BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Behind The Music?

  
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:00 / 24.03.05
Spinning out from the thread about Simon Fuller, I thought it might be an idea to pull back a little from the specifics, restate our assumptions, that kind of thing. Anyone who thinks we've had this debate before: you're welcome to read other threads in the Music forum or start new ones instead. I'm going to try and keep this as non-combative as possible for once, and just try to outline some ways in which a person might think about this, and then we can talk about what our own views are and what we agree with and don't agree with, and why... And hopefully this thread at least will stay slightly less combative than many of us will otherwise feel it is appropriate to be in other threads.

So, positions which occur (note, I'm not trying to map these onto any specific person in another thread, and I'm trying to represent these as fairly as possible):

1. The process by which music is made affects the way I feel about it.

Within this , we may or may not have views such as:

- I prefer music made by artists who take as active a role in the process as possible.

- I prefer music made by artists who I believe are representing themselves honestly through their music.

- I prefer music made by artists with whom I feel I am in agreement on certain issues.

- I prefer music made by artists who I believe have gained the opportunity to record and release music through their own musical merit alone, not through inherited wealth or networking or the way they look.

- I prefer music which is not released or distributed by large corporations (this may be for ethical or political reasons, or just because I don't trust their taste).

That isn't meant to be an exclusive list, but it covers quite a few things. Then we have:

2. The process by which music is made does not affect the way I feel about it. In as much as is possible, I try to judge the music I listen to on its own merits. None of those factors listed above matter.


Now personally, I often tend to think that position 2 is a pretty good principle to aspire to most of the time. BUT then I find myself remembering that the problem with it is that it can be interpreted as a commandment which dictates that anything outside from the music itself is entirely irrelevant and has no place in any discussion of music. This to my mind is a) a bit boring, and b) slightly unrealistic.

So even as a principle to aspire to, position 2 is something which very few people are going to be able to honestly say they've achieved, unless they're living in a cave into which music is piped, and thus never see an album cover or read an interview... "Nothing else matters but the music" is something I often fall back on in arguments, but I think it's kind of functionally irrelevant, even if it's true, y'know?

So the position I tend to take, is one that isn't quite 2 but which disagrees with a lot of the examples of possible ways in which 1 can apply that I listed above (let's call them principles). Sometimes it's because I believe that the particular example is a principle that it's foolish to apply to music in general. More often, however, I find myself disagreeing with a specific case in which one of these principles is being applied either incorrectly or inconsistently - so, either someone castigates artist X for presenting themselves in very sexual way in their videos and photos but applauds artist Y for doing the same thing (let's keep the examples vague for now) - unless specific reasons why one should be castigated and the other appluaded can be given, I tend to see this as inconsistency. Or, someone claims to dislike an artist because they have not succeeded through musical merit, but supplies no evidence of this.

Having said this, of course I'm not claiming to be 100% consistent myself, and genres are even more tricky - I often point out how artists working in different genres are held to different standards when it comes to the morality of their lyrics, but at the same time I'm aware that treating different genres as if they were teh same is... problematic, to say the least.

So... there ought to be a question at the end of this post. I suppose it's: "What's your position?"
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:25 / 24.03.05
Nice intro!

It's very interesting that music differs so much from, say, film in this respect...Although a cult has slowly built around directors, particularly so-called 'auteurs' (the equivalent, I suppose, of 'authentic' musical artistes - writer/producer/performer), it is much more clearly stratified and recognised as team effort...Actors do 'their bit', the Script (and it's writer(s)) is noted for its role, the Director gets high billing, the Producer's and their past glories are cited and so on and so on...Furthermore, none of these players are in any way expected to in any way reflect their creative output in their 'real lives' - nobody, for example, expects Joe Pesci to be a psychotically violent mini-thug, beating up reporters and conducting an ongoing beef with, say, Ray Liotta...Martin Scorsese needn't have easily traceable gangland origins, nor bullet wounds to prove his merit...

Not quite so with music...There is an inbuilt authenticity check with much artistic output, which can hugely affect audience reception - no rap artist has yet been succesfully manufactured by a large label (watch Verbalicious for more on this), Eminem is widely rounded on for being a homophobe / misogynist, and may well be, I don't know - my access to his character is through his creations, much as my access to Martin Scorsese's is through his - but there are a different set of assumptions at play with each.

'The Real' thus becomes a huge issue for musical artistes, who are expected to either be 'authentically' bringing their lives to bear for the world, or puppets at the behest of svengali's...with not that much in between...great performance goes a long way for the latter sector, who can gain kudos by having exceptional chops of some description - be it a great voice, funky moves or whatever. I think you're right to say that it is very difficult to appreciate how much these sorts of preconceptions influence the respone to music, at the very least upon first listen / early exposure.

I don't care about the process in the long run - if it's a good record / song, then it is. But appreciating the artistry of something which it would be hard to imagine any other way and respecting the uniqueness of the process evident does a huge amount for the apparent 'authenticity' of that thing...hence, as an example, I find little to be anmoured of in the Ciara records, because from within the cave with the pipe (even with the TV feed) she is interchangeable with Christina Milian, and a whole host of other US acts we don't even get in the UK...Compared to, say, Aaliyah, who had something quite distinct from all of these R&B teen-sensations (and who I suspect Ciara is being lined up to occupy the vacant space left by her untimely end). See also Busted / McFly (The Monkees). If Busted were still an act, they could easily swap members at will with their protegees, trade sets, and the audience would barely notice.

It's not so much care about the process, as appreciate the distinctiveness of a less homogenous one.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:12 / 24.03.05
Processed pop often lacks the cohesion that I love about a lot of music and because of that I can be quite cynical about it. I think the type of interaction between people involved in the creation of a song really lends itself to the finished song and I find the business element of processed pop quite distasteful. That's not to say that I only dislike processed pop- far from it- but when I imagine a load of people like Fuller sitting around saying 'catsuit? Roooaaarrrr' and having meetings while suited and booted when a song hasn’t even be made it lends a cynical edge to my perception that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. It’s the need for the application of a song to an artist that disturbs me. So yes, the process does matter and it does affect my view but I won’t judge the song on the merit of that though I find that I dislike a lot of music that’s created in that particular way.

Outside of the specific relationship with the song the process is unimportant. A bad song is just that and everyone with input has to be given due credit. Most of the music I really love tends to be made by about 4 people who have equal artistic control- no one has complete responsibility for an album, that's just our way of simplifying things- the smaller the number of people the more personality tends to come across and particularly the personality of the music. Which really leads to the point that I don't like pop attitude, I just can't bring myself to like it, so it's something that I either ignore or get irritated by- it's why I never liked N'Sync but don't mind Justin so much (he's stepped in to hybrid attitude now) and it’s a reason, in addition to her bland music, that I don’t like Rachel Stevens very much. So really the thing about processed pop that annoys me is less the music and more the presentation of the artist. The problem for me is that if I find presentation bland this tends to take some of the magic of the song away. So I think I only care about the process in that it affects a piece of music.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:14 / 24.03.05
I find little to be anmoured of in the Ciara records, because from within the cave with the pipe (even with the TV feed) she is interchangeable with Christina Milian, and a whole host of other US acts we don't even get in the UK...Compared to, say, Aaliyah, who had something quite distinct from all of these R&B teen-sensations (and who I suspect Ciara is being lined up to occupy the vacant space left by her untimely end).

Can you quantify what it was Aaliyah that made her distinct, now that we have some examples? It's just that, without attributing this motivation to you, I have noticed a phenomenon whereby people who once thought Aaliyah just another example of a faceless r&b singer have reassessed this in the light of her death (without reassessing others in the genre)...

Whereas the one Ciara song I know well is interesting to me partly because it does seem quite distinct. 'Goodies' is almost entirely pent-up tension, there's very little in the way of release, and this is as true of the vocals as anything else. There's maybe one moment where Ciara cuts loose with her lungs, the rest of the time it's just this kind of tight-lipped mutter...

See also Busted / McFly (The Monkees). If Busted were still an act, they could easily swap members at will with their protegees, trade sets, and the audience would barely notice.

Surely this is not true of Busted's audience, who are/were (in all likelihood) extremely aware of which member is which, and could pick them out of any line-up? Likewise, grumpy old former NME readers my age often claim that they can't tell the difference between The Killers, Franz Ferdinand and the Kaiser Chiefs, whereas I can see one or two differences, and to some (people ten years younger than me who maybe still buy the NME with any regularity) that statement might seem ridiculous.

I'd suggest there's a value of recognising the limitations of one's own perspective. As I type that, I wonder how much I do it myself... Hmmm, I dunno. I try not to say stupid things like "metal - it's all the same, isn't it?" these days. I try.
 
 
skellybones
13:23 / 24.03.05
In theory, I always try and focus on the music first, and disregard any concerns about credibility, authenticity etc.

In reality, I find that on some level I tend to judge artists based on highly subjective, and pretty daft, perceptions of their apparent energy and passion for the music they're making.

By this token, I have no quibbles with yer Busted and McFlys. For some reason (good marketing by their record companies?) I perceive them as being genuinely into the music, even if their cheeky pop-punkery isn't to my tastes.

But, I find Jet abhorrent. To me, their lazy Rolling StOasis riffola just sounds totally lifeless and devoid of life or passion. They may well be 'real' in the sense that they formed organically, but there's something indefinably fake and cynical about them.

I'm the first to admit that this is a stupid, and reductive, way of looking at things. But I just can't help myself.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:35 / 24.03.05
Maybe maybe...Thing is, at those sorts of gigs (the teeny market), the music IS practically of no import...at the gigs, mind...because the screaming begins at pain threshold and does.not.let.up for the entire set. They could pretty much start on a Leonard Cohen set, or some john Mcglaughlin fretjazz and no one would notice, apart from the St. Johns Ambulance crews at the front maybe...

Aaliyah...it was the restraint you mention, which I can also see in the Ciara stuff (videos as well)...Aaliyah never looked like she was 'doing' anything...or sounded like it...not-doing, to get all taoist about it. Which is always great in music. And she was, undoubtedly, Timbaland's muse, pushing him and Missy to hitherto unheard of freakiness in the production stakes...It's all across the board now, but at the time, so uttlery compellingly unique...

Ciara may develop well, but at the moment I'm so sick of slick R&B...there's not enough else being marketed as effectively to the mainstream, so its ubiquitous to the point of driving me (and many others I'm sure) insane. Which is my perspective colouring judgement, no argument.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
15:36 / 24.03.05
See, I very rarely associate what I hear/see/experience of an artist/band/whoever with the music. For example, I actively dislike almost everything the Red Hot Chili Peppers have ever done, while recognising, of course, that it's not because they're shit - it's because I regularly go to a rock club that overplays them so very much that the have become ubiquitous, and therefore anathema. Certainly I find their history vaguely tragic and inspring in equal measure, and Kiedis et al all seem like lovely people... it's just those damned songs, you know? I'm hard pressed to find another band or artist's music that rubs me that way, so I guess they're the exception that proves the rule. But even there it's a specific reaction to the music, not anything surrounding it.

The only time I've ever caught myself identifying text with context is, funnily enough, with artists or bands I already love... if I ever think they've let me down, I become oddly inconsolable. When Sammy Hagar got kicked out of Van Halen in 1996, I felt like I did recently when my mum and dad split up - vaguely bereft, upset, constantly thinking about it in the same way I might probe a cavity with my tongue. It was their 'last-gang-in-town' mentality, the fact they always seemed to be having so much fun - that Hagar, several years the senior of the others, seemed to love them so much. It felt like I'd been lied to. There are plenty of other examples, but that's the biggest in the last few years - VH were the band that got me listening to music, and even in their later, less consistent period (quantity- and quality-wise), I found things to love about them...
 
 
grant
20:03 / 24.03.05
Hmm. I find the mention of auteur theory upthread strangely apt, because with quite a few pop acts nowadays, I'm not sure I think of the "musician" as the musician.

Like, I don't think of Britney Spears as having been the force behind "Toxic," and I'm not sure I think of Kelly Clarkson as creating "Since U Been Gone." I like those songs, but I sort of think of them as covers. In film terms, the nominal musician is really more like the leading lady, while the producer & songwriter are like the director & screenwriter. Some people like Kathrine Hepburn movies, while some people like Howard Hawks movies. Or maybe they like both, but for different reasons.

I'm like that with music, I suppose.

Maybe I think of context as just another song element....
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:05 / 24.03.05
I think it's impossible to discuss this without looking at it thru the lens of "mainstream" vs "alternative".

I mean: God Speed You Black Emperor, for example, may well have various others working on their album with them, but most Godspeed fans would presumably say that this team were working towards something other than simple commercial sellability.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
09:27 / 29.03.05
Fair enough - but first you'd have to provide an adequate definition of those terms, and I doubt you'd find one that'd satisfy most people, let alone everyone. Using your example, Godspeed...! had music on the soundtrack to a major motion picture, and have also had music featured in a television commercial. Forget any tired old allegations of selling out for a moment - does that mean they're now courting commercial respectability? If so, are they still 'alternative'? Looking at what has consitututed 'alternative'and mainstream in the past - are the Pixies the former or the latter? One would ordinarily say the former, except that the recent reunion has seen sold out arena gigs for the last year or so, and they're booked for yet more headline gigs at stadiums all over the world this summer. Nirvana are household names, even today, and several of their songs are ubiquitous floor-fillers and crop up on mainstream radio, again even today. Mainstream or alternative?

Until you can make those terms make any kind of sense, then, no, I don't think they're worth discussing.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:01 / 30.03.05
I think perhaps that there are two different types of music fandom - you can be a fan of a song and/or a fan of an artist. A song is easier to define the limits of - it's the product, it's "just the music." You can listen to the radio/watch MTV, passively consume music without knowing very much about who produces it/how it's produced (as anyone who has worked in a record store knows, a lot of people consume music this way - cf "Do you have that song by the guy with the beard that sort of goes like this?"). Arguably, that's the purest form of music fandom - a kind of obliviousness to the characteristics of production/marketing of a song, listening unecumbered by assumptions based on the origin of the song.

Most people who would considered themselves music fans, however, are probably fans of "artists," which, to define somewhat cynically, are the brand-name attached to a product. An "artist" is the signfier for all that is signified by his/her output - the sum total of audio, video, olfactory - whatever - sensations branded with the artist's name. B(r)ands are most succesful when embodied by a person(s) whose appearance/actions jibe with the sentiments expressed by their music/video output, and continue to do so over time.

A brand promises one thing more than any other: consistency of product. Another way of saying that is you have certain expectations for a certain b(r)and, and if these go unfulfilled there are a few different ways to react (1) enjoy a "new direction (2) complain that the b(r)and has changed its formula (3) invincible ignorance - claim that the artist is still producing work of the same quality (it must be; it's the same brand) regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Obviously, that which is signfied by a b(r)and will change over time - the trick to maintaining or establishing a critical reputation for "quality" or "authencity" or "importance" or "fun" is a balance of new and old signifiers.
 
  
Add Your Reply