"Don't you know, Myron." Oksimiron is again accused of the problems of teenagers, but this time he did not remain silent. "Our great poet - Oksimiron": Artem Rondarev on why hip-hop will not replace chanson for us What is the plot

you have me, 💡

Fuck, but the problem is that even the children themselves understand this.

In 2017, hip-hop finally established itself in the status of, if not folk, then at least the most talked about music. We listened to Husky and Mushrooms, chose whom to root for in the Battle of Purnoy and Oksimiron, watched Face clips and parodies of Pharaoh clips on federal TV. The Village met with music journalist and lecturer at the HSE School of Cultural Studies Artyom Rondarev to talk about the new role of hip-hop, the disappearance of important pop music and the love of Russians for sad songs.

- Somehow it finally became clear that hip-hop has become the main national music in Russia.

Of course not. Our main music is still chanson. He, of course, has already penetrated the stage, integrated: Leps and Mikhailov sing in large halls. But this is still the same Russian chanson, as it was called in due time. Of course, he is the main music. Hip-hop falls short in reach.

We can probably talk about some generational difference. Probably, after all, for conventional Russian millennials, it's still hip-hop.

They probably have, although I don't know how all these A.U.E. will listen to hip-hop. Yes, and in hip-hop, after all, chanson is completely integrated. I recently listened to some of the last discs of the group "25/17", absolutely enchanting. They used to be stubborn nationalists, but on the 2015 disc there is such a chanson, everything is fine, they have “I, you, our child”.

To say that hip-hop took and conquered everyone is pointless. Even in the generation of the 1990s, in ten years half will become office managers, get a sting of cross of hip-hop and chanson, and they will be terribly happy with it. It is good to listen to Face when you are very young, and then you are an adult solid person, and it seems like nothing. Here the chanson-blatnyak comes to the rescue, which, I think, will only develop with us. He hasn't gone anywhere. Previously, he was so politicized - Misha Mavashi - but now it is a normal chanson with a tear.

But here it seems to be just the opposite: 10-12 years ago, hip-hop in Russian was mainly listened to by the courtyard boys, and then it somehow evolved into a completely different theme.

Yes, there was a time in the late 1990s when hip-hop mostly came from boys and cop cars. It is clear that in the 1990s, when hip-hop was just trying to get back on its feet, it connected all the necessary topics, criminal, transplanted onto our soil, and gopnic, sometimes ironic, sometimes outright thug chanson rap began. Now all this aesthetics of boys is not discursively relevant. You can hear it less, but it is still there.

In the late 90s, the guys read how much they cut. And now it's just a chanson with a tear. Even people like the Husky, in fact, crush the same chanson tears: their small districts, orphaned houses - above this is an affective sentimentality.

But Husky has completely individual lyrics, there is no talk about some kind of street code of honor and so on. And for him it is rather connected with suffering.

This is such a reflection. It is subjective that, in my opinion, hip-hop drives you into a very dead-end situation, because hip-hop is a communal form of expression. Suffering is an ontological quality, it is capable of disavowing all external social conditions. And this is the most vicious thing that has happened to hip-hop lately. Because hip-hop has abandoned two topics that are immanent for him: the communal statement and the correlation of oneself with social conditions. If you are a kid from Oxford, you should reflect on the situation in a different way, and not so that you live in hell. This is a mismatch of the statement with the conditions, indeed the subjectivation of the statement is a serious problem that will come back to haunt us. Although it has a solvent audience - university students.

Many people imagine what social marginality actually looks like, they understand that they do not belong to those groups that legitimately possess social drama. And then Oksimiron comes

You mean Oksimiron already. How, in your opinion, can explain its such wide popularity with declarative intellectualism? After all, this is only the third rapper who managed to sell Olimpiyskiy.

- Olimpiyskiy is located in Moscow, and Moscow is capable of scoring 10–20 Olimpiyskiy with the middle class. Oksimiron, obviously, addressed the audience, previously less embraced by hip-hop, to the students of the capital's universities, who also need their own inner drama. It's unavoidable. I also needed drama at the institute. Many people imagine what social marginality actually looks like, they understand that they do not belong to those groups that legitimately possess social drama. And then Oksimiron comes in. The man who lived abroad studied at a prestigious western university. It doesn't matter how it all was in detail, Oksimiron, according to our estimates, is a major. And at the same time, a person sings, in this case without any reflection at all, that he lives in hell. In this case, it is easy for students of Moscow universities to relate themselves to Oksimiron, plus the intellectual filling that they read.

This is the famous story when a girl read a piece of Oksimiron's text under the guise of Mandelstam's poem. What is the symbolic gesture? There is a hierarchical view of culture, and in it poets and musicians occupy top places. And when in the lesson, where the next great poet passes, maybe not at the blackboard, but in the eyes of the teacher, for sure, Oksimiron is taken for this great poet, he is equated in symbolic rights with them. Our great poet is Oksimiron. At the same time, everything in his life is good, but he allows him to suffer, gives drama.

Plus, it must be said, that Gorgorod, which was published a few years ago, somehow quite successfully fit into the narrative of self-awareness of the critical middle class.

In fact, his self-presentation does not carry any liberal political message, he simply appropriated it competently on this album.

This year, Slava KPSS burst into the air. Why did everyone so joyfully accept the person who is all sheer denial of Oksimiron?

Everything here is just obvious from the battle between Oksimiron and Slava. This intellectual packaging is absolutely not characteristic of hip-hop, it is not for nothing that everyone called Gorgorod a concept album, this is game - hip-hop and a concept album. It's freaky, and it hit the spot well at the right time. But when the freak's antics expired, a man who works in natural poetics and hip-hop issues came along and removed the freak.

- But he also has five nods in each track to such a conventionally "intelligent" audience.

But at the same time he is openly anti-Semite, homophobic, sexist. He reproduces all the properties of hip-hop, I don't know how consciously, but quite openly. Here, just from under the building, which Oksimiron represents, as a result, a mainstream, straight-line stream emerged back. Many were delighted, because intellectualism wavered, and now a normal person came.

- In moderation.

No, normal in the sense that he takes Kafka and packs him into a wild amount of swearing words. Oxymiron also uses this whole mechanic. But he swears like the intelligentsia, and Purulent, if you look especially at the dissy, there is just such a five-story swearing that the intelligentsia does not swear at, for her it is over the edge. This is not a form of poetic expression, but a natural form.

- And then a person takes and releases an absolutely formalist album (“The Sun of the Dead.” - Ed.).

He shouldn't have done that, the record, of course, is a failure. But he's a trickster, punk. He does not have his own theme - he picks up what is bad. And then I picked it up completely unsuccessfully.

In general, Slava is not the first to be like that. This combination of ardent love for Mamleev, Letov and other counterculture and right-wing habits is sewn into the whole tradition of abstract hip-hop. Well, where he does not go into the fan subculture at all. Where does this enbenepity of Russian rap come from?

The fact is that the NBP is an art workshop, it is not a party. As for the anti-Semitism and homophobia of Purulent, this is just a typical hip-hop theme. He just understands that it belongs to the aesthetics in which he works. I doubt all of this is taken from the local political-art games. Rather, from Western hip-hop, which everyone is guided by anyway.

- Yes, but here he is obsessively constantly presenting himself as “red”.

We have the Soviet left, which, in fact, according to all views, except economic ones, are absolutely right. And to be right, but curtsey towards the Soviet, red theme of the NBP is not difficult at all. The Soviet leftist problematic is absolutely right, there is quite a place for homophobia and everything else.

But in the United States, hip-hop is now becoming almost the music of social protest: Kendrick Lamar's manifesto albums, Black Lives Matter, and even Kanye West, in a good way, a quarter of any album scribbles the have-class.

Those who write something about "Black Panthers" have always had such a problem - how to put the words "national" and "social" so that they do not add up to a certain combination. All the time they try to smash them with pretexts. But there was the National Socialist Party. And the "national" in this situation will always outweigh. You can conduct economic rhetoric as you like. But until you have an idea that the individual is important and not party loyalty, sooner or later you will appear in the right corner. I don’t want to say anything else about our black brotherhood, but we know what the roots of this are.

With the current disposition, they still very clearly fall into the conditionally left flank of the Democratic Party.

Yes, left-liberal - minorities. But the whole point is that they are included in such a common agenda. There is a metastructure that incorporates the issues of minorities. But for the minorities themselves, the problematic may be very far from the universalist left-wing agenda, it may be quite nationalistic. If the metastructure claims that it is for everyone who was previously oppressed, then it sounds left-liberal. But if you begin to disassemble who makes up this structure, you can find absolutely amazing things there, except perhaps without neo-fascism, which is simply completely unrespectable.

- So you think that hip-hop still can't get away from macho DNA?

Yes. He has a genealogy, this genealogy has a rigidly structured form of expression. Either you just give up this genealogy, but then you move away from what made hip-hop. There is, for example, rapcore, really ultra-left and mostly white. But hip-hop can hardly be called hip-hop.

What's up with guitar music? There is a feeling that she will never get back to the status of something important. Now it is something so frozen, almost subcultural, not influential at all.

It is not frozen. It's just that what we called the “new Russian wave” is initially a completely subcultural form - people have created a loyal fan base for themselves. From the very beginning, they could not influence anything. Even a few years ago, they were not popular. It's just that some journalist needed to find something like that, come up with a term, and he did it and created some kind of mini-hype out of it. In this case, the word hype is perfect. Now this mini-hype has subsided.

In the 1990s, everything was a little different, because there was about one frame for a serious protest. For all my absolutely negative attitude towards Limonov and others, I must give it credit - they had a global theoretical framework. Now this theoretical framework does not exist. Then life was not very good. One could say that the Russians were humiliated, unfurl the red flag, stand up for them. And now what?

It's just that what we called the “new Russian wave” is initially a completely subcultural form - people have created a loyal fan base for themselves.

From the very beginning they could not influence anything

- Now there is no discourse that could be reflected in guitar music?

Then there was ideology. In fact, these are defective bikes, that in the 1990s it was not. There is no official ideology now. Someone was born in the last five years, but she is so amorphous that even if you want to resist her, it will not work out very well. Roskomnadzor banned quite radical things. In fact, with all its amorphousness, our current ideology does a much better job of dealing with what it perceives as a threat to itself. This threat is instantly marginalized. Five years ago, this was done with stubborn nationalists, when they were redrawn into complete freaks.

In the 1990s, we were told that we are building capitalism, we have a liberal economy, freedom of speech, and so on. No one really turned off this path. Now you cannot find direct statements. They just said that we have a conservative turn, and here bam, and there is no conservative turn. Therefore, many are nostalgic for the NBP, which was a well-formed modernist statement.

- Why does all the shameful pop music now come to us from Ukraine and Belarus?

Because in Ukraine there is superficial political mobility, while we have stagnation. But we are walking around a more global problem. Now it is already very difficult for something to appear that will have total significance, due to the fact that the means of delivery and consumption have changed. You have playlists on the Internet, besides, you didn't compose them yourself, but the DJ advised them to you, you have a dispersion of taste preferences.

When I come to a party of my students, they start with Face and Oksimiron and end with the VIA Gra group. There is no longer that which would have been trapped. Usually, taste preferences are formed through finding out what is impossible in a given social stratum, subculture. Now that which is impossible does not exist. The new consumption structure removed the function of experts, people who created the ideology. Back in the 1990s, you had to buy a disc, rewrite a cassette. Naturally, those for whom you rewrote the cassette had their own taste. When you went to the store, you have not an infinite amount of money, you still went to a certain counter. Now, when they ask me if I have listened to such and such a group, I do not even ask how it is at all, I go and download it. These music journalists, taste experts, values ​​and numbering experts - they're all blown away. The advice of some dude you know as fashionable, well-trained is much more important than the advice of a dude, about whom you only know that he works in a big beautiful magazine. Nobody reads these big beautiful magazines anymore.

- Well, in the case of "VIA Gra" at the party, it's more about irony.

Not quite so, it seems to me. I also watched the reaction of people who start dancing to hardcore punk and finish with VIA Gra. There used to be a thrash taste, which the same Afisha actively promoted. In the early 2000s, listening to Mikhail Krug, for example, was fashionable, I remember very well. There was irony, which, however, if a person drank three more glasses, turned into tears of happiness. But basically it was an ironic approach, because no one was trying to say that the Circle is great music.

Now under "VIA Gra" they really thump. About three years ago I turned on the "Combination" group, I realized that I could listen to it quite calmly. Now this is not ironic. This is an emancipatory moment, if earlier you had to make efforts to break the hierarchy, now you don't need any breaking. If now a person comes forward with some kind of hierarchy, then they will look at him like an idiot. Therefore, what general meaning of music can we talk about if all music exists on the same plane? ..

Beyoncé appropriated the theme of several groups of the oppressed at once - here both race and gender. And now, when she makes these statements, all people are trained that it is in fact the voice of the progressive instance.

For example, about the meaning of global pop music: Beyoncé's album is massively deconstructed as an important statement, and the New York Times is releasing a huge interview with Jay-Z with a bunch of questions about all the most important.

Beyoncé is such a Pugacheva as Madonna once was. There are several Pugachevs in America. Beyoncé appropriated the theme of several groups of the oppressed at once - here both race and gender. And now, when she makes these statements, all people are trained that it is in fact the voice of a progressive instance that communicates important things, it is actually acting as president. If you go down to the level below where Alla Pugacheva is not, to the level of Taylor Swift, there is none of this.

- Taylor Swift is called a fascist!

Well, yes, it already has a much lower bulletproofness. What's the point of pop culture? In socialization, which has certain norms. Beyoncé in this case is a translator of norms. She tells you new norms, from which you simply cannot deviate when speaking in society, you will immediately fall out of it. But this right to broadcast socializing norms is reserved for a very small number of people.

This is not to say that pop music as a whole has somehow been incorporated into a larger structure. A large structure at some point, let's not talk about capitalism, realized that this is a powerful lever of socialization. In the 1990s, Madonna was the main voice, breaking stereotypes. You can always look at these top figures, whose records everyone is listening to. They can be different stylistically, but everyone buys and listens to them, simply because it is a special choice of the industry. No wonder ižek calls Hollywood the American military-industrial complex.

It was with us. For us, Pugacheva was an official singer for a long time, she also did this. In the 1980s, the gap between Pugacheva and some Rotaru was simply insurmountable. There was no one next to her. It was such a divine voice. Everyone rushed to listen to everything she did, even songs like "Madame Broshkina": God had grown old, but we had to go and listen to it urgently. It happens everywhere.

- But now there are no such figures in Russia.

In Russia, this has disappeared because there is nothing to broadcast.

- Although there is Timati, for example.

Timati is very characteristic. Timati is such a good example of how, in the dumbest musical field, a person was chosen, and he is still some kind of repeater of certain norms. I was once asked about Timati two months ago. Before that, I specifically listened to a certain number of his songs, and found that Timati as a performer is not as bad as his reputation. By and large, the project was done correctly.

Only he seems to be constantly lagging behind in time, because this ultra-hedonism of the 2000s in the biggest hip-hop is somehow not very noticeable, but degenerates. Lamar, whom we have already remembered today, has the entire album in one way or another devoted to frustration and disappointment, Kanye West and Jay-Z also regularly report on the existential hardships of the life of rap millionaires.

Yes, but this frustration is in everything now, not just in hip-hop. I do not want to make political statements, it is clear that the 1990s, with their end of history, the golden age of prosperity and so on, are hopelessly gone. By the way, the same thing happened in the Western Hemisphere in the last century, when in the 1950s a series of progressive achievements and a healthy economic situation led to talk of a golden age, and already in the 1960s children raise their heads at their parents and present them: “ Something you did not give us. They said that we have total freedom, but somehow it is not total. " Now we have such 1960s. Culture is the voice of the dominant narrative. And now she is frustrated with everyone.

- Do we have any chances for a new punk?

New punk is not possible at all. Punk, on the other hand, is beautiful in that he has taken the agenda, which very easily comes to the singularity. He took a nihilistic agenda, cooler and more radical than which it is simply impossible to come up with anything, took it and completely worked it out. When Johnny Rotten said: “Do you like it when they spit in your face for your money? Well then, sit down! " - it is impossible to say anything worse, destructive, more radical. To come up with a second punk purely ideologically unrealistic.

There is another important mystery. Why is sad music so fond of in Russia? Lil Peep, who recently died tragically, had a fan base here that was almost larger than in the United States. I'm not even talking about the Witch House, whose corpse was resurrected in Russia almost ten years after its almost imperceptible birth in the West and was successfully exploited for several years.

It's a long story. In the nineteenth century, everywhere we had our own nationalism, and the very legitimation of good art was national roots, everywhere the educated class was looking for them. When Balakirev compiled the first collection of folk songs, which he traveled and collected for a long time, it turned out that there is a craving for minor modes in folk music. Balakirev singled out the Russian minor.

Then comes the Soviet government, which takes the entirely created idea that correct art is always drawn from the national source, transfers it absolutely mechanically. You can just listen to all the songs of the Soviet pop music, Soviet times - there is this folk mode everywhere. Major things will be only when you need to call for an attack on the enemy.

We have a historical inclination towards minor, now we will not go into explaining why. Unlike America, with its country music, based on some fun stuff. We are still pulling this minor mode, because aesthetically, we inherit Soviet ideas about what the right music looks like. It is not for nothing that in many books of people who were engaged in Soviet, post-Soviet culture, an atypical number of minor deviations in pop music is necessarily noted in percentage terms. I'm not even talking about rock. These are the same things, they dissolve in the blood most firmly, this is a very long time. In a couple of generations it will go away, because we live in a fleeting world. And now people still remember that mom and dad listened.

We have a historical inclination towards minor, now we will not go into explaining why. Unlike America with its country music based on some fun stuff

- That is, Russians almost genetically love sad music?

Oh sure. Not only Russians, there are some Mediterranean Neapolitan songs. They are not all funny. The prevalence of the major over the minor scale in the world is explained only by the fact that one culture has taken over pop music - American. The blues is also inclined to a minor sound, but then the Americans finished it off. If you look at European folk music, there are a lot of minor modes there too. The fact is that American culture crushed the entire European pop culture, but we have not, because there was an iron curtain. If the curtain fell in the 1960s, there would be major frets.

Perhaps then we would never get chanson. Are you sure that in a few generations it will still be listened to?

In the traditional form, of course not. He integrates into the stage. He mimics a lot of styles. The nostalgic nagging isn't going anywhere. Sooner or later, in half of the cases, people, even who listen to Sex Pistols, by the age of 30–40 come to songs about their daughter, mother, to topics that are unusual for a large number of musical styles. And who will serve all this? Transformed chanson.

142.

Fatum ceases to be an abstraction when it materializes in a storyline.

In this case, we will describe the concept as follows:

Fabula (lat.) - story, plot, play

Actor (lat.) - Actors

Topos - Topos is a place.

Uniformitas - Unifier

Modificatio - Modifier

In this case, the Unifier correlates the storyline with the class (type) of the storyline to which the given storyline belongs. For example, we can read two completely different books, one of which is a fairy tale and the other is a documentary story. And there, and there - in completely different narratives by genre, we can see the same action - for example, in a fairy tale a hero runs away from a monster, and in a realistic sketch - another, not a fictional hero, runs away from a robber. In both cases, for all their dissimilarity, there is a "run away" plot.

The modifier sets individualized characters for characters - appearance, character traits, etc.

Expanding the content of the concept of "storyline" by the KAB method, we get:

Fatum

Actor - a participant in the plot who performs an action (on the actant)

Basis (ancient Greek) - 1) base, base, 2) move, step, 3) rhythm, beat

Uniformitas

Lingua (lat.) - language.

Actant (fr. - "acting") - the participant of the plot, over which the action is performed

It is easy to see that fate and plot have a function as a starting point of meaning.

But, if in the fatum the function is defined (set) as a certain rule, then in the plot it acquires its visible, directly materialized embodiment.

Traditionally, the plot is defined as the factual side of the story, arranged in chronological order. The wording is intuitive, but does not fully reveal the essence of the concept.

To a greater extent, the presented definition falls under the notion of a sequence - a sequence of events.

After our decomposition, we see the concept of the plot more clearly and by analogy with the fate - as well as an integral unity.

So - the definition:

A plot is the unity of a predetermined function given to the participants in an action on a certain basis (basis), in a certain place (topos) by the participants themselves, performing (actors) or undergoing (actants) an action represented by means of language and having a given rhythm (basis).

Now let us clarify some of the concepts encountered in the definition.

The difference between an actor and an actant can be clearly seen in the following examples:

Ivan kisses Marya.

Ivan performs an action, and he is an actor. Marya is undergoing action (she does not kiss, but is kissable), Marya is an actant.

If in the next second Marya slaps Ivan, then the Act-Roles of the characters change accordingly. Now Marya becomes an actor (hits), and Ivan becomes an actant (gets hit - undergoes action).

Act-Role Inversion is the primary mechanism of history and stories.

In the "big" history, such an inversion was considered by Hegel in the theme of the slave and the master, which change places over time. The line of the International "who was nothing, he will become everything", of course, grew out of the soil fertilized by Hegel. algebra, take "nothing" as 0, and "everything" as 1, then the line of the song just describes the change in the polarity of the function: 0 → 1. Wilfredo Pareto, in his theory of elite rotation, said practically the same thing.

In "small" stories, the plot is well known when the persecutor himself becomes for a time persecuted (the policeman who chases after the villain, at some point and for some time is forced to run away from the villain - a well-developed outline of many action films and detectives).

Act-role inversion, despite the fact that it seems to be a kind of leap, at its microstructural level, goes through a number of stages.

First, a certain Transitional State appears in the system (actor-actant) - imperceptible for the eye of the viewer, but capable of being captured by the trained gaze of an experienced observer.

Borrowing from kinetic chemistry, the transient symbol: ‡ (Dagger).

Then we get a visual diagram:

(Actor * Actor) ‡ ((Actor (Actant) * (Actant) (Actor) ) † ((Actant (Actor) * Actor (Actant) )

Here:

An asterisk * means interaction,

The † sign (Dagger) is the operator of the transition of the system to another state (in the formulas of quantum mechanics, this sign is put in the transposition of matrices with complex conjugation. In simple terms, the transposition of a matrix is ​​an operation when the rows become columns, and the columns of a matrix become rows. -Role inversions something similar happens - the "horizontal" position of the actant becomes the "vertical" of the actor and vice versa).

At this point, we will finish with the actors, actants and the change of their roles, because this is the topic of a separate gnomon.

And let's move on to the language.

Any plot is told or shown. It is obvious. It cannot be perceived by us outside the language. It is also just as obvious.

In this case, language should be understood as any sign manifestation. Thus, we can talk, for example, about the language of images, or figurative representation (L-image) and verbal language (L-word) - that is, expressed through speech.

Languages ​​are capable of passing one into another: L-image ↔ L-word.

For example, the depicted itemΔ there is an image expressed in the L-image language, which, passing into the L-word language, forms a series of meanings: "triangle", "Greek letter delta", "symbol of the element of fire in alchemy", "symbol of symmetric difference in set theory", "symbol of change, increment in mathematical analysis".

In the language of words, we tell our stories.