Obviously, the reason things have been so quiet around here is that we have been so deeply immersed in this Dissensus thread that we have barely been able to come up for air. It's all so difficult: am I a popist? a rockist? a deleuzian? a lacanian? (It's like the Mafia don said in "Prizzi's Honour": "Do I ice her? Do I marry her? Dese tings.")
It all started off so nice; so simple: "What is good about pop music?", asked Matt Ingram, and before too long cultural theorists, obscure philosophers, even poor old Bryan Ferry, were being flung over the battlements at a furious rate. It may be fun to watch. But what's it all about? If being a "popist" means liking whatever may be "popular" at a particular moment, well, I can't see too much future in that. But to the extent that being a "rockist" carries with it some subtle (or not so subtle) element of anti-popism, i.e. disliking something because it's popular, well, there's something a bit screwy there, too.
The correct answer, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. Popular is not everything. But it is also not a bad thing. It just is. The charts have always been fun to watch, because you just never know what might sneak in there ("Wuthering Heights", anyone? "O Superman"?). But, if you're a serious listener/consumer of music, they're not particularly relevant. And what about those poor, sad old "rockists"? They surely can't be having that much fun, forced to categorise every piece of music according to some complex personal "auter" theory, and having to throw out their favourite records in the face of overwhelming public approval. Be aware of what's going on around you, sure, but don't take it too seriously. Carpe Diem!
