August 15, 2006
The Fine Line between Metal and Theory
I've recently discovered The Valve, a blog devoted to literary stuff in general. There was a great post yesterday entitled "AC/DC/Derrida," which is exactly what it sounds like: a comparative reading of the French philosopher and the Aussie Rockers.
It is full of clever analyses, like the following derived from that hard-loving staple "You Shook Me All Night Long":
"By purporting to provide us a glimpse of intimate life (in this case, sex), which is to say; by adopting a confessional idiom, the song makes plain the blindness of all self-representation. Its prosopopeia gives voice to the consciousness ‘knocked out’ (of consciousness, of life) by ‘those American thighs’; a process of transference that marks the singer as the blind person (vision, perhaps, but not voice obscured by the very thighs to which he adverts)."
Hey, friend, enjoyed your post and the corresponding article.
But what of this wikidefinition?
"Guitarists use sweep-picking, tapping and other advanced techniques for rapid playing, and many sub-genres praise virtuosity over simplicity."
That is, not to cog the blogworks, but are AC/DC metal?
Could a critique be made of the difference between theoretical metalheads and critical powerchorders?
I would place Derrida and Adorno in the former camp, with Shaviro, Deleuze, and Nietzsche in the latter.
Posted by: J. at August 16, 2006 07:04 PMIf I'm following you (and I bow to your superior music knowledge), Derrida is trying to rip some sort of epic solo while Nietzsche wants to play punk rawk, the epitome of musical difference and repetition? Or the other way around?
And would we not be right to speak now of memory and forgetting? That today, here, AC/DC are by no means able to be considered metal, but that once, in the past of some non-originary origin, AC/DC were metal? And, moreover, AC/DC is not metal now precisely because they were metal once: the metal generates its own non-metalness in the transmission of the sign. Thus, the movement away from the non-origin is one of endless deferral and inescapable loss.
Posted by: paul at August 17, 2006 10:53 AMi don't know what i'm talking about, really.
nevertheless (and as per usual) here goes:
the sheer repetition and louie-louie-ness of the powerchord is what i'm emphasizing. hence, i would prefer to group ac/dc more with the ramones than, say, slayer.
while ac/dc retains a metal lifestyle and image (somewhat), the rock/ac/dc theory targets immediate appeal - be it through style, hooks, and/or predictability. the eternal return.
the metalhead theory, on the other hand, is more about noodling, surprise, and virtuosity. often times, it is not so concerned with whether you get it. it just wants to awe.
I can see your point. The only thing I would add is that one implication of your distinction is that AC/DC and Derrida would be an odd pairing, from the position of sound (tho not necessarily lyrically.)
You should do a paper on Swedish metal and Barthes "The Grain of the Voice." Entitle it "Putting the 'Death' in the Death of the Avant-Garde."
Posted by: paul at August 17, 2006 12:45 PM