"Blastitude" is a word coined by Angus MacLise, original drummer of the Velvet Underground and quite possibly the coolest hippie of all time. (cf. track four of his posthumous CD release The Invasion of Thunderbolt Pagoda, released by Siltbreeze/Quakebasket. Click HERE for immediate cf'ing.)

(or click on Angus)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Hello,
I agree with your estimate of "Vixens" - it wasn't really meant for anyone (save Joel, of course, and the odd follower of things Spite-ful); strictly odds and sods, errors and sublimations to cruel (or indifferent) fate. Each of its selections evokes a particularly sapid moment... For me, at least! I enjoy bootleg live recordings, especially those within the B- to D+ parameter. Thus, my insistence on using less sophisticated gear. In the studio, of course, it's a rather different story. Contrasts...

Attached please find a photo (snapped today) of the offending producer/moaning frontman and his stereo cassette recorder (both solid, but rather long in tooth).

Yours,
OM

Hello, Larry.

I just became aware of Blastitude a little while ago, but would nevertheless like to offer a tardy response to your "Big Shit About Meltzer" article. First off, I could, of course, not help but wonder why you felt that your adjunct comment pointing out that my letter to you was not written in a Meltzerian style was necessary. My assumption (and please correct me if I am wrong) was that you found my criticisms of Meltzer to be no fun. I believe in those criticisms, however. I see two main issues that I have with Meltzer's more recent writings. The first is that his general focus is often just to complain about shit. There are some good moments in that "Of Peep Shows and Piano Bars" piece, but I'll tell you, living in San Diego, there were better pieces of that sort in The San Diego Reader (my favorite being "Too Carlsbad for Words," which I guess wasn't about music so that's why it wasn't in the book). A piece like that seemed like a nice development of the Gulcher context, documenting the process of Meltzer going somewhere and doing some random thing. Let's keep in mind, though, the original "post-rock cultural pluralism" context of Gulcher. Those writings were done in a high-spirited, "total awareness freak" context wherein Meltzer was inspired, indeed in a sort of state of blissful awe, at the notion of going out and doing anything at all. By the time of the "F**k My Childhood" piece that's in the new book, notice how this context has become something that he now complains about. The randomness of his exploration of Classical music documented in that piece and others from that time is no longer fun. It makes him feel like an "old geezer," a stamp collector (ironic, really, given that the piece about bottlecap collecting is perhaps my favorite in Gulcher). He compares it to an extra-credit school assignment. By saying that Meltzer is repeating himself, I meant primarily that this writing context has persisted now for thirty years and has outlived his inspiration. The guy is no longer an inspired total awareness freak.

I also do not agree with some of the comments you make about The Aesthetics of Rock. You say that in his old rock writings "the end result doesn't end up making much sense but that's Meltzer's point all along, because how rock works is indescribable." I must ask why one writes about music if it is indescribable. If a thing is indescribable, it would seemingly follow that the thing must have some metaphysical properties. I would argue, however, that music is indeed a thing of the real world (sound waves) that functions semiotically in what I believe to be a number of different ways. You would have to point out to me what it is exactly about music that cannot be described.

Meltzer's partial decision to turn the Aesthetics of Rock project into what you accurately describe as concrete poetry was, in one sense, a merely convenient way out of the real task.

Tim Ellison

P. S. I have a website for MRM now at http://home.earthlink.net/
~timejeanneb

Hi Tim,

Good to hear from you, although I have gone back and read the Meltzer piece and, while my comments were in no small part meant to give you a hello and conspiratorial wink, I do regret what seems to be a strange snideness in my tone. Your writing in MRM has always made me think of Meltzer, hence I said that you write "a hell of a lot like Meltzer," which is certainly not giving the whole story on your talents. The oblique comment about your letter not being written "like Meltzer" unfortunately included you in a criticism that I was (supposed to be) directing at myself: why are some writings I do more indebted to Meltzer than others? In other words, I was a bit interested in the fact that we both can be caught "doing a Meltzer." It was weird for me to refer to it like I did, but then I’m a weird guy and I intend to create a weird zine so it goes with the territory. As for the snideness, I find that to be a side-effect from my pseudo-punk heritage, which is steadily becoming more unwanted and outdated as I strive to age a little more gracefully. In the course of giving my piece some much-needed revision, I feel like I should remove my aside about your letter-writing style, as I’ve always enjoyed your zine and your correspondence.

I think you’re right, my oblique comment was a response to your criticisms; I didn’t think they were fun, because I didn’t agree with them. Now, just eight months later, I’m more inclined to, due to continued reading of and reflecting on Whore Just Like The Rest, and to the reinstatement of your opinion. However initially justified Meltzer’s crankiness may be, it eventually (especially in "Vinyl Reckoning") reaches a level that could almost be described as pathological. Did you see Christgau’s rebuttal in the Village Voice? I read that, and then Meltzer’s response somewhere on the web, and it was the first (and still only) time in my life I found myself leaning towards Christgau’s take on things. (Even though I still find 90% -- the part where he's not ranting about Christgau and Marcus -- of "Vinyl Reckoning" to be intensely good.)

Either way, I do not feel that "Big Shit About Meltzer," an experiment in describing Meltzer by appropriating his style (including, alas, some of its crankiness), was an entirely successful piece – hell, maybe only about 30% successful – and your criticisms of it are accurate and appreciated. Good point about sound waves being a thing that exists on the real world and therefore describable – however, not being a semiotician, I still think there’s something ineffable, and maybe even metaphysical, about the way certain sound waves add up to music and subsequently effect their various settings. For me, it’s the way the same song or piece (or certain group of lyrics and/or sounds within a song or piece) can pass by me unnoticed in one setting, and then change my life in another. Yes, the basic ingredients and context of the piece can always be described, but the feeling created in the mind/soul/spirit of the listener is what I find potentially indescribable. I think that Meltzer ran into the "concrete poetry" dead end because, however valiantly, he tried to describe the FEELING the music causes rather than the music itself. Being a "total awareness freak" (good use of his phrase; it sums up his approach better than my whole essay), he had some success, but (other than Gulcher, which again was barely about music) not in any real sustained book-length way; after all, he’s somewhat of a failed semiotician himself (he didn’t finish grad school, anyway). Even as a failed project, Aesthetics of Rock is fun and inspiring, but you’re right, music can be described better. Thanks again for reminding us of "the real task."

From Tim's response:
I actually took a class on semiotics this year. It was more brutally painful than anything, but it at least got me thinking about how music does function semiotically. My basic sense of it is that, at least in western cultures, it generally functions as a symbol of something. I was arguing in the seminar that music often functions as a symbol of space. In other words, it is perceived as a type of space, and when you listen to it, you are in that space. The emotion that you feel, then, is relative to how you conceive of that space. There are a lot of different factors that go into this, but that's the basic premise. I would offer to email you my term paper from that class, but I think it needs some revision. Part of it is on the semiotic functioning of sad music. I argue that it functions symbolically in a different way, representing appearance, disappearance, and (consequently) loss.

I wonder how much of The Aesthetics of Rock is about feelings provoked by music and how much is about the music itself. I think it's actually more of the latter, no?

You're welcome to include any correspondence in Blastitude.

Tim

editor, designer, collater, curator, writer: Larry "Fuzz-O" Dolman
"Inklings and Musings" by BradSonder
"Only Seat in the House" by Christopher Dean Heine
"Koko" by Jack Jackson
Portrait of Brad Sonder by Michael French



BLASTITUDE #8 © 2001
Published by Tiny Press