[wilandhugs]

tdegenaro wrote:

Stories and Games wrote:

Example: what fundamentally made early hip hop exciting to people was that it was the artistic howl of the most underprivileged parts of the country. The music was just as much about what it represented as what it was aesthetically; you could reasonably argue that the distinction between those facets is impossible to accurately judge. That sort of cultural context can totally transcend how good you think a given record is in a vacuum—what score you'd give it out of ten or what have you—and that's entirely fine. It isn't obscuring some otherwise platonically pure evaluation of the music, because such a thing does not actually exist.

well right but those factors were baked into the dna of early hip-hop whereas they are not baked into the dna of Animal Collective's music, or their ethos as musicians. i agree with you that cultural context is important and can have a huge impact on how one interacts with the music, but in the case of animal collective, class issues - at least class issues relating to geo, avey, deak, and panda - just isn't part of the work.

now, if you wanted to talk about the relationship between class and the environment - which is a huge part of the dna of their output - that'd be, to me, a relevant conversation. but its a nothingburger (again, imo) to apply a socio-economic critique of josh, brian, noah, and dave when that's not what their music is about. because of this, i'm inclined to dismiss it (as i did earlier) as a kid shouting eat the rich instead of making some meaningful observation about art, or the world, or whatever.

This is a better encapsulation of what I was saying in my previous post. Nice analysis.

[hypo's]

Stories and Games wrote:

It's totally understandable for that sort of thing to bother somebody imo. Someone's perception of an artist's work is inherently filtered through layers upon layers of surrounding context whether they consciously realize it or not, and class can totally be one of those layers. It really rubs me the wrong way that so many people here are like "well that's stupid and irrelevant, just enjoy the music man," because no one actually just enjoys the music, man.

ppl can and do 'just enjoy the music' whether or not we approve of it or not idgi

I too enjoy context/layers, it makes my pretentious ramblings seem more intricate

the context of AC's material upbringing is a really silly thing to get hung up on imo

[Stories and Games]

tdegenaro wrote:

well right but those factors were baked into the dna of early hip-hop whereas they are not baked into the dna of Animal Collective's music, or their ethos as musicians. i agree with you that cultural context is important and can have a huge impact on how one interacts with the music, but in the case of animal collective, class issues - at least class issues relating to geo, avey, deak, and panda - just isn't part of the work.

now, if you wanted to talk about the relationship between class and the environment - which is a huge part of the dna of their output - that'd be, to me, a relevant conversation. but its a nothingburger (again, imo) to apply a socio-economic critique of josh, brian, noah, and dave when that's not what their music is about.

Idk i'm not really down with the idea that it has to be a conscious, intentional theme of their output for it to be a meaningful lens through which to view their work. So much of interacting with art is about analyzing it from a perspective that makes it meaningful to you.

Like, I think that the songs Safer and Crimson are incredibly ripe for feminist analysis. I think there's so much interesting stuff in the lyrics that has to do with men's aversion to vulnerability and how it leads them to hurt themselves and others. Is that what Avey meant for those songs to be about? I don't know, and it doesn't matter (and he'd tell you as much). The implications regarding gender politics are there whether he intended them or not. The same is true for class politics.

Also, they do purposefully draw attention to class in their music. The single most famous Animal Collective lyric is "I don't mean to seem like I care about material things like a social status."

[unrecordednight]

not to derail thread but i love the crimson lyrics, always thought it was about avey thinking about his relationship to wild animals/eating meat through the example of an eagle

while i normally agree with the idea that there are all sorts of internal and external causes that converge to ultimately make up our desires, on a conscious level it really does just feel like i like them because of the sounds they make. only thing i can really attribute to it consciously are previous musicians i grew up listening to, but at the end of the day that comes back to just liking the sounds. i don't think it's necessary to intellectualize it but if it's fun to for some people then that's cool. for me it's one of the few things in life you have the opportunity to experience on just an aesthetic level where you don't have to look at it through any sociological lens, it's nice to be able to hang out on the aesthetic level and just be like the sounds sounds gud in my ears and make brain happy

[Stories and Games]

Also sorry if my first post came off too broadly accusatory or indicative. this thread is just as much a place for people working through their feelings about a complicated topic as it is a place for people staking serious fully-formed positions on that topic, and I don't want to make people to feel bad for being in that sort of in-between place. apologies if I did at all <3

[destiny]

While i think its a bit silly to dismiss my friend as a kid or reduce their viewpoint to naivety, i still want to make it clear I did not agree w her, I should've made a big point in the op that we the listeners really dont know shit about the guys in animal collective... so it was all baseless. Even if we did... it woouldnt rly matter. Unless pandas dad was john bolton . Good to see yall riled up

[tdegenaro]

stories and games i wanna echo your sentiment re: the spirit of this convo, definitely reading you in good faith, no worries if you were directing that even a little bit at me!

that being said, i think that lyric from my girls isn't intended to be a socio-economic critique, i think its an earnest reverie for the simplicity of family and togetherness. but like you said, (and i agree avey and the gang would say this too) its up to listeners to figure out what the songs mean to them, and even more to the point, like unrecorded night said, i too kinda like animal collective because of the cool sounds they make.

i want to clarify what i said about hip-hop though: there's a difference in how i think OP's viewpoint re: class, which is an intentional reading of the text as such (like you said with crimson or safer) it might, or might not be true, that determination basically boils down to how op feels about the lyrics and the context of the band's work for how they want to interpret it. keyword: interpret. whereas you can't *interpret* og hip hop to be about class because that's not an interpretation, that's what it was about (among many other things).

and i mean, i know nobody's perfect and i'm far from a stan (and I'm far from the eminent Stan) of thse guys but like, they are like douche bag rich dudes playing with their parents' trust fund money, so it just feels a little unfair to call them out on their moderate success. again, if geo is like a billionaire i'll reconsider my response but i think they're just hardworkin' dudes that have like slugged it out long enough to earn whatever wealth their music affords them. i get testy when actual billionaire super villains get put on blast so i'm definitely a lil touchy when somebody aims that shit at four of the most down-to-earth art makers i know.

[hedgecore]

Stories and Games wrote:

Example: what fundamentally made early hip hop exciting to people was that it was the artistic howl of the most underprivileged parts of the country. The music was just as much about what it represented as what it was aesthetically; you could reasonably argue that the distinction between those facets is impossible to accurately judge. That sort of cultural context can totally transcend how good you think a given record is in a vacuum—what score you'd give it out of ten or what have you—and that's entirely fine. It isn't obscuring some otherwise platonically pure evaluation of the music, because such a thing does not actually exist.

It's true that hip hop came out the Bronx and created by poor Black and brown folks, I.... disagree with this statement heavily. Early hip hop was exciting enough as it was, given that it was essentially a live genre / party for several years before a version of it was recorded in a studio. I think it's exciting that hip hop was birthed out of adapting to the limited resources people had in the Bronx then.... but what fundamentally makes hip hop (early or otherwise) exciting is because it was an expressive new art form that mixes elements of different cultures to create something whole (dance culture, DJing, toasting over music via Jamaica, sampling/playing music from all types of genres, etc). and the end result is sick as fuck

tl;dr - I don't know if people were putting on sugar hill gang when the single dropped and were saying "wow this is exciting because the artists are underprivledged!"

[Stan]

One hundred percent. I winced at that bolded sentence.

I loathe the idea that the underprivileged are obligated to express their socioeconomic circumstance through their art.

Fuck offffffffff

Sometimes people just want to make a fucking tune like any other c***

[hypo's]

Stories and Games wrote:

If socioeconomic factors don't figure into your feelings about a given record that's fine, but understand that a million other things are. The artist's previous work, the work of their peers, the work of their predecessors (or successors), the stories (or mythologies) behind it, the underlying creative ethos, not to mention the personal life experiences from which the music is entirely inextricable for each of us. We routinely bring these things up when discussing our love for Animal Collective's music and, importantly, none of them are about the hard and fast content of the music itself. Who are we to tut tut someone for bringing class into it? Why is that the point where we arbitrarily deem the assessment tainted?

look I get it, 'any philosophy that can fit into a nutshell belongs in one' and all that, but not all observations about the contexts of a piece of art or interesting or valuable

there are many different aspects that contribute to our enjoyment of art, yes indeed, socioeconomic analysis can be important and rewarding, yes indeed

this seems simple to me as I'm not interested in waxing eloquent: the very specific instance that we're all talking about is a perfect example of a very weak, naive, and boring take

hedgecore wrote:

Stories and Games wrote:

"wow this is exciting because the artists are underprivledged!"

lol

[tdegenaro]

yes, yes, yes.

[Fovrodi]

Avey: yeah i think the whole problem with this arguement is that youve turned it into somthing thats about peoples relationship to a piece of art rather then what it means for art to be created in a certain context and under certain conditions and what that means. I guess its kind of impossible not to cause we are all spectators in that way. But noone is going to agree completely on this subject cause it has so much to do with taste and is so subjective at this point. It also has so much to do with where you and your mind are in life and the capability to process things and enjoy things aside from where the art came from. Some people are touched by things because of context for example things made by people in mental assylums or things made by people in concentration camps other people think its shitty art and its only in a museum for that reason and in some ways it is only in a museum for that reason but that doesnt have anything to do with whether "you" think one piece is brilliant or touched you. Bress, you make it sound negative that people would only search for things that are underground and subversive and i do think its lame but i bet this group is an extreme minority and ive also heard you speak sentences like "can you believe this was made when it was" (raymond scott) which means that we are all subject to the context of art blowing our minds somtimes. I think in alot of cases its even hard to not let it mold our opinions about somthing.
But i dont think this has anything to do with the context or situation the art is created in cause you still cant deny the fact that graffiti or the first punk wave or no wave or grunge or the first psychedelic movement or the surrealists or situationists or any artistic movement happened when it did and that says somthing about why those things are what they are no matter who writes about them or who they touch. It doesnt mean that its all going to impress or touch you or anyone else but i think it does say somthing true about its existence.

Da

[nothingmaster]

I think it's fine to choose to dislike a band based on the context from which it came. But if that's a hill you wanna die on I don't think AC is a good band to send down the plank compared to the countless other bands from similar places of privilege.

They strike me as being very aware of their privileged upbringing, and use that position to spread awareness and raise money toward global humanitarian causes pretty frequently, at least in recent years.

[tdegenaro]

can someone even explain to me the supposed privilege the anco dudes even came from? the way ppl are talking its like they're all elon musk's siblings or some shit

[hypo's]

tdegenaro wrote:

can someone even explain to me the supposed privilege the anco dudes even came from? the way ppl are talking its like they're all elon musk's siblings or some shit

I think they're just white dudes, yes there is certainly privilege in that, no I don't think it's very interesting cuz I'm not that kid who just had his mind blown by his first sociology 101 course

but yeah it doesn't make sense to the point that it doesn't even seem sincere, just posturing/practicing for the woke olympics idk

I'm in a pissy mood I should just shut up for a while sorry

[Stories and Games]

Yeah I realize that was an overly simplistic statement to make about early hip hop; the aesthetics of the music were adventurous and exciting and that's an extremely important part of the story. I just wanted to point out that the socioeconomic context was a huge part of it, and that that transcends the waveforms on the cd or what have you. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't have been skeptical of rappers who came from wealthier backgrounds. And I do think that it's really not clear cut where text ends and context begins in any case.

And again, I didn't say that all or even most early hip hop was intentionally explicitly about socioeconomic strife. Much of it wasn't. I'm saying that it came from a context of socioeconomic strife, and that that's an important part of how many people experience the art. I think there's a confusion happening here between "the art is intentionally about [x]" vs. "[x] can be a meaningful part of how people experience this art." If it's not a meaningful part of your experience, then fine! But why would you want to aggressively discourage someone for whom it is?

[awesome]

tdegenaro wrote:

can someone even explain to me the supposed privilege the anco dudes even came from? the way ppl are talking its like they're all elon musk's siblings or some shit

they all went to private high school, with (current) tuition ranging from $20,000 to $35,000 per year

[Stories and Games]

And like, if you think a class-based misgiving regarding AC's music is misplaced for x y or z reasons, go right ahead and argue those reasons, there's value in that discussion. What I take issue with is the preemptive shutting down of that discussion by dismissing the concern as fundamentally irrelevant distraction.

[hypo's]

still have not heard a convincing argument as to why one would have misgivings about this band being born into their socioeconomic positions lol

it's been stated that generally speaking, it can be a worthwhile subject of discussion, which we agree on

so, do you have any misgivings about the band's class status or not? if so, why? ~~ as it has been stated, they've never been inauthentic or anything like that (much of us are still unaware of the specifics of our fav bands class status growing up), so it does seem petty and naive to let this detract from their art (sorry op's friend, I stand firmly by this)

if not, this is an irrelevant distraction, yes -- or is this just now a thread for sociology? think we're talking past one another/ourselves here idk

~~
I'm probably done in this thread (but I did just start hitting the bottle lol), I don't think the context of this specific band's material upbringing is very interesting, let alone enough for it to negatively effect my feelings about their art -- but -- that a few of you seem to think so is kind of fascinating to me, hence my participation, I apologize if my posts seemed like an attempt to shut down a larger discussion on class/privilege etc

[tdegenaro]

reason x: class is one lens for interpretation you can apply to anco's work, but =/= good critique
reason y: it seems unfair to pass judgement on the guys for going to private school that costs 30,000 twenty+ years after they went there


"If it's not a meaningful part of your experience, then fine! But why would you want to aggressively discourage someone for whom it is?"

reason z: why would you want to aggressively encourage someone for whom it isn't?

[tdegenaro]

(that was mean i'm not trying to be a dick my bad stories & games)

i think we too are talking past each other.

[Cooper]

awesome wrote:

tdegenaro wrote:

can someone even explain to me the supposed privilege the anco dudes even came from? the way ppl are talking its like they're all elon musk's siblings or some shit

they all went to private high school, with (current) tuition ranging from $20,000 to $35,000 per year

Damn, I’m never listening to their parents’ music again

[awesome]

look man that dude asked how they were privileged, and kids going to private school that expensive is definitely a sign of privilege come on now

[unrecordednight]

i don't think cooper was necessarily discounting that, just a funny thing to say i think lol but who knows

i do appreciate everyone's thoughts in this thread, i saw the title and thought it was gonna be lame but i think it actually lead to a cool discussion from all

this may be strawmanning something to argue against, as no one has really laid out a true critique, but setting aside the privileges of whiteness, private school, etc -and this may be unseemly to ask- but do they even rake in that much dough nowadays do you think, 13 years after mpp? either way the answer is of course both yes and no, depending on if you are thinking relative to the working class or the billionaire class, and i just don't really get being bothered by that level of privilege to such an extent that it negatively affects someone's ability to enjoy their music, when you've got the large scale injustices of the ruling class to contend with

stories and games, i hear where you're coming from and appreciate your posts. i think the interesting thing to me is how you open your first post in this thread by saying "It's totally understandable for that sort of thing to bother somebody imo" and then the rest of the post is laying out why a socioeconomic context is inherent in art and art doesn't exist in a vacuum, but nothing about why it's understandable that it should *bother* someone. Would be interested to hear anyone lay out that argument. cause i think a lot of posters have laid out of lot of good examples of them contending with their privilege

[Stories and Games]

yeah i was really mainly responding to the general sentiment i was seeing that it inherently shouldn't be a consideration at all. maybe "matter to someone" would've been better suited for that post than "bother."

[jerry wonder]

I like the general inquiry that Stories and Games is onto. People seem to be pretty defensive here--I don't think we are attacking the boys, just exploring their music and social place in the world through the lens of class.

I am thinking about music and making music as a career not being something that comes easy, and obviously time and space to learn your instrument, explore writing, and to make it is incredibly helpful. I imagine the guys had a lot of encouragement and space to learn and get their feet with instruments and their creativity (which is so wonderful, and I wish everyone had that space). I would say that spaciousness is not available in a lot of working class and poorer folks' lives.

I can understand the original poster's friend having some resentment about them, especially if they come from a poorer class backround.

I wonder if--because their music is so unique and strange--it makes people defensive, like "well, look, at you getting to experiment and make beautiful things, you must have had lots of support to do that", when we all should get to do that kind of thing....

[hedgecore]

Stories and Games wrote:

Yeah I realize that was an overly simplistic statement to make about early hip hop; the aesthetics of the music were adventurous and exciting and that's an extremely important part of the story. I just wanted to point out that the socioeconomic context was a huge part of it, and that that transcends the waveforms on the cd or what have you. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't have been skeptical of rappers who came from wealthier backgrounds. And I do think that it's really not clear cut where text ends and context begins in any case.

Could you give some actual examples of this in early hip hop?

[awesome]

jerry wonder wrote:

I wonder if--because their music is so unique and strange--it makes people defensive, like "well, look, at you getting to experiment and make beautiful things, you must have had lots of support to do that", when we all should get to do that kind of thing....

i think that's the strongest case to make to criticize them, if one wants to do that. i don't really care because i like their music and "death of the author" and i think everyone should have that support and whatnot, but like...... they started their own record label in their early/mid 20s to put out this weird and non commercial music — i'm guessing they had some help doing that. and then that help allowed them to continue on the working musician life and continue to evolve. they talk about their early tours just clearing rooms with black dice. i can't imagine that paid very well, though of course they also worked odd jobs + at other music. NYC was definitely cheaper back then though.

[hypo's]

jerry wonder wrote:

I like the general inquiry that Stories and Games is onto. People seem to be pretty defensive here--I don't think we are attacking the boys, just exploring their music and social place in the world through the lens of class.

I am thinking about music and making music as a career not being something that comes easy, and obviously time and space to learn your instrument, explore writing, and to make it is incredibly helpful. I imagine the guys had a lot of encouragement and space to learn and get their feet with instruments and their creativity (which is so wonderful, and I wish everyone had that space). I would say that spaciousness is not available in a lot of working class and poorer folks' lives.

I can understand the original poster's friend having some resentment about them, especially if they come from a poorer class backround.

I wonder if--because their music is so unique and strange--it makes people defensive, like "well, look, at you getting to experiment and make beautiful things, you must have had lots of support to do that", when we all should get to do that kind of thing....

wrt defensiveness, my main issue here is that this entire concept of class status diminishing the value of art is patently ridiculous and an actual dilution of the real importance of discussions about class

I understand the need for ppl to apply recently acquired knowledge of the evils of capitalism etc but at a point it becomes a negative parody of something that is actually important in other contexts

yes, artistic experimentation (and even expression) is aided by privilege, is this really news to any of you? does this diminish it?

[Tropic]

AC aren't a punk band singing about the woes of working class life. I also don't know or care to know about their 'apparent wealth' (would love a clear breakdown of this). This thread is insane to me. Should people born into certain priveleged situations simply never persue art? Are they voiceless?

[jerry wonder]

hedgecore wrote:

Stories and Games wrote:

Yeah I realize that was an overly simplistic statement to make about early hip hop; the aesthetics of the music were adventurous and exciting and that's an extremely important part of the story. I just wanted to point out that the socioeconomic context was a huge part of it, and that that transcends the waveforms on the cd or what have you. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't have been skeptical of rappers who came from wealthier backgrounds. And I do think that it's really not clear cut where text ends and context begins in any case.

Could you give some actual examples of this in early hip hop?

The Message is all about being poor--one of the earliest and greatest hip hop songs

[hedgecore]

jerry wonder wrote:

hedgecore wrote:

Stories and Games wrote:

Yeah I realize that was an overly simplistic statement to make about early hip hop; the aesthetics of the music were adventurous and exciting and that's an extremely important part of the story. I just wanted to point out that the socioeconomic context was a huge part of it, and that that transcends the waveforms on the cd or what have you. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't have been skeptical of rappers who came from wealthier backgrounds. And I do think that it's really not clear cut where text ends and context begins in any case.

Could you give some actual examples of this in early hip hop?

The Message is all about being poor--one of the earliest and greatest hip hop songs

I mean examples of "[...] it wasn't, then people wouldn't have been skeptical of rappers who came from wealthier backgrounds"

Tropic wrote:

AC aren't a punk band singing about the woes of working class life.

What's funny is a lot of punk bands (DC scene for example) were founded by kids from richer neighborhoods (parents working with government jobs etc). Not a criticism against them

[hypo's]

wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/108/animal-collective-ties-to-prison-industry

[wilandhugs]

wrote:

What's funny is a lot of punk bands (DC scene for example) were founded by kids from richer neighborhoods (parents working with government jobs etc). Not a criticism against them

Sometimes you get bands like the D Plan who speak wisdom beyond any construct.

I think that Dave quote is phenomenal. Really simply and elegantly gets the point across that art and the artist are truly two separate entities when it comes to most cases.

[wilandhugs]

Tropic wrote:

AC aren't a punk band singing about the woes of working class life. I also don't know or care to know about their 'apparent wealth' (would love a clear breakdown of this). This thread is insane to me. Should people born into certain priveleged situations simply never persue art? Are they voiceless?

Something I realize:

If some billionaire's son becomes an artist and ends up being a total musical genius, then honestly that's way better than them just taking over daddy's corporation. Hell, they'll probably rebel against those ideas if their music is that sort of good. Maybe even change the way a lot of people think about things, or inspire the world to change in a way we can't comprehend. I don't know, I do know though that all or nothing thinking is going to get us no where and is as regressive to society as class.

[foxtrot]

As far as I’m concerned AC are all class

[Cooper]

awesome wrote:

look man that dude asked how they were privileged, and kids going to private school that expensive is definitely a sign of privilege come on now

I can’t help making jokes that are only half logical I’m sorry. Like it’s funnier because the punchline depends on my being wrong about this point you’re making. Somebody shoot me

[Stan]

In this dissertation, I will explore Dvorkin's anti-cult activism in Steven Spielberg's JAWS (1975).


Honestly, I loathe this lens poisoned entry level academia shit.

Intellectually, it fucking stinks. Fixate on one idea that makes you feel righteous and apply it to everything you can think of, dividing your existence into for/against like a fucking simpleton.

Thought Daft Punk had great kick drum sounds? Think on buddy they were paid for by a certain Mr DANIEL Bangalter who wrote D.I.S.C.O. and who came from France, one of the worst colonisers in European history.

[hypo's]

I love you stan

[Stan]

I decided to edit out c*** and ethnofascism, too much