Miscellany

John Derbyshire, meet Lester Bangs

By June 26, 2009No Comments

The con­ser­vat­ive writer, today, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

[Michael] Jackson, like [Farrah] Fawcett, was a rel­ic of the time when we were a single nation, listen­ing to the same pop songs, going to the same movies, stick­ing the same babe posters on our bed­room walls, laugh­ing at the same jokes, even giv­ing our kids names from a com­mon stock. Whether Jackson should be extra­vag­antly mourned or not, I leave to you to decide; but that era of national-cultural unity surely should be. Requiescat in pace

Legendary rock crit­ic Bangs, in The Village Voice, August 1977: 

If love is truly going out of fash­ion forever, which I do not believe, then along with our nur­tured indif­fer­ence to each oth­er will be an even more con­temp­tu­ous indif­fer­ence to each oth­ers’ objects of rev­er­ence. I thought it was Iggy, you thought it was Joni Mitchell or who­ever else seemed to speak for your own private, entirely cir­cum­scribed situation’s many pains and few ecstas­ies. We will con­tin­ue to frag­ment in this man­ner, because sol­ipsism holds all the cards at present; it is a king whose domain engulfs even Elvis’. But I can guar­an­tee you one thing: we will nev­er again agree on any­thing as we agreed on Elvis. So I won’t both­er say­ing good-bye to his corpse. I will say good-bye to you. 

No Comments

  • bill says:

    I’d like to be able to say oth­er­wise, but Lester Bangs said it WAY better.

  • LondonLee says:

    He was wrong about Elvis though, ask Chuck D.

  • John M says:

    Was there ever a time in our coun­try’s his­tory when we were more uni­fied than the peri­od of 1976 through 1984?
    Wait, yeah, I think so.

  • Brian says:

    It reminds me a bit of what Morrissey said about hav­ing a hit in 1985 com­pared to 1965. [sorry, no time to find the source.] Always fall­ing away.

  • Tim Lucas says:

    It’s one of my favor­ite Bangs quotes. Kudos for link­ing the two. Nailed it!

  • Bruce Reid says:

    Bangs was a far great­er, deep­er cul­tur­al crit­ic than Derbyshire, but it’s a bit of sleight-of-hand to work sol­ipsism into the argu­ment. When admir­a­tion leaps over the line to fan­nish ador­a­tion it’s pro­pelled by the shock­wave of recog­ni­tion, of someone speak­ing in your voice (American) but with bet­ter words than you could muster. Just because not every pre­ten­tiously angry young man had their asses kicked by Lou Reed as thor­oughly as Bangs or I did does­n’t mean I still was­n’t out­side of myself, sub­mit­ting to some­thing lar­ger than I could ever ima­gine, while scream­ing along to “The Blue Mask”.
    There has nev­er been a genu­inely unan­im­ous aes­thet­ic opin­ion, and only will­ful nos­tal­gia can lead you to think oth­er­wise, that house­wives weep­ing over Valentino or school­boys in a daze after hear­ing about James Dean wer­en’t matched by equal mil­lions shrug­ging or sneer­ing good rid­dance or try­ing to remem­ber where they’d heard the name. I’d even argue, pace Bangs, the true sol­ipsist is one who can­’t fathom any­one react­ing to the passing of an anoin­ted celebrity icon with polite but sin­cere indifference.
    I was more ripped up by the passing of J. G. Ballard than this week’s triple-play (and regret the “comes-in-threes” cliché has allowed Sky Saxon to be over­shad­owed) but it’s not because I’m self-absorbed, and I don’t think it sym­bol­izes any kind of water­shed moment in our his­tory. I’ll be a wreck when Jerry Lewis dies (or Lou, for that mat­ter), but I nev­er think that on that day I’ll be alone in my sadness.

  • Ed Howard says:

    Of all the celebrit­ies to die this week, Sky Saxon is the only one who means any­thing to me per­son­ally – the first two Seeds albums are clas­sic gar­age rock, with so many great songs. I’m listen­ing to “Up In Her Room” now and it’s just an epic of sexu­al longing.
    And I for one do not mourn the sup­posed great­er “unity” of the past, if it ever even exis­ted in the first place. If we truly are more “frag­men­ted” in our appre­ci­ation of cul­ture now (some­thing I’m not sure I believe when I see how many people are flock­ing to the new Transformers movie) then that would be some­thing to cel­eb­rate, not decry.

  • Boy, it makes you won­der what Lester would have thought about movie or music blogs.

  • MovieMan0283 says:

    I wil take the middle ground here: we are undoubtedly more frag­men­ted than we once more, but we were nev­er com­pletely unified.
    And of course, it depends what view­point you take: though media options have increased, the whole world is con­nec­ted to the same media now, which was cer­tainly not the case a cen­tury or even half-century ago. Globally, we’re more uni­fied than ever.
    But I do know what Derbyshire and Bangs are on about, and des­pite their amus­ingly jumbled chro­no­logy, I tend to agree with them.
    Ed, I strongly dis­agree that frag­ment­a­tion would be some­thing to cel­eb­rate in the cul­ture. I loathe the idea of every­one in their own little cubby­hole, ignor­ing each oth­er, listen­ing to their own private uni­verse on their head­phones and mini-screen.
    I cel­eb­rate increased options and indi­vidu­al­ity (how could I not, as a blog­ger?) but this should not also mean the death of more broadly-shared com­mon exper­i­ences. Does the long tail come only at the cost of the high end? I don’t see why I should and I sin­cerely hope it doesn’t.
    But then, I des­pise post­mod­ern­ism and all it rep­res­ents – the loss of canon­ic­al val­ues, the frag­ment­a­tion of soci­ety, the ignor­ance of the past (because it does­n’t mat­ter, noth­ing mat­ters you know…). I think mod­ern­ism had it right – know­ledge of and appre­ci­ation of the cul­tur­al past along­side acknow­ledge­ment of dis­or­i­ent­ing new speed, a loss of faith only pos­sible because one had faith in the first place. Everything since has seemed to be a dodge and a cheat, which is per­haps why cul­ture has sunk and sunk and sunk to the level it’s at now.
    I think it can come back, but it believe it will take some sort of ori­ent­a­tion, rather than anything-goes relativ­ism. And no, lest some of you get con­cerned I am not speak­ing of “mor­al val­ues” per se, but rather cul­tur­al val­ues. Nor am I say­ing people should be “forced” into a cer­tain way of think­ing or appre­ci­at­ing (as if that was even pos­sible); just that if those of us who do care about con­nec­tions and his­tory and val­ues put that for­ward in our work, per­haps a gradu­al change can come about.
    On anoth­er note, Obama seems to be evid­ence that unity – if not of pur­pose, than at least of atten­tion – is still pos­sible. No, not for “every single per­son” but cer­tainly for a major­ity. Funnily enough, I awaited some kind of cul­tur­al unity through­out this increas­ingly frag­men­ted (and, fol­low­ing 9/11 and the Iraq War consequence- and awareness-avoiding dec­ade – which yes, I include myself in) but I really did­n’t think it would arrive in the polit­ic­al sphere – that most con­ten­tious and apathy-inducing of fields!