“…Simon’s excavation of the retro impulse from the 40s onward undercuts his thesis that retromania is a quintessential phenomenon of the present.”
I agree Reynolds appears conflicted. But I don’t agree with the above criticism that he undercuts his own argument. I read the book as claiming that, yes, the retro impulse has been present as a mode of music making throughout rock’s history, but now it is the mode. We have always had some retro, but now we have retromania. It used to be a curiosity, now it’s a hyperstasis problem. Or at least someone with Reynolds’ values thinks it’s a problem, and maybe you share those values and agree with him. He seems pretty open about where he’s coming from. That’s not to claim that even this argument isn’t wonky, but that’s what I think he was getting at. So I don’t see covering the history of retro as weakening his thesis, necessarily.
Well, that’s fair. I think what’s more odd is that Reynolds talks about how the continued fecundity of the 60s derived from its lack of backwards-looking retro sensibility and constant drive towards innovation, and then shortly thereafter starts talking about instances of retro that did exist in the 60s (in fact, he pinpoints 1965 as the genesis of retro). And he seems to not notice anything odd about doing that.
Odder still wen you consider he previously wrote an entire book examining how ’60s innovation has been overrated/overstated and the post-punk era was actually more innovative.
(Source: katherinestasaph)
