G'day all. Bloody marvellous, this 'twee' controversy, isn't it? The list is a better read now than it has been in ages. Hats off, to everyone involved. I'll try not to spoil it. YOU CAN'T SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TWEES You know, I can usually identify all the subcultures around me. I can hang a label off pretty much every other table at the pub. Except the one that my mates are sitting at. I haven't a clue how we're seen. We're all individuals, you see - too diverse and too complex to bung a label on. We wear what we like and listen to what we genuinely enjoy, because we understand and appreciate it. Impossible to pigeonhole, really. But you know what? I bet some bloke at every other table in the pub thinks exactly the same thing. It's a question of how close you get to something. My mates are as different as chalk and cheese. Musical tastes all over the place. I can't understand how some of them can shitcan the Smiths, and they can't understand how I can shitcan the Pixies. Personalities, tastes and styles all over the shop. It's a wonder we're friends, really. But hang on. Nobody's listening to gangster rap or Celine Dion, nobody's wearing Kappa or Prada. We don't soup up our cars or play footy. Nobody's got that funny little chain attached to their wallet, or a tie-dyed shirt, or dreadlocks, or a wolfshirt. So stand back a bit. We're obviously something. There's stuff in common. There's probably a big, obvious label attached, but I'll be damned if I can read it from here. And I very much doubt we get any say in what's written on it. You could probably say the same for this group of people. I'm not as well travelled or as old-school as many, but I've had the very great pleasure of meeting a reasonable cross-section of listees on several continents. And again, we've not got much in common. Not even the whole Belle and Sebastian thing, in a lot of cases. But, there's obviously something. Fucked if I know what it is, though, because I'm probably used to taking it completely for granted. From the outside, it might look like it's 'tweeness'. I loathe the word, personally, and it's not one I'd ever self-apply. But maybe it's an easy term with which to generalise and exaggerate a certain quality (one where clinging to child-like, though not child-ish, attributes is seen as a virtue) from the OUTSIDE. It's when you try to take on board and embody this stereotype that it gets to be problematic. TO TWEE OR NOT TO TWEE? 'Twee', by definition, means "overly precious or nice" or "affectedly dainty or refined". Emphasis on 'overly' and 'affectedly'. It's a negative term. It perhaps refers to a quality that might otherwise be desirable, but cases where there's simply too much of it, or where it's put on. I think 'twee', as it's commonly understood, is a grotesque caricature of a sensibility in which nostalgia and gentleness are considered to be things worth preserving, in the face of cynicism. So, I think the thing that we are, for which we can't ever seem to agree on a word, is a valuable and positive thing. The exaggerated or affected version of this thing is called 'twee', and that's perhaps how some of us are seen and labelled from the outside (though not me - I'm somewhere between a geek and a square these days). So perhaps it's simply a matter of subverting the word. Embracing the stereotype and taking it back. Maybe that's what some of you are trying to do by (re)claiming it. I hope so. I've very much enjoyed Hobart's posts recently. I think in his defence of 'twee', he put his finger on exactly the quality we're talking about. The only point on which I disagree with him is his choice of word to apply to that quality. I don't think what he's talking about is excessive or affected, or indeed the sort of thing that would get up Mark Casarotto's nose. But I'll be damned if I can think of a better word to suggest for it. BORN TWEE I was particularly interested in Hobart's point about how affectation can actually become a part of a person. I think this is something that we're all aware of, but probably struggle against or (on the occasions where we've embraced it or even actively sought it out as a beneficial thing) flat-out deny. It was quite remarkable to hear this process discussed in a forum like this in such a positive and candid manner. Kudos. There are things about ourselves that we hide, and other things that we exaggerate. It might be in order to fit in with our own ideas of ourselves, or with someone else's idea about how we should be. We do it at work, we do it when we're on the pull. Some of us do it pretty much all the time, when we pretend to be grown-ups. These little tensions, with which we are pushed and pulled, are part of what help shape us, and it'd be a mistake to dismiss them as meaningless, simply because they seem superficial and phoney. Sometimes, that bandwagon you jump on when you're 15 even drops you off somewhere better than where you were, or at least lets you take a few postcards back with you, that might stay stuck to the front of a very different, older and wiser person's fridge for years to come. NOT MY CUP OF TWEE There's not too much that could be said about everyone on this list, collectively. There's a fair proportion of you that I feel really fond of, and a few of you who get on my tits. I do think, though, for the most part, that there's a certain sensibility here. It's a literate, thoughtful, imaginative and tolerant sensibility, and one in which things like wistfulness, stargazing and daydreaming are as important as chest-beating. It's also a place where it seems that more listening is done than talking (or more reading than writing, if you prefer), which I think makes it unique amongst Internet communities. I can understand people not liking being all lumped in together. Nobody does. The whole 'checklist of several appropriate bands along with reference showing I was into them before everyone else followed by stock footage of botched sexual encounter' gets on my nellie as well. It's certainly not what I'm about. My point (you didn't think I had one, did you?) is that it's too easy to see how 'we' are all different, and how 'they' are all the same. A small (okay, not that small), arrogant, superior bit of me would like to think that it's true. But then I'd also like to think that it's just a matter of what you choose to pay attention to. Incidentally, I thought Idleberry's definitions were spot on. OTHER STUFF Erm, the new Sodastream album is really good. If I could do so without making insultingly sweeping generalisations about people's tastes in music, I'd suggest you all pick up a copy at your earliest convenience. As it is, however, I'll have to let you decide for yourselves. Oh, and forgive me if this is all a little rushed and incoherent. I'm meant to be working, but I couldn't resist putting my 2c in. You know how it is. Bulk love, -David. _________________________________________________________________ Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "peculiarly deranged fanbase" +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "frighteningly named Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +-+ "sick posse of f**ked in the head psycho-fans" - NME June 2001 +-+ +-+ Nee, nee mun pish, chan pai dee kwa +-+ +-+ Snipp snapp snut, sa var sagan slut! +-+ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+