Thats sort of my point. The Hipster doesn't really seem to think hip-hop is all that cool either (unless I'm misinterpreting your strawman).
The Hipster, who I'm using by the way to define people who listen to indie and are involved in the culture surrounding such music, ie, 80% or so of the people on this site, because I thought it would be less perjorative than 'indie kid' (There goes my attempt to try and not be offensive), isn't the only person adopting our reality centric post-modern worldview: as I said in my first post, this is the aesthetic of the mainstream. Indie is just a more obscure, more refined, more elitist branch of it. It's also the aesthetic embraced by hip-hop, and most mainstream...electronica? Christ on a trike, I don't know the words for these genres. The 'indie person', let us call him, is a definite category of person, linked by their overlapping cultural tastes, attitudes, aesthetics, value judgements etc. People who watch the same films, but music by the same bands from the same record labels, discuss things on the same internet forums, read the sames websites and zines, go to the same shows, and so on and so forth. There is, like it or not, a definite subculture. Obviously, the group could not possibly be defined by one single archetype, my 'straw man' as you term it (I wouldn't consider it a straw man, because up until now I had not been aware that we had a two-sided argument going, nor was I aware that this archetypal figure was central to my arguments, nor was I aware that I was using this archetype to misrepresent the position of my opponents in this argument. I thought this was a discussion. I agree its a nice strong word to throw around to decredit what I'm saying, but please.) However, the archetype, this 'hipster' represents what I, as an external observer, percieve to be perhaps the middle of the road of this group. Maybe it is the lowest common denominator, and if so I apologise. However, at the end of the day, the figure was just an examplar to explain how my main thesis of differing aesthetic world views, which you have said you agree with, or at least respect, applies to the real world, and how it can affect peoples appreciation of things. Please remember that I am writing all this on the fly on an internet forum. I don't have notes. Still, I believe I am making my best attempt to present my ideas cohesively and discuss them with others who may hold differing opinions.
The response isn't so much laughter as it is a blush. And I'm not sure this doesn't exist to an extent among metal fans. Do you really not chortle at "to that place where cunning lingers"? Even that Sargon the Terrible guy pointed out that the Beowulf dream was pretty stupid (despite also being really awesome).
Again, I only can go on my observations. My observations are not of blushes, but rather people, who I believe to belong to a grouping associated with indie music, observing that my musical tastes are immature, that the artists I listen to are worthless, that there is no artistry in the metal scene, that it is for white trash/white supremacists, and that 'one day I'll grow up and listen to real music'. I could find some examples just from this forum, but I can't be bothered because I don't want to engage in muck-raking.
Actually, I don't chortle at 'That place where cunning lingers' I woop, if anything. It's a great line that perfectly concludes the song, which is fusing sexual imagery with pagan imagery to represent Martins view of paganism as a liberating force that can easily overcame the staid 'virtues' of christianity, whilst having fun at the same time ('Cunning' (originally from a Middle english word meaning 'to know', 'connen', which is why subs have conning towers) or 'The Craft of the Wise' are euphemisms for pagan lore). It's a fucking good song. As for finding metal silly...I can't say that I really do. Maybe it's a form of doublethink. I suppose on one level I know that, say, 'Supersatan', by Cryptic Wintermoon, is pretty silly, but on a much more conscious level I'm also aware that's it's fucking awesome. To be honest, what we think is 'silly' may define this aesthetic quite well. Sargon thinks his dream is silly, but that's, I suspect, at least partly in his own defence, and he pretty much says that, if that's silly, and geeky, then he wants to be a silly geek. I, on the other hand, consider, for example, The Postal Service to be pretty fucking silly. I mean, come on, that vid, with the kitchen appliances, and eating gop out of jars? That's ridiculous. The Decemberists? The Fiery Furnaces?
Deerhoof? To me it all seems very silly, and rather pointless. But then I'll go out and see some insane Coil video which basically just consists of disjointed beats and fragments of Wagner and someone whispering about the death of love and naked men with laurel leave headgear oiling themselves in a thunderstorm or something and think it's the best thing ever. Different aesthetics. Different tastes.
To begin with cultural stobbiness isn't usually associated with an objection to a cultural hierarchy. I'm also not convinced that post-modernism precludes us from taking up a romantic, modernist perspective at least temporarily. Post-modernism constitutes a rejection of the cannon as an idea not neccesarily a rejection of works that are part of the cannon.
Stobbiness? You mean snobbiness, right? For the first point, I don't think I ever said that. I was defining post-modernism in an academic sense, meaning to refer to the current ideas in art and music or whatever where people are quite ready to appreciate, and pay lots of money for, art by people like David Shrigley and Tracy Emmin, people who produce works of art that show no greatly developed skill, and do not directly address great questions or issues, and deliberately cast against any standards of finesse or 'high culture', can still be highly valued because they possess some quality of cultural insight, they have the zeitgeist, as it were. However, this doesn't necessary reject an artistic heirarchy, just an established one, and it doesn't even really do that. David Shrigley would be working in an office cubicle if he hadn't gone to Glasgow School of Fine Art.
Even if we're a little too self-aware I think someone can sincerely enjoy metal and still have a post-modern understand of music.
No doubt. I wouldn't claim to not engage with post-modernist thought. It would be rather hard having been born and educated in the post-modern age.
I also think its super intriguing that you've positioned yourself on the losing side of an intellectual battle.
Pardonnez-
mois?
I'm not so sure. There is a lot of posturing in hip-hop. This strikes me as something said to offend and build the rappers on-mic personality- not a sincere political statement.
Oh, what, so, if I were to start a black metal band, it would be totally cool for me to write a song about how much I would have enjoyed stoking the fires at Buchenwald, just to make myself appear more extreme, maybe court the Polish skinhead demographic? It's racism any way you cut it.