amateur disclosure; destroyers of the hugpile
Thursday, September 24th, 2009 12:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charmian1. Vaguely inspired by this post, I was thinking that journalists are required to disclose conflicts of interests. For the world of professional reviewing, I'm not sure how that works, but probably an editor would avoid assigning someone's best friend (or worst enemy) to review their book? (However, it might be hard, in some literary circles, to find a completely unrelated reviewer)
Yet, it seems increasingly, as review sections shrink in publications, that people are relying on amateur, online sources for their reviews. Simultaneously, authors are like anyone else, going online and meeting and befriending readers, as well as other writers (perhaps to an even greater extent which they did in the past?) Is there a problem, either practical or ethical, with the amateur reviewers not disclosing any dealings or relationships they might have with the author or entity publishing the author? Are amateurs bound by any codes? If you endorse a friend's work in your blog, will you need to add a disclosure statement?
2.
So![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jokersama told me that fans of indie music are apparently up in arms over their favorite indie bands appearing on the next Twilight movie soundtrack, with exclusives, even. My reaction to this, after LOL, was "oh, this kind of thing again; yet again fans are whining about their secret thing being popularized. Just like people who liked Naruto before it was kewl to like Naruto complaining about it being shown on the Cartoon Network dubbed."
However, she claimed that this was different, because this reflects trends in indie music fandom: in the past, people couldn't get into indie music without someone with a greater amount of taste "initiating" them into it, because the internet did not exist. Also, unlike pop music, it didn't appear on TV shows or on the soundtracks of popular movies. Therefore, these developments are changing the cultural profile of the bands themselves, as well as the genre on the whole and its fandom. Some of the old skool fans feel a certain disdain for people who are the equivalent, as she says, of Supernatural fans who love classic rock because it's played on a TV show they like. This is to some extent different from the popularization via sites like Pitchfork, because those sites are in the forms of recs and mediation which give the context of the significance of the works, and provide a guide to how they are to be interpreted and consumed and evaluated.
Anyway, I said to this "heh, this is like that site, stuffwhitepeoplelike," and that I couldn't feel very sympathetic, because my whine is that the stuff I like is not more popular (waah, waah). She said that music (especially this genre of indie music) is different, because it is a "personal experience," vs. books and movies (and other narrative forms), where people want to talk about them (presumably, although I am skeptical on this front that books are a "communal" (impersonal?) experience. From what I can see, it depends on the person rather than, or--in addition to--the form, or perhaps, on the individual work or its genre)
I found this a very confusing argument, because people experience both music and books personally/individually, and from my perspective, it's rare that people read a book collectively, whereas often people go to concerts. Also, to claim it's about a personal interpretation seems odd in the face of a discussion about the fandom/scene, about groups of people who like a certain band or genre.
She explained that this was not reflective of whether people consumed music in a group or not, or discussed it among themselves, but that unlike books, music is not based on words, although it may contain them. In other words, narratives are composed of words and thus are amenable to being discussed in a more concrete, relatively less subjective way than music, which is inherently more fluid in meaning. [On the other hand, the relative ability of people to discuss literature vs. music is, IMHO, at least partially a result of the educational system. Most people who have graduated from college have had to take classes where they were obliged to discuss plot/character/theme, and read literary criticism. The same cannot said to be true for music. If the study of literature in modern society was based primarily on study of essays and poetry, rather than narrative forms, don't you think the relative ability of the average person to discuss novels, for example, would be different? ]
On the other hand, music can be influential without having concrete meaning (in the form of words), a la Sigur Ros and the lyrics of David Bowie during the seventies. [On the other hand, what about poetry and dadaism/surrealism?] Group forms of music (traditional ones) are fundamentally different from modern music in this way, she claimed.
I wondered, though, would indie fans feel the same way if they didn't belong to a group which was against "selling out" and had strong ideas about artistic integrity. Would they still feel that way, I wondered, if they were not self-identified indie fans? (isn't the idea of artistic integrity, unless it is an ideal professed by the band or in the music, an idea which must come from some other source?) However, she said it was rather "the annoyance is "others" adopting what's "yours." The thing you listened to and felt whiny about while you were alone. Maybe you found other people to feel whiny with too, but it was yours, you see.... and if you don't like the people who are sharing that with you (it's different if you do), then it's unpleasant."
A form of "cultural appropriation?" However, I guess I'm cynical and think only my interpretation is mine... I can't ever really claim a work of art is "mine," because the idea that all people feel only one way about it, or that my interpretation is the only, or sometimes, even the best, is one you really can't believe in once you have been infected by the scourge of postmodernism. Heck, even if I wrote a book, it would even be legally mine, but after all, the "author is dead," so it would also be the reader's.
I asked whether this was because indie fans feared, that if Twilight fans got into indie en masse as a result of the movie, whether this would taint the rep of indie, or, whether they were afraid the Twilight hordes would invade their forums and places. She said that might be part of it, but it also ties into the popularization of indie. In the past, they could only learn about indie through meeting a fan, but now, there is the fear that the new fans will fail to be properly socialized into the group and not adopt its core values, maybe show to concerts and dance when they're not supposed to. Since, unlike a novel, these values are not within the work itself, and the meaning of music is fluid, their interpretation may differ greatly from the original community.
In other words, "the idea is that if you don't share the group ethos, your interpretation of the music won't be comprehensible in any way to the rest of the group. I mean, you can have a bunch of people who all felt, in their individual way, that song x spoke to their loneliness and isolation and they will go D: if someone goes, 'it reminds me of edward longing for bella!' if that makes any sense. It's possible to respect people's personal reactions to music, even if they differ, but harder if that reaction is...tied to a movie or something and not the listener's personal reaction." She went on to say that the group sees these reactions as 'inauthentic,' while reactions gained purely from the listening of the music are 'authentic' and 'personal.'
Further thoughts: anyway, it seems that in fandoms, or in groups that people see as a haven (as opposed to groups which try to get everyone to join), people wish to have barriers to entry, so that only the "right people" whom they like can enter, or if not that, some kind of education socialization process. Newbs with unacceptably different values are a big threat to the one's enjoyment of the fandom, even if they're not openly hostile or hatin', perhaps, because there is the risk of altering the social ethos and norms. Also, when people identify deeply with something, they are upset when people they don't like also like it, and have a different interpretation (unrelated to how the other people behave towards them?) I guess though, in many ways, I identify more as the newb?
Yet, it seems increasingly, as review sections shrink in publications, that people are relying on amateur, online sources for their reviews. Simultaneously, authors are like anyone else, going online and meeting and befriending readers, as well as other writers (perhaps to an even greater extent which they did in the past?) Is there a problem, either practical or ethical, with the amateur reviewers not disclosing any dealings or relationships they might have with the author or entity publishing the author? Are amateurs bound by any codes? If you endorse a friend's work in your blog, will you need to add a disclosure statement?
2.
So
jokersama told me that fans of indie music are apparently up in arms over their favorite indie bands appearing on the next Twilight movie soundtrack, with exclusives, even. My reaction to this, after LOL, was "oh, this kind of thing again; yet again fans are whining about their secret thing being popularized. Just like people who liked Naruto before it was kewl to like Naruto complaining about it being shown on the Cartoon Network dubbed." However, she claimed that this was different, because this reflects trends in indie music fandom: in the past, people couldn't get into indie music without someone with a greater amount of taste "initiating" them into it, because the internet did not exist. Also, unlike pop music, it didn't appear on TV shows or on the soundtracks of popular movies. Therefore, these developments are changing the cultural profile of the bands themselves, as well as the genre on the whole and its fandom. Some of the old skool fans feel a certain disdain for people who are the equivalent, as she says, of Supernatural fans who love classic rock because it's played on a TV show they like. This is to some extent different from the popularization via sites like Pitchfork, because those sites are in the forms of recs and mediation which give the context of the significance of the works, and provide a guide to how they are to be interpreted and consumed and evaluated.
Anyway, I said to this "heh, this is like that site, stuffwhitepeoplelike," and that I couldn't feel very sympathetic, because my whine is that the stuff I like is not more popular (waah, waah). She said that music (especially this genre of indie music) is different, because it is a "personal experience," vs. books and movies (and other narrative forms), where people want to talk about them (presumably, although I am skeptical on this front that books are a "communal" (impersonal?) experience. From what I can see, it depends on the person rather than, or--in addition to--the form, or perhaps, on the individual work or its genre)
I found this a very confusing argument, because people experience both music and books personally/individually, and from my perspective, it's rare that people read a book collectively, whereas often people go to concerts. Also, to claim it's about a personal interpretation seems odd in the face of a discussion about the fandom/scene, about groups of people who like a certain band or genre.
She explained that this was not reflective of whether people consumed music in a group or not, or discussed it among themselves, but that unlike books, music is not based on words, although it may contain them. In other words, narratives are composed of words and thus are amenable to being discussed in a more concrete, relatively less subjective way than music, which is inherently more fluid in meaning. [On the other hand, the relative ability of people to discuss literature vs. music is, IMHO, at least partially a result of the educational system. Most people who have graduated from college have had to take classes where they were obliged to discuss plot/character/theme, and read literary criticism. The same cannot said to be true for music. If the study of literature in modern society was based primarily on study of essays and poetry, rather than narrative forms, don't you think the relative ability of the average person to discuss novels, for example, would be different? ]
On the other hand, music can be influential without having concrete meaning (in the form of words), a la Sigur Ros and the lyrics of David Bowie during the seventies. [On the other hand, what about poetry and dadaism/surrealism?] Group forms of music (traditional ones) are fundamentally different from modern music in this way, she claimed.
I wondered, though, would indie fans feel the same way if they didn't belong to a group which was against "selling out" and had strong ideas about artistic integrity. Would they still feel that way, I wondered, if they were not self-identified indie fans? (isn't the idea of artistic integrity, unless it is an ideal professed by the band or in the music, an idea which must come from some other source?) However, she said it was rather "the annoyance is "others" adopting what's "yours." The thing you listened to and felt whiny about while you were alone. Maybe you found other people to feel whiny with too, but it was yours, you see.... and if you don't like the people who are sharing that with you (it's different if you do), then it's unpleasant."
A form of "cultural appropriation?" However, I guess I'm cynical and think only my interpretation is mine... I can't ever really claim a work of art is "mine," because the idea that all people feel only one way about it, or that my interpretation is the only, or sometimes, even the best, is one you really can't believe in once you have been infected by the scourge of postmodernism. Heck, even if I wrote a book, it would even be legally mine, but after all, the "author is dead," so it would also be the reader's.
I asked whether this was because indie fans feared, that if Twilight fans got into indie en masse as a result of the movie, whether this would taint the rep of indie, or, whether they were afraid the Twilight hordes would invade their forums and places. She said that might be part of it, but it also ties into the popularization of indie. In the past, they could only learn about indie through meeting a fan, but now, there is the fear that the new fans will fail to be properly socialized into the group and not adopt its core values, maybe show to concerts and dance when they're not supposed to. Since, unlike a novel, these values are not within the work itself, and the meaning of music is fluid, their interpretation may differ greatly from the original community.
In other words, "the idea is that if you don't share the group ethos, your interpretation of the music won't be comprehensible in any way to the rest of the group. I mean, you can have a bunch of people who all felt, in their individual way, that song x spoke to their loneliness and isolation and they will go D: if someone goes, 'it reminds me of edward longing for bella!' if that makes any sense. It's possible to respect people's personal reactions to music, even if they differ, but harder if that reaction is...tied to a movie or something and not the listener's personal reaction." She went on to say that the group sees these reactions as 'inauthentic,' while reactions gained purely from the listening of the music are 'authentic' and 'personal.'
Further thoughts: anyway, it seems that in fandoms, or in groups that people see as a haven (as opposed to groups which try to get everyone to join), people wish to have barriers to entry, so that only the "right people" whom they like can enter, or if not that, some kind of education socialization process. Newbs with unacceptably different values are a big threat to the one's enjoyment of the fandom, even if they're not openly hostile or hatin', perhaps, because there is the risk of altering the social ethos and norms. Also, when people identify deeply with something, they are upset when people they don't like also like it, and have a different interpretation (unrelated to how the other people behave towards them?) I guess though, in many ways, I identify more as the newb?
no subject
Date: 2009-09-24 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-24 07:10 pm (UTC)Yeah, although there they might have some justification, since JKR herself said she wasn't writing fantasy, IIRC. XD
Oh, IMHO it definitely IS that same thing or very closely related, which is why I had reservations about the argument that the formal qualities of music (that it's not narrative) cause this.