Hipsters

[clyde]

epic hipster moment about to happen. Are y'all ready for it?

[Badfinger]

It's a phenomenon outside of that specific video. 

 

Here is a good example.

 

 

This was a cover that went viral and even got a good amount of radio play on radio stations that would never play the original. This kind of shit is the worst.

 

 

Actually, I take it back. I'm a horrible hypocrite because I think this is absolutely hilarious.

 

 

 

 

edit: vvvvv I still have no idea what you're trying to show me between versions. They're all the same idea.

[clyde]

Ok, now this just confuses me. What's special about this version besides the fact that it's two female voices? Peter Gabriel's version is just strings and two singers. it's simple and elegant (if you like the song). 

 

I hadn't heard the Peter Gabriel version before, but now that I have, I can say that I don't like it. I was comparing the cover to this version.

 

The cover evokes much more emotion from me. A clue to why this might be is that Stephen Merritt has said  "69 Love Songs is not remotely an album about love. It's an album about love songs, which are very far away from anything to do with love". I don't think the women who did the cover included the satirical element.

[Patrick R]

Actually, I take it back. I'm a horrible hypocrite because I think this is absolutely hilarious.

 

This is exactly what I mean. I hate this so much. Partially because it's hack, but also because it's got really unpleasant racial overtones.

[Twig]

Okay Hey Ya is a song I already love so I'll listen to this and GET BACK TO YOU. Within this post. I've never heard a cover of Hey Ya before, so there's some context for you.

 

All right it definitely has a more melancholic feel to it than the original song, but is that really so bad? I mean if you don't like it, whatever, that's fine, but I -- oh he's really getting into it now. And now we're back to chill melancholy. Hmm, hmmmm. I see nothing objectively terrible about this, I'm sorry. I've still got two and a half minutes left, though! Oh, is he smiling while hey ya'in'? I think he was! WHOA HE OPENED HIS EYES! And that's a definite smile. A joyful smile! SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE IT! Like a polaroid picture, uh huh. He's pretty into it here. Oh yeah. Diggin' it. Seems to have cheered up a bit, eh? Was definitely a little sad in the beginning, but by the end it's pretty upbeat! Nice. Oh. I don't like the way it ended with a slow hey ya. Felt like a fall back in tone. I liked the buildup, but then it broke down in the last ten seconds. Oh well, ain't perfect. Ain't bad.

 

Uh sorry I think I went a little overboard there.

[Zeusthecat]

Wow, this thread has been a pretty interesting read. I was wondering for a little bit there if maybe I'm also a hipster but I'm pretty sure I'm just a dude.

[Patrick R]

The broader point is the history of people whitening up black music, and that making it more palatable for other white people, is horrible and gross and real. It's basically the moment in Dreamgirls where Cadillac Car becomes this:

 

[Patrick R]

Things get more complicated when it comes to that Miley Cyrus thing, but I think broadly, in 2014, most popular music is coded as black. It's not the same thing, I'm not saying it's the same thing, but that's where that tradition comes from.

 

It's also not the same as, say, the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin stealing countless blues riffs and songs whole hog without paying the original songwriters because very few people ever make the leap from white YouTube covers to actual celebrity (I think Karmin, who got popular through

, is the only example) but it comes from the same place.

 

EDIT: This is sorta derailing the main conversation, because I do think it ties into hipsterism because the other big issue regarding "things widely considered as hipster" (to not tie it down to any one person's definition) is gentrification, and there is a sort of racial politics to a lot of these things.

[Badfinger]

This is exactly what I mean. I hate this so much. Partially because it's hack, but also because it's got really unpleasant racial overtones.

 

We're getting away from the topic, but it's a pretty clear parody of both Fergie and Alanis herself. It's purposefully hacky, it's not about "whitening" up the music to make it more popular. The Black Eyed Peas version is infinitely more popular and more successful.

[Twig]

I guess I just don't give a shit about that. I like "black" music and I like "white" music and I like when they intersect and I like when they jump the boundary(??) between the two and I just fucking like music. I guess I'm part of the problem(??), but I don't care.

[Patrick R]

We're getting away from the topic, but it's a pretty clear parody of both Fergie and Alanis herself. It's purposefully hacky, it's not about "whitening" up the music to make it more popular. The Black Eyed Peas version is infinitely more popular and more successful.

You are right but it's also about the idea that black music is dumber than white music, which is also very old. There are a million ironic covers of Baby Got Back or Lollipop or any number of black songs, where the idea is "look how dumb this is".

 

I guess I just don't give a shit about that. I like "black" music and I like "white" music and I like when they intersect and I like when they jump the boundary(??) between the two and I just fucking like music. I guess I'm part of the problem(??), but I don't care.

 

That's your prerogative. I also like black music, like white music, and like where they intersect. I just think that, like anything that is politically sensitive, it has to be done smartly.

 

Example: when Anthrax covered "Bring the Noise".

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU4o1CrdOQY

 

They invited Public Enemy to be on the song, and the arrangement compliments both acts really well. It speaks to the massive sound of Public Enemy and the rebellious nature of metal acts like Anthrax in the early 90's. 

[Patrick R]

Here is David Byrne covering "Just A Friend" so that Biz Markee can finally get the royalties on the song he was screwed out of.

 

 

It's a bad cover. But a good reason to do a cover!

[Twig]

I completely disagree that there's anything political about those covers you think are racist or whatever. Unless you can give me proof of it, of course.

[Ben X]

If "black music" is My Lumps, Baby Got Back and Lollipop, then it's pretty fucking dumb (and also takes in Lebanese-British acts).

[Badfinger]

You are right but it's also about the idea that black music is dumber than white music, which is also very old. There are a million ironic covers of Baby Got Back or Lollipop or any number of black songs, where the idea is "look how dumb this is".

I really think you've overstepped what was originally a good point here. My Humps IS dumb. It was widely panned, and people point to it as the moment where you could see Black Eyed Peas hit and then slide past the peak of their popularity. It is a terrible song and should be laughed at. The fact that it's Alanis doing the cover, who normally presents her music as very dark and serious, is doubly funny. It's not like this is the province of only white people laughing at "black" music. You could tear apart the entirety of shitty country and western music in about 2 minutes with a parody cover medley.

[James]

You are right but it's also about the idea that black music is dumber than white music, which is also very old. There are a million ironic covers of Baby Got Back or Lollipop or any number of black songs, where the idea is "look how dumb this is".

I think this needs clarification. My first reaction was that you were saying that it's racist to think that a song about a man's preference for big bums is silly, but on reflection it occurred that what you might mean is that the problem is that people are selectively choosing to cover frivolous black songs in a more serious white style, implying that white music is more serious and that black lyrics are absurd in any other context. The latter is something I could potentially get behind; the former seems incredibly patronizing to black people.

Can anyone explain to me what the difference is between intrinsic and authentic? They seem pretty much the same to me. I'm not wanting the demarcation because I want to say that judging art based off its intrinsic or authentic qualities is unwarranted (I enjoy doing it myself), but some people in the conversation seem to dislike the idea of authenticity; do you like inherency?

I don't have the same dislike for the idea of authenticity as those people, so perhaps I'm not the best person to be responding to this. But here I go anyway.

Firstly, I think we're getting kind of lost in qualities and meta-qualities here. Inherency, in the context of this conversation, is a property of the properties of the artwork, so right away that distinguishes it from everything else. The art may be authentic or inauthentic or the concept of authenticity may be meaningless; regardless of which of those things you propose, you're saying something about the art. But we're talking about properties being inherent to the art, not the art itself being inherent (whatever that would mean), so it's not an equal comparison.

Colour, shape, behaviour, and popularity are all relationships that the we have with the object.

No, popularity is a relationship society has with the object, and a property of the society, not the object, and is something that we perceive in society, not in the object.

I don't think any of that definitively undermines your overall position, necessarily. Still, I think it'd make a lot more sense to dislike things for being unoriginal than for being popular, unless what you really yearn for is an entirely fractured culture. Or perhaps to be uninterested based on popularity.

Out of interest, if I told you I disliked everything you liked because you liked it, how would you feel about that and about me?

[clyde]

I see what SecretAsianMan was referring to and why he would make the assumption he did.

No!

This is what I'm fighting for. The squares have managed to wrestle the concept of hipster away from us cool folk and made it exclusively derogatory. Being hip is cool!

The word has an actual meaning. The derogatory use is pure nonsense.

So here is my correction:

No!

This is what I'm fighting for. Squares have managed to make the square-centric connotation of "hipster" the dominant meaning. Being hip is cool!

The word has an actual meaning. The derogatory use is pure nonsense.

[Bjorn]

This thread totally got me to listen to a bunch of Sir Mix-a-Lot this afternoon. 

[clyde]

Firstly, I think we're getting kind of lost in qualities and meta-qualities here. Inherency, in the context of this conversation, is a property of the properties of the artwork, so right away that distinguishes it from everything else. The art may be authentic or inauthentic or the concept of authenticity may be meaningless; regardless of which of those things you propose, you're saying something about the art. But we're talking about properties being inherent to the art, not the art itself being inherent (whatever that would mean), so it's not an equal comparison.

The reason I make this comparison is because in both cases, we are entering a worthwhile debate about what can be included in the experience of consuming art. As we list the instrinsic qualities of an Andy Warhol piece, I think an argument can be made that the method of production he uses is representative of the type of production that has formed the larger context of its viewing. If intrinsic qualities are purely the molecular structure of the materias, then maybe it would be debatable, but I think that the essences of which the piece consists are not necessarily material and necessarily include things outside of their physicality.

No, popularity is a relationship society has with the object, and a property of the society, not the object, and is something that we perceive in society, not in the object.

I recently saw a silk-screen of Marilyn Monroe placed as a grand-finale at a small town art gallery. I saw popularity in that object.

I don't think any of that definitively undermines your overall position, necessarily. Still, I think it'd make a lot more sense to dislike things for being unoriginal than for being popular, unless what you really yearn for is an entirely fractured culture. Or perhaps to be uninterested based on popularity.

I am generally far more interested in originality than I am in popularity, but I am still claiming that popularity is a reasonable thing to base my taste on.

Out of interest, if I told you I disliked everything you liked because you liked it, how would you feel about that and about me?

I would think it was funny. It would be hard for me to believe that you were sincere in that claim, but supposing that you managed to convince me, I would consider you a great resource and be in close contact so that I could find the Korean romantic-comedies that I like faster by asking you which ones you hate. There are a lot of Korean romantic-comedies that I dislike and have to search through to get to masterpieces such as Playful Kiss and My Lovely Sam-Soon.

[SecretAsianMan]

I see what SecretAsianMan was referring to and why he would make the assumption he did.

So here is my correction:

No!

This is what I'm fighting for. Squares have managed to make the square-centric connotation of "hipster" the dominant meaning. Being hip is cool!

The word has an actual meaning. The derogatory use is pure nonsense.

 

Ok, that I am more willing to accept.  My main problem with the broad label applied to "hipsters" is that it all smacks of arrogance to me.  The idea that because you liked a thing before me and therefore you are better than me is bullshit.  The idea that you don't like a thing that is popular and I do and that makes you better than me is bullshit.  The idea that in order to be cool, you have to constantly show it off to everyone else to prove you are better is bullshit.  The idea that YOU are the reason this thing is now considered cool is bullshit (unless you created it or you ACTUALLY ARE the reason it's become cool).  These are of course huge generalizations and don't describe anyone specifically (at least not on these forums), but it's been the impression given to me by millions of instagrams, tweets, selfies, tumblrs, etc. and is the general reason I tend to dislike those things.  I will admit that clyde (and others here) are tempering that opinion, but at present the word still has a bad taste in my mouth that's probably not going away any time soon.

 

And to be perfectly clear, these are not attacks on anyone here.  They are once held opinions that are rightfully being challenged.  In fact, this group has done more to help me gain a broader perspective than any other group I've ever been in so thanks for that.

[Zeusthecat]

Ok, that I am more willing to accept.  My main problem with the broad label applied to "hipsters" is that it all smacks of arrogance to me.  The idea that because you liked a thing before me and therefore you are better than me is bullshit.  The idea that you don't like a thing that is popular and I do and that makes you better than me is bullshit.  The idea that in order to be cool, you have to constantly show it off to everyone else to prove you are better is bullshit.  The idea that YOU are the reason this thing is now considered cool is bullshit (unless you created it or you ACTUALLY ARE the reason it's become cool). 

 

I feel like we already have a word for this type of person that is much less nebulous: douchebag.

 

Edit: Damn, second time today I get the first post on a new page. Boo.

[Patrick R]

I really think you've overstepped what was originally a good point here. My Humps IS dumb. It was widely panned, and people point to it as the moment where you could see Black Eyed Peas hit and then slide past the peak of their popularity. It is a terrible song and should be laughed at. The fact that it's Alanis doing the cover, who normally presents her music as very dark and serious, is doubly funny. It's not like this is the province of only white people laughing at "black" music. You could tear apart the entirety of shitty country and western music in about 2 minutes with a parody cover medley.

 

I didn't explain it well. James explains it better here.

 

it occurred that what you might mean is that the problem is that people are selectively choosing to cover frivolous black songs in a more serious white style, implying that white music is more serious and that black lyrics are absurd in any other context. The latter is something I could potentially get behind; the former seems incredibly patronizing to black people.

 

But also, and this is different and separate (mostly) from the racial angle, there is the idea that pop or dance music is inherently lesser than country music or folk music. That because it isn't "intelligent" (as if that was a necessary or even desirable attribute for dance music) it isn't as good.

 

I'm coming from a place of being a fan of rap music and having to constantly wade through bullshit about authenticity where people pretend that "rap" and "hip-hop" are two different music genres, one for smart people and one for dumb people. As if all rappers who are "socially conscious" are inherently better musicians than rappers who are "not socially conscious". Scare quotes because gangster rap often has way more to say about poverty and race than your average Common or Talib Kweli record.

 

I'm getting a lot of different ideas muddled because I'm sort of tying together a lot of disparate thoughts I have that are only loosely related to each other, and to the main topic. So, apologies all around.

[miffy495]

I was at work all day, so coming back to see two new pages of this thread is intimidating as hell. The conversation seems to have moved on, but I'll just say that James pretty much nailed what I mean by "intrinsic" versus "authentic" (not really a surprise, seeing as we both come from undergraduate programs where this is the thing you talk about). "Authentic" is a word that is meaningless to me, largely for reasons that have been discussed. It is an overused term that is entirely subjective that people want to treat as objective. Much like "art", authentic is up to whoever is saying it and could mean something different to every other person.

 

Intrinsic is a very different matter. Something that is red will be red independent of an observer.* It's redness is just a part of what it is. Red is, to it, an intrinsic quality. If it were blue, we would be talking not about this object, but about the blue version of this object. It is now a different thing. let's say I place this object (let's just say it's a red ball or something) in a glass case for hundreds of years. I attempt to promote it as a thing to come and look at. The ball does not change based on my success or failure. Further, if the popularity of the ball fluctuates over time, the ball itself would remain unchanged. One decade people are all about coming to see my red ball, the next people regard it as inane and the pleasures of a simpler time, then another decade later the ball gets a cult following as retro-cool and interest picks back up, finally reaching a point where Family Guy decides they'll be really clever by basing an episode around my ball (man, the temptation to add an "s" to that last one was really big) and society at large is reminded that my ball exists and there is a sudden resurgence in its popularity. By your thesis, every single one of these events would fundamentally change the qualities of my ball, which has been sitting alone for about 50 years at this point in a sealed glass box. If the ball is unchanged, then popularity must be an extrinsic quality, something projected onto an object by an observer that the object itself happily exists independently of.

 

That's not to say that an argument couldn't be made that the change in popularity does in fact change what the ball fundamentally is, and that each time the ball's popularity changes the previous (more or less popular) ball ceases to exist and a new one comes into being. To be convinced by that however, you would have to subscribe to a radically different theory of meta-physics than I do. If that is the case, then I will shake your hand and we can agree that we have different views on what maintains a continuity of identity over a period of time. Hopefully you are more clear on what I believe now though.

 

 

 

 

*this is still debatable in a way, but let's just try to agree conceptually for the sake of argument that whether or not someone is looking at it, it would at least absorb light in such a way that an eye would see what is left upon looking at it as a colour that the brain that this eye is connected to would recognize as "red". If you still have a problem with "red" as an intrinsic quality, mentally substitute something less debatable like "is capable of absorbing light".

[clyde]

This Frontline documentary seems relevant to the general conversation here.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365181302/

 

...but I'm not sure how.

[Chris]

This thread makes me hate hipsters, and non-hipsters, and everyone