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 >

Pugnacious statements

  
 
All Acting Regiment
19:43 / 12.09.06
Basically, I thought we could use this space to throw down rules or statements about music, by us or others, that we either generally agree with but have worries about, or disagree with but don't quite know why.

I often feel compelled to burst out with them in conversation, which has the effect of a) making a tosser of moi and b) spoiling any potential good that might have come of my communicating these ideas.

To start us off, here's something I've been mulling over in my head:

"
An observation: in 2006, most white middle-class music based roughly around the notion of "the rock band", for example, "indie rock", "punk", which is above the radar, i.e. of which "the wider world" to a greater extent is aware, contains no more intellectual content and is the last thing that one would describe as "honest" (bearing in mind that this is an ambiguous word). Yet, it is held aloft and scrutinised precisely in these terms by the critical establishment and thence by many others: it is seen as a space for deep/philosophical/serious business and it's potential as "simply" "party music", "good time pop" and so on is often fiercely denied by supporters.

One could say then, that this genre that like all art is one and the same as and no more than "entertainment" is presented as something "better" than this, more "edifying", whereas in 2006 the music that really has the most to say about "issues" as in race, gender, sexuality, freedom, is in fact the stuff lambasted by mainstream culture as puerile, "only for dancing to", and otherwise denied consideration of in the high falutin' terms accorded to the genre in the previous paragraph- styles such as "dancehall", "hip-hop", "grime", "pop".

For example, see, in terms of most recent work, Sandi Thom vs Lady Sovereign, Kaiser Chiefs vs Shakira, The Libertines vs Gwen Stefani, or any combination of the above where the names stay on the same side of the brackets.
"

So maybe I'm talking sense, maybe not. What do you think?

Let's all get pugnacious! It's a stupid word, but it's fun.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
08:27 / 13.09.06
Its something I've been pondering on; I'm mentally beginning to treat it all as a difference between 'folk' or 'people' music on the one hand and 'industry/pop' music on t'other. I think it broadly comes down to intent; 'people' artists want to tell a story, convey a message, show their skill or just get people dancing / fucking / worked up / whatever, they want to do something with the music and make some money, 'industry' artists want to make money / be famous / that sort of thing, without necessarily wanting to use the music for anything. Broad categories, obviously!

And I must say I find the idea of someone dismissing music as "just for dancing to" terribly funny! Like, duhhh...
 
 
nighthawk
10:14 / 20.09.06
is the last thing that one would describe as "honest" (bearing in mind that this is an ambiguous word)

This is a bit tangential, but the thread didn't seem to be moving very quickly... A lot of music makes claims to 'honesty' or 'authenticity', albeit in different ways. I know indie/punk bands can get a lot of stick for this - probably because they insist on it so forcefully (I think that's what Legba was getting at?). Usually some combination of: they write their own songs/play their own instruments/really mean what they sing/ do proper music (with guitars and stuff) etc. Unlike those awful popstars who are talentless puppets/in it for the money/girls.

Obviously that's all crap, but some people really seem to buy into the whole honesty/authenticity spiel. And, y'know, whatever. I think Memphis Slim once said something like 'all blues singers are great liars', which probably applies to great musicians in any genre.

What I do find interesting is the way different genres have their own standard claims to authenticity. So indie stuff is often based around the fact that bands play 'real' instruments, or write their own songs, or are true poets baring their angst ridden souls to the world. Where as rappers, for example, are concerned with a completely different sort of authenticity, often undermining or effacing their status as musicians - pretty much the opposite of what you find in indie. I mean obviously rappers boast about their own skill and talent (Jay-Z: "Haterz no like, but they got to fuck widdit cos the flow's so tight!"; "Best rapper alive!", etc), but they often put as much emphasis on what they (supposedly?) did before they were rappers. Jay-Z can be almost flippant about the fact that he raps ("I'm the realest at runnin', I just happen to rap"; "I'm geting ahead of myself - by the way, i could rap/ That came second to me movin this crack")

The Clipse are another good example:

You mistook me for a rapper, huh?
Well that makes me an actor
Cause I would rather clap a gun...

Or they laugh at 'typical' hip-hop criteria:

And I leave it to y'all to freestyle and battle and shit
That's not me, I'm all at home wit the chrome
Or that play wit' the yay, moving 12 for a zone...

And the best piss take of chin-stroking-hip-hop-heads ever:

Before the DJ started cutting/ I was already fucking

Plus there's the way rappers will talk about day to day street life. I mean I think the stories that people like Wu Tang tell are at least presented as being true, and if you cared you could stress about how 'real' they are. But like I said that's sort of missing the point. Jay-Z's got this line in D'Evils where he's talking about being a hustler - "making gs, telling lies that sound true" - which I think is also a great description of what being a rapper's/musician is about.

That's all a bit rambling and inconsequential really. But I think its funny how these claims vary from genre to genre...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:02 / 20.09.06
Well yes- didn't Tom Waits appear on that fishing programme in the States and have to get taken home early because he was seasick? (Or did I dream that? I'm fairly sure not).

Given his salty sea-dog image, I'd call that lying. Or at least storytelling, which is closer to the point. But you'd be a wanker to suddenly stop listening to, say, Singapore, on the grounds that it clearly wasn't authentic. I firmly believe he does spend his time shooting pool with a midget in an all-night bar, though. That would be a fakery too far.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
14:05 / 20.09.06
I think there are several shades of truth to be had from songs; at the one end, we have songs which are meant to be directly true; songs of personal experience, message tracks. The singer is trying to say something direct and true to hir audience. In the middle ground we have songs which could be true; the musical equivalent of a novel, I guess most songs fall into this area. At the far end we have songs which couldn't be true, or which describe things which could be true but aren't.

And even then, any song can have a sincere, true message, something the singer believes, even if it's framed in an untruth, a 'novel' song. Whatever; truth is a purpose for music, but far from the only purpose. You don't need to dance to truth, you don't need to be entertained by truth. Saying that music should (or should not) be "true", or "sincere", or "deep", or however it's framed, isn't really a valid line to take, it's not broad enough, I don't think. It's just a component of music, not the whole.

That said, there are songs, for me, which I can't sing or hear without my throat catching. I like, or respect, or whatever, truth in song. But it's personal choice.
 
 
praricac
15:12 / 20.09.06
Some fantastic food for thought about various kinds of truth in this song. But hey, the guy *is* a lyrical genius so what do you expect?
 
  
Add Your Reply