Simon Reynolds goes on and on and on with the Greil Marcus thing. Only, it's not so much a Greil Marcus thing anymore as it is a Carl Wilson thing. Is it possible that it's really a Celine Dion thing? After all this boo hoo hoo about the worthlessness of her music, it seems a bit ironic that she serves as a catalyst for such incredibly absorbing and intelligent thoughts.
Reynolds seems to be contradicting hiimself in matters of form. He criticizes Simon Frith and the entire school of Cultural Studies while simultaneously making grand associations between anti-rockism and Communism. That's a major simplification, but on principle it seems like a bit of a stretch. Additionally, is it really applicable for him to be playing McCarthy here?
He writes, "Anti-rockism thinks it is valiantly resisting “the taste police”; actually what it is actually doing is encouraging people to internalise a kind of “value police”, a inner tribunal in which any immediate or visceral response is warily inspected, any judgement to be endlessly qualified, situated/self-relativized, or simply deferred." I see his point in an abstract sense. but Wilson's writing on the topic is anything but "deferred"; on the contrary, his passion and curiosity – maybe his passion for curiosity – speak for themselves. I am not sure what Reynolds is getting at here other than really, really going into depth about how much he hates Celine Dion. Which Wilson, probably more than most of us, can understand. So what are we really arguing about? I've lost sight.
Is anyone else paying attention to this? I think the conversation is begging for new input.