Showing posts with label music criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music criticism. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

FIVE STAGES OF GRIEF: Gypsy Punk edition

I had a delicious sandwich the other day. Roast beef, provolone, pepperoncini, steak sauce & horseradish, grilled on whole grain bread. Awesome. It also got me thinking about things, and that's what I'm going to write about here.

You'll note that this is a new column. Why another column? Well, two reasons, inspired by a conversation I had with gentleman blogger Eriq Nelson at the grand Crappy Indie Blog karaoke party. He expressed a belief that sometimes you just have to be a dick- and I agree. I feel that I can explore that by making a column framed around my own personal snowclone. Second, he let me know that "Musical Etiquette" is coming back. I'll have three columns to his one, I hope that's enough to keep up. So without further ado,

"There are five stages of grief in this town, and they're all GYPSY PUNK MUSIC SUCKS."

You know, I was once asked in a discussion about the merits of 'Irish punk music' how precisely that genre might be defined. My response:

"None of the above."

By way of explanation, take a singer with an accent (real Irish or not), put him in front of a band with the pathetic hollowness of The Clash, add fiddles, then top it all off with incomprehensible lyrics about shenanigans and shires and a potentially offensive stereotypical obsession with alcohol. The result: fookin' shite, Jenny. A further result? If you really really want me to listen to an Irish punk band, then here they are:



















At least they had good musical taste before they got famous:


















Yes, I do not require reminding that taste is a subjective manner. My dislike of the Dropkick Murphys of the world isn't based on any laws of physics. It isn't kneejerk, though, and I've built a sort of rudimentary fire triangle of confirming how those bands give off a certain cloying insincerity.

1. Their members, when questioned on artistic/stylistic matters, will give responses that offer this basic statement: "We don't care about any of that stuff. We just want to rock/move people's booties/keep it real."

2. They are, in some fashion, trying very hard. This may involve vigorous performance, incredibly earnest writing, or clever gimmickry. Local band Floater, the only time I've ever seen them, gave a workmanlike and unremarkable show of psychedelic metal, which the crowd was ignoring while they waited for Living Colour to come out and play "Cult of Personality." It was only when they unleashed their clumsily ironic faux-Irish song "Ode to Danny Boy" that the crowd reacted. Woohoo! Yeah, guys! So funny! Fuck off.

3. This may be the trickiest leg to kick out. Deep down beneath any assertions or demonstrations of sincerity is the feeling that they really just don't mean it. The lines between parody/satire and failed parody/satire are blurry, but I believe that the unclouded human heart is able to detect them. A band may insist that they are vikings/Scumdogs from Flabquarv 7 here to destroy the earth with rock/metal, but if they have really embraced the fun and stupidity of that we don't care. Who are you going to give a dollar to, the filthy beggar with the sign that says "WIZARD NEEDS BEER BADLY", or the young healthy guy with spotless British Knights off ebay and a sign that says "HOMELESS KOREAN WAR VET PLEASE HELP GOD BLESS"?

It may seem like I'm wasting a lot of vitriol on everything BUT gypsy punk, but you have to put in hard work climbing a mountain before you get to the top. So what is gypsy punk, exactly? We'll be getting into some funky genre waters here, and we've certainly discussed the difficulty of that before. Maybe before we do, we should go right to the source.

















This is Eugene Hutz, from the band Gogol Bordello. I tried to find the stupidest picture of this douchebag, but thanks to google image search that was like dipping into a 50 pound bag of rice and trying to find the riciest rice. RICE. If you delve at all into the gypsy punk thing, Hutz and his band immediately come up. So who is he, other than someone you don't want watching your kids or operating your reactor? Hutz is a Ukrainian born musician, and claims to be 1/4 Rom, for whatever that is worth. He also supports the cause of ending world antiziganism. Which is cool. It's also not apparent in his music- I didn't watch the video for "Start Wearing Purple" and immediately think, "Gee, I'd better do something about the plight of Travelling people worldwide!" Which leads me to my first objection- the racist name of the genre, which Hutz may or may not have coined.

Have you every been gypped? If you said either yes or no, you've just dealt with a racial slur. Mind you, it's one that has passed into common usage over five centuries, and even law in some places, but still. Many varieties of Travelling people claim to have emigrated from India long ago, and their dark skin at the time led ignorant Westerners to conflate them with Egyptians. (Where's the Egyptian punk music, that's what I want to know!) The Rom and other Travellers have been persecuted and objectified ever since, so it seems tasteless to name a genre of music after victims of attempted genocide. Yes, yes, N.W.A. I know. That's different.

So enough about its provenance. What is the music like? Well, bringing this back to the beginning of the blog, it's a bunch of goofy yammering with really amped up fiddle and accordion. Punk rock! Say it enough and it will be true, right? I will give Hutz and his Google Bordello this... they've got some energy, and there is definitely musical talent involved. It all seems to be kind of a schtick, though, a vehicle for the frontman's spastic clowning, which owes more to every hipster excess (mustache, a-shirts, vests, accessories) than it does to any recognizable style. In fact, take away Hutz's Waits-esque croaking, and all you've got is the Cirque de Soleil backing band.









Oh crap, what a great segue to the next part. Brother-in-arms to this gypsy punk nonsense is the modern cabaret music revival. Bridging them together is a common love of Bohemianism, and something else that I only recently put my finger on. Mugging. Constant, annoying mugging. In certain types of performance that might be expected- mime, for example. In music, especially this type of music where they are knowingly blending theatrics, it's just distracting. Here's a tip: you're already breaking the fourth wall by playing to the audience. You don't have to crawl inside their ass and leave a message in greasepaint.

Modern cabaret music is of course intertwined with the burlesque revival, a fact which might grant it some fertile ground, but does nothing to improve its aesthetic offenses. If you'd like to know what kind of music goes on in these places, Portland is crawling with them. Wikipedia even credits Stumptown as being one of the cities with a thriving burlesque scene. When I first got whiff of this phenomenon years ago, I asked someone who had been what these 'burlesque' performances consisted of. "Ugly girls not taking their clothes off," he replied. That may be harsh and unfair- and untrue, but it hints at part of the problem. The appeal of la vie Boheme, of the Orientalist den, the burlesque haus, is that we are able to transgress the values of a bygone era, and enjoy a simulacrum of what that libertinism must have been like. Unfortunately, doing it in this fashion is moving the target closer, removing the challenge of truly breaking taboo and also removing a great deal of the personal risk.

The ladies get to wear a gartery outfit, drop some innuendo, and by proxy access the whorish spirit of another age. The men get to prance about in face paint, breaking their usual reserve, or attempt with mannered dress to reclaim some fabled dashing masculinity. The performers and the audience have fun, everyone wins. Except for open-eyed critics.




















What is the primary offence, then, of our Irish, gypsy, and cabaret 'punks'? Not long ago I attended a performance of the Yard Dogs troupe. They are a burlesque/variety musical act. I'd heard nothing but great stuff about them, but when it came down to it, a competent group of performers were simply rehashing the same old tropes and throwing them in your face. There were mustaches, vests, accordions, shitty hats, all the mugging you could ask for, and a style of music that never broke free of being derivative, and even at its most intense simply conjured up a coked-out Raymond Scott. A fundamental lack of originality, while not particular to this genre, is simply exacerbated by its outrageous trappings and superficial cleverness.

I will give a shout-out to a local boy- Noah Mickens, who as ringleader 'William Batty' of the Wanderlust Circus (openers at the Yard Dogs show) would seem to be a primary target for my bile in this piece, with his face paint, and vaudeville affectation. However, I believe that he may be a sterling example of how to do it right- Mickens puts his all into it, and that gives 'Batty' a gravity that belies his origins.

That's it for now- I think I'm done with the grieving process. As always I welcome your comments and conversation. Of course, I'm sure the haters will be out in droves on this one, but please at least do me the favor of reading the whole piece before you jump my shit. Good night!

Oh, and just so you don't think I forgot, here's some Egyptian punk music!
Read More >>

Saturday, November 14, 2009

I Wanna Context You Up (All Night)

No one will argue that context is important. No one! But how important is it exactly, and to what extent is context necessary to fully appreciate a work of art? Let's talk about it, shall we.

It's a constant issue in critical circles and I doubt it will every really be resolved. The ur example is Ezra Pound- does his fascism trump the excellence of his poetry? A similar but less cliche example, if you want to not be a generic blowhard at snooty parties, is Knut Hamson. Want to be more topical? Let's talk Polanski. These are all great examples of infamy, and while they may not seem to be directly related to the production of the creators' art, it can easily be argued that the two are inseparable. Your mileage may vary as to how well you can filter the product from the producer.

Stepping away from that crucial and obvious issue, is a more subtle one that is particularly germane to our little game, the critical review of music, especially at the album level. Most albums, as individual entities, undergo a 'life span' of sorts, with the artist as parent, and producers, writers et al. as extended family. Just like a child, an album is conceived, gestated, birthed, and then presented to the world, and I'd like to make consideration of this process a crucial part of our understanding. That's the context I'd like to take into consideration while looking at some new albums, and one old.

I've been on a bit of a Neil Young bender lately. Now, I've been a fan since I discovered "Rust Never Sleeps" on vinyl when I was a freshman in high school, but I'm really hitting the material hard lately. There are a number of Neil Young albums that until recently have been out of print on CD, but one remains that is out of print in all media, the first of his so-called 'Ditch Trilogy:'


Without context, "Time Fades Away" is still one of Neil Young's best albums, a raw live set that sounds awesome even despite its terrible production values. It's unfortunate that it's out of print, and probably always will be, for two reasons. One, it was directly mastered off of one of the first digital mixing boards, so there are no 'master tapes,' per se. Second, Neil himself has stated that it will never be released again, because it's not a good album. This is just flat wrong, and Mr. Young is lying to himself, though for good reason. To protect himself from the pain. Are you ready, kids? Context time, and it will make listening to this album an emotional experience. Even if you're not Neil Young.

After the rampant success of "Harvest," which was recorded with a band other than Crazy Horse, Young was pressured by his record company to go out on tour. His Crazy Horse bandmate and best friend Danny Whitten had hoped to come with, but Whitten's heroin habit had degenerated so far that he couldn't play anymore, and he was given a plane ticket back to LA, and $50. Whitten took the plane to LA, plunked the $50 down on some smack and promptly OD'd. Young was devastated, but contractually obligated to continue the tour. A host of problems ensued on all fronts: roadie troubles, drinking, grieving, and a throat infection. Young was forced to call in help from an unlikely quarter: his former CSNY bandmates David Crosby and Graham Nash, who assisted with vocals and guitar.

This all sounds like a recipe for a disc of complete shite trainwreck. The proof is in the pudding, though, and the already awesome disc is revealed to be one of the most profound statements of grief ever put down in music. Take a look at the verses of "L.A.":

In a matter of time,
There'll be a friend of mine
Gonna come to the coast,
You're gonna see him
Up close for a minute or two
While the ground cracks under you.

By the look in your eyes
You'd think that it was a surprise
But you seem to forget
Something somebody said
About the bubbles in the sea
And an ocean full of trees

Well, it's hard to believe
So you get up to leave
And you laugh at the door
That you heard it all before
Oh it's so good to know
That it's all just a show for you.

But when the suppers are planned
And the freeways are crammed
And the mountains erupt
And the valley is sucked
Into cracks in the earth
Well I finally been hurt by you

If that doesn't break your heart knowing the story behind it, you are a soulless lead singer for the Decemberists or something.

What else can we find? Remember that historical data is not the only thing that can form context for an album. If you are an artist, your intentional actions need to be putting a best foot forward. When you think of how your album came to be, and where you would like to see it, think about whether your explanation will make you seem like a slavering goon. Especially to members of a group who are traditionally know for being jaded and quick to pick up on any weakness. Why yes, Army of Me, I am talking about you!

Their new EP "Make Yourself Naked", without context, just sits there and does nothing. Singer-songwriter stuff, low-key heartfelt singing about stuff that no one will listen to, acoustic strumming, some keys here and there. Coffee shop background noise. According to Army of Me, these songs were just demos. Wait, what? Also according to Army of Me, they were never intended to be heard. Huh? But, and I must quote their press release, this album is "an unexpected image of a naked man." No, 'goatse.cx' is an unexpected image of a naked man. This is a five song acoustic blorp from the lead singer of an indie-pop band, who are releasing it- opportunistically, perhaps?- and claiming attributes such as 'rawness' and 'intimacy' that simply are not there. Maybe some people like pablum, but not me. The context only makes it unignorable.

Okay, let's clear the taste of that out of our mouths. Who will rescue us? A release from Thrill Jockey? Oh, there's one ready? Thanks, TJ!

This is another five song EP, this time from Javelin. They're an electro-whatever duo, and what they duo they duo well. The songs have something that you don't get a whole lot these days- tasteful sampling, which combined with the general layered cleanliness of their grooves makes for a surprisingly versatile set of songs. The one thing about Javelin is that I don't really picture this music existing outside of the bedroom project sphere, or if live pretty much the DJ realm. Here's where I am wrong, and context comes to the rescue. Or does it, ultimately?

Javelin have done something pretty cool. Here I quote their press release: "In performance, Javelin use colorfully painted boomboxes that form large speaker totems (“boombaatas”) which can hang from the ceiling or stack up on the floor like pyramids. The signal from the show is broadcast via FM transmitter, thereby fostering audience participation (B.Y.O.Boombox) or fueling battery-powered, mobile parties. The duo has played venues as diverse as the children’s branch of the Olneyville Public Library (RI), to the Museum of Modern Art (NY), both of which happened in the same week." Well kiss my grits! That's awesome, so I understand that for them the performance bit is probably more important than just the music proper. Here is also where I ponder- you didn't think I wouldn't leave well enough alone, did you?

The music is good, but I don't know that it stands head and shoulders above what a lot of people are doing at any given moment- Gasoline Monk locally, ferinstance. Adding in their boombox towers and pomo album covers and all, makes for a more complete experience, and that is probably what they will be known for. This holds true for plenty of acts- GWAR, Lightning Bolt... and just so you know I'm not keeping any cows sacred, perhaps Kid Beyond? So long as the experience is fun and satisfying for both producer and consumer, all is well, and it is only overthinking hypercritics infected with some nasty recursive memes who lose sleep/burn unnecessary brain power over it.

Well, jokes on you with the recursive meme thing, constant reader. Tag. You're it.

Read More >>

Friday, July 10, 2009

A Question For Debate on Methods of Criticism

About a week ago, I was driving somewhere with my boyfriend and talking to him about how on occasion, when I receive music to review, I often find myself at a loss for what to say because, since I usually choose an album by the name or the vague and generally overly flattering description given by the press release, I frequently end up with an album of a style which I know is popular, and common, but I don't know what to call it or how to describe it because I don't listen to other things that sound like it, and don't know what to compare it to.
He responded by suggesting that it's not necessary to know the history of a work of art, its influences, or its significance in its own genre in order to criticize it adequately, you only have to know what you think about it, and communicate that.
So, what do you all think? Is it useful, and or necessary, to offer comparisons to give an idea of a band's sound, or is it a cop out for when you can't put your feelings into more descriptive words? What style of reviews do you like \ what features do you like to see in music reviews? What, to you, constitutes a good music review? I know I love how at the end of Bitch Magazine's music reviews they always have a really clever "listening suggestion" like, "listen while : making a bonfire out of your highschool prom photos" or "goes well with red wine and asparagus" but I rarely come up with that sort of thing, and besides, I wouldn't want to cop their style.
Read More >>