Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[Catman]

In a recent MTV interview, Sway asks Bono about Kanye West, who he praises as being at the epicenter of culture, or something to that effect. By that, he means that Kanye understands the culture that's going on around him, in all aspects, from music to art to fashion to film, etc., and this keeps him ahead of the curve compared to his contemporaries. At least, that was my interpretation.

I think 90's U2 had this understanding about the culture around them, and they've lost that in the last decade. I remember reading that before Achtung Baby, Edge was listening to a lot of NIN, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Jane's Addiction, etc., which at the time, were underground, avant-garde groups. And Bono was huge into Public Enemy, at a time when rap still wasn't mainstream, save for Run DMC and the Beastie Boys. In fact, he saw hip-hop and electronica as the future, at a time when grunge ruled, calling grunge bands something like "60s-inspired" bands because he saw them as a step back instead of a step forward. Talk about being ahead of the curve!

My point is, I think 90s U2 was in tune with what was going on around them, not just in the pop landscape, but in the alternative-indie realm and beyond, and they had an inherent desire to stay ahead of the curve. This informed their music and made it rich and interesting. I think they've lost this awareness now. They're not really as in tune with the cultural landscape as they used to be, and probably don't care to be. I mean, the fact that they cite Kings of Leon, Coldplay and the Killers as their contemporaries shows this. These bands may have ambition, but I don't think they're the bands that are truly breaking new ground.

I'm not saying that all indie music is great, a lot of it is shit, but for the band to have an awareness of it and compete with it important, rather than complain about how it's in the ghetto. For example, if Animal Collective or Deerhunter is what everybody's on about, then U2 should be citing them as contemporaries and taking notice.

Sooooooooo, basically... u2 should get arty again.

Quite an excellent point. I like you.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I might be giving Bono too much credit – he does say quite a lot of stupefying things these days – but I’m pretty sure you can see a smarter (more calculated) pattern to which acts he namechecks and where he does so. Kanye West and Jay Z on MTV, Killers and Coldplay to Rolling Stone, Arcade Fire and Interpol to Q. He might just be keenly aware of the markets he’s talking to and trying to win over. I remember years ago now him shitting on about Peaches in an interview with someone/some site that was fairly obscure and it really, really surprised me because I hadn’t heard him talk up anyone smaller than an arena in ages, and that was likely well before the Bomb and I don’t think I’ve heard him do it since. So maybe he has lost touch a bit and can’t see beyond the massive mainstream, but it’s highly possible too that he is just too calculating in his sales push and we all just need to hear what he’d say to Pitchfork (which would be a fun interview I’m sure) or whoever on a smaller or more indie scale. Or someone steal his iPod.

He’d surely hear all this stuff. No doubt he’s heard the Animal Collective album etc, probably ahead of most people in here. They still spend most of their lives around music people, so I’m sure the topic of music comes up from time to time. It would be near impossible for him not to be on probably the very frontline of awareness. It would just be about what he thinks of it, whether his judgement is off in older age or whatever. Or if he just doesn't care, if what the front lines are doing doesn't interest him anymore in regards to what it means for U2.

They probably are genuinely excited about what they see in the mainstream. It’s understandable. Big ambitious acts creating big ambitious stadium music. You can see why that is obviously very attractive to them, has them chuffed. This is their game. They wrote the playbook. Bono has been more naked in his praise of himself and U2 lately too. He’s started namechecking the Beatles a lot more lately – and not in a musical sense - which is more worrying than namechecking Coldplay or whoever. That they’ve somehow kept ego in check – particularly his, against all amazing odds – is probably the deciding factor in their career lasting so long and being so progressive most of the way through it all. Always a sense of being behind and chasing, not being way out ahead of the pack, smugly looking back. If they see everything as being in their shadow, that’s obviously a much, much bigger problem than just a slight maybe age/comfortable position-related adjustment in perspective on what is innovative/dull on the music scene.

If they have or are starting to reach that point, (and, without wanting to attract howls from the ‘can do no wrong’ crowd and thus derail the thread, I think there definitely is a new smugness to Bono on this promo cycle) then they’re much closer to tumbling than ever before. Even if this album is great.

 

[Dalton]

Or someone steal his iPod.

This is the best idea I've seen on interference since someone in EYKIW suggested a mass suicide.

 

[mikal]

I might be giving Bono too much credit – he does say quite a lot of stupefying things these days – but I’m pretty sure you can see a smarter (more calculated) pattern to which acts he namechecks and where he does so. Kanye West and Jay Z on MTV, Killers and Coldplay to Rolling Stone, Arcade Fire and Interpol to Q. He might just be keenly aware of the markets he’s talking to and trying to win over. I remember years ago now him shitting on about Peaches in an interview with someone/some site that was fairly obscure and it really, really surprised me because I hadn’t heard him talk up anyone smaller than an arena in ages, and that was likely well before the Bomb and I don’t think I’ve heard him do it since. So maybe he has lost touch a bit and can’t see beyond the massive mainstream, but it’s highly possible too that he is just too calculating in his sales push and we all just need to hear what he’d say to Pitchfork (which would be a fun interview I’m sure) or whoever on a smaller or more indie scale. Or someone steal his iPod.

He’d surely hear all this stuff. No doubt he’s heard the Animal Collective album etc, probably ahead of most people in here. They still spend most of their lives around music people, so I’m sure the topic of music comes up from time to time. It would be near impossible for him not to be on probably the very frontline of awareness. It would just be about what he thinks of it, whether his judgement is off in older age or whatever. Or if he just doesn't care, if what the front lines are doing doesn't interest him anymore in regards to what it means for U2.

They probably are genuinely excited about what they see in the mainstream. It’s understandable. Big ambitious acts creating big ambitious stadium music. You can see why that is obviously very attractive to them, has them chuffed. This is their game. They wrote the playbook. Bono has been more naked in his praise of himself and U2 lately too. He’s started namechecking the Beatles a lot more lately – and not in a musical sense - which is more worrying than namechecking Coldplay or whoever. That they’ve somehow kept ego in check – particularly his, against all amazing odds – is probably the deciding factor in their career lasting so long and being so progressive most of the way through it all. Always a sense of being behind and chasing, not being way out ahead of the pack, smugly looking back. If they see everything as being in their shadow, that’s obviously a much, much bigger problem than just a slight maybe age/comfortable position-related adjustment in perspective on what is innovative/dull on the music scene.

If they have or are starting to reach that point, (and, without wanting to attract howls from the ‘can do no wrong’ crowd and thus derail the thread, I think there definitely is a new smugness to Bono on this promo cycle) then they’re much closer to tumbling than ever before. Even if this album is great.

great stuff.

 

[rihannsu]

I don't think U2 has lost touch with the underground scene but they don't claim them as contemporaries because U2 have never really been a part of that scene from as far back as War and when they were they were kicking and screaming to get out into the bigtime. U2 are mainstream artists. Always have been and always will be. Trying to shove them into the indie/experimental/cult band box won't work because that's not what they want. They appreciate the hell out of the bands that are on the fringes but they name as contemporaries other mainstream artists, as well they should. Experimental for U2 is doing things that other mainstream artists aren't or haven't done. They keep their eye on what is going on at the fringes but they extend the hand to those bands that want to join in the big show. Look back at the bands they've had for support on their tours. They always try to get the ones who are just coming up. Or like when Oasis was big in Europe but not so much America U2 had them as support in the US. U2 is mainstream but always slightly out of step with it or often slightly ahead of it. Mainstream has often followed U2 so that a couple of years later you could think an album was just like everything else out there but it was actually pretty different at the time it was released.

Dana

 

[ozeeko]

U2 were never mainstream until the JT. Let's all stop rewriting history to suit our arguments, as if U2 have been the same damn thing all along. They changed a lot over the course of their career. Hell, they were practically an underground band again after the POP tour. The fact that BD put them way up top again was pretty amazing, in my opinion. They were lucky. But that's the point, they've seen what can happen when they subscribe to the "we can do no wrong" ethic, fucking with their sound and seeing how strange they can make the radio (i'm talking Zooropa thru POP). It seems that now they have no intention of going back to those days of what they consider "failure", and are all too determined to stay at the top of the charts, even if that means compromising their artistic impulses. If i can get one new U2 album without any Savior songs, i will be quite happy.

 

[Hemlock]

I love this:

Eno fought hard to keep the band from messing too much with the original track. "These fucking guys," he says with a smile, "they're supposed to be so spiritual - they don't spot a miracle when it hits them in the face. Nothing like that ever happened to me in the studio in my whole life."

 

[chocky]

Elvis Presley And America is probably the most experimental thing they've ever done.

EP&A and Boomerang II are two great experimental tracks. Wish there was more of that side of U2.

 

[Salome]

U2 were never mainstream until the JT. Let's all stop rewriting history to suit our arguments, as if U2 have been the same damn thing all along.

I don't think anyone would claim U2 has stayed the same through their entire career
I also wouldn't claim that U2 weren't mainstream until Joshua Tree
I would claim that they always wanted to be mainstream
it's not that they weren't mainstream because they didn't want to, but because the mainstream and U2 didn't connect yet

personally I think the band is actually making the music they want to make
they're incorporating everything they like and what they've mastered

 

[BigMacPhisto]

He’d surely hear all this stuff. No doubt he’s heard the Animal Collective album etc, probably ahead of most people in here.

What makes you think he's heard an album that you'd only know about from reading reviews? Do you really think Bono sits around surfing the web for well reviewed albums?

I'm sorry, but if this band had heard the new Animal Collective or Deerhoof or whateverthefuck, I don't think they'd be listing crap like Kings of Leon as their contemporaries. U2 just isn't paying attention to the underground scene. Bono did say in an interview that they're often "shocked" by what the indie scene is coming up with when they watch MTV2 (Europe)...he did sound impressed, but it also clearly gave the impression that he hadn't been exposed to the music until seeing the videos.

Basically, my point is that to keep up with modern music and the fact that nearly all the great stuff is coming from the underground, you have to read reviews as it's rarely set right in front of your face. Do I really think Bono should be wasting his life trying to get a leaked copy of the new Decemberists album when he has a corporate representative or politician to meet that can help him save millions of lives? Of course not. I'm just saying that U2 really isn't up to date with what's out there and their recent choice of tour openers reflect this.

 

[BVS]

What makes you think he's heard an album that you'd only know about from reading reviews? Do you really think Bono sits around surfing the web for well reviewed albums?

I'm sorry, but if this band had heard the new Animal Collective or Deerhoof or whateverthefuck, I don't think they'd be listing crap like Kings of Leon as their contemporaries. U2 just isn't paying attention to the underground scene. Bono did say in an interview that they're often "shocked" by what the indie scene is coming up with when they watch MTV2 (Europe)...he did sound impressed, but it also clearly gave the impression that he hadn't been exposed to the music until seeing the videos.

Basically, my point is that to keep up with modern music and the fact that nearly all the great stuff is coming from the underground, you have to read reviews as it's rarely set right in front of your face. Do I really think Bono should be wasting his life trying to get a leaked copy of the new Decemberists album when he has a corporate representative or politician to meet that can help him save millions of lives? Of course not. I'm just saying that U2 really isn't up to date with what's out there and their recent choice of tour openers reflect this.

I doubt Bono spends a lot of time reading reviews or watching videos. But do you honestly think Bono has to find his new music by searching MySpace? He hangs around other musicians and is in the industry, he's flooded with talk about what's new, good, he's handed sampler CDs, etc... He's probably heard of most before any of us...

 

[bram]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but U2 have namechecked the Fleet Foxes a lot in recent articles. It's a good counterexample to many of the points being made about "current U2"--of them being unaware of what's going on in the indie scene, etc.

 

[ozeeko]

I don't think anyone would claim U2 has stayed the same through their entire career
I also wouldn't claim that U2 weren't mainstream until Joshua Tree
I would claim that they always wanted to be mainstream
it's not that they weren't mainstream because they didn't want to, but because the mainstream and U2 didn't connect yet

personally I think the band is actually making the music they want to make
they're incorporating everything they like and what they've mastered

Mainstream isn't a sound. It's what the masses are listening to. It's the popular music. I don't think U2 ever wanted to be mainstream, i think they wanted to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. There's a big difference. Anyone who just wants to be mainstream is going about it in the wrong way, because that means you'll just do anything to stay relevant, instead of fucking up the mainstream and having the mainstream come to you. The Joshua Tree wasn't an obvious mainstream album in 1987 because the sound of mainstream was pretty much electro-pop and hair metal, just like in the early 90's the mainstream sound was grunge.

 

[Irvine511]

Mainstream isn't a sound. It's what the masses are listening to. It's the popular music. I don't think U2 ever wanted to be mainstream, i think they wanted to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. There's a big difference. Anyone who just wants to be mainstream is going about it in the wrong way, because that means you'll just do anything to stay relevant, instead of fucking up the mainstream and having the mainstream come to you. The Joshua Tree wasn't an obvious mainstream album in 1987 because the sound of mainstream was pretty much electro-pop and hair metal, just like in the early 90's the mainstream sound was grunge.

you're confusing "mainstream" with "popular."

 

[ozeeko]

you're confusing "mainstream" with "popular."

They're pretty much the same thing. What's popular in current music is the mainstream, if it isn't the mainstream then it's the underground.

 

[revolver]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but U2 have namechecked the Fleet Foxes a lot in recent articles. It's a good counterexample to many of the points being made about "current U2"--of them being unaware of what's going on in the indie scene, etc.

Good point. But on a personal note I'd just like to say that while I find Fleet Foxes to be a great album and excellent band whose music I can feel history flowing through, I think they're a bunch of self-important wusses and the type of underground thing that is easy for the overground to grasp, as opposed to Animal Collectives and Deerhunters. I know a few people who don't get "in" much and they still know the Fleet Foxes; they appear to me to be the new popular college band, if that makes sense, one that a lot of people know and love even if they know few other bands in the underground sphere. This is simply my experience with the band, and it doesn't surprise me that Bono is referencing them out of all the indie bands he could be referencing. Don't get me wrong, I think they're great. I think the album and the EP are great. But I'm not surprised Bono's talking about them given my opinion of their trendy (yet timeless) nature.

 

[Irvine511]

They're pretty much the same thing. What's popular in current music is the mainstream, if it isn't the mainstream then it's the underground.

no, that's a simplistic bifurcation.

mainstream implies middlebrow -- that it's intended for the broadest audience possible and intended to maximize it's likeableness while minimizing it's offensiveness. it's by definition bland, and it appeals to the lowest common denominator. that doesn't make it low-brow, it just makes it safe and also conservative. it by definition is a sound

popular is just that -- popular. lots of people listen to it. it wasn't necessarily intended for the mainstream, nor was it necessarily intended for mass consumption, but something about it caught hold with the masses and many people chose to consume the product.

you're conflating the two when they are in fact very different things.

the "O Brother" soundtrack wasn't mainstream at all, but it was very popular. same thing with The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. those are good examples as you've pointed out of things that don't reflect the values of the mainstream, yet were both incredibly popular. a film like "Slumdog" isn't very mainstream, but it sure is popular and won lots of awards. and sometimes, the lack of appeal to the mainstream is what makes something so popular.

the mistake that a lot of indie kids make is to think that popular = mainstream, and that's just a self-serving attitude that denigrates other people while elevating yourself in your own estimation.

 

[ozeeko]

no, that's a simplistic bifurcation.

mainstream implies middlebrow -- that it's intended for the broadest audience possible and intended to maximize it's likeableness while minimizing it's offensiveness. it's by definition bland, and it appeals to the lowest common denominator. that doesn't make it low-brow, it just makes it safe and also conservative. it by definition is a sound

popular is just that -- popular. lots of people listen to it. it wasn't necessarily intended for the mainstream, nor was it necessarily intended for mass consumption, but something about it caught hold with the masses and many people chose to consume the product.

you're conflating the two when they are in fact very different things.

the "O Brother" soundtrack wasn't mainstream at all, but it was very popular. same thing with The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. those are good examples as you've pointed out of things that don't reflect the values of the mainstream, yet were both incredibly popular. a film like "Slumdog" isn't very mainstream, but it sure is popular and won lots of awards. and sometimes, the lack of appeal to the mainstream is what makes something so popular.

the mistake that a lot of indie kids make is to think that popular = mainstream, and that's just a self-serving attitude that denigrates other people while elevating yourself in your own estimation.

I see what you're saying.

So, what is the argument with U2 then? Are we arguing that they always wanted to be mainstream (likeable and nonthreatening and inoffensive, bland and appealing to the lowest common denominator) or did they always want to be popular (something that doesn't necessarily have to be mainstream, can be a success despite not being necessarily mainstream)?

I would argue for: they always wanted to be popular, not mainstream.

 

[revolver]

a film like "Slumdog" isn't very mainstream, but it sure is popular and won lots of awards. and sometimes, the lack of appeal to the mainstream is what makes something so popular.

I understand your distinction and respect it. But I have a thingie to say.

Slumdog is an excellent example to make...especially if you want to open a can of worms. As you put, it isn't "very mainstream", but damn if it still ends up the exact sentiment of the mainstream. It may not have been made with this sentiment in mind, and it is certainly "to the left" of most feel-good pictures, but it ended up that way regardless. In most cases these are the kind of non-mainstream entertainments that cross-over - those that border on manipulative sentimentality. Which kind of does make them middlebrow anyway.

 

[doctorwho]

I see what you're saying.

So, what is the argument with U2 then? Are we arguing that they always wanted to be mainstream (likeable and nonthreatening and inoffensive, bland and appealing to the lowest common denominator) or did they always want to be popular (something that doesn't necessarily have to be mainstream, can be a success despite not being necessarily mainstream)?

I would argue for: they always wanted to be popular, not mainstream.

I'm joining in late, but I agree with this sentiment.

Even when one looks at ATYCLB - perhaps U2's "safest" album, it still stood out compared to the music released at the time. That is, it wasn't mainstream at all.

I still recall an article where Edge's daughter stated how HTDAAB sounded like nothing on radio at the time. Again, a popular album, but hardly mainstream.

So even when U2 are not as, shall we say, "experimental" as they have been in the past, their music still stands apart. In an age of Culture Club and Wham, we had "War" and UF. In an age of Bon Jovi and Michael Jackson, we had JT. In an age of hard-rock grunge, we had AB and "Zooropa". In an age of Spice Girls, we had "Pop". In an age of boy bands, we had ATYCLB. In an age of R&B/Rap, we had HTDAAB. And NLOTH is one of U2's least accessible albums in ages!

It seems U2 became popular because they went against the mainstream. Ergo, Bono's famous comment from the '94 Grammy Awards remains true.

 

[Irvine511]

I see what you're saying.

So, what is the argument with U2 then? Are we arguing that they always wanted to be mainstream (likeable and nonthreatening and inoffensive, bland and appealing to the lowest common denominator) or did they always want to be popular (something that doesn't necessarily have to be mainstream, can be a success despite not being necessarily mainstream)?

I would argue for: they always wanted to be popular, not mainstream.

there isn't much of an argument with U2. i was just pointing out that you misunderstood the two terms.

the other thing i could argue is that sometimes mainstream things can be appreciated on their own terms and can be every bit as brilliant as something that isn't at all mainstream, at least in terms of it's construction.

take the most mainstream movie in history: Titanic. is it big, dumb, weepy, easy, etc.? absolutely. but it's an astonishingly well made movie because it's incredibly effective at both drawing in an audience as well as dramatizing a great big historical event.

 

[Irvine511]

I understand your distinction and respect it. But I have a thingie to say.

Slumdog is an excellent example to make...especially if you want to open a can of worms. As you put, it isn't "very mainstream", but damn if it still ends up the exact sentiment of the mainstream. It may not have been made with this sentiment in mind, and it is certainly "to the left" of most feel-good pictures, but it ended up that way regardless. In most cases these are the kind of non-mainstream entertainments that cross-over - those that border on manipulative sentimentality. Which kind of does make them middlebrow anyway.

when we're talking about "art" in general, there are really only a handful of themes available, and it's been that way since the dawn of Greek drama. remember, all Shakespeare ends with either a funeral or a wedding. you could probably enumerate the themes right here: birth, death, love, loss, coming of age, etc. there's not a whole lot of "new" stuff out there when it comes to thematic material. the human experience remains not all that different than it was 500 years ago.

i think the difference is how well a movie or music or novel or whatever "earns" it's ending -- is the uplift, or the despair, arrived at in an honest manner? does it ring true for the audience?

"Slumdog" is a good one to think about -- for all it's vibrancy and ultra-contemporary visual flair, style, and editing, who is it most compared to?

Dickens. perhaps the Big Bang of contemporary celebrity culture.

 

[revolver]

when we're talking about "art" in general, there are really only a handful of themes available, and it's been that way since the dawn of Greek drama. remember, all Shakespeare ends with either a funeral or a wedding. you could probably enumerate the themes right here: birth, death, love, loss, coming of age, etc. there's not a whole lot of "new" stuff out there when it comes to thematic material. the human experience remains not all that different than it was 500 years ago.

i think the difference is how well a movie or music or novel or whatever "earns" it's ending -- is the uplift, or the despair, arrived at in an honest manner? does it ring true for the audience?

"Slumdog" is a good one to think about -- for all it's vibrancy and ultra-contemporary visual flair, style, and editing, who is it most compared to?

Dickens. perhaps the Big Bang of contemporary celebrity culture.

I prefer to think in a more positive manner than your first paragraph, no matter how true it is; you've spoken a cliche, which means its true yet also is there to be busted wide open. Thus, I found no less than 20 (I'd rather not name the exact number) films to earn their endings more than Slumdog in 2008. No less than 20 films that were more complex and less structured.

As you put it, a film has to earn it. Slumdog, for all the acclaim on metacritic and in the mainstream press, failed to impress alt-critics. There's a reason for this. Because, generally speaking, no film of Slumdog's Dickens-esque rags to riches story with that much mainstream pap could achieve mainstream success without being exactly the way it is.

There's plenty out there that deal with the pitfalls of having so few themes and stories to tell that succeed at a higher level - philosophically, emotionally, etc. - than Slumdog. Slumdog is successful in the mainstream because it revels in the cliches of there being only a "handful of themes available."

 

[Irvine511]

I prefer to think in a more positive manner than your first paragraph, no matter how true it is; you've spoken a cliche, which means its true yet also is there to be busted wide open. Thus, I found no less than 20 (I'd rather not name the exact number) films to earn their endings more than Slumdog in 2008. No less than 20 films that were more complex and less structured.

As you put it, a film has to earn it. Slumdog, for all the acclaim on metacritic and in the mainstream press, failed to impress alt-critics. There's a reason for this. Because, generally speaking, no film of Slumdog's Dickens-esque rags to riches story with that much mainstream pap could achieve mainstream success without being exactly the way it is.

There's plenty out there that deal with the pitfalls of having so few themes and stories to tell that succeed at a higher level - philosophically, emotionally, etc. - than Slumdog. Slumdog is successful in the mainstream because it revels in the cliches of there being only a "handful of themes available."

i would take your critiques a lot more seriously if you could offer something other than an unshakable faith in "alt-critics" (i.e., Pitchfork) as a reason why you've arrived at whatever conclusions you have. i'm not sure why someone gets automatic credibility because they don't write for Time or Newsweek or the Washington Post.

you have every right to your conclusions and opinions, but it's difficult for me, as an occasional reader of this thread, to find much thought and evidence behind them beyond a trust in mistrusting that which is popular.

i would argue, with Slumdog, that while it might not "earn" it's ending, it certainly earns it's joy, which comes from a whole lot more than just the fact that he gets the last question right.

 

[revolver]

i would take your critiques a lot more seriously if you could offer something other than an unshakable faith in "alt-critics" (i.e., Pitchfork) as a reason why you've arrived at whatever conclusions you have. i'm not sure why someone gets automatic credibility because they don't write for Time or Newsweek or the Washington Post.

you have every right to your conclusions and opinions, but it's difficult for me, as an occasional reader of this thread, to find much thought and evidence behind them beyond a trust in mistrusting that which is popular.

i would argue, with Slumdog, that while it might not "earn" it's ending, it certainly earns it's joy, which comes from a whole lot more than just the fact that he gets the last question right.

I didn't say anything about an unshakeable trust in alt-critics here - I merely said I think there's a reason why somebody like, say, J Hoberman, would give the film 1 star. And then one could think of reasons why and come to logical conclusions.

Yes, I do have a faith in alt-critics, but I didn't mention it here. I think you have a cynical nature toward them which leads you to believe that their thoughts and opinions stem from a mistrust in which is popular. And thus that my thoughts do as well. They don't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Irvine511]

I didn't say anything about an unshakeable trust in alt-critics here - I merely said I think there's a reason why somebody like, say, J Hoberman, would give the film 1 star. And then one could think of reasons why and come to logical conclusions.

Yes, I do have a faith in alt-critics, but I didn't mention it here. I think you have a cynical nature toward them which leads you to believe that their thoughts and opinions stem from a mistrust in which is popular. And thus that my thoughts do as well. They don't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

you see?

 

[revolver]

i would take your critiques a lot more seriously if you could offer something other than an unshakable faith in "alt-critics" (i.e., Pitchfork) as a reason why you've arrived at whatever conclusions you have. i'm not sure why someone gets automatic credibility because they don't write for Time or Newsweek or the Washington Post.

you have every right to your conclusions and opinions, but it's difficult for me, as an occasional reader of this thread, to find much thought and evidence behind them beyond a trust in mistrusting that which is popular.

i would argue, with Slumdog, that while it might not "earn" it's ending, it certainly earns it's joy, which comes from a whole lot more than just the fact that he gets the last question right.

And by the way I love David Ansen - he didn't have Slumdog in his top ten!

And I have great respect for Corliss and Schickel - you're taking a few statements of mine and turning them into a mountain.

 

[revolver]

you see?

Ummm. No.

By the by, I don't want to let this slip, nor do I want it to turn into anything else. But I've given plenty of reasons behind my critiques on this board. I've given my own reasons countless times, and that is why I said I believe you had a cynical nature toward certain critics, since you were ignoring my personal reasons and focusing on the two or three times I mentioned Pitchfork. I think that's unfair, and I would hope that you would realize that by looking back at my posts. Thanks.

 

[Irvine511]

And by the way I love David Ansen - he didn't have Slumdog in his top ten!

And I have great respect for Corliss and Schickel - you're taking a few statements of mine and turning them into a mountain.

first, you're still basing your opinions on other critics, "alt-" or not. i read a great many movie critics and i enjoy their opinions and i find many of them challenging, but the point is to read the critics critically. you pointed towards the fact that "many" of the "alt-" critics -- alt-critics who use a star rating system, no less -- didn't like "Slumdog" as proof that it's "mainstream pap."

that's been your evidence.

and that's totally fine. it just doesn't seem to me to be the product of much engagement with the material, it seems to me to be veneration of someone with a certain amount of coolness or anti-mainstream cache, and then shaping your own opinions to reflect whomever it is you've been reading.

thus, it ties directly back into your misunderstanding of "popular" and what is "mainstream" and a rather black-and-white understanding of both, that they're necessarily in opposition to one another, and that "mainstream" is likewise the opposite of "good."

when it comes down to it, i'd even modify my definition of "mainstream" to mean something that reinforces the values of the dominant culture.

and while some things that subvert the dominant culture are very good, something is not by definition good because it subverts the dominant cultural values.

indeed, some of those values are good.

 

[Irvine511]

Ummm. No.

By the by, I don't want to let this slip, nor do I want it to turn into anything else. But I've given plenty of reasons behind my critiques on this board. I've given my own reasons countless times, and that is why I said I believe you had a cynical nature toward certain critics, since you were ignoring my personal reasons and focusing on the two or three times I mentioned Pitchfork. I think that's unfair, and I would hope that you would realize that by looking back at my posts. Thanks.

you asked me not to put words in your mouth, and then you put them in my mouth.

i also have to go now.