Archive for the ‘pop culture’ Category

Deep Thought

Friday, May 10th, 2013

The medium is the message only if:

a) The message is unimportant
b) The message is a cliché, banality, or truism
c) The message is misunderstood
d) The import of the message is ignored

In all other cases, though the medium can reinforce or modify or color the message, it is never the message itself.

Message is beyond medium.

(The above tipped off by Dan Charnas’s piece in Billboard, in which it’s considered surprising that hip-hop artists would be sharply criticized and castigated for their lyrics by actual hip-hop fans, rather than the usual clueless conservatives.)

Yet Another Reason to Dislike Macklemore

Monday, February 18th, 2013

He’s a hypocrite.

Who Says Folk Music is Dead?

Thursday, January 31st, 2013

The wonderful story of “Wagon Wheel”, from Big Bill Broonzy to Arthur “Big Boy” Crudup to Bob Dylan to Old Crow Medicine Show. What this article, written in 2011, misses is the latest twist on the story: Darius Rucker turning the song into a mainstream country hit. This is how retromania used to work, back when they called it tradition, and I guess it still does.

The Best of Disney Pop

Monday, December 17th, 2012

Inspired by Michaelangelo’s NPR piece on the value of compilation albums, I’ve decided to put up one I’ve been working on and listening to consistently for the last couple of years: The Best of Disney Pop. I’ve been holding off on posting this because I’ve been trying off and on to write a longer piece on the subject. It’s never come together the way I wanted, though, so I thought I should go ahead and post this in the hope it might inspire me to get working on it again.

This is my take on the best, of course; your version might be different, or you might question the need for such a thing at all. It may all sound like nonsense, or too derivative (and it often is), but this stuff has been important in shaping the tastes of the current pop audience (along with EDM and TV shows like American Idol and Glee), and the music has served as a model for a lot of the mainstream pop we’re hearing now. This is what the kids who will dominate the next generation have been listening to. Oddly enough, that doesn’t scare me at all. Enjoy.

What’s In A Name?

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

I don’t worry much about genre distinctions. When you’re writing about pop music, which cuts through and stomps down those sorts of artificial barriers every chance it gets, they don’t do you much good other than to give you an idea of where the corpses lie. They’re nice for making general distinctions, shorthand for reviewers and critics and sometimes the audience, but beyond that they don’t help much. Too often, as any critic would tell you, they get in the way. They’re a cataloging tool and not much more (though any librarian could tell you that cataloging is a messy business, and often a greater cause of argument than the object being cataloged). I won’t go down the “music is music” road, because that doesn’t lead anywhere either, but for the most part I ignore genre, especially when the whole business comes as near to the microbial as it does now.

But there is one genre I hate. Or rather, one genre name that I hate: Americana. I don’t know who came up with it, but I tend to think it was an academic, or a museum curator, or someone making up categories for an awards show. You can almost see the patina of dust that covers the word, a layer so thick no amount of cleaning or polishing will ever remove it. In its essentials, it’s meaningless. The word reeks of the dustiness of attics and the dampness of basements, the echoey oppression of mausoleums and tombs. The definition of the term is so vague that the Grammys had no problem nominating Mumford & Sons in the Americana category this year. British folk may be the ancestor of Appalachian folk and country, but that connection was severed long ago (besides, what Mumford & Sons make, regardless of the banjo, can hardly be considered folk music,).

There used to be a perfectly good term for this sort of music, and I have no idea why it was replaced by a word more fitting for an antique mall than a living musical genre. They called it “roots music”. It’s vague, but all genre names are vague, and it’s no more vague than Americana (aren’t The Beach Boys Americana? They’ve been called as much many times. But can you imagine them getting past the genre police, even in their woody?). Besides, Americana carries the taint of jingoism, and it’s a far more isolating genre distinction than most. In its present state, it may as well be called “records that sound like they were produced by T-Bone Burnett”. “Roots music” is a more inclusive, broader term, it opens the genre up for more variety (even for Mumford & Sons), which will create more energy, which will generate better music.

I’m not saying this to put any musicians down. It’s not their fault. But once you’ve stuck yourself with the wrong name for what you do, it can have a cascade effect. You get shunted off to a special section in independent record stores, or on Amazon’s pages, where you’re ignored. You don’t show up in big box stores at all. People start to associate you with slow moving historical dramas and Ken Burns documentaries. The only way you end up on the radio is via NPR late at night, or on Saturday afternoons. Call your music Americana, and pretty soon that’s what you’ll be: a dusty CD case on the back shelves of an antique booth. Oh, there’ll be a page devoted to your bio and discography somewhere on the web, but it will be on a badly designed, rarely updated site that screams Americana in all the worst ways—flashing American flags, clip-art made to look like old wood prints, “rustic” fonts. If you want to stick to your roots, unless you’re ready for the old folks home or to be displayed under glass, your best bet is to go back to “roots music”.

Does “Mid-turbo” Equal “Wimpy”?

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

There have been a couple of interesting pieces in Billboard recently by Sean Ross, who worries (I think) that pop radio is in danger of becoming “wimpy”. This would appear to be a bad thing. It’s hard to tell, since Ross doesn’t define wimpy in any concrete terms. He bases his discussion on tempo, so I assume he’s worrying about too many ballads taking over the airwaves (don’t tell him about the new Bruno Mars single). He seems equally worried, though, about mid-tempo tracks that by being relatively busy in terms of production and arrangement are essentially disguised as up-tempo. He calls these records “mid-turbo”.

It’s all a matter of BPM translating into PPM, if you get my drift. If not, it basically means that the higher the beats per minute, the higher a station’s score is likely to be on Arbitron’s “Portable People Meter”, which is used to determine ratings. There are times I wonder if Ross is writing in code, one that only radio programmers can understand, but I think I get the general idea, which is that pop stations should essentially be party stations, providing an almost constant up. Until that is, the audience decides they want to be brought down.

At the moment, that seems to be exactly what they do want. As Ross mentions, we’re coming out of a period that some DJs described as “turbo” (hence “mid-turbo”), when party music ruled the radio, and the BPM soared. This period lasted about two years, from 2009 to 2011, and is now fading. One of the problems with mid-turbo for radio programmers, Ross suggests, is not only that the songs are slower, but the subject matter is more serious. It’s the morning after the turbo party, and as they nurse their hangovers, people are taking a minute or two to reflect.

I think much of what Ross says is true, especially from a programmer’s perspective (his observations about dubstep are spot on), but his choice of words, especially “wimpy”, suggests that he’s throwing too much of his personal taste into the argument. His description of James Taylor’s and Joni Mitchell’s music and their audience is wrong on any number of levels (just to mention one: most of Joni Mitchell’s radio hits—“You Turn Me On (I’m a Radio)”, “Free Man In Paris”, Raised On Robbery”—were mid- or up-tempo, not ballads). But maybe wimpy is code for something else. Whatever the case, it will all change in another year or so anyway. It always does.

Bad Example: Why Cat Power Shouldn’t Be the Poster Child of Indie’s (Supposed) Collapse

Monday, November 5th, 2012

I hope I don’t sound like too much of a jerk for what I’m about to say. Let me just point out at the very beginning that I have all the sympathy in the world for what Chan Marshall (aka Cat Power) is going through right now and what she’s gone through in the past. But in order to say what I want about David Wagner’s article in the Atlantic Wire regarding her financial problems last week, I’m going to have to cast her in something of a negative light. I just want to point out that I’m not extending blame—either for what’s happened in her past or what’s going on in her present. But the article, which tries to use her situation as an example of how hard it is to make a living as an indie musician, seems to me to make false connections between Marshall and other musicians, and at the same time ignores what may be the most likely reason that Marshall is experiencing her current financial difficulties: the simple fact that for a large part of her career, and for most of her life until she went into rehab in 2006, Chan Marshall was drunk.

This is not a secret; Marshall has talked about it often and in detail, especially in an article that ran in the New York Times in September of 2006.

Another day, another fifth of Scotch.

And that wasn’t all. Chan Marshall said her mornings began with a minibar’s worth of Jack Daniel’s, Glenlivet and Crown Royal. Mini bottles depleted, this indie singer-songwriter, known as Cat Power, would nurse a bottle of Scotch over the course of the day. On nights she performed, she took the antianxiety drug Xanax.

By the time she would weave onstage, beer in one hand, cigarette in the other, Ms. Marshall, 34, was wasted. And it showed. It would seem that every fan has a Cat Power concert story: the time she mooned the audience, cursed out techies, talked to a squirrel (outdoors), played three chords and changed her mind (song after song) or played fragments of a few songs and then told everyone to get out, even encouraging fans to sue her.

Any guesses as to how much this effected Marshall’s financial stability? Aside from her daily habits (emptying a hotel minibar on a regular basis is probably the most expensive way of being an alcoholic), think how many opportunities she must have missed or avoided, how many fans, and potential fans, she alienated by being drunk and rude on stage, how much money must have been wasted, not just on booze, but on all the after effects and collateral damage that go along with being an alcoholic.

Wagner’s article suggests, however, that all of Marshall’s financial problems are due to the lack of money in indie music and her more recently diagnosed health problems. Even though he mentions her time in rehab as part of a list of her stays at Miami’s Mt. Sinai Medical Center, he never suggests that her financial instability could be based in her past alcoholism. History, and not just musical history, is full of stories of people who, while still functioning professionally, destroyed their finances through drinking and other forms of substance abuse. George Jones, who drank his way into bankruptcy while still one of the biggest names in country music and making some of his greatest records, is a perfect example.

The story of Jones is even more important when you consider the comparison Wagner makes between Marshall’s situation and that of Grizzly Bear, as outlined in an article by Nitsuh Abebe that ran in New York magazine. The problem with the comparison (besides the fact that they’re a band, and need to split whatever money they make four ways), is that Grizzly Bear has been successful in a time when the entire music industry, not just the indie sector, has been suffering (their first record came out just about the time the industry was going into freefall). Marshall, on the other hand, achieved her first success in the mid-90s, when the music industry was drowning in money, and when alternative and indie acts were doing especially well (at least compared to the 80s, not to mention now). She was never a huge star, but she had, and has, a devoted following and a strong relationship with her record label; many of her fans stuck with her even as she fell apart before their eyes. It’s hard to believe she didn’t make more than a decent living, certainly a better one than the members of Grizzly Bear make now. And she had no one to spend it on but herself—herself and her alcoholism, that is.

Again, I’m not trying to pin blame on Marshall for her difficulties—no one becomes an alcoholic by choice—but to use her as an example of how difficult it is to make a living as a musician, even a moderately successful one, strikes me as ridiculous. Yes, things are worse for musicians than they used to be, but they’re worse for everybody than they used to be. It’s never been easy to make a living as a musician, and as the members of Grizzly Bear admit, they’re lucky to be able to do so, even if they can’t afford health insurance or to move out of their tiny apartments. But there’s a long history of musicians who have made things even harder for themselves, and whose difficulties had little or nothing to do with the state of the industry. The current music biz may make it harder for Marshall to pull out of her current situation—and I hope she does—but it didn’t cause it.

Oh, Grow Up

Friday, September 28th, 2012

This week, for some reason, has been “I hate rap week”. Maybe it’s overload, or the knowledge that with every week there’s going to be another record in which: 1) mediocre rappers will brag about how much money they make, how much dope they smoke, and how much pussy they get; 2) Lil Wayne will become even more irrelevant. Whatever the case, the feeling has been overwhelming. There are a lot of promising young rappers out there (Kendrick Lamar; Danny Brown; A$AP Rocky; even Lil B if you sift through enough of his endless flood of mixtapes), and there are plenty of older rappers who are still making high quality stuff, but most of what makes the Hot 100 is repetitive, unimaginative, and mediocre.

As a middle-aged white guy, even one who’s been listening to and enjoying rap for over thirty years, I need to be careful how I say things. As my distaste for the current trends crept over me, I started to worry that I was too old to get this stuff anymore, that I was too distant from the culture to understand what was going on, that maybe even a touch of xenophobia was starting to rear its ugly head and inject itself into my opinions. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that it couldn’t be true. Not because such a thing isn’t possible (we all have our prejudices, and they often change in ways we don’t anticipate), but because everything that I dislike about current rap is also what I dislike about current mainstream country. The endless parade of mediocre country boys that I mentioned in my last post is almost the exact equivalent to the mediocre rap talents who have flooded the charts over the last two years or so.

In other words, the trends that bother me so much aren’t based in race or location (urban vs. rural), or even in commercially reinforced stereotypes, they’re based on the culture of young men with too much money, too much time, too big an ego, too narrow a point of view, and not enough sense.

The only difference between the two, as far as I can see, is the language. So I’ve created a handy, somewhat tongue and cheek chart that you can use to translate between and compare the two genres. Let me know if I’ve missed anything, or if I’m suggesting equivalencies that don’t work. But I think this gets pretty close to the reality.

Rap Country
My hood My small town
My crib My farm
Street Muddy road
7-11 Walmart
Maybach Pickup truck (Dodge, Ford, or Chevy)
Lamborghini Harley-Davidson
Mercedes Benz John Deere
Blunt Smoke
40 Beer
Hennesey’s Jack Daniels
Champagne Bartles & James
Tequila Tequila
Glock/9MM/AK-47/machine gun/shotgun Hunting rifle/shotgun
Dealing Working
Fucking Making love/fishing
Shorty Darlin’
Stripper Honky tonk angel
Working the pole Shaking on the tailgate
My boo My beau
Mama Mother
Babymama Wife
Bitch The ex
Booty Badonkadonk
Pussy Never heard of it
Never heard of it Foreplay (hugging, kissing, running my hands through your hair, etc.)
Dick Fishing pole/pickup truck/big green tractor
Riding Cruising
Flashing lights Moon/Head lights
Gucci/Louis Vuitton/Versace Carhart/Dickies/Levis
Colors Flag (US or Confederate)
Black pride American/country pride
God/Allah/Jah/Jesus Jesus
Hashtags Bad puns

There’s always hope, though. Brad Paisley’s new single, “Southern Comfort Zone”, advises his country brethren to get out of their shell and see the rest of the world. It’s his best record since “American Saturday Night”. I just hope some of his peers pay attention. And if anybody knows of a rapper who does the same, send me a line.

Lil Wayne: The Fat Elvis of Rap

Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

Not physically of course—he’s still as thin as a skateboard—but psychologically, symbolically. Take a look at the video (as much of it as you can stand—I barely got through the first minute myself). Even if you assume that he’s talking to the defense attorney in the lawsuit and intentionally being difficult, it’s hard to imagine anyone acting so self-important while at the same time so out of it in every way. But why not? Who can touch him, aside from the feds, and who ever dares to tell him that he’s wrong (aside from the critics he ignores) or that he’s being an asshole? Every time he inhales a blunt he exhales money. Every record he makes, even minor guest spots, makes the charts; every show sells out; every TV appearance—even those where he lip-syncs terrible raps that he had previously apologized for, like he did on the VMA’s—draws waves of adulation. He doesn’t need to do anything anymore (he hasn’t released a decent record since before he went to prison); he only needs to be Lil Wayne. But he’s not allowed to be anything else. Which means the only way he can escape being Lil Wayne is by being nothing at all. That’s how Elvis did it. And that would appear to be the direction Lil Wayne’s headed.

Exposure

Friday, September 7th, 2012

I’ve been reviewing pop singles on this blog for almost eight years, and I’ve never gotten a reaction like I’m getting to my review in the Village Voice of OneRepublic’s new single. Part of it is numbers (I’ve never averaged much more than 40 hits a day), but it’s also the type of reader. I assume most of my readers are friends, other critics, or both. Most casual pop fans aren’t interested in criticism, and since I’m lousy at self-promotion I’ve never tried to reach out to them, anyway. So most of the readers of this blog would either share my dislike of OneRepublic and Ryan Tedder, or wouldn’t care.

But it’s the casual pop fan who does most of the record buying, who forms the strongest attachment to certain stars, and who is, though they would never admit this, most likely to be terrified of any opinion that’s the opposite of their own. I’ve experienced this in the past, on web forums and listserves where the merest hint of criticism will either get you pummeled with negative messages or ignored until the end of time. One person on The Well told me that since I didn’t like The Piano, I wasn’t worth talking to about anything. When I suggested that our disagreement was a basis for discussion rather than a reason to ignore each other, I got no reply. I did, however, hear from other members. They accused me of harassment and told me to leave the person alone.

I wondered for a long time why so many people were afraid not only of criticism, but of anyone who expressed a strong opinion. My theory at the moment is that people know that most of their own opinions, however strongly they may be held, are built on nothing but air. They are either borrowed from sources they trust and consider more knowledgeable on the subject than themselves, or derived not from thought and consideration but from an emotional reaction (the situation of most pop fans). In either case, if they were asked to defend their opinions, they would find themselves at sea. Other than citing their sources, if they have any, their only options are flight, silence, or attack.

Which doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Every day, every person in the world does something like this. Faced with the need to have an opinion about something we haven’t thought much about, either because we’re asked or because a situation arises that makes it seem important, we wing it. Only the impossibly wise keep their mouth shut when asked their opinion about something they don’t know. And once we wing it we tend to stick to it, even when there’s no basis for it but emotion or some kind of gut feeling. Hence our defensiveness. But there isn’t any real defense, and we know it, and no one likes to be exposed in that way.

Which is why, though I always use both barrels in print, I’ve learned to hold back or even remain silent in face to face conversation. If someone told me they loved OneRepublic, I might politely demure, but most likely I wouldn’t say anything at all. I’d just nod. This goes for any direct communication, not just face to face. Unless I know that the person I’m talking to knows me well enough not to be offended (or is also a critic, in which case we let it rip), I’m more cagey and polite about my opinions. If it were a matter of morality, or ethics, maybe even politics, I might not be so hesitant, but pop music isn’t weighty enough (to most people, anyway) to get in that sort of mess on a regular basis.

Attacks on critics are another aspect of this. I don’t think people hate critics any more than they ever have, but they have more outlets for expressing it: comment sections, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, the reviews section on Amazon. The old saying that everybody is a critic is true. I’ve recently come to the conclusion, in fact, that the term “critical thought” is a redundancy. All conscious thought is critical thought, an attempt to make sense of the world as we face it each day, to navigate the dangers and confusions and novelties that pop up in our environment and in ourselves. Criticism seems odd to people because it’s applied to other people’s critical thought as expressed in the arts, and seems to deal only indirectly with life itself. It’s an added, often abstract layer of discussion that many people consider unnecessary or insulting. That criticism is as much an art form as any other, that at its best it deals directly with life as viewed through the prism of art either doesn’t occur to them or makes no sense.

That the critic exposes herself as much as the artist she writes about, as much as the audience for whom she tries to interpret the art, is something that’s lost in a slew of fear, doubt, and misunderstanding that too often express itself in frustration and anger.

People don’t like that the world is difficult to understand. I don’t like it, either. It scares me as much as it scares them. But cocooning yourself in the easy listening affirmations of OneRepublic isn’t going to make things better. You need to open up to more than that, no matter how scared you are. You need to expose yourself.