after seeing that it wasn't readily available on any streaming service that I have access to, I downloaded a .FLAC of the GARDEN STATE soundtrack in order to preserve my culture. I started it up and as soon as I reached the first chorus of "Don't Panic", I was hit with the powerful impulse to log onto Mindsay. But we don't have Mindsay anymore -- we have this. So now I'm here.

the sort of relationship I have to music I listened to in high school and college -- it's a little depressing to think that I'll never have that kind of relationship with a new album, but it's really depressing to think that no one will have that kind of relationship, even if they're currently as young and impressionable as I was when I first saw GARDEN STATE and thought it was great because I had only seen like 10-15 good movies at that point.

the key to this kind of relationship is not having other options. high-speed internet and the culture that has developed out of it has totally erased the possiblity for any piece of music (or film or television or culture in general) to be truly "special" in a person's life. if you're not immediately enthralled by a new album, don't worry -- you can abandon it immediatley and jump right to any of the other 50 million songs that are on Spotify right now (that's a real number, I just googled it). completely gone is the investment of spending $15-$20 on a single CD and being determined to get your money out of it. if you didn't like that CD you just bought, well you goddamned well better learn to like it because you're not going to get a new one for at least a month.

was this just cultural stockholm syndrome? would my life/tastes/experiences have been better if I had immediate access to all of the music that's ever been commercially released (or at least the illusion of the same)? on one level, yes: I would have been able to easily explore every genre of music and zero in on the stuff that was most satisfying to me on an aesthetic and political level. but on another level: fuck that! the value of art isn't solely based on the quality of the art itself -- it's also based on how that piece of art fits into the landscape of a person's life. the GARDEN STATE soundtrack doesn't actually matter, what matters is that I used it as a way of decoding my own emotions during a time when the inside of my head was a completely impenetrable and constantly churning hurricane of badness. 

I guess if I was putting a finer point on it, I would say something like: art doesn't matter, people matter -- and art only matters to the degree that it's of use to those people. 

on the other hand, the abundance of choice in the present-day media landscape is probably good for anyone who's looking to define themselves through the media consumption, i.e. teenagers. Adults also do this, but I think that's a mistake. Definining yourself by the movies you watch or the music you listen to is a young person's game, a way of staking claim to your identity through passive consumption when your options for action are extremely limited. As an adult, you can actually affect change in your life and surroundings, so you should try to define yourself that way. But maybe I'm just talking about my own life, maybe most teenagers feel like they do have the ability to define themselves through action... but somehow I doubt it.

but ANYWAY, I used to define myself as being "outside the mainstream" (or whatever) by the fact that I was watching TWIN PEAKS during a time when not many people I knew of were watching it, and I imagine it's easier than ever to do shit like that -- the monoculture is becoming so big and oppressive that all you have to do is not watch WANDAVISION and you're basically william s. burroughs. 

right? does any of this make sense? fuck it, I'm not going to go back and re-read it. also, I'm now realizing that I used to skip half of these songs anyway. Remy Zero? Thievery Corporation? come on, man, this is embarassing even for 2004