ke B Michael Tumblr

Soulja Boy - White Lights

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

yayodancing:

Soulja Boy - White Lights (SODMG, 2012)


easily the best Soulja Boy song in this young year (which has already seen two Soulja Boy tapes, no less). Clams Casino produced it, and Soulja rides the beat well. I hope this means that Clams and Soulja are about to start working together semi-reguarly again, but I’m not gonna hold my breath. For now, this is sufficient enough.

Wicka-wicka-wicka-wHAT? This is awesome. Hah, I love how Soulja Boy refuses to get on the beat. It’s like listening to two different songs at once.

24,571 plays

A Serious Observation

I made a joke about this to my partner, but the rate of Lana Del Rey thinking and writing (‘scholarship’) was actually amazing and cool. I mentioned her in a piece back in, I think, November — and that was after resisting mentioning her a few times already. At this point, all the greatest music writers and cultural critics, for the most part, (certainly not including myself in that group — unless Photoshops count) have read, written, and rewritten about her. The LDR hype cycle backlash cycle represented an amazing surge of critical brainpower, and it was cool to watch unfold. I honestly don’t care that it was about her rather than a more ‘deserving’ artist. I’m just glad it happened, and I think it was worthwhile. Another semi-hemi-demi-monoculture movement.

Apple’s Avarice: Efficient, Excellent, and Economically Sound. Is It Fair?

We might not have the flying cars, yet, but we’re sprinting to the future anyway. One company in particular, Apple, has constructed fabulous technological edifices that effortlessly extend our capabilities. Its contributions — inaugurating computer revolution after revolution, revitalizing digital media, bringing technology to bear on education’s problems — they seem miraculous. But a spate of recent news has delineated their actual human cost. These stories are a somber reminder that Apple’s seemingly ex nihilo tech goodies come to market because of its implacable business drive.

Apple’s products are to most eyes beautiful instantiations of the old design saw: form follows function. Before the iPhone’s debut in 2007, everything about mobile phones was different. Now, virtually all smartphones follow the iPhone’s form — and arguably fall short of its function. On the back of every iPhone, there is a brief line that tells its owner exactly why its so special: “Design by Apple in California  Assembled in China”. Those eight words effectively describe a situation many consumers are unaware they’re participating in: the high level of Apple’s California-based design is what’s most obvious about the iPhone, but it wouldn’t exist without Apple’s fabled supply chain management and its manufacturing capabilities in China.

The New York Times recently published two reports critical of Apple’s labor practices in China. The first noted the vast scale of the California-based company’s operations in China: the iPhone alone requires more than 200,000 workers and 8,7000 engineers for its manufacture. On his passing away last year, Steve Jobs was widely lauded for his innovation; President Obama said, he “he transformed our lives, redefined entire industries”. But the exact dimensions and ramifications of Jobs’s transformation of personal computing is somewhat misunderstood. Just last week after the president’s Sate of the Union address, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said, “The late Steve Jobs, what a fitting name he had, created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the president borrowed and blew”. If it’s American jobs that are at issue, then Apple’s success has created 60,400, 59% of which are retail jobs — a pittance compared to its operations overseas. According to the Walter Isaacson biography, Steve Jobs was the primary force in creating Apple’s dominant retail position, but he was also the catalyst for closing Apple’s American factories and moving virtually all of Apple’s manufacturing jobs to China.

Apple has long had a reputation for making luxury goods, at best, and overpriced doodads at worst. The grounds for that reputation are gone. Steve Jobs had a dual-genius for intuitive design and having the steel will to realize it. His successor, Tim Cook, has a single-minded expertise in trimming fat and cutting down the bottom line. He’s an operations guru renowned for keeping costs low. Again, according to the Isaacson biography, Cook “forced” suppliers to cut their prices and move their operations next to Apple’s plants in China. Apple enjoys such a powerful and efficient manufacturing process that it’s now a price leader for laptops, and virtually the only profitable manufacturer of tablet PCs.

Read More

It’s Not For You

I’ve had some really good conversations on Twitter today, which really foregrounded a problem with criticism. The idea of a critic landing a cross-genre shot, contre-pied’ing our expectations (think: David Wallace on Terminator 2) is delightful. But it has to be done extremely well, drawn from a decent amount of knowledge and even more empathy.

Most times, when a critic of one type deals with an unfamiliar topic, he enters parlous territory. Think: Chuck Klosterman on Tune-Yards.

The bigger point, then, is that sometimes something’s not for you. It’s a challenging presumption. Eve Barlow treated it in a piece on criticism and Rihanna:

I’ve seen it time and again – people reviewing artists outwith their comfort zone. The reviews may as well write themselves. Alexis Petridis wrote the Rihanna live review recently for The Guardian. Why?! What is the point of Alexis, a highly esteemed writer but someone who blatantly doesn’t want to embrace Rihanna’s Grace Jones-indebted pop shtick, writing that review? I don’t want to assume too much about you. If it is the case that you are a relentless pop junkie like me and await the next of Sean Rowley’s Guilty Pleasures nights with enormous glee then please let me know. I’d love to go out clubbing and bend your ear about all the tricks of the trade. It’s just that reading your review of Rihanna’s album, I can’t help but get the sense that you’re not enjoying yourself and you’ve missed the point.

A big pop release? Please, I’d love to read Jonathan Bogart on it. Death metal (or whatever I’m to call it)? Brandon Stousy, definitely. The latest King Louie tape? Get me David Drake. People have wheelhouses, sets of knowledge, and most importantly, appreciation for different things. Those are the people who should be working on those things. That doesn’t mean those things would only get positively reviewed. In fact, the opposite. The more into something, and the more you know about it, the easier it is to find its faults and identify where it’s gone astray.

But there’s an even bigger problem than a failure to match up the right people with the right things. (That actually does happen pretty regularly — there are good editors out there.) The bigger problem is that the predominance of white male writers covering basically everything says to me that popular culture as written will tend to be packaged and understood from a white male point of view. Not everything is for you.

It’s not that the above writers aren’t great. In fact, the opposite. But I want other points of view. The problem I have with some publications is that, through chance more than design, the staffs are predominantly white and male, and so we get a critical consensus behind Bon Iver, say, instead of The-Dream or the above Rihanna. I think Talk That Talk is much better than Bon Iver, Bon Iver, but the shape of musical discourse is structurally and perhaps inexorably white and male perspective’d. It’s not to say Bon Iver is objectively worse than Rihanna, but viewed through ‘our internet media’ there is really no way to tell.

If you conduct a thought experiment where all the major online music publications are run by women and people of color, I’m sure our idea of a 10.0 perfect album would be a lot different. Maybe Bon Iver, Bon Iver gets the My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy treatment, and it does get a 10.0 (to great and loud derision). And maybe Rihanna, Miguel, Drake, Janelle Monae, and The-Dream are the usual suspects crowding up every top ten of the year list.

In a country with our ethnic and gender demographics, I refuse to believe that the best ten to fifty albums every year are mostly made by white guys. And I’m not saying that anyone at the big online magazines is racist or sexist. But there is a privileging of perspective, and a process of normalization, just because we are who we are. And not everything is for everyone else — either by taste or by rights.

When Jessica Hopper said, “Funny how a lot of the Lana Del Rey review are more or less aesthetic slut-shaming, esp. when you isolate the critical phrases/language used”, there’s a point behind the point. Sure, many women may dislike the album for aesthetic reasons — and of course women aren’t going to automatically have an affinity for a thing because it was made by another woman — but the structure of thought and language framing most every topic on the internet is a white male one. The way we make sense of things aesthetically is not natural; there is no natural aesthetic framework as concerns pop music, I don’t think.

It’s slightly vexing that there doesn’t seem to be an easy solution. And I’m not trying to sound vituperative or anything. But it pays to keep in mind that the issues of the day are usually framed by someone else’s perspective. Also, you know, I think that people — guys especially — should maybe ask other people what they think of things before spouting off. The ‘general idea’ of things is usually a guy’s idea of them. But not everything is for us. You know, I have no idea what it’s like to be a teenage girl. I have no idea what it’s like to be a black woman or a black man. It’s hard to acknowledge the fact that your opinion and thoughts aren’t the be-all/end-all of something. Sometimes, when confronted with something you don’t like or don’t get, you just have to accept that and move on. I think a lot of times, diversity is seen as an obligation — foreign films, math rock, Greek tragedies, whatever — but if you are clearly disengaged from something, really hate it for reasons that can’t outpace ‘but it’s stupid…’, then maybe it’s just not for you.

bmichael:

Gertrude Stein = Brilliant Out of her Mind
As an undergrad I studied with a pretty good modernism guy; and don’t get me wrong, I didn’t take a lot a lot of his classes, but quite a few. And we talked. Now don’t get me wrong, there was another modernism person, but we didn’t get along so well. I remember hearing Gertrude Stein come up a few times in conversation with her, but not so much with him. And among the many things we’ve disagreed about, which disagreements lead to cavils and civil spats, the one I’d bring up now most forcefully is why didn’t he make me read some Gertrude Stein. I mean, he was all into that jazz nonsensical fascist E. P., but why not G. S.? She’s flipping brilliant.
For one, she gets Derrida. She gets Wittgenstein. She’s all about difference and differance. She’s all about syntax. How about this:

Clarity is of no importance because nobody listens and nobody knows what you mean no matter what you mean, nor how clearly you mean what you mean. But if you have vitality enough of knowing enough of what you mean, somebody and sometime and sometimes a great many will have to realise that you know what you mean and so they will agree that you mean what you know, what you know you mean, which is as near as anybody can come to understanding any one.

ell now? As if the form of language could mean anything. She’s all austere syntax couching zen roubles. She’s off her head she’s so into it. Clarity is of no importance—“But if you have vitality” then some one person or some many people will understand you or come as close to understanding as some one person or some many people can come. Doesn’t that just about capture it? What would clarity be other than, what, the most perfectly executed syntax? Technical writing accompanied by schematics? A diagram of a machine isn’t the machine just as an idle machine isn’t a machine so much as a paper weight.

I think very well of Susan but I do not know her name
I think very well of Ellen but which is not the same
I think very well of Paul I tell him not to do so
I think very well of Francis Charles but do I do so
I think very well of Thomas but I do not not do so
I think very well of not very well of William
I think very well of any very well of him
I think very well of him.
It is remarkable how quickly they learn
But if they learn and it is very remarkable how quickly they learn
it makes not only but by and by
And they may not only be not here
But no there
Which after all makes no difference
After all this does not make any does not make any difference
I add added it to it.
I could rather be rather be here.

You can see in this passage (Stanza II, Part III) some of the paranoia of the salon, which you could also see in the above passage. The hangups on agreement and understanding that always arise in groups. Subjective constitution being what it is, I can hardly see how Gertrude Stein’s writing would ever stay in print. Thank JHVH for the Library of America. (Antic-dote: I used JHVH as a name in celebrity one time—what fun!) But, ye Gods, man! “I add added it to it. / I could rather be rather be here” is just a brilliant couplet. It takes my breath away and makes me want to write again predominantly in the first person plural. It conveys-by-showing-qua-doing-which-is-writing the sucking sense of emptiness given by repetition. And it shows an understanding of repetition as the source of—what’d’ya call it?—meaning. Studied more than read? Something like that… Is that a line from Nabokov or from the Nabokov imitator in Copeland’s Gum Thief? Or something else all together now. I bet G. S. is studied more than read, and referenced more than studied. That’s a shame.

Gertrude Stein = Certifiable Genius (in relatively small doses)

bmichael:

Gertrude Stein = Brilliant Out of her Mind

As an undergrad I studied with a pretty good modernism guy; and don’t get me wrong, I didn’t take a lot a lot of his classes, but quite a few. And we talked. Now don’t get me wrong, there was another modernism person, but we didn’t get along so well. I remember hearing Gertrude Stein come up a few times in conversation with her, but not so much with him. And among the many things we’ve disagreed about, which disagreements lead to cavils and civil spats, the one I’d bring up now most forcefully is why didn’t he make me read some Gertrude Stein. I mean, he was all into that jazz nonsensical fascist E. P., but why not G. S.? She’s flipping brilliant.

For one, she gets Derrida. She gets Wittgenstein. She’s all about difference and differance. She’s all about syntax. How about this:

Clarity is of no importance because nobody listens and nobody knows what you mean no matter what you mean, nor how clearly you mean what you mean. But if you have vitality enough of knowing enough of what you mean, somebody and sometime and sometimes a great many will have to realise that you know what you mean and so they will agree that you mean what you know, what you know you mean, which is as near as anybody can come to understanding any one.

ell now? As if the form of language could mean anything. She’s all austere syntax couching zen roubles. She’s off her head she’s so into it. Clarity is of no importance—“But if you have vitality” then some one person or some many people will understand you or come as close to understanding as some one person or some many people can come. Doesn’t that just about capture it? What would clarity be other than, what, the most perfectly executed syntax? Technical writing accompanied by schematics? A diagram of a machine isn’t the machine just as an idle machine isn’t a machine so much as a paper weight.

I think very well of Susan but I do not know her name

I think very well of Ellen but which is not the same

I think very well of Paul I tell him not to do so

I think very well of Francis Charles but do I do so

I think very well of Thomas but I do not not do so

I think very well of not very well of William

I think very well of any very well of him

I think very well of him.

It is remarkable how quickly they learn

But if they learn and it is very remarkable how quickly they learn

it makes not only but by and by

And they may not only be not here

But no there

Which after all makes no difference

After all this does not make any does not make any difference

I add added it to it.

I could rather be rather be here.

You can see in this passage (Stanza II, Part III) some of the paranoia of the salon, which you could also see in the above passage. The hangups on agreement and understanding that always arise in groups. Subjective constitution being what it is, I can hardly see how Gertrude Stein’s writing would ever stay in print. Thank JHVH for the Library of America. (Antic-dote: I used JHVH as a name in celebrity one time—what fun!) But, ye Gods, man! “I add added it to it. / I could rather be rather be here” is just a brilliant couplet. It takes my breath away and makes me want to write again predominantly in the first person plural. It conveys-by-showing-qua-doing-which-is-writing the sucking sense of emptiness given by repetition. And it shows an understanding of repetition as the source of—what’d’ya call it?—meaning. Studied more than read? Something like that… Is that a line from Nabokov or from the Nabokov imitator in Copeland’s Gum Thief? Or something else all together now. I bet G. S. is studied more than read, and referenced more than studied. That’s a shame.

Gertrude Stein = Certifiable Genius (in relatively small doses)

bmichael:

This photo is very reminiscent of a Lee Friedlander photo that I would go across the street to to see; it, the photo, depicted a little brownstone in NY mottled with shadows. It was beautiful. This is beautiful. Look at the texture of the house. And the chimney is in the perfect place.
nevver:
Stephen Shore

(via nevver)

Yep. Still love this. Stephen Shore’s America is beautiful and boring, but it also feels like home.

bmichael:

This photo is very reminiscent of a Lee Friedlander photo that I would go across the street to to see; it, the photo, depicted a little brownstone in NY mottled with shadows. It was beautiful. This is beautiful. Look at the texture of the house. And the chimney is in the perfect place.

nevver:

Stephen Shore

(via nevver)

Yep. Still love this. Stephen Shore’s America is beautiful and boring, but it also feels like home.

Yale! Quarterbacks! Rhodes! Rape!

I almost don’t care at all about this story. I did read it in my RSS and then see it on Deadspin only moments later, so I assume it’s somewhat big or something. The idea is that this guy and his Friday Night Lights family moved all over the country so he could do real good at football, and then he did ok, and then he transferred to Yale where he was awesome because it’s Yale. Then he was really smart and almost interviewed to be a Rhodes Scholar, and then he didn’t get to interview because he’s an alleged rapist. Oh yeah, he wants to go into politics.

There is a part that stinks a little bit, the end of this follow-up story,

The statement issued for Witt asserted that the request by Rhodes officials for Yale to re-endorse him was effectively moot because he had already informed Yale that he was going to withdraw and play in the game against Harvard.

A big part of the original story was a kind of cool gotcha moment where the Times got all grammatical and noted that there was no causal link between Witt’s withdrawing from the Rhodes and playing in the Yale-Harvard game.

Still, wow, this is probably the most boring story of all-time, and of the roughly 50 headlines per day that cross my NYT RSS feed, I’ve seen this guy mentioned twice in two days. Last time I checked, this was not the Yale New Haven Au Courant Cryer. It seems like the only way you can get a rape case reported in the Times is for it to intersect a Yale/Rhodes/Possible Pro Football player. Jesus christ, just write about how cute Eli Manning is or something. Stop wasting my time. 

Apple, Amazon, and Google’s Dehumanizing Technologies [Dead Story File 12/2011]

For a long time, technology has played an obvious role in our lives. As the state of the art has advanced, technological progress has had a pronounced effect on the world: pollution, overpopulation, extreme class disparity. There’s a more insidious effect, prefigured by Wordsworth two hundred years ago: “Little we see in Nature that is ours; / We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!”

The big picture problems are more than bothersome, of course, but technology’s “sordid boon” seems like it could be even worse, because of its subtlety. There has been recently a myriad of stories that make me think that technology, defined contingently as the consumer-facing fruit of certain leading companies, has inserted itself into our lives in such a way as to be more important, and by extension more desirable for abuse, than ever before. This combination of inconspicuousness and importance makes even salutary advances, if they remain unremarked upon, an area open to exploitation. Companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google perform fabulous feats and offer incredible products. Their ubiquity in the market means that they shape people’s existence as much as the government, family, and the larger cultural atmosphere. Maybe more than all those, and that’s fine. A lot of institutions have more power to shape people’s existence than the government. But very few do so under the guise of an ineradicable push to progress, with a real Law (cf, Moore) held up as describing its inexorable growth. And few institutions shape the course of humanity with humanity itself’s unquenchable approbation. This is a serious problem.

Read More