and authenticity" distinction, and a renewal of interest in the category of sincerity. Is it useful to pursue the question: Are Fountains of Wayne sincere? Or, given the means by which the impression of "sincerity" is constructed by musical artists, do FOW comply or violate the "rules"?
I think that a few of the key criteria of "sincerity" are formal-- not so much the "content" questions of whether the growl of the voice or use of slang is "earned" through "real experience," but commitment to the presentation of a coherent vision by demonstrating stylistic integrity--for instance, maintaing "one sound" throughout an album, or even a career. (Consider the totally "inauthentic" rock band Kiss, who lost millions of fans when they made the "insincere" gesture of making the disco record "I Was Made For Loving You"). Jumping from one pastiche to another over the course of an album might indicate powerfully to listeners and consumers that artists are "insincere." Consider also the perhaps curious critical neglect of groups like Phish and They Might Be Giants, who otherwise would seem to fulfill at least a few of the criteria dear to music writers;
2) Recently i have been rereading Peter Burger's Theory of the Avant Garde and revisiting his thesis regarding the crucial division separating the modernist avant garde from previous movements, by "reverse-engineering" the artistic process-- focusing on the question of what resources are available to different artists at different historical moments. In the twentieth century, a radically different situation confronts the creative worker from that of any artist in the history of representational and expressive practice. According to this way of looking at art, the pre-modern and modern artist worked with the tools and techniques available given the state of the art and the development of technique-- in a profound sense, we understand that a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt didn't "choose" between their style and Byzantine portraiture, Lascaux wall painting, or renaissance fresco. In contrast, we "know" that the 20th century artist has at her disposal all of the tools of expression that have ever been used or could theoretically be used.
The notion that a certain set of techniques define a period-specific "state of the art" continues to be a powerful myth within rock discourse. Most fans don't imagine that Joey Ramone "chose" to chug away at power chords rather than play like David Gilmour or Chet Atkins, even though, of course, he did. They think of Joey Ramone as having used what was "available at the time" to fulfill his particular creative agenda. Strangely enough, this kind of thinking manages to make both heroic innovation and folk participation in a common culture--even obstinacy in the face of theoretically available musical resources--central to its understanding of artistic "greatness." Has any punk true believer ever seriously wondered why Joey Ramone wasn't interested in moog synthesizers or saxophones?
This kind of thinking privileges an organicist narrative of rock development, which sits oddly against the postmodern conditions of its birth and development--if we think of postmodernity in art as precisely this new condition of indeterminacy regarding style and the theoretical availability of all historical materials and techniques. I am not sure how this all connects to FOW, but I feel like it might be an important part of the puzzle.
Post a Comment