MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Slate Goes Luddite

I got the impression from his work that Michel Agger was a young man, if not in body than in mind. But a quick read of his response to Steven Levy

12 Responses to “Slate Goes Luddite”

  1. The Carpetmuncher says:

    iPods kiss ass
    but Napster started the revolution
    iPod just got credit for it
    and created some sexy hardware
    i gotta get one of those new Shuffles that just clip on your belt

  2. Duc says:

    Yeah, I was using audiogalaxy and napster to download music and playing on winamp and then my minidisc player before the iPod was a twinkle in Steve Jobs eyes. Your man’s claim isn’t that controversial – its that iPod popularised something that was already in motion, and I reckon he’s right. Plus iPods suck – form AND function over reliability.

  3. palmtree says:

    Yeah, but before the iPod you had to burn CDs that could only play a little over an hour. Now you can have virtually your entire music collection in the palm of your hand. To me, that’s a different way of thinking about music than just a walkman or mp3 downloading. This is also about the further fragmentation of audience…you can start listening to progressively weirder music without worries that it’ll take space from your core songs.

  4. The Carpetmuncher says:

    My entire music collection (which is expansive) is digitized and yet I don’t own an iPod, though my girl does and I use hers occasionally (and of course I covet one, they are very fashionable!). I too have my entire music collection in one little harddrive, even if it won’t fit in the palm of my hand.
    But not having an iPod doesn’t make me any less a part of the “revolution” – because it really is about the invention of the MP3, Napster, and digital downloading and peer-to-peer sharing. The iPod is just a commercial reaction to the real revolution, but hardly the inciting incident. It’s closer to revolution profiteering than anything else, no matter what Apple’s propaganda wants you to believe.
    I tend to agree that the iPod is more a “next generation” Walkman than anything totally new, the same way a DVD is realy just a “next generation” Laser Disc. Less a triumph of technology than one of marketing and design.
    Still, iPods kick ass…

  5. Cadavra says:

    Funny, but I simply don’t have this compelling need to listen to music EVERY SINGLE MOMENT I’M AWAKE!!!

  6. Wrecktum says:

    They you miss the Poland’s point, Cadavra. It’s not about listening to music 24/7. It’s about the opportunity to listen to music. It’s about digital delivery of all forms of media any time, any where.

  7. palmtree says:

    “iPod is more a “next generation” Walkman than anything totally new”
    Don’t entirely agree. Yes, the function is both to listen to music. But iPod has changed listening habits…whereas before a mix CD or tape would play in a somewhat predetermined way, you are now the programmer of the iPod and “playing DJ” in a fundamentally different way. True that that’s the same as having a portable hard drive, but making that hard drive listenable is the difference…it has created new uses if the technology itself was old.
    btw, they do sell hard drive casings that wrap around stand-alone hard drives and turn them into ersatz iPods. That is the difference.
    And yes, portable digital mp3 players did exist before iPod, especially in Asia. Apple just made it better designed and marketed.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t agree. Listening to music portably, as with the Walkman, was a bigger paradigm shift than being able to jump around from album to album or from track to track.

  9. palmtree says:

    “Listening to music portably, as with the Walkman, was a bigger paradigm shift than being able to jump around from album to album or from track to track.”
    My paradigm shift is bigger than yours!
    Seriously though the question was not which is bigger, but is there one or isn’t there?
    My response is there is one because it has changed the relationship between people and their music. Being able to listen to music continuously for 16 hours and not have a single song repeat to me is a big shift from the Walkman.
    In other news, I agree with Cadavra about the importance of silence.

  10. palmtree says:

    I guess my point in a nutshell is…the availability of music is coming close to reaching infinity. Seems different than just being able to play the same 12 songs over and over.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    When Ipods are linked directly to WiFi, so that you can immediately call up any song ever written anywhere on Earth, _that_ will be a big paradigm shift. But for now, since you still have to dowlonad the songs and input them yourself, I don’t think it’s that big of a thing yet.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

Julian Schnabel: Years ago, I was down there with my cousin’s wife Corky. She was wild — she wore makeup on her legs, and she had a streak in her hair like Yvonne De Carlo in “The Munsters.” She liked to paint. I had overalls on with just a T-shirt and looked like whatever. We were trying to buy a bunch of supplies with my cousin Jesse’s credit card. They looked at the credit card, and then they looked at us and thought maybe we stole the card, so they called Jesse up. He was a doctor who became the head of trauma at St. Vincent’s. They said, “There’s somebody here with this credit card and we want to know if it belongs to you.”

He said, “Well, does the woman have dyed blonde hair and fake eyelashes and look like she stepped out of the backstage of some kind of silent movie, and is she with some guy who has wild hair and is kind of dressed like a bum?”

“Yeah, that’s them.”

“Yeah, that’s my cousin and my wife. It’s okay, they can charge it on my card.”
~ Julian Schnabel Remembers NYC’s Now-Shuttered Pearl Paint

MB Cool. I was really interested in the aerial photography from Enter the Void and how one could understand that conceptually as a POV, while in fact it’s more of an objective view of the city where the story takes place. So it’s an objective and subjective camera at the same time. I know that you’re interested in Kubrick. We’ve talked about that in the past because it’s something that you and I have in common—

GN You’re obsessed with Kubrick, too.

MB Does he still occupy your mind or was he more of an early influence?

GN He was more of an early influence. Kubrick has been my idol my whole life, my own “god.” I was six or seven years old when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I never felt such cinematic ecstasy. Maybe that’s what brought me to direct movies, to try to compete with that “wizard of Oz” behind the film. So then, years later, I tried to do something in that direction, like many other directors tried to do their own, you know, homage or remake or parody or whatever of 2001. I don’t know if you ever had that movie in mind for your own projects. But in my case, I don’t think about 2001 anymore now. That film was my first “trip” ever. And then I tried my best to reproduce on screen what some drug trips are like. But it’s very hard. For sure, moving images are a better medium than words, but it’s still very far from the real experience. I read that Kubrick said about Lynch’s Eraserhead, that he wished he had made that movie because it was the film he had seen that came closest to the language of nightmares.

Matthew Barney and Gaspar Noé