A Paler Shade of White---Sasha Frere-Jones Podcast and New Yorker article Criticizing Indie Rock for Failing to Incorporate African-American Influences

anthony is going to give himself a stroke

this article sucks donkey dick

I don't get too many OTMs owing to being wrong so often so everybody let me just enjoy the moment k

John OTM.

for real lols check out breihan v harvilla meeting of the minds on sfj

anyone read this? pretty good. manages to make the point that american music was made via all kinds of mixtures and recombinations of white and black music (and culture)
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0060528184.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

for real lols check out breihan v harvilla meeting of the minds on sfj

ok here comes that stroke

I think Harvilla is pretty much right in that thing, even if he's being way too polite about just how ridiculous the article is.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept his ambivalence about Arcade Fire (or, hell, just Arcade Fire live) if he'd alluded to his earlier enthusiasm. All we get are a few half-hearted kudos ("ragged but full of brio," "what’s missing from the band’s musical DNA is missing from dozens of other popular and accomplished rock bands’ as well—most of them less entertaining than Arcade Fire," "a stretch of raucous sing-alongs").

Whenever I get a new issue of The New Yorker in the mail, I fear there might be a article by Frere-Jones, and moreover that it'll be about someone like Justin Timberlake or 50 Cent or some other artist the equivalent of that hideous fake New-Urbanist subdivision that's being built across the street from where I work. But you see all sort of publications that have a "general" audience having horrible writing on music. On the Internet, Salon is probably the worst, but Slate's are pretty bad too. It sucks, but I don't care.

For a much more subtle (to say the least) take on this issue (sort of) Greil Marcus wrote about the tendency of commentators/radio/etc. not to include black artists when defining Rock, back in the '70s. I've noticed that Soul and Funk and Motown artists will not receive the kind of retrospective attention, close listening (esp. when it comes to appreciating albums instead of singles) that white artists get, even when they certainly deserve it. But this is beginning to change: e.g., one of the few things I've ever enjoyed reading at Pitchfork was their lists of the best albums of the '70s - not the finalized one, but where they showed what each critic contributed. I'm not sure if they're available anymore.

Frere-Jones is a hack. The use of Arcade Fire as some sort of exemplar of contemporary Indie Rock is ridiculous. Though perhaps not much so, considering that the prerequisite for an Indie Rock band getting any sort of press attention these days seems to be that they must suck hard. Arcade Fire's blandness rhythmically speaking is because they suck the hardest, that's all.

And the Clash as the counter-example? He certainly opens up a big can of worms by picking only a decent example from that period of UK popular music; not mentioning Dub - which has a much different kind of influence than this rhythmic one he is divining out of rotten old stereotypes; and seemingly not understanding how this trend, to the extent to which it has a inkling of truth to it, goes back farther. I point to what Daniel, Esq., said about '80s Indie acts, e.g. Either way, from reading this article and other by Frere-Jones, he's obviously in a headspace I don't understand. I will hazard a guess and say that in the end it's probably the same old sociological BS, wherein the critic will say something like, as he does here, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg are the most important artists of recent history blahblahblah, not based on his experiences as a listener but as some attempt to pin down the tastes and habits of, essentiallly, hundreds of millions of people.

Greil Marcus wrote about the tendency of commentators/radio/etc. not to include black artists when defining Rock, back in the '70s.

Now we have sfj not including rock artists when defining rock.

another thing that bothers me is that it ignores free jazz which pretty much influences everything noisy that's been done since.

Can't believe I'm going to jump into this, having read about a 20th of this thread (I did read his piece, tho'). A few random thoughts:

Didn't mind the piece at all but I found it odd that after
acknowledging Eminem (who's way more seeped in black music than the Stones or Zeppelin ever were--the same emotional and physical distance just doesn't apply at all), he doesn't (I don't think) mention Justin Timberlake or Pink or Gwen Stefani (just for instance). Good or bad, they all seem quite comfortable, from what I can tell, working within (and to a possibly unprecedented degree, it IS within) what are essentially black idioms. I guess I'm just repeating what others have said about his glaring selectivity, and merely pointing out different sorts of examples. I mean, sure, I want 1981 back as well--trust me on that--but indie has not--ever since the original post-punk moment--been the first place I'd think to look for whatever it is he's looking for. You generally have better luck looking to the pop charts for this sort of thing, and to all those funny 80s examples above like Black Flag and the Minutemen, two words come to mind immediately: George Michael.

Also, the whole Cream and Zeppelin thing--I don't know. Obviously, they did the blues thing explicitly, and there was a whole "blues boom" moment that can't be ignored, but the closer most of those Brit guys actually got to doing blues homages, the more horrifically boring their music was, at least to my ears (and Zeppelin are just about my favourite 70s band--except for those interminably long, slow blues jams).

the whole thing about how SFJ describes seeing them in London--you know, they were cool back when a cat could catch 'em full of brio in London--and backing it up with his "finally catching the Clash in '81 (when, of course, SFJ was all of 14 years old) was hilarious in ways he never intended. The article was brimming with mediocrity.

Cosign artdamages rec of that Leland book.

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0060528184.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg/

BIG HOOS aka the librarian

I think I agree with his underlying argument, though: possibilities that once seemed present in punk--that seemed like the driving force behind much of it--are now just occasional glitches. I jumped ship on most punk in the late 80s for that very reason.

two words come to mind immediately: George Michael

I need to think about it, but this makes sense. I'd love for you to develop this.

arcade fire is punk now?

x-post

Sasha's got more comments on his New Yorker blog now (he quotes comments and responds to them briefly). He leads with one praising him, before getting to some slightly critical ones. He ends in part with this response:

I was simply trying to outline the pop landscape against which indie rock is working, and trying, without breaking too many eggs, to restrain the discussion to whatever we can pin down as indie rock. Not narrowing it down would lead toward a soggy blend of averages—you can see significant miscegenation in major-label artists like Amy Winehouse, or indie acts like Spoon and LCD Soundsystem, but I don’t think that they affect the larger change I perceive: that miscegenation no longer happens in the same way, and indie rock is Exhibit A.

Anyway. More later.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones

I am still not sure how this corresponds with his March 26, 2007 pop note statement--"About five years ago, indie rockers began to rediscover the pleasures of rhythm."

You know, there already is a contemporary genre where rock bands incorporate funk influences, and it is called jambands. Be careful what you wish for.

xp (alfred) - I'm just citing George Michael as a counter-example to all the "so-and-so had a song with dub influences on their third album" examples above of someone who you didn't need to bend your ear towards the speaker for to detect traces of "blackness." And I don't think he's the only example, but maybe the first from the '80s that comes to mind.

that was horribly worded, but hopefully it makes some sense...

ok "restraining the discussion to whatever we can pin down as indie rock" kinda makes your point moot when you define indie rock as not having what you're looking for.

i mean how the hell do the Clash count as "indie rock" if Spoon doesn't

<i>Why did so many white rock bands retreat from the ecstatic singing and intense, voicelike guitar tones of the blues, the heavy African downbeat, and the elaborate showmanship that characterized black music of the mid-twentieth century?</i>

Because critics routinely dogpiled on Jon Spencer and Greg Dulli for trying to appropriate this model of blackness.

haha Eppy.

one thing an old punkster told me about the early 80s in NYC was how people used to dance a lot at gigs. Do people dance at indie rock shows anymore?

Is Sasha saying Arcade Fire have sold more cds than Spoon and LCD so they get mentioned(if that is the case--Spoon was on Saturday Night Live just like A. Fire)

re: jam bands failed attempts to get funky(which I mentioned way upthread)-
Ugh, I know. That's the subject of a whole 'nother article--trying to incorporate african-american influences and failing.

Cleopatra's Favorite Cat

Is Sasha saying Arcade Fire have sold more cds than Spoon and LCD so they get mentioned

then what about bands that actually go gold (or even platinum) like Maroon 5, White Stripes, Linkin Park, all those Joe Cocker wanna-be's, etc. oh wait, they're not "indie rock," unlike the Clash and Mick fucking Jagger.

Actually, if he used Greg Dulli and Jon Spencer - actual INDIE rockers - as his soulful antecedents, he'd have something resembling a point.

I'm lost already, but anyway... I really don't think of the Clash as "indie" by just about any definition of that word.

but then those guys were solidly Nineties, which would kill his point about when all this shit went down.

x-post, then why is he uses them as a comparison point to how "indie rock" has changed?

I would love to hear SFJ and Melvin Van Peebles talk music.

Anthony for some reason he is comparing his fave old groups that could be on majors or indies, with bands on indie labels (although somewhere I think he acknowledges that some groups that annoy him are actually distributed by majors), except if he decided that it wan an indie band that was significant enough for him to have written a feature on (Spoon, LCD) but not significant enough to support his current point. That's perfectly clear, right! Ha.

http://productshopnyc.com/htdocs/gvsb.jpg

I'm reading that blog link, and man, I kinda figured SFJ would have to settle for pats on the back like I hope that the issue of race sets off more discussion, as if, you know, the issue of race needs his help to set off more discussion.

also, who turns to indie when they are looking for "funkiness"

curmug is looking for an argument that isn;t there

The Clash were out before the indie-label explosion. They were a band that sold out big shows and appealed to smug people. I think the comparison to Arcade Fire is apt.

isn't one of the appeals of wilco or the shins or whoever that they aren't copping from the clash?

They were a band that sold out big shows and appealed to smug people. I think the comparison to Arcade Fire is apt.

But comparing the Clash to White Stripes would get in the way of the "point"

comparing the Waterboys to the Arcade Fire would probably get in the way of the "point" too

I always found this Melvin quote interesting:

"There were no songs that mirrored the black experience. I felt the black experience had been hijacked musically to simply being rhythm, beat and melody, and the words were getting lost. That's when I invented a style that used words to carry the melody."

Glenn Kotche, now there's a guy who loves 4/4 time.

This is maybe a bad thread for a new person to start on (hi, people) but what disappointed me most about the New Yorker piece was SFJ's lack of engagement with some of the bands/people he took pot-shots at. I'm guessing that the Arcade Fire guy and people like Malkmus and Tweedy are fairly smart and articulate - why not talk to them, ask them about this, engage with them? The whole article seems like a premeditated attempt to lob a grenade then run away and hide. Fair enough for the Village Voice maybe, but in the New Yorker? It's just lazy and immature.

The whole article seems like a premeditated attempt to lob a grenade then run away and hide.

there's been precedent

well it's also a column, and not an unbalanced piece of reporting wherein sufjan stevens is asked to defend his lack of black influences.

it seems to me like using the music to assess the 'whiteness' of a scene is totally useless. its a social issue and music might be a rallying point but if music history shows anything its that these signifiers change drastically over time; what represents popular music to black social groups at one pt represents popular music to white social groups later on and, to some degree, vice versa (maybe?). Trying to use words like 'more rhythm' and 'funkiness' and myopic generalities like 'soul' just confuses everything.

Fair enough, Jordan. I guess I'm just getting tired of column culture, where people have to get more and more provocative just to get noticed. It's not really conducive to intelligent, engaged discussion, is it? Also, what's with the obsession about syncopation, funk, and dancing? Can't music also be emotional, witty, or comforting? I don't know, it just seems so limiting, this demand that everything should constantly be merging/morphing with different cultures.

frankly i think emily's right that this 'think' piece could use some more reporting and less on-the-sidelines mental guesswork and extreme myopia