Two Kinds of People

May 9, 2006 4:53 PM

Is Stephen Merritt a racist?Sasha Frere-Jones, the New Yorker's Pop Critic and maybe the finest music critic writing today, has long been an activist against rockism. Stephen Merritt, the gay, white auteur behind such postmodern pop experiments as 69 Love Songs, and sometime target of S/FJ's ire, recently got into hot water with Jessica Hopper, among others, for allegedly racist comments made at the EMP Pop Music Conference, which is Christmas and Halloween all rolled into one for music crits and their fellow nerds. Slate's John Cook defends Merritt, claiming that disliking rap doesn't necessarily make one a racist, and S/FJ responds with some further thoughts. But was Frere-Jones accusing Merritt of racism, specifically, or simply of wack unexamined biases? And is that a fair criticism? Slate's readers don't seem to think so.
posted by maxreax (182 comments total)

If I still had my 12-sided die, I could roll it, and possibly give you a prediction of who will win this geek-off. In the meantime, I'm sure the 12 indie recordstore owners that are also MeFi members will opine at length on this debate. Speaking of which, did they ever find those 37 that were feared dead in the infamous yo la tengo roof collapse incident of 2002?
posted by psmealey at 5:05 PM on May 9, 2006

I buy S/FJ's re-characterization of his "campaign" (this one) and I think it makes the whole fracas much less interesting. Cook's Slate piece (which rallied me in agreement on first reading) now seems overblown.
posted by grobstein at 5:06 PM on May 9, 2006

History Of Rock Written By The Losers
posted by destro at 5:07 PM on May 9, 2006

Tempist -> Teapot
posted by doctor_negative at 5:07 PM on May 9, 2006

i think the big question here is "who the fuck cares?"
posted by keswick at 5:08 PM on May 9, 2006

WOW, TWO PEOPLE I'VE NEVER HEARD OF HAVE BEEF!

FACINATING!
posted by delmoi at 5:09 PM on May 9, 2006

Tempist -> Teapot

Shouldn't that be "Tempist ∈ Teapot"?
posted by delmoi at 5:10 PM on May 9, 2006

Rock criticism (and I say this as someone who writes about music online a lot) hasn't been very interesting since Lester Bangs died, and Dave Marsh and Jon Landau went into management and production. Chuck Klosterman's a fun read, but more as an interesting rambler than a cultural critic.
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM on May 9, 2006

Shouldn't that be "Tempist ∈ Teapot"?

actually it should be Tempest, with an e.
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM on May 9, 2006

Jane Dark summarizes some interesting points at her blog.

By the way, haters--if you don't like it, flag and move on. No need to clutter up the thread by shitting on everyone.
posted by maxreax at 5:12 PM on May 9, 2006

So if Sasha Frere-Jones' favorite playlists aren't 74% white musicians does that make him racist? If Sasha Frere-Jones doesn't care for riverdance, or that style of music, is he racist against the Irish? Aren't we getting into stupidly PC territory with this sort of thing?

I mean, I think the only way it could be reasonable to assume such would be if stylistic differences didn't have per capita racial differences also.

For instance if there was an equal number of blacks and white in rock, and there were equal numbers of blacks and whites in hip-hop. And there was no significant stylistic differences between black and white artists in each genre. In that case, if you were to take a look at someones preferences then perhaps you might be able to gleam some insight on racial attitudes from it (given a large enough sample size, and a sample size of 7 musicians certainly isn't large enough).

But in this case, it's just absurd. I don't like modern commercial country music. Not at all. I think it is utterly valueless, and I don't listen to it whenever I can help it. Does that make me a self loathing cracker? I just don't get it.

Ugh.
posted by Jezztek at 5:13 PM on May 9, 2006

maxreax: I'm not hating, I have only the vaguest idea who this guy is, just stating a tangential point about rock criticism in general (and like the critics I mentioned in my comment, I consider R&B part (if not the heart) of rock.
posted by jonmc at 5:14 PM on May 9, 2006

From her blog:

Careful readers will note that this is six posts spread over thirteen days in 2004, followed two years later by an excerpt from an email originally received in May of 2004. Perhaps the editors of Slate consider this a "campaign."

I guess they do. Or more likely some bored person is trying to cook up a contraversy.
posted by delmoi at 5:14 PM on May 9, 2006

Does he Like Lenny Kravitz?
posted by delmoi at 5:16 PM on May 9, 2006

No, john--not directed at you. I just don't see the need for people to broadcast their own lack of interest in a subject (eg)
posted by maxreax at 5:17 PM on May 9, 2006

ZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZ
posted by fire&wings at 5:17 PM on May 9, 2006

Seems like these characters would fit quite well on Metafilter, with all the divine condemnations based on scant evidence. I am torn, I like both Stephin Merritt and Sasha's band Ui. Jessica Hopper, however, I have never heard of, so I blame her.
posted by Falconetti at 5:20 PM on May 9, 2006

That's fine, just wanted to be clear.

Odd though, I like the Magnetic Fields and don't care much for Justin Timberlake (not because he's 'pop,' because I love plenty of irredemably pop stuff, I sometimes play Taylor Dayne's 'Shelter,' repeatedly') I sometimes wonder if the whole rockist/non-rockist debate isn't a mite overstated, since most people I know who are serious music fans like to dig it all in my expeirience. (caveat: I am a professional music buff (I do editing at a music database company, although as of 6/30 I'm laid off) and that's where my observations come from)
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM on May 9, 2006

So if Sasha Frere-Jones' favorite playlists aren't 74% white musicians does that make him racist? If Sasha Frere-Jones doesn't care for riverdance, or that style of music, is he racist against the Irish? Aren't we getting into stupidly PC territory with this sort of thing?

But S/FJ isn't accusing anyone of racism per se--or at least, he shouldn't be. When he says "wack unexamined biases" he means exactly that--if I make a playlist of 100 songs and only 12 are by black artists, isn't that odd considering that African-Americans consist of a disproportionate number of not only musicians but musical progressives (which is to say those who push music in new directions)? That is, if the history of American pop music is in most ways the history of African-American music (and it almost assuredly is), why does my playlist consist of so few black artists?

Now, obviously, that alone doesn't make me a racist. But it should give me pause. What is it about "black" artists that I don't like? Am I being honest with myself when I say, "I'm not a racist, I just don't like rap"? For some people, I'm sure that it's true. For others, there may be implicity and very insiduous biases against certain musical forms.

This holds true, by the way, not just when regarding black musicians but also when talking about female musicians, "Top 40" musicians, etc.
posted by maxreax at 5:22 PM on May 9, 2006

I despise rap for the most past (and I've heard hundreds of hours of it), and I'm most certainly not a racist; neither do I blame rap and hip-hop culture entirely on African-Americans.

The initial controversy appears to be ridiculous. "Song of the South" is a historic document, containing racist content that would be completely unacceptable in modern times. That said, "Zip-A-Dee Doo-Dah," either as a song, or as a sequence within that film, is a jewel of American content that can stand alone without apologies. To love that song and abhor (most of) rap music is perfectly consistent with a love of music.

African-Americans have contributed disproportionately to the great tapestry of American music. I've always felt that the crass lyrics, simplistic song structure, and lack of musicianship in the overwhelming majority of hip-hop is an insult to the memory of Hendrix, Davis, Ellington, Armstrong and other gods.

The best argument IMHO is to look at Billboard Magazine (print only) which each week has the top 25 now, and the top 25 from 25 years ago. About ten years ago the comparison was heart-breaking each and every week -- it's a little less dramatic now because the 80's were less of a dramatic time for music but after looking at a few weeks of it, you have to come to the conclusion that people buying music today are one heck of a lot crasser and dumber than people were 25 years ago.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:22 PM on May 9, 2006

Frere-Jones :
"[N]ote how eager Merritt is to dismiss Beyoncé, OutKast, Britney, and Justin, not just as singers and songwriters but as bearers of meaning. That's a bias. Two women, three people of color and one white artist openly in love with black American music."

Umm..am I missing something here?
posted by madajb at 5:25 PM on May 9, 2006

For God's sake, can we please stick a fork in the word "haters"? It's only slightly less tired than your mom after I got done with her last night.
posted by scrump at 5:26 PM on May 9, 2006

Maxreax: at the very least, thanks for pointing out the term "rockism" to me... I've always had this distain for this subset of music thinking that seem to fit perfectly the profile that the Wiki article describes. It's always seemed too narrow and shortsighted. Rockism... how simply obvious and ruthlessly efficient.
posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:29 PM on May 9, 2006

I tried to flag this post using the [!] button, but I didn't see "Post about two people delmoi knows nothing about" listed. So I just left it.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:29 PM on May 9, 2006

Shouldn't that be "Tempist ∈ Teapot"?

actually it should be Tempest, with an e.
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM PST on May 9 [!]

Actually, it should be

Temp∈st

\m/
posted by scrump at 5:31 PM on May 9, 2006

The best argument IMHO is to look at Billboard Magazine (print only) which each week has the top 25 now, and the top 25 from 25 years ago. About ten years ago the comparison was heart-breaking each and every week -- it's a little less dramatic now because the 80's were less of a dramatic time for music but after looking at a few weeks of it, you have to come to the conclusion that people buying music today are one heck of a lot crasser and dumber than people were 25 years ago.

You have got to be kidding me. Are you actually looking at the Billboard charts from 1971, or are you just saying you are?

Here's a list of the #1 singles of 1971, including--among other real winners--Cher and the Osmonds (twice!). It also has Paul and Linda McCartney's almost unreedemable "Uncle Albert" and the Bee Gee's "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" (which I actually quite like). Pop music is no better or worse than it ever has been. People just get nostalgic for the past.

I've always felt that the crass lyrics, simplistic song structure, and lack of musicianship in the overwhelming majority of hip-hop

I don't want to be a jerk, but saying things like this makes me incredibly angry.
posted by maxreax at 5:31 PM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

OutKast = 2 black men + Beyoncé = 3.
posted by basicchannel at 5:33 PM on May 9, 2006

Wouldn't 25 years ago actually be 1981?
posted by TheLibrarian at 5:33 PM on May 9, 2006

I like the Magnetic Fields
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM PST on May 9

[Head explodes]
posted by drpynchon at 5:33 PM on May 9, 2006

Umm..am I missing something here?

OutKast is two guys, Andre3000 and Big Boi.
posted by maxreax at 5:33 PM on May 9, 2006

/puts on Thin Lizzy album
posted by notsnot at 5:35 PM on May 9, 2006

Wouldn't 25 years ago actually be 1981?

Yeah, but Lupus is under the impression that the comparison is not as "heartbreaking" because the 1980s weren't as "dramatic."

1981, by the way, is no better or worse--two great Blondie songs, Kool and the Gang, and Rick Springfield's "Jessie's Girl" vs. Christopher Cross and Olivia Newton-John's "Get Physical."
posted by maxreax at 5:36 PM on May 9, 2006

Love and rock criticism is like Jazz, you make it up as you go along.
posted by basicchannel at 5:36 PM on May 9, 2006

maxreax: When I first got "It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back" I listened to it twice in a row because I couldn't believe what I was hearing; there was a period I listened to De La Soul obsessively while I was working because it would make me laugh.

I have nothing against the form. The content for the most part is horrid.

Let us compare -- a central concept of the ravers (which I am not) is "PLUR" (peace love unity respect) whereas a central idea of hiphop appears to be "bling".

I had an interesting moment where I estimated how many of my "faves" were black Americans, and it was smaller than I'd thought. But then I realized that Americans per se were less than half of my "faves" -- and I'd missed out eg all of Africa (eg Fela hadn't popped up).

Hip-hop culture is mostly about appearance, aggression, money and power. For the most part, the music is cookie-cutter, unimaginative, predictable, and morally negative.

(You can hear what I'm listening to now at http://ax.to/radio.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:38 PM on May 9, 2006

basicchannel, maxreax:
Thanks.
Guess I should have looked that up. I always thought that Andre guy was Outkast, and the other guy was just a hanger-on.
heh.
posted by madajb at 5:39 PM on May 9, 2006

if I make a playlist of 100 songs and only 12 are by black artists, isn't that odd considering that African-Americans consist of a disproportionate number of not only musicians but musical progressives (which is to say those who push music in new directions)?

If an African-American person makes a list of 100 favorite books and less than 80% are by white people, is that equally odd?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:42 PM on May 9, 2006

Hip-hop culture is mostly about appearance, aggression, money and power. For the most part, the music is cookie-cutter, unimaginative, predictable, and morally negative.

I'm not going to argue about what hip-hop "culture" is or isn't; generally speaking it's as wide and varied as rock-n-roll "culture," which is to say there are incredible, thoughtful, poetic progressives (some of whom make terrible music) and there are crass, ugly, mysoginistic jerks (some of whom, unfortunately, make great music). Hip-hop "culture" is by no means monolithic or easy to sum up in four words.

I will, however, defend the music. Without a doubt some (if not most) of the most adventurous musicians of the last 25 years are rap artists. You mentioned Public Enemy as one--I'd add OutKast, Kanye West (see: thoughtful, poetic progressive who makes great music), Dr. Dre (see: crass, ugly, mysoginistic jerk who makes great music), Miss Elliott, Timbaland, Just Blaze, and the Neptunes--just "Top 40" guys and just in the last five years.

They're challenging the boundaries of their genre, taking in new sounds and making them their own, exploring the meaning of the music in interesting ways and definitely pushing the limits of their equipment. No different than a lot of Rock-n-rollers in the 1970s.
posted by maxreax at 5:45 PM on May 9, 2006

Maxreax: at the very least, thanks for pointing out the term "rockism" to me

I thought it was just another throwaway term coined by my old mate Pete Wylie nearly thirty years ago. I had no idea that there was a whole debate around the issue.

Say Wah!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:47 PM on May 9, 2006

Let us compare -- a central concept of the ravers (which I am not) is "PLUR" (peace love unity respect) whereas a central idea of hiphop appears to be "bling". Hip-hop culture is mostly about appearance, aggression, money and power.

For someone who appears to be as passionate about music as you are, I thought you'd be smarter than this.

Lame, overproduced, MTV video-music-awards "hip hop" - sure, you're right. And it sucks, as much as Poison and Warrant did in the 80s. But calling that shit "hip hop" and judging it as such is like calling Warrant "metal", when you should really go fucking spin Master of Puppets, if you know what I'm saying. Hip hop as a mass-marketed product, and hip hop as something thousands of people make in their garages over some fat joints while reading Carl Sagan books (I've been there, seriously) is another matter entirely.
posted by Jimbob at 5:49 PM on May 9, 2006

The best argument IMHO is to look at Billboard Magazine (print only) which each week has the top 25 now, and the top 25 from 25 years ago. About ten years ago the comparison was heart-breaking each and every week -- it's a little less dramatic now because the 80's were less of a dramatic time for music but

A smart person would simply have asked us to compare the charts from 35 years ago.

A smarter person would point out that 35 years ago, old people hated popular music, and today you hate popular music not because it sucks today, but because today you're old.
posted by delmoi at 5:50 PM on May 9, 2006

If an African-American person makes a list of 100 favorite books and less than 80% are by white people, is that equally odd?

I'd venture that that's an entirely different debate, considering the different place that "African-American Literature" holds w/r/t "American Literature" versus the place that "African-American Music" holds w/r/t "American Music."
posted by maxreax at 5:52 PM on May 9, 2006

Hip-hop culture is mostly about appearance, aggression, money and power. For the most part, the music is cookie-cutter, unimaginative, predictable, and morally negative.

Okay, this is going a bit far.
While I'll agree somewhat with the first sentence the second one is a generalization that can be applied to pop music in any genre - especially of the radio friendly kind.

However, hip hop reaches pretty far and wide these days. And I would argue that it is far more creative than rock is today. This is mainly because no matter how good a rock musician or band is - and I can name dozens that I like - rock is treading the same old ground again and again.
Hip hop on the other hand is taking a lot of new avenues in music and at the same time dynamically reconfiguring old ones.
posted by Rashomon at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2006

I still haven't seen any quote from Merritt where he stated that he doesn't like hip-hop. I can understand his particular dislike of OutKast, even if I don't share it. It sounds like S/F-J is just being reactionary to get some notice in the digital ink out there. 'Tis a shame, I like Ui a lot.
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2006

Though I realize that it is impossible to prove, I imagine that songs from 1971 or 1981 are remembered better now than songs recorded this year will be in twenty-five years. I don't imagine that many people twenty five years from now will remember what song was "x plus y featuring z and a."

Also, rap and hip-hop songs are far less likely to be covered, which will also make them forgotten more quickly. Lastly, there is very little in the way of touring or live performances of rap and hip hop that help to preserve the life of a song.
posted by flarbuse at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2006

Sasha Frere-Jones, the New Yorker's Pop Critic and maybe the finest music critic writing today,

Not a fucking chance.

has long been an activist against rockism

Such a stupid term, and debate.
posted by kenko at 5:53 PM on May 9, 2006

Also, rap and hip-hop songs are far less likely to be covered, which will also make them forgotten more quickly.

But they're a lot more likely to be played at clubs and dances.

Lastly, there is very little in the way of touring or live performances of rap and hip hop that help to preserve the life of a song.

Uhh... what? You know that rappers go on tour all the time, right?
posted by maxreax at 5:56 PM on May 9, 2006

I like the Magnetic Fields
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM PST on May 9

[Head explodes]
posted by drpynchon at 8:33 PM

Hey, 'Reno Dakota,' is everything a good song should be: cogent concise and to the point, with a good melody and a saucy lyric. what's not to like? Those are cardinal rock and roll virtues.

To the rap haters: right now hip-hop is in a weird period, but so's a the whole top 40. Back in the 60's and 70's there was plenty of manufactured pop, but the people doing the manufacturing actually liked music. These days not so much. And even talking about bling and chicks is legitamite expression and can be great fun when done right.
posted by jonmc at 5:57 PM on May 9, 2006

Let us compare -- a central concept of the ravers (which I am not) is "PLUR" (peace love unity respect) whereas a central idea of hiphop appears to be "bling".

Hip-hop culture is mostly about appearance, aggression, money and power. For the most part, the music is cookie-cutter, unimaginative, predictable, and morally negative.

Hundreds of hours of listening notwithstanding, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is just as much vapidity in mainstream culture as there is in hip hop culture. There is just as much beauty and musical ingenuity in hip hop music as there is in other forms. You haven't found it, and aren't willing to listen and learn.
posted by kosem at 6:01 PM on May 9, 2006

Rap and hip hop songs are played at clubs and dances now because they are the most popular songs right now. Clubs and dances always play the most popular current songs.

Tell me what the most successful rap tour that you know about is. Look at who has the most successful tours. You will find no rap acts. Rap and hip hop sell a ton of albums. They tour very rarely. Look at Eminem and 50 Cent. They are beyond popular. I imagine that Eminem has sold the most records in the past five or so years. That should mean monster tour where he can rake it in. But he does not. Nor does 50 Cent. Nor did Dr. Dre or Snoop Dogg. I saw LL Cool J a few years ago. It was a ridiculously small place for how popular he is. He rapped over a pre-recorded medley of his songs. It was awful. I had seen him live on MTV Unplugged with a band. It was amazing.

So, maxreax, what I am saying is that rappers may go out on tour, but it is nowhere near as common or successful as it should be compared to the units they are able to sell.
posted by flarbuse at 6:03 PM on May 9, 2006

jon.. You don't need to defend MF to me. That's not why my head exploded. It was in light of your prior comments regarding so-called indie rock.
posted by drpynchon at 6:06 PM on May 9, 2006

I'm sorry if calling hip-hop "crass" makes you angry.

But in fact music today is terribly, terribly crass. Hip-hop exemplifies this but it's true in a lot of pop music -- I've never heard so many songs about money in my life.

We are in a brass age for music -- lots of cookie cutter music stamped out without any great interest by the musicians or labels.

It's not that there aren't a ton of great musicians and bands out there -- I see them all the time, I'm at some event and I see some act that just blows away the crowd and me. But I'm never under any illusion that they're going to be picked up by a major label.

There are some fine acts that do well -- I'm listening to Fatboy Slim right now, and that's good music, but is this the best of pop music? It's all put together in some studio from other people's work!

What happened to exciting new bands? I didn't even find REM particularly exciting and bands have been sort of more of the same since then.


There was a point when you could listen to the radio and you heard songs that would blow your mind -- that would challenge the way you thought about music, that would challenge the way you thought about the world.

And there were always catchy songs -- what happened to catchy songs? There are still a few but what's the "Walk Like An Egyptian" of the 2000s? I didn't even really love that song, but it does that "catchy" thing really well -- you couldn't get it out of your head. It's clever! Don't we do "catchy" any more?


It's not that there aren't great musicians out there -- it's that the corrupt music industry has corrupted commercial music pretty well to the core. Anyone who cares about music knows by now that they should never try to make a living out of it (unless they go the academic route). (This excludes session musicians, engineers and that sort of thing... even then, they have to do some bad things at times...)

As the flavour of the decade, hip-hop is the most corrupted by the corrupt environment.

HOWEVER -- and back to my original point -- you might not like my viewpoint but it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with racism.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:07 PM on May 9, 2006

I'd venture that that's an entirely different debate, considering the different place that "African-American Literature" holds w/r/t "American Literature" versus the place that "African-American Music" holds w/r/t "American Music."

In that case, we should expect African Americans to have even more than 80 white authors in their top 100 favorite books, since African-American literature is nowhere near as influential as African-American music. So would it be odd if less than, say 90 of 100 of their favorites were white?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:10 PM on May 9, 2006

the crass lyrics, simplistic song structure, and lack of musicianship in the overwhelming majority of hip-hop music.

Don't know SFJ from Adam, but I'm a fan of the Magnetic Fields and Merritt's musical tastes don't surprise me at all. His music is all about "catchy". "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" is catchy.

Anyone here actually seen Song of the South? I have, but I was way too young to have anything but the vaguest of memory. Racism aside, I hear it's actually a very well-done movie.
posted by mkultra at 6:12 PM on May 9, 2006

Let us compare -- a central concept of the ravers (which I am not) is "PLUR" (peace love unity respect) whereas a central idea of hiphop appears to be "bling".

Ravers are about Peace Love Unity and Respect? I thought they were all about dropping ecstasy and twirling LED pens...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:12 PM on May 9, 2006

jon.. You don't need to defend MF to me. That's not why my head exploded. It was in light of your prior comments regarding so-called indie rock.

Consider it an underscore of the fact that I don't oppose indie as an idea, but rather the sound that the term has come to signify.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on May 9, 2006

Rap and hip hop songs are played at clubs and dances now because they are the most popular songs right now. Clubs and dances always play the most popular current songs.

And you can dance to it. I'd like to see you try to dance to Nickleback.

Anyway, I have no idea what Mr. Yonderboy is on about. "What's popular" in any musical genera and "What sucks" are almost always one and the same. Popular rap (50 cent) sucks. So does popular rock (Nickleback, Creed) At least that was the case like 3 years ago when I had any idea what was going on in popular music due to watching MTV, when they played music videos.

I did look at the pop charts for today and I only recognized like two names (Sean Paul and Kelly Clarkson)
posted by delmoi at 6:13 PM on May 9, 2006

Not liking rap is an aesthetic judgement and is thus both unjustifiable and inarguable. (though of course noisemakers can make noise about it endlessly, and do.) I personally don't care for rap because it doesn't sound like Mozart, which is demonstrably true. To anyone finds "wack unexamined biases" lurking in that, I say wack unexamined biases are the spice of life, pfui on the notion of giving them up. The unexemined life thunbs its nose at examination.
posted by jfuller at 6:13 PM on May 9, 2006

What happened to exciting new bands? I didn't even find REM particularly exciting and bands have been sort of more of the same since then.

ITunes and podcasts, my man, ITunes and podcasts...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:14 PM on May 9, 2006

In that case, we should expect African Americans to have even more than 80 white authors in their top 100 favorite books, since African-American literature is nowhere near as influential as African-American music. So would it be odd if less than, say 90 of 100 of their favorites were white?

Well, then I suppose we should? Do you have any counterexamples, or are you totally just talking out your ass?
posted by delmoi at 6:14 PM on May 9, 2006

His music is all about "catchy". "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" is catchy.

Catchy is harder than it looks. And combining catchy with cogent, thoughtful, and emotionally affecting is even harder. Besides, they call it 'popular music' for a reason, and there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by jonmc at 6:14 PM on May 9, 2006

kosem: Send me your inspirational rap music. I am all ears.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:16 PM on May 9, 2006

Sorry lupus. No offense, but all your argument does is make you sound really old. Not only does it seem like you're at a point in your life where visceral connections to new music are impossible, but you've failed to realise that top-40 radio is now aimed toward a younger and even more immature audience in response to the changing entertainment economy. Most adults who can still be moved by music today, tend to get their music elsewhere.
posted by drpynchon at 6:18 PM on May 9, 2006

It's all put together in some studio from other people's work!

Got any idea how incredibly difficult, and how much musical skill and knowledge it takes to do that? Didn't think so.
posted by kosem at 6:20 PM on May 9, 2006

kosem: Send me your inspirational rap music. I am all ears.

Oh man, are you getting a package in your email from me...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:21 PM on May 9, 2006

I loathe and detest Sasha Frere-Jones and the rest of Remnick's boring stable of pseudo-culture-critics (Gladwell, Surowiecki). SFJ's just doing the same old, tired schtick Julie Burchill and Toby Young (among others) were doing twenty years ago -- taking the most trite, disposable, and crap elements of mass culture; pretending they're the best thing ever, and patting themselves on the back for being 'revolutionaries' and sticking it to 'high culture'.

Well, high culture's dead. It has been for decades. So is rock and 'rockism'. Attacking rock (in 2006!) like it's some dominant behemoth that needs taking down so that the masses can be set free is asinine. Hip-hop (or, more accurately, hip-pop) is the behemoth now -- championing it and attacking 'rockism' is no longer revolutionary; it's highly conservative. It's what Sony would want. (And I'm never entirely convinced, when I read SFJ, that he's not a paid shill -- his writing and critical biases would look exactly the same if he were.)

As for SFJ being 'the finest music critic writing today' -- frankly, no. Yes, he can turn a reasonably good sentence, but he has no apparent taste -- this is a guy who appears to love everything Lindsay Lohan has ever recorded, for fuck's sakes. His New Yorker pieces read like Smash Hits! cover stories with undergrad.-level Critical Theory cliches inserted, for that special New Yorker^TM middle-mind masquerading-as-cultured brand of idiocy. He's just not all that.

As for the equation Black=hip-hop -- I don't even know where to start. I mean, hello, essentialism, anyone? Hip-hop's a fashion, a product with a multi-billion-dollar marketing budget, not some kind of genetic destiny.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:24 PM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

As for the equation Black=hip-hop -- I don't even know where to start. I mean, hello, essentialism, anyone?

This is where most modern criticism loses me (and I suspect other people). Don't assume people know what essentialism is. I sure don't.
posted by jonmc at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2006

You tell it, Sonny Jim.
posted by kenko at 6:27 PM on May 9, 2006

jfuller: It's not "not liking" rap: it's saying that it's (generally, for the most part etc) crass and materialistic -- it's also particularly formulaic (ie, all in very similar time signatures, timbres, etc).

Sure, there are pieces I like. Sure, you can probably dig some up that I'd like. But for the most part, it doesn't have heart. It's mean. It lacks aspiration to higher things. It sniggers, it doesn't laugh from the belly. (Again, I must put in nod to De La Soul here, who really are funny in a pure and sweet way.)

And rappers don't play instruments -- they don't sing. That sucks too. Sure, a few people play a few instruments or sing a bit but basically they turn on the machines and talk.

I want song. I want play. I want the musicians to be engaged in the process. I want some joy!

(And don't get me wrong. You don't have to play. I think The Orb is the greatest thing since sliced bread and they don't play instruments either -- they have other virtues like rich timbres, exotic beats and the like. When drum-machine music drove out bands from the clubs in New York, I was resentful, but there was a lot of good material there and I learned to love it. It had heart in its own mechanical way...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:28 PM on May 9, 2006

Hip hop is everything from b-boys and b-girls, to graph artists, to slam poets, to DJi'ng and to emcee'ing. Rap is a small part of a larger youth culture, which is essentially what hip-hop has become...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:30 PM on May 9, 2006

Do you have any counterexamples, or are you totally just talking out your ass?

Counterexamples of what? Are you asking if I know any black people with inadequately Caucasian bookshelves?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:32 PM on May 9, 2006

Again, I must put in nod to De La Soul here, who really are funny in a pure and sweet way

De La Soul came out with their first album in 1989. If you haven't been able to find anything similar in style to De La Soul in 17 years, you haven't been looking hard enough...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:34 PM on May 9, 2006

It's absolutely not the case that I'm too old to make visceral connections to new music.

I'd say that most of the music I love right now has been introduced to me in the last 5 years. I get bored fast!

It's *just rap music I hate*. Because it's *boring* and *crass*. Even the rap I *like* is crass.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 6:34 PM on May 9, 2006

Back in the 60's and 70's there was plenty of manufactured pop, but the people doing the manufacturing actually liked music. These days not so much.

Double true.
posted by dhartung at 6:35 PM on May 9, 2006

Not everyone has to love hip-hop music. I'm really not much of a fan, mostly because most of it that I come into contact with features a really negative materialistic focus ("bitches and hos" and "bling".) Clearly not ALL hip-hop has this focus, I'm not a conneisseur, but the majority that I encounter on TV or the radio has this focus.

It turns me off. It has nothing to do with race.

But heavy metal turns me off because of the hate and implied violence.

But, then again, I think most of the popular music being produced today that gets any airplay is crap. Again, I'm sure there's somebody somewhere in a basement making brilliant stuff, but that's not what's on the radio.

Personally, I'd rather listen to Mozart.
posted by MythMaker at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2006

In that case, we should expect African Americans to have even more than 80 white authors in their top 100 favorite books, since African-American literature is nowhere near as influential as African-American music. So would it be odd if less than, say 90 of 100 of their favorites were white?

I'm not drawing any conclusions; just saying that it's not really fair to compare the two spheres.

As for SFJ being 'the finest music critic writing today' -- frankly, no. Yes, he can turn a reasonably good sentence, but he has no apparent taste -- this is a guy who appears to love everything Lindsay Lohan has ever recorded, for fuck's sakes. His New Yorker pieces read like Smash Hits! cover stories with undergrad.-level Critical Theory cliches inserted, for that special New YorkerTM middle-mind masquerading-as-cultured brand of idiocy. He's just not all that.

Oh no--someone's examining previously unexplored and underappreciated genres! People are exhorting me to think about why I like the music I like, and what that might mean about my cultural positions and biases! Someone is writing about base music using multisyllabic words! Never!

HOWEVER -- and back to my original point -- you might not like my viewpoint but it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with racism.

FWIW, I don't think you're a racist at all. I do think you're sort of crochety and unwilling to really try listening to new music. I'm not necessarily going to attribute it to age, but that's what it sounds like.
posted by maxreax at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2006

L_Y:

You don't have to like it. That's not it at all.

A lot of people don't like it, and that's just fine. When it's good, it's still rough and often impossibly self referential. Hip hop is cerebral. I don't get out of hip hop what I get out of Soul music, or out of bluegrass. I'm not sure if I told you to pick up a copy of Deltron 3030 and spin it, that you'd know what to make of it. But don't tell me that Dan the Automator, Guru or Madlib aren't musicians. Don't tell me that MF Doom, the GZA or Jean Grae aren't "engaged in the process" of music. They just make music that you haven't engaged in yourself--that takes some time to get to know and understand. I'm not saying that you should. It's the sweeping dismissal that gets to me.
posted by kosem at 6:43 PM on May 9, 2006

Anyone here actually seen Song of the South? I have, but I was way too young to have anything but the vaguest of memory. Racism aside, I hear it's actually a very well-done movie.
It's been a while since I watched my "imported" copy, but I don't remember it being a bad movie.
The live-action with cartoon bits are pretty cool for the the time it was made, and in some ways, it works better than modern animation.

And yes, zippedy-doo-dah is damn catchy. It's stuck in my head now just from reading this thread.
posted by madajb at 6:44 PM on May 9, 2006

Oh no--someone's examining previously unexplored and underappreciated genres! People are exhorting me to think about why I like the music I like, and what that might mean about my cultural positions and biases! Someone is writing about base music using multisyllabic words! Never!

Well, that's not a caricature. People can talk about whatever kind of music with words of whatever length they please, as far as I'm concerned. But SF/J doesn't write about the music he writes about particularly well, though many are willing to extend him a lot of credit just because he writes about certain kinds of music in styles not normally associated with them. But his actual content doesn't justify that credit.
posted by kenko at 6:54 PM on May 9, 2006

I'm sorry, but if someone rejoicing in the preposterous moniker "Sasha Frere-Jones" imagines for one demented second that I'm going to take anything he has to say seriously, then he really needs to ease up on the crank most severely. Or possibly this is merely a wack yet thoroughly examined bias I have against tedious little wankers with laughably cunty names. I care so much either way.

Ooh! Is somone I'm envious of racist? Does he smell too? Ooh! Ooh! He does! He does! Please be as exercised and hissy about this as I am, people!

What a thoroughly punchable little toerag.
posted by Decani at 6:57 PM on May 9, 2006

I loathe and detest Sasha Frere-Jones and the rest of Remnick's boring stable of pseudo-culture-critics (Gladwell, Surowiecki). SFJ's just doing the same old, tired schtick Julie Burchill and Toby Young (among others) were doing twenty years ago -- taking the most trite, disposable, and crap elements of mass culture; pretending they're the best thing ever, and patting themselves on the back for being 'revolutionaries' and sticking it to 'high culture'.

Well, that's not a caricature.
posted by maxreax at 7:01 PM on May 9, 2006

if I make a playlist of 100 songs and only 12 are by black artists, isn't that odd considering that African-Americans consist of a disproportionate number of not only musicians but musical progressives (which is to say those who push music in new directions)? That is, if the history of American pop music is in most ways the history of African-American music (and it almost assuredly is), why does my playlist consist of so few black artists?

Umm... because you're not so keen on the type of music most black artists make? That doesn't make you a racist. Are classical music fans popist? Rockist? Am I jazzist because I hate jazz with a passion that transcends all human understanding? If it could be shown that most jazz artists were black would that make me racist too? Even though I love soul and reggae? Oooh - or am I anti-white for hating country music? OMG my personal tastes must exactly match the demographics of ...err.. America... or maybe Britain... or ...umm..Sweden... or else I am a bigot!

Come on. Breathe. Get a fucking grip here.
posted by Decani at 7:05 PM on May 9, 2006

How in the living hell is Zip-a-dee-do-dah a racist song?

The lyrics are even on the NIH website!
posted by mischief at 7:09 PM on May 9, 2006

Oh no--someone's examining previously unexplored and underappreciated genres! People are exhorting me to think about why I like the music I like, and what that might mean about my cultural positions and biases! Someone is writing about base music using multisyllabic words! Never!

LOL. But seriously (and kenko's already pretty much nailed what I'm trying to say here), SFJ's pieces are hugely overrated simply because of what he deigns to review (mass-market products), as opposed to anything else about them. (Either that, or they're cocktail party cheat-sheets for ageing boomers who want to appear up with what the kidz are doing these days. Can't decide which.)
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:19 PM on May 9, 2006

" I don't like that surfing shit. Rock 'n Roll's been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died." --John Milner
posted by keswick at 7:20 PM on May 9, 2006

Oh no--someone's examining previously unexplored and underappreciated genres! People are exhorting me to think about why I like the music I like, and what that might mean about my cultural positions and biases! Someone is writing about base music using multisyllabic words! Never!

You're talking about someone who used the word 'wack' in an allegedly serious piece.

The man is a fool, and a wretched writer, and his opinions are therefore perfectly fit to mock.
posted by scrump at 7:21 PM on May 9, 2006

I do think you're sort of crochety and unwilling to really try listening to new music. I'm not necessarily going to attribute it to age, but that's what it sounds like.

The attitude that people who dislike new music aren't listening closely enough is just as bassackwards and ignorant as people who claim that all rap is tuneless, or all metal is angry or whatever.

People are allowed to like what they like, and they really shouldn't have to defend their tastes. I mean, fuck, do you all go around telling people that their taste in ice cream is bad? "I don't care for strawberry. It's just lifeless and boring. It doesn't move me as a flavor." "I think that you're not really trying to taste the Mexican vanilla. If you'd try harder, you'd like it. You must not be trying. You're probably a sorbetist."
posted by 23skidoo at 7:28 PM on May 9, 2006

Umm... because you're not so keen on the type of music most black artists make? That doesn't make you a racist. Are classical music fans popist? Rockist? Am I jazzist because I hate jazz with a passion that transcends all human understanding? If it could be shown that most jazz artists were black would that make me racist too? Even though I love soul and reggae? Oooh - or am I anti-white for hating country music? OMG my personal tastes must exactly match the demographics of ...err.. America... or maybe Britain... or ...umm..Sweden... or else I am a bigot!

Come on. Breathe. Get a fucking grip here.

Seriously. Please don't accuse me of lacking a grip. And please re-read my post. I don't think I accused anyone of racism. In fact, what I said was:

But S/FJ isn't accusing anyone of racism per se--or at least, he shouldn't be... Now, obviously, that alone doesn't make me a racist.

Are you being willfully obtuse?
posted by maxreax at 7:30 PM on May 9, 2006

People are allowed to like what they like, and they really shouldn't have to defend their tastes.

Frankly, if they're going to make sweeping generalizations, they probably should have to defend their tastes.
posted by maxreax at 7:31 PM on May 9, 2006

You're talking about someone who used the word 'wack' in an allegedly serious piece.

Did you read the FPP? It was in a blog post. If you're going to enter the discussion at least have the respect to read the pertaining material.
posted by maxreax at 7:32 PM on May 9, 2006

LOL. But seriously (and kenko's already pretty much nailed what I'm trying to say here), SFJ's pieces are hugely overrated simply because of what he deigns to review (mass-market products), as opposed to anything else about them. (Either that, or they're cocktail party cheat-sheets for ageing boomers who want to appear up with what the kidz are doing these days. Can't decide which.)

Oh, I don't know about that. Read his Slate piece that I posted in the FPP; it should give you a pretty good indication of why the New Yorker hired him. Frankly, I think the dude's a pretty good writer, but to each his own--moreover, probably only about one in four or five reviews is about a "mass-market" product. The last few have been about the Dixie Chicks, Ghostface and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs--he's even written about Slint and "indie" bands. I'd say he pretty much covers the gamut.
posted by maxreax at 7:35 PM on May 9, 2006

Sonny Jim nails it, as far as I'm concerned.

maxreax: Oh no--someone's examining previously unexplored and underappreciated genres! People are exhorting me to think about why I like the music I like, and what that might mean about my cultural positions and biases! Someone is writing about base music using multisyllabic words! Never!

There's lots and lots of underexplored and unappreciated genres out there. There's a vast amount of music out there that goes unnoticed by both the mainstream and by the majority of music critics. Mainstream pop and hip-hop, however, have a huge audience. Sure, they're disdained by most people of the sort SFJ is writing for, but outside of that little world, calling Lindsay Lohan or Justin Timberlake "underappreciated" just seems laughable.

(For the record, I think that the vast majority of mainstream pop and mainstream hip-hop is utter dreck, and that most definitely includes LL and JT. My personal opinion aside, why bother championing a corporate product that already has an enormous fanbase? It's like throwing buckets of water into the ocean.)
posted by a louis wain cat at 7:37 PM on May 9, 2006

Frankly, if they're going to make sweeping generalizations, they probably should have to defend their tastes.

Nope. They should have to defend their generalizations, but not their tastes.
posted by 23skidoo at 7:42 PM on May 9, 2006

I mostly eat Japanese / Asian food. I don't like Russian / Eastern European food.

Does that make me racist?

Or is it just that I don't like the types of ingredients in most of the Russian food I've had, while the flavors in Japanese food get my motor a'running?
posted by bshort at 7:50 PM on May 9, 2006

The last few have been about the Dixie Chicks, Ghostface and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs--he's even written about Slint and "indie" bands. I'd say he pretty much covers the gamut.

Slim gamut, if you ask me, but whatever. I read his slate piece you linked. This paragraph opener's pretty interesting:
There's a real argument to be had about whether or not it matters who made a song, but let's accept for now that the number of people involved in making a pop record matters because this idea about the Individual Artist won't go away.
IOW, "There's a real argument, but let's accept for now that it's a fake, ideologically driven argument." Okeydoke. I read his blog for a very brief period (even got quoted on it) when he was really interested in finding historical antecedents to the blog as a medium. He strikes me as a pretentious poseur, frankly, whose mode of expression is calling other people out for not being down enough with the plebs.

(a louis wain cat, I love your name.)
posted by kenko at 7:54 PM on May 9, 2006

There's lots and lots of underexplored and unappreciated genres out there. There's a vast amount of music out there that goes unnoticed by both the mainstream and by the majority of music critics. Mainstream pop and hip-hop, however, have a huge audience. Sure, they're disdained by most people of the sort SFJ is writing for, but outside of that little world, calling Lindsay Lohan or Justin Timberlake "underappreciated" just seems laughable.

Frere-Jones doesn't just write about pop and hip-hop, though. He has a reputation as a "pop" critic because people are so shocked that he writes about Top 40 music--even its fans, for the most part, don't think of it as something that a critic would disassemble--but he's written about an amazing number of genres and artists, some well-known some not.

And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily see what's wrong with writing about the most popular music in the country in a magazine thought to be a figurehead of culture. No one gets all up in arms when David Denby or Anthony Lane review the new Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
posted by maxreax at 7:57 PM on May 9, 2006

Slim gamut, if you ask me, but whatever. I read his slate piece you linked. This paragraph opener's pretty interesting: There's a real argument to be had about whether or not it matters who made a song, but let's accept for now that the number of people involved in making a pop record matters because this idea about the Individual Artist won't go away. IOW, "There's a real argument, but let's accept for now that it's a fake, ideologically driven argument." Okeydoke.

I think you misunderstood that first line. When he says, "There's a real argument to be had," he doesn't mean argument as in position, he means argument as in discussion.

Here's the article in the nutshell:

Point 1: Many people criticize pop songs for having too many singers/writers/producers/mixers.

Point 1a: Someday, maybe, we can have a discussion/argument about why this matters, but for now, let's just assume that it does.

Point 2: Rock songs have a lot of singers/writers/producers/mixers, as well.

As for "fake" or "ideologically driven," well, he cites examples in the article, doesn't he? The Madonna piece?
posted by maxreax at 8:02 PM on May 9, 2006

I'll bet I have you nekkid... by the end of this song.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:08 PM on May 9, 2006

Read his Slate piece that I posted in the FPP; it should give you a pretty good indication of why the New Yorker hired him.

I, too, read the Slate piece. The Theory aspects struck me as really dated -- like a piece of late '80s lit-crit written by one of the Foucault-is-my-personal-lord-and-saviour school of culture critics. I'm still not convinced that the reason Remnick hired him can't be summarized as: $$.

As for his pieces on Slint and other 'indie' acts (e.g. his one on the Mountain Goats), I've read those too. What's noticeable about those articles (apart from the fact that they seem kind of perfunctory and dismissive) is that he seems to spend half the time talking about hip-hop, even though it's really got nothing in particular to do with the topic at hand. It's really quite obtrusive -- kind of like dropping constant Slowdive references into a Kool Keith review.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:23 PM on May 9, 2006

apart from the fact that they seem kind of perfunctory and dismissive

Aw, c'mon. Give the guy a little credit; he calls John Darnielle the best rock lyricist alive, and describes Slint as "thrilling" and "deserving of the overheated praise."

Look, I'm not saying that he doesn't have an axe to grind. But for a lot of us who happen to big fans of Top-40 and hip-hop, it used to be that music critics wouldn't give us the time of day (it's certainly gotten better among crits, but not necessarily among the general public). I like S/FJ because he doesn't fetishize "rawness" or "artistry" or whatever buzzwords RS uses when they make those shitty lists of Top 100 songs of the century, etc.; and because he recognizes that hip-hop as a genre is every bit rock-n-roll's peer. I can't think of another critic who actually has that egalitarian a taste (remember, S/FJ was in Ui!, so it's not like his indie rock reviews are just lip service) and is also that good a stylist. Seriously. Maybe Kalefa Sanneh from the Times. (I love Greg Tate's reviews in the Voice but he almost exclusively writes about African-American music).
posted by maxreax at 8:35 PM on May 9, 2006

I think you misunderstood that first line. When he says, "There's a real argument to be had," he doesn't mean argument as in position, he means argument as in discussion.

Quibbling. The quotation again: "There's a real argument to be had about whether or not it matters who made a song, but let's accept for now that the number of people involved in making a pop record matters because this idea about the Individual Artist won't go away.". I take that "who" to include who as in, was it a collectivity or an individual. "Argument as in position" doesn't even make sense (arguments involve positions, but are not composed of them), so I'm not sure what you meant. Does he mean something like this? "There's a real argument to be had, but it happens that at the moment, the people who would argue against me are in the grip of a poisonous ("rockist") ideology. Some people might be able to press the point without being in such a grip, but there aren't any now."? That, too, is tendentious and dismissive.
posted by kenko at 8:43 PM on May 9, 2006

"Argument as in position" doesn't even make sense (arguments involve positions, but are not composed of them), so I'm not sure what you meant.

As in, "there's an argument to be made," which is more or less synonymous with "there's a position to be taken."

"There's a real argument to be had, but it happens that at the moment, the people who would argue against me are in the grip of a poisonous ("rockist") ideology. Some people might be able to press the point without being in such a grip, but there aren't any now."? That, too, is tendentious and dismissive.

Yeah... but I don't know that I'd call it dismissive. It's a fairly common rhetorical tactic, to question your opponent's presumptions while at the same time disproving them based on said presumptions.
posted by maxreax at 8:46 PM on May 9, 2006

First off, Meritt is not a racist, at least not evidenced by the thing Hopper picked to try to call him on (she stepped out for a cigarette during most of it anyways).

Secondly, we're arguing about whether a musician is racist while the world slowly crumbles and decays. Thus is the culture of a nation of rebels.
posted by drezdn at 8:57 PM on May 9, 2006

maxreax: And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily see what's wrong with writing about the most popular music in the country in a magazine thought to be a figurehead of culture. No one gets all up in arms when David Denby or Anthony Lane review the new Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

That's a fair point, but how many of those critics then go on to claim that Jerry Bruckheimer is actually a cinematic genius who makes movies of great artistic merit, and that the independent filmaking establishment doesn't recognize it because they're in the grip of an "anti summer-blockbusterist" ideology? I suspect that would, indeed, get a few people up in arms.

kenko: (a louis wain cat, I love your name.)

Thanks! One of these days, I'm going to fancy up my profile page and put an actual Louis Wain cat picture up there. I'd do an FPP on him, but it would be a triple, alas... (and to make this particular tangent vaguely on topic, I first found out about Louis Wain because of Current 93's penchant for using his artwork on their album covers, and their lyrical references to him.)
posted by a louis wain cat at 9:02 PM on May 9, 2006

I can't believe no one has pointed out that Merritt was obviously taking the piss when he made these comments

"I think my records could be listened to by the Ku Klux Klan!"

This isn't a serious comment, Merritt is just fucking around. Do you seriously think the guy who wrote 69 love songs never listened to any soul albums? In the interview he says "I’m not so concerned with rhythm or syncopation, which are the main concerns of black music after Duke Ellington," the magnetic fields are an incredibly funky band. Merrit is clearly not being serious when he says these things, he is fucking with you.
posted by afu at 9:02 PM on May 9, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I can't tell if Sasha Frere-Jones's implying that Stephen Merritt is a racist and then calling him a "cracker" is demonstrative of an unusually cultivated sense of irony or a complete lack of it.
posted by coogerdark at 9:18 PM on May 9, 2006

Can I just say, as a member of the oh so coveted 15-25 year old demographic* that popular music of the last five or so years completely sucks? And anything that comes out that is good is played to death by radio stations? That, or it comes from a band that are pushed aggressively as being "the Next Big Thing" on their first record, and subsequently burn out because they haven't had time to properly develop as a band and a never heard from again. So it isn't just a "damn you kids! Get off my lawn!" thing.




*Though I never have any money to spend on entertainment stuff these days anyway, except the occasional comic book, much less a twenty buck cd or twelve dollar movie ticket. But I guess it's because "we" tend to spend what little income we get on entertainment stuff that makes us so desired, or something.
posted by kosher_jenny at 9:30 PM on May 9, 2006

thanks, afu! For fucks sake, people! Over the years Merritt has pretty much insulted everyone on the planet in one way or another. He's not a racist. He's a pompous fuck that likes fucking with people. That's all.
posted by shoepal at 9:31 PM on May 9, 2006

"I've always felt that the crass lyrics, simplistic song structure, and lack of musicianship in the overwhelming majority of hip-hop is an insult to the memory of Hendrix, Davis, Ellington, Armstrong and other gods."

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Rockism.

"And it sucks, as much as Poison and Warrant did in the 80s. But calling that shit "hip hop" and judging it as such is like calling Warrant "metal", when you should really go fucking spin Master of Puppets, if you know what I'm saying."

Here it is again... How about this? I like both some Poison and some Metallica. Does that make me a bad metal fan?

"There are some fine acts that do well -- I'm listening to Fatboy Slim right now, and that's good music, but is this the best of pop music? It's all put together in some studio from other people's work!"

It's so EASY to be a superstar DJ. Kids these days don't even have to learn to play guitar! (And no, Fatboy Slim is not good music.)

"And there were always catchy songs -- what happened to catchy songs? There are still a few but what's the "Walk Like An Egyptian" of the 2000s? I didn't even really love that song, but it does that "catchy" thing really well -- you couldn't get it out of your head. It's clever! Don't we do "catchy" any more?"

Don't kids Foxtrot anymore? What about the jitterbug? That was MUSIC! Not this noise they listen to these days!

(Catchy— Hot in Herre, Yeah, Milkshake... Hell, even My Humps was ridiculously catchy).

"They tour very rarely. Look at Eminem and 50 Cent. They are beyond popular."

Look at U2! Look at Bruce Springsteen! Look at Madonna! Try to not be so ignorant!

"It's not that there aren't great musicians out there -- it's that the corrupt music industry has corrupted commercial music pretty well to the core. Anyone who cares about music knows by now that they should never try to make a living out of it (unless they go the academic route). (This excludes session musicians, engineers and that sort of thing... even then, they have to do some bad things at times...)"

Hahahahaha! Yeah, there are no good popular artists while all the talented folks languish in obscurity...

"And rappers don't play instruments -- they don't sing. That sucks too. Sure, a few people play a few instruments or sing a bit but basically they turn on the machines and talk."

You call that Pollack art? My kid coulda done that!

"jfuller: It's not "not liking" rap: it's saying that it's (generally, for the most part etc) crass and materialistic -- it's also particularly formulaic (ie, all in very similar time signatures, timbres, etc)."

Guess you hate rock and punk and electronica and house and disco and bebop and cool jazz and hot jazz and soul and r&b and country too... Right?

"I think The Orb is the greatest thing since sliced bread and they don't play instruments either -- they have other virtues like rich timbres, exotic beats and the like. When drum-machine music drove out bands from the clubs in New York, I was resentful, but there was a lot of good material there and I learned to love it. It had heart in its own mechanical way..."

The Orb is boring music for late-20s, early-30s white people who haven't gotten into new bands since the Trainspotting soundtrack. It's the musical equivalent of sporting a mullet— hedonistic, but still fine for the 9-to-5.

"The man is a fool, and a wretched writer, and his opinions are therefore perfectly fit to mock."

Well then do it already, don't just stand around saying they're fit to mock— bring it!

"People are allowed to like what they like, and they really shouldn't have to defend their tastes"

Wrong. They should be encouraged to like what they like, but they should always be prepared to say what they like about it. Being able to articulate a response to something is one of those things that comes with paying attention, and if you're going to spout off, you should definitely be able to back it up.

"My personal opinion aside, why bother championing a corporate product that already has an enormous fanbase? It's like throwing buckets of water into the ocean."

Because there's an argument for believing that by virtue of being popular, art can say something about the context in which it is enjoyed? By being popular, these songs are worthy of study? That it's really not that far from people who look at folklore, except that more people buy music than urban legends?

"Slim gamut, if you ask me, but whatever."

He also writes for Allmusic, and covers a really broad swath there.
posted by klangklangston at 9:52 PM on May 9, 2006

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Rockism.

What of it? Who cares?

"My personal opinion aside, why bother championing a corporate product that already has an enormous fanbase? It's like throwing buckets of water into the ocean."

Because there's an argument for believing that by virtue of being popular, art can say something about the context in which it is enjoyed? By being popular, these songs are worthy of study? That it's really not that far from people who look at folklore…

Those might be good reasons to study and analyze such works, and the conditions of their popularity, etc, but the question was about their being championed. When you put it in that cast, even your saying that "these songs are worthy of study" sounds patronizing: worthy of study, insofar as this study sheds light on how/why they were popular at a time, the surrounding cultural context, that, like "folklore", its quality isn't at issue, only its history.

Have some balls! If you're going to defend popular music, defend it in its own right, not just as being useful anthropologically. (Of course, in championing various bands/performers, that's the stance SFJ implicitly takes. So, to that extent, good on him. I still think his writing would be put to better use if he wrote more about people half the world didn't already know about, regardless of the kind of music they make.)
posted by kenko at 10:05 PM on May 9, 2006

Meh. I dig rap & hip hop as musical forms, but the subject matter and lyrical content are generally either so inane or so immature and offensive that I rarely have any incentive to dig in and try to find whatever the really good examples of the moment are. Does that make me a racist? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Oh, and I find nearly all rap & hip hop to be monotonous and boring. But I feel the same way about most metal, emo, screamo, indie rock, and pretty much all current "pop" music. Is it because I'm not digging deep enough to appreciate it, or is it because I'm a snob? I don't really care if it's one or neither.

The idea that someone's failure to embrace current pop music could, by itself, be indicative of racial bias is just plain dumb.

Oh, and on the topic of touring rap acts, Eminem, Snoop, and others do tour, and make pretty good money at it. But the really profitable tours are the ones who attract middle-aged rich people willing to pay $200 per ticket (see, e.g., Springsteen, U2, the Stones, Celine Dion, Elton John, Prince, etc.)

Every once in a while a rap song comes along that becomes a semi-enduring hit. It's rare, but it happens. Get enough drunk spring breakers signing along with the catchphrase for a season, and they'll eventually get around to feeling nostalgic about it.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:18 PM on May 9, 2006

"What of it? Who cares?"

Rockism's mostly a problem because it's a lazy argument that purports to justify musical taste based on notions of "authenticity" and "timelessness." Really, it's more like having an insufferable modernist who decries everything postmodern just because it's postmodern. It never bothers to ask why authenticity is good or bad.

"Those might be good reasons to study and analyze such works, and the conditions of their popularity, etc, but the question was about their being championed."

It is to you, not to me. He's championing them because he likes them, and that becomes noteworthy in the context of the dominant strain of musical criticism— that of the Rolling Stone baby boomer, the one that dismisses all of the pop music that he champions as being without redeeming merit. I will say that SFJ is probably more fun to read if you read a lot of music criticism, and maybe not as interesting if you're not already involved in it.

" I still think his writing would be put to better use if he wrote more about people half the world didn't already know about, regardless of the kind of music they make.)"

I dunno. I think that it's a good thing to have people thinking about popular culture on an analytical level, and that he does that and still champions bands is a ood thing. When I read movie reviews in the NYT, I don't expect to see only thinkpieces with no judgement. SFJ does the same thing, only with music. When Scott takes on Bruckheimer, he can be open about enjoying the movie even if it's dumb and loud or trashy. Pop's the same way. Having read a fair bit of SFJ, I'm not getting the objection to his work except that I think it can be a bit cluttered at times. But that's a stylistic quibble, and something that should be dealt with by editors.
posted by klangklangston at 10:21 PM on May 9, 2006

"People are allowed to like what they like, and they really shouldn't have to defend their tastes"

Wrong. They should be encouraged to like what they like, but they should always be prepared to say what they like about it. Being able to articulate a response to something is one of those things that comes with paying attention, and if you're going to spout off, you should definitely be able to back it up.

Yes, if you're going to spout off. But if you're not going to spout off, if you're just going to say "I don't like rap, not every ten seconds, but when someone asks you a pointed question, that's not something you should be getting shit over, or even something you should have to explain to anyone at all. You shouldn't have to back up why you dislike rap anymore than you should have to back up why you don't want to sleep with men.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:27 PM on May 9, 2006

Yes, if you're going to spout off. But if you're not going to spout off, if you're just going to say "I don't like rap, not every ten seconds, but when someone asks you a pointed question, that's not something you should be getting shit over, or even something you should have to explain to anyone at all. You shouldn't have to back up why you dislike rap anymore than you should have to back up why you don't want to sleep with men.

Why not, though? I mean, isn't that sort of what being human is about? Asking yourself why you like certain things or why you do certain things? "The unexamined life is not worth living" and all that jazz? If you have opinions, be prepared to defend them because some people think differently than you.
posted by maxreax at 10:35 PM on May 9, 2006

BTW, props to klangklangston for pointing out that everyone who claims to dislike Top 40 rappers while liking "good" or "true" hip-hop, as though it's different and better and somehow more authentic is engaging in an essentially rockist activity.
posted by maxreax at 10:37 PM on May 9, 2006

Why not, though? I mean, isn't that sort of what being human is about? Asking yourself why you like certain things or why you do certain things? "The unexamined life is not worth living" and all that jazz? If you have opinions, be prepared to defend them because some people think differently than you.

God, to me that's not being human, that's being a robot. Robots analyze shit to death and come up with reasons for why stuff is suppose to happen according to a list of criteria and information. Humans go with hunches. Most people can tell you whether they like a song pretty quick, without having to sit down and think about all the parts and whether they *should* like it or not.

You only have to defend an opinion if someone else isn't willing to accept it. I can understand someone not wanting to accept the opinion "All rap music is angry and simplistic." I really don't see why someone wouldn't be able to accept the opinion "23skidoo doesn't like death metal." I'm not saying that other people shouldn't like it, or that it's bad or meritless. I'm just saying that I don't like it.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:54 PM on May 9, 2006

Rockism shmockism. There are "top 40" "rappers" who make what I think of as true hip hop, and there are "top 40" "rappers" who engage in the worst type of cynical pandering. Cam'ron might be one of the former (although in a great year for hip hop, was Purple Haze among the ten best albums of 2004, per Pitchfork--in a telling reverse rockis moment?). Kanye is most certainly.

Snoop Dogg (with the considerable help of Dr. Dre), released what is almost universally considered to be a masterpiece. 36 Chambers went multi platinum; so did Ready to Die and Illmatic (still widely considered a "Top 5 Ever" by mostly everyone); Things Fall Apart sold like hotcakes, and so did Southernplayalistic and Aquemeni. No self respecting elitist hip hopper would call these albums anything but true hip hop. All top 40. So what the hell are you talking about?

I feel perfectly justified in saying that most current commercial rap is garbage. Not because it sells. Because it's garbage. The same way Nickelback is garbage.

Do jazz lovers hate Kenny G because he sold 793 million records? Or because listening to his music is like drinking a shot of liquified Equal?

I find the need to defend horrendous Young Jeezy songs against those rockist backpackers (read "white people who like hip hop and their two black friends") to be real cute.
posted by kosem at 11:11 PM on May 9, 2006

I- I only own two albums by black artists, does that make me racist*?
Aw, c'mon, I mean, I like Atmosphere!!!

What a load of Those-who-can't-sour-grapes malarkey.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:17 PM on May 9, 2006

Snoop Dogg (with the considerable help of Dr. Dre), released what is almost universally considered to be a masterpiece. 36 Chambers went multi platinum; so did Ready to Die and Illmatic (still widely considered a "Top 5 Ever" by mostly everyone); Things Fall Apart sold like hotcakes, and so did Southernplayalistic and Aquemeni. No self respecting elitist hip hopper would call these albums anything but true hip hop. All top 40. So what the hell are you talking about?

I don't really have a problem with you disliking Top 40 rap music, seeing as you clearly have put thought into your opinion of it and it's not a knee-jerk, my-rap-is-cooler-because-you-haven't-heard-it reaction, nor is it a this-rap-is-somehow-less-authentic-than-the-rap-i-like-maybe-because-it-was-made-in-the-south-and-is-apparently-about-candy (which is what I really have a problem with).

That being said, I don't really know what you mean by "true" hip-hop. I don't want to accuse you of something you're not saying, but it's worth pointing out that since its inception hip-hop has been blatantly silly and commercial, and the "serious" rap phase didn't come around until "The Message" five or six years into its life. "True hip-hop" doesn't mean anything anymore than "true rock" does; it's a superword like "punk" that gets thrown around to assign authenticity.

I think the important thing isn't to change what you like or dislike but to examine the cultural prejudices and biases that lead you like or dislike certain albums. But you seem to have carefully considered your likes and dislikes, so I don't know that that needs to apply to you.
posted by maxreax at 11:50 PM on May 9, 2006

I find the need to defend horrendous Young Jeezy songs against those rockist backpackers (read "white people who like hip hop and their two black friends") to be real cute.

I'm willing to defend Young Jeezy to everyone from grandmothers to real OGs, for what it's worth.
posted by maxreax at 11:52 PM on May 9, 2006

Freebird!
There, I've said it.
posted by Joeforking at 12:04 AM on May 10, 2006

Someone once said "If it sounds good, it is good."

But whoever said that probably didn't know anything about music. I mean, really, how can someone's musical taste possibly be valid if they can't articulate a reason beyond "it sounds good?"

And if anyone didn't already know, the quote is from Duke Ellington. But since he didn't articulate all of the technical reasons for his musical taste, his opinion probably doesn't count. And he didn't have any Beyonce in his record collection, so he was probably a racist.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:37 AM on May 10, 2006

klangklangston: Rockism's mostly a problem because it's a lazy argument that purports to justify musical taste based on notions of "authenticity" and "timelessness." Really, it's more like having an insufferable modernist who decries everything postmodern just because it's postmodern. It never bothers to ask why authenticity is good or bad.

I've been trying to pin down my problem with the whole anti-"rockism" movement in a way that goes beyond just that they tend to like stuff I don't, and I think this actually gave me the answer.

So, leaving personal taste out of the equation, why is authenticity a good thing? First of all, the overwhelmingly vast majority of music out there will never come close to the Top 40 charts. Thus, since one isn't ever going to get rich by playing black metal or space rock or neofolk or glitchy IDM or what have you, the people making it, in general, meet that "authenticity" standard, since money isn't the point of what they're doing. Therefore, when authenticity is valued, the vast majority of the music out there can, potentially, be valued and championed under the "rockist" critical standard. It wasn't necessarily, but the potential was there.

But, under the "poppist" standard, that no longer has value. What is valued in its place is slickness, catchiness, popularity. This means that the overwhelmingly vast majority of music out there suddenly no longer qualifies for the new standard of what makes music good, and as a result, the field of critically popular and championed music is not increased, as the anti-"rockists" purported to do, but narrowed. And narrowed down, basically, to music produced and pushed by enormous corporations. The political connotations of this should be obvious. Now, you can then question why diversity is a good thing, but that's another post, and it seems self-evident to me.

These are both oversimplified, strawman depictions, I admit- after all, the stereotypical "rockist" thinks of all hip-hop and electronic music as being inauthentic, a mindset which definitely was out there and which I don't agree with at all, while there certainly are anti-"rockist" types who will champion stuff that isn't poppy and slickly-produced- but I see the narrowing I described as what's likely to be the general trend, if the "rockist" standard is overthrown.
posted by a louis wain cat at 12:39 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Did anyone notice that Merritt's famous Time Out list includes a Public Enemy song? Hmm...
posted by Pacheco at 12:54 AM on May 10, 2006

So I tend to agree with shoepal and afu.
posted by Pacheco at 12:58 AM on May 10, 2006

I defy anybody to have "whiter" taste in music than me. If I make a playlist of 100 songs, chances are 99 are white artists, and the other one is probably somone like Ray Charles. The whole idea of racism being determined by the type of music you listen to is just stupid.
posted by salmacis at 2:12 AM on May 10, 2006

So, leaving personal taste out of the equation, why is authenticity a good thing? First of all, the overwhelmingly vast majority of music out there will never come close to the Top 40 charts. Thus, since one isn't ever going to get rich by playing black metal or space rock or neofolk or glitchy IDM or what have you, the people making it, in general, meet that "authenticity" standard, since money isn't the point of what they're doing. Therefore, when authenticity is valued, the vast majority of the music out there can, potentially, be valued and championed under the "rockist" critical standard. It wasn't necessarily, but the potential was there.

I call BS. "Authenticity" doesn't really mean anything. It's a buzzword. Just because one artist makes music to make money, and another makes music "for the love of it" doesn't make one inherently better or worse than the other.

And, for what its worth, being anti-Rockist doesn't amount to being anti-rock, or "poppist." De-valuing something meaningless like "authenticity" doesn't mean raising the value of "slickness" or "catchiness" (other meaningless buzzords), it just means re-examining the standards by which we look at music.

Furthermore, "rockism" by no means exclusively celebrates indie artists, nor does anti-rockism exclusively celebrate corporate artists.

At the heart of this debate is really an attempt to reformulate the basic questions about what it means to be a music critic. Once we've established that there's no such thing as an objective rubric by which we can judge music (and this is hard for people, myself included, to get by), the only thing we can talk about is the cultural context that establishes and enforces some biases. That, in the end, is why this is interesting: it makes criticism relevant.
posted by maxreax at 2:35 AM on May 10, 2006

For anyone who cares, the peerless Jody Rosen has an excellent article on Slate about the benefits and problems with "poptimism" and anti-rockism. It contains a small apologia for rockism, as well, and is carefully thought out with consideration towards her own cultural biases, as any good poptimist article should be.
posted by maxreax at 3:25 AM on May 10, 2006

klangklangston:

The Orb is boring music for late-20s, early-30s white people who haven't gotten into new bands since the Trainspotting soundtrack. It's the musical equivalent of sporting a mullet— hedonistic, but still fine for the 9-to-5.

What does that mean? I love Orbus Terrarum and I have loved many albums since 1995. And how is sporting a mullet hedonistic?
posted by snez at 4:30 AM on May 10, 2006

two comments -

1) the average person in brazil, nigeria or egypt isn't real concerned over rock vs hip hop vs american pop

2) 10 years from now, we're all going to have to learn spanish to understand much of what's going on in american music
posted by pyramid termite at 5:07 AM on May 10, 2006

Does anyone else here think "Puff the Magic Dragon" is a drug song?
posted by zaelic at 5:27 AM on May 10, 2006

"Most people can tell you whether they like a song pretty quick, without having to sit down and think about all the parts and whether they *should* like it or not."

Yeah, and? After saying "I like this," the critical reaction should be "Why?"

"You only have to defend an opinion if someone else isn't willing to accept it. I can understand someone not wanting to accept the opinion "All rap music is angry and simplistic." I really don't see why someone wouldn't be able to accept the opinion "23skidoo doesn't like death metal." I'm not saying that other people shouldn't like it, or that it's bad or meritless. I'm just saying that I don't like it."

Why don't you like death metal? I'm not saying you should, but I'm saying that you probably have a reason for it, same as I have a reason for not liking Richard Wright, King of Queens, Star Wars: Phantom Menace, or the Onslaught story arc in X-Men.

"Rockism shmockism. There are "top 40" "rappers" who make what I think of as true hip hop, and there are "top 40" "rappers" who engage in the worst type of cynical pandering."

Cynical pandering? So? Candy Shop is a fun song. I like to hear it on the radio. Most of Jay-Z and B.I.G. is cynical pandering, but I like 'em. Mostly because I like the production, but they've got engaging flows too.

The opposition isn't purely based on authenticity versus sales, and the Kenny G argument falls flat. I don't like him because his sound doesn't appeal to me, and I could give you more had I consciously heard any of his music in the last five years. In a big way, 23Skidoo is arguing a popist take— he likes what he likes. I don't think that's enough to have a discussion, which means he should either step up with something to say about why he likes or doesn't like something or stay out of the conversation.

"And if anyone didn't already know, the quote is from Duke Ellington. But since he didn't articulate all of the technical reasons for his musical taste, his opinion probably doesn't count."

Oh, Jek, that straw man better watch itself around you! You's gonna beat it to death!

"First of all, the overwhelmingly vast majority of music out there will never come close to the Top 40 charts. Thus, since one isn't ever going to get rich by playing black metal or space rock or neofolk or glitchy IDM or what have you, the people making it, in general, meet that "authenticity" standard, since money isn't the point of what they're doing. Therefore, when authenticity is valued, the vast majority of the music out there can, potentially, be valued and championed under the "rockist" critical standard. It wasn't necessarily, but the potential was there."

So? What makes a song made for money less affecting than one made for art? Nothing in the song. And there are millions of "authentic" musicians who fucking blow, and who trade on that rarified "authenticity" to continue plying their shitty craft in shitty coffeehouses. Authenticity doesn't really exist, and those who get off on it are short-circuiting the enjoyment of music by insisting on it. The main judge isn't whether something's authentic, it's whether you LIKE it. The same goes for other Rolling Stone adjectives like "original," "dangerous," "honest."

"But, under the "poppist" standard, that no longer has value. What is valued in its place is slickness, catchiness, popularity."

Not really. I mean, catchiness is a big start. And popularity is seen as a cultural signifier. But slickness has nothing to do with it unless the individual listener values slickness. And if they do, they're likely championing Steely Dan or Bob James, not Young Jeezy.

"And how is sporting a mullet hedonistic?"

Party in the back, dude.

"1) the average person in brazil, nigeria or egypt isn't real concerned over rock vs hip hop vs american pop"

No, the average person anywhere doesn't care about music. But if we're talking the average music fan, then the guy in Brazil is having the same arguments over Tropicali versus Baille Funk.

2) 10 years from now, we're all going to have to learn spanish to understand much of what's going on in american music"

Not likely. Even Reggaeton has failed to catch on in a significant way.
posted by klangklangston at 5:40 AM on May 10, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Why don't you like death metal? I'm not saying you should, but I'm saying that you probably have a reason for it, same as I have a reason for not liking Richard Wright, King of Queens, Star Wars: Phantom Menace, or the Onslaught story arc in X-Men.

In a big way, 23Skidoo is arguing a popist take— he likes what he likes. I don't think that's enough to have a discussion, which means he should either step up with something to say about why he likes or doesn't like something or stay out of the conversation.

Sorry, no. I'm specifically talking about what the OP is about: that's it's stupid to have to defend one's reasons for liking or disliking a certain style of music. It specifically addresses the notion that it's okay for Stephin Merritt to not like rap music. You can totally have a discussion about it, if you want to. If you don't want to, that's okay too.
posted by 23skidoo at 6:03 AM on May 10, 2006

But the conversation becomes "Why do we like what we like? Is it a scientific approach, where we gather information first, or are we drawn to something and then try and justify our opinion after the fact? Is it possible to suggest music to someone based on what you think you know about their tastes in music? Is it bad to have non-inclusive musical tastes given the enormity of music available?" and other topics such as these.
posted by 23skidoo at 6:08 AM on May 10, 2006

"You can totally have a discussion about it, if you want to. If you don't want to, that's okay too."

You're the one in the thread. If you don't want to have a conversation, then don't. This verbal nihilism's bullshit though.

" Is it possible to suggest music to someone based on what you think you know about their tastes in music?"

Yeah, it's really easy. In fact, it's not even hard to suggest music to people without knowing any of their tastes in music, only their tastes in movies, clothes etc. That's what Muzak does now with their musical architecture.

And while I'd say that I tend to like things first, then think about it, it has nothing to do with "justifying." It has to do with examining, thinking and being curious. It also has to do with frequently wanting more music.
posted by klangklangston at 6:18 AM on May 10, 2006

Sasha Frere-Jones: "maybe the finest music critic writing today"? Maybe is correct. Try Alex Ross instead.

About this "feud," this is a classic case of commentators elevating themselves to pseudo-star status by debating ad hominem style in public forums.
posted by josephtate at 6:27 AM on May 10, 2006

No, I can't be arsed to read all 120+ comments to see if someone else has pointed out the following:

There are two kinds of people. Those who can spell Stephin Merritt and those who can't.

(Beyond that, do I really care? Nope. I like the Magnetic Fields and Outkast both just fine.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:27 AM on May 10, 2006

The "controversy" that started this is pretty stupid. Clearly Stephen Merritt is not a racist, but rather insensitive and arrogant. Since political correctness and cultural studies view the world through mostly Marxist eyes, culture critics can't accept "isn't a kind person" as a valid criticism. Plus, "Stephen Merritt is arrogant and probably a jerk" doesn't make a good headline.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:30 AM on May 10, 2006

It's neither bullshit nor nihilism. If I listen to music, and and curious about hearing more music that I like, then examining, thinking and being curious about it is an important step into getting as much new good music as possible. But that's a personal thing. It's important to ask yourself why. It's really not important at all for someone else to know your reasons for liking something or not.
posted by 23skidoo at 6:36 AM on May 10, 2006

You just keep saying "I don't have to say anything. I don't have to say anything," and then you keep saying something. That's why it's conversational nihilism.
posted by klangklangston at 6:50 AM on May 10, 2006

Anyone who says it's OK to hate rap music in this thread is racist. Not to mention ignorant, because rap music is a tiny part of the tradition of American black music, so what are you proving?

But there's no reason you can't appreciate rap music on some level unless you have some wack bias, which may well have to do with latent racism. I fully understand that my blanket dislike of country music has to do with my distrust of brokenhearted southern white rednecks. That's a bias, and it may be wack, but it certainly isn't racist. Point is, there's no such thing as "only preference."
posted by Embryo at 8:09 AM on May 10, 2006

p.s. I guess a bias against rap could stem from something else besides race, but you better have a goddamn good reason. Like hiphop ate your homework or something. There's too much diversity in it for broad brush negative generalizations to fly.
posted by Embryo at 8:18 AM on May 10, 2006

p.p.s. Anyone see the episode of Black / White where the white dad plays his mock rap video? A perfect example. Most widely-accepted critical views of hiphop among white people are HIGHLY problematic.
posted by Embryo at 8:20 AM on May 10, 2006

Embryo: I hate rap music. Go on, call me racist and ignorant. Twunt.
posted by salmacis at 8:23 AM on May 10, 2006

I guess a bias against rap could stem from something else besides race, but you better have a goddamn good reason.

Bullshit.

Maybe some people prefer melodies to semi-spoken lyrics. Maybe some people are just old and aren't into exploring new music. Maybe some people have only been exposed to what's most readily available, most of which sucks and is the source of sterotypes about hip hop. Maybe some people don't like lyrics at all. Maybe some people like quiet music.

You're telling me my parents, who, as long as I've known them, have been into Celtic and Old Time music, are racists because they don't own any hip hop? Was Rosa Parks racist? She didn't like rap, and especially didn't like OutKast.

I can't fucking stand cultutre snobs who think that if someone else doesn't like the music they like, there must be something morally deficient in that person. Get some perspective. Liking hip hop doesn't make you a better person. Not liking hip hop doens't make you a worse person. Most hip hop sucks, just like most popular music sucks, and it takes work and interest and free time and money to find the good artists who are making beautiful, worthy hip hop. But because some people would rather spend thier money and free time learning about other things or other forms of music, they're racist?
What a totally decadent, bourgious form of moral judgement.



(PS -- I am a big fan of hip hop.)
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:32 AM on May 10, 2006

Is it racist to hate all rap music after 1995?
posted by Artw at 8:34 AM on May 10, 2006

Guys, anyone who starts their thought with a sentence like "Anyone who says it's OK to hate rap music in this thread is racist" can't possibly be taken seriously.
posted by Pacheco at 9:00 AM on May 10, 2006

"Anyone who says it's OK to hate rap music in this thread is racist. Not to mention ignorant, because rap music is a tiny part of the tradition of American black music, so what are you proving?"

I know a lot of black people that hate rap music. Are they prejudiced against black people?
Counterpoint— I will say that a lot of the people who I have talked to about rap who dislike rap, this thread generally excluded, generally have reasons for disliking it that seem to stem from racist assumptions and associations. Arguably, the majority. But I think it's more correlation than causation.
posted by klangklangston at 9:04 AM on May 10, 2006

Know what I like most about rap?

Kanye West Concert Ends In Shooting of Two
Lil Flip Concert Followed By Two Shot
Obie Trice Shot In Drive-By Incident
Rap Music Video Ends After Shooting Kills Bodyguard
Hip Hop Record Party Ends With 2 Shot, 1 Dead
Funeral Service For D12 Rapper Proof Set
West Coast Indie Rap Artist Killed At McDonald's
Another Shooting Outside Hip Hop Radio Station Hot 97
Hot Boy Turk Sentenced To 12 Years In Officer Shooting
Houston Rapper Hawk Shot And Killed
Family of Killed Bouncer Sues Proof Estate
Rapper T.I.'s Entourage Involved In Shooting
Bow Wow Event Ends With Gunfire

Comedy gold. I stopped at thirteen links because it's lunchtime, but I could just as easily have made it a hundred or a thousand. To paraphrase Uncle Joe, a single rap shooting is a tragedy. But rap shootings at the rate we got 'em? That's slapstick.

posted by jfuller at 9:07 AM on May 10, 2006

Comedy gold.

(But thank you, Jfuller, for always willing to be an idiot in public.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on May 10, 2006

You know whos most racist of all? People who only like Jazz.
posted by Artw at 9:28 AM on May 10, 2006

Despite your best intentions, klang, none of the links your search returns has anything to do with a school shooting. Klutzy klang didn't even read his own search returns, calls someone else an idiot. I can feel your blush from here.
posted by jfuller at 9:31 AM on May 10, 2006

You just keep saying "I don't have to say anything. I don't have to say anything," and then you keep saying something. That's why it's conversational nihilism.

I have said nothing at all like that. You're rather self-centered if you think that the only conversation on this topic that could possibly be of merit is one where people say whether they like a given genre of music, and why. There are lots of valid talking points concerning the whole idea of why one person gives a rat's ass why another person likes certain music or not. That's what I've been talking about.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:42 AM on May 10, 2006

I'm sure he's fond of Odetta's rendition of one of his songs.
posted by Lillitatiana at 9:51 AM on May 10, 2006

Klutzy klang didn't even read his own search returns, calls someone else an idiot

sneering jfuller laughs at black people getting murdered, attacks klang who disagrees. doesn't blush.
posted by matteo at 9:57 AM on May 10, 2006

"playing ethnicky jazz to to parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin that you know how the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul"
posted by keswick at 9:59 AM on May 10, 2006

> sneering jfuller laughs at black people getting murdered, attacks klang who disagrees.

At the rate these murders are occurring, fuller correctly thinks the murderers who commit them deserve a sneer or two.
posted by jfuller at 10:14 AM on May 10, 2006

At the rate these murders are occurring, fuller correctly thinks the murderers who commit them deserve a sneer or two.

And your point is what, exactly? Gangbangers go to rap concerts, therefore... What exactly? I don't understand what your point is.

I mean your first link is a Kanye West concert, but Kanye's music doesn’t glorify violence in any way at all. What was Kanye, specifically, doing wrong to cause that shooting?
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on May 10, 2006

Even the most egregious comments here (gross generalizations of what rap is about, sneering at violence, daring someone to call them racist) couldn't be called racist. But they betray a total lack of understanding of what the word means.

For Hopper/Jones (and Sanneh who ultimately started this whole thing), this was a kind of career move. Same goes for John Cook. Stephin Merritt knows full well how incendiary his comments might be (after all he's been a music critic himself), and is not required to explain himself. That doesn't make him a racist, it just makes him an asshole.
posted by minkll at 10:44 AM on May 10, 2006

The Orb is boring music for late-20s, early-30s white people who haven't gotten into new bands since the Trainspotting soundtrack.

Congratulations klangklangston for saying the stupidest thing on this thread!
posted by dydecker at 11:24 AM on May 10, 2006

But there's no reason you can't appreciate rap music on some level unless you have some wack bias

Eh, aside from the problem of equating personal musical tastes with political biases, since you talk about diversity, let's keep in mind rap/hip-hop is not only American rap/hip-hop, even if it dominates the market worldwide and has the biggest industry and production behind it.

There's a lot of local artists in any given country that rap in their own language and about thier own culture, society, politics, whatever. It may be less inventive or spectacularly produced than US counterparts but people are able relate to it more directly.

It can be a much more "local" form of music than others because the language and slang and references and local context are such an important part of it. Sure you can always dig the beats alone, but if you have no clue what they're on about it's really not the same thing.
posted by funambulist at 12:06 PM on May 10, 2006

What a disappointing thread. "Rap music sucks!" "No it doesn't!" "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid!"

In any case, Maxreax, thanks for an interesting post. There's lots of good discussion on these topics occuring elsewhere on the web (not so much here.)
posted by jcruelty at 1:12 PM on May 10, 2006

(e.g. Jane Darks's comment on "I just like it":)

When a gentleman wishes to believe that "taste" is a magically self-formed capacity that doesn't bear the imprint of social relations, and could not possibly express the individual's relation to culture, he renders culture as an independent sphere which, closed off from lived conditions, is left as a spurious arena wherein the only task of the critic is to act as a professional product rater. That is to say, no matter which particular artists he champions, he embodies the ideology of the salesman with whom he shares a singular quality: a fervent commitment to "intuitive aesthetic judgments" which not only remain unexamined but must remain so, insofar as if they were actually discovered to exist, he would be out of a job.
posted by jcruelty at 1:14 PM on May 10, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

No, the average person anywhere doesn't care about music.

they listen to it ... you're letting your elitism show

Not likely. Even Reggaeton has failed to catch on in a significant way.

guess where the number one market for latin music in the world is ... it's the u s
posted by pyramid termite at 2:18 PM on May 10, 2006

This thread seems to be winding down, so I'll just address a couple things.

With regards to the authenticity thing, it is basically a buzzword, yes, but I still maintain that it's not total BS.
It's true that there isn't some magical and universal principle which inherently makes music made for the sake of art better than music made for the sake of money- but as a general rule, I think that "authentic" art does tend to be better, if for no other reason than that art for the sake of art has fewer restrictions placed upon it. An artist working for the sake of money has to follow the rules of what the market desires. They are limited in what they can do, in that sense, and I think it usually makes for less interesting art. Exceptions exist, but as a general rule I think it has validity.
And of course there's tons of shitty but authentic art out there. There's also tons of shitty commercial art out there. It's inevitable. Sturgeon's Law, and all that. The thing is, there's much more of the underground, "authentic" stuff, good and bad alike, which brings me to this:

me: "But, under the "poppist" standard, that no longer has value. What is valued in its place is slickness, catchiness, popularity."

klangklangston: Not really. I mean, catchiness is a big start. And popularity is seen as a cultural signifier. But slickness has nothing to do with it unless the individual listener values slickness. And if they do, they're likely championing Steely Dan or Bob James, not Young Jeezy.

Ah, see, to me, this mostly just reinforces my original argument. I'll concede on the slickness bit, but really the key word was popularity.
You point out that that "anti-rockism" doesn't only champion corporate music- this is true, of course, but I'm talking about what I think the general trend will be. If popularity is now considered an important factor in determining musical worth, it seems to make sense to me that music critics who operate under that standard will generally focus more on what's popular, and thus create a situation where underground artists are less likely to be reviewed and get less exposure. The effect may not be dramatic, but I don't see it as being positive for music as a whole.
posted by a louis wain cat at 3:07 PM on May 10, 2006

Some people just like melody more than rhythm. Ergo, some people aren't that into hip-hop. It's nothing more complicated than that.
posted by MythMaker at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2006

Hip hop does not have a monopoly on rhythm, though.
posted by funambulist at 4:32 PM on May 10, 2006

Great post.
posted by Packy_1962 at 5:00 PM on May 10, 2006

People are allowed to like what they like, and they really shouldn't have to defend their tastes. I mean, fuck, do you all go around telling people that their taste in ice cream is bad?

The dissection of peoples preferences to ferret out "thought crime" is increasingly popular, especially from the sort of "activist left".

* People will commonly assume that a white male who finds Asian women attractive has some sort of misogynist "submissivity" agenda.

* There is a huge activist movement predicated ont he idea that anyoen who has a preference for slim, athletic lookign women are clearly brainwashed by their culture to hate "real women"

Hell, it is not uncommon for men who express a preference for women who shave their genitals to be accused of pedophilia.

The whole "personal is political" thing sort of ruined the idea that preferences will ever be left alone.
posted by soulhuntre at 5:03 PM on May 10, 2006

Scott McLemee for some reason doesn't do the permalink thing, but the 7 May 2006 entry is worth reading.
posted by kenko at 8:15 PM on May 10, 2006

Sasha ^^

He's a good writer, a bit overly analytical when it comes down to it, but definitely a dedicated lover of music.
posted by cell divide at 8:50 PM on May 10, 2006

I made it about halfway through this thread.

69 Love Songs sure is good.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:09 AM on May 11, 2006

I never heard of "rockism" before this trainwreck, and I hope to never hear of it ever again. For the love of Odin, I could read Pitchfork articles for a month and not achieve the level of pretension here.
posted by darukaru at 12:15 PM on May 11, 2006

...says the man who just invoked a Norse God.
posted by maxreax at 1:15 PM on May 11, 2006

Yeah, if there's one thing I'm sick of, it's those fucking pretentious Vikings.
posted by COBRA! at 1:17 PM on May 11, 2006

Yeah, if there's one thing I'm sick of, it's those fucking pretentious Vikings.

While I generally agree with that sentiment, I do think that The Soundtrack of Our Lives is a great band. But I can do without the rest of the vikings.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:10 PM on May 11, 2006

If you hate Vikings, you must have some unexamined wack bias for that. There's a lot of Viking stuff out of the mainstream that's really cool you know? There's no reason to be so close minded.
posted by funambulist at 2:11 PM on May 11, 2006

If you hate Vikings, you must have some unexamined wack bias for that. There's a lot of Viking stuff out of the mainstream that's really cool you know? There's no reason to be so close minded.

Is this the part where I put in a plug for Bathory's Hammerheart?

*sings badly along to One Rode to Asa Bay*
posted by a louis wain cat at 6:24 PM on May 11, 2006

The dissection of peoples preferences to ferret out "thought crime" is increasingly popular, especially from the sort of "activist left".

* People will commonly assume that a white male who finds Asian women attractive has some sort of misogynist "submissivity" agenda.

Wow. So, where do you propose preference comes from? There's no ferreting out of "thought crimes" neccessary; only an understanding of how the particulars of our society create us in its image. If you're a white person with an Asian fetish, or any racial fetish, you've got serious issues with race, and since you mention it, you're right -- possibly gender as well. But that's more complicated and I wouldn't be willing to take a guess at that. Except that... you mentioned it.

It's not a crime to think anything, but I think it's pretty effing unfortunate when the way we think causes us to unconsciously and unintentionally oppress folks.
posted by Embryo at 1:12 AM on May 25, 2006

And I'm not saying I understand "how the particulars of our society create us in its image", but I try.
posted by Embryo at 1:13 AM on May 25, 2006

I can't fucking stand cultutre snobs who think that if someone else doesn't like the music they like, there must be something morally deficient in that person. Get some perspective. Liking hip hop doesn't make you a better person. Not liking hip hop doens't make you a worse person. Most hip hop sucks, just like most popular music sucks, and it takes work and interest and free time and money to find the good artists who are making beautiful, worthy hip hop. But because some people would rather spend thier money and free time learning about other things or other forms of music, they're racist?
What a totally decadent, bourgious form of moral judgement.

I was a little bit glib earlier, but I'm not trying to pass moral judgement at all. Race is one kind of stupid idea that people wrestle with because it's everywhere and that is no one's fault, except when we don't help each other get over it.

Most hiphop does suck, but that in and of itself is an important observation to make. It doesn't rule out the possibility that some hiphop might be good. I don't accept the rhythm/melody critique because it usually comes from people who listen to rock (which is generally just as, if not more repetitive and rhythm-based than, a large percentage of hiphop) and not too many black musicians of other genres. It may be true sometimes but it is more often than not a way to dodge the issue. Listening to hiphop, and black music, is listening to black culture and black people and people who are building with them. Saying that the sound is too ugly to stick with and care about, well, that's a rather loaded sentiment, is it not? There is a lot of rap music that isn't valuable in that sense, and skepticism is crucial, but you gotta listen before you can tell the difference.

You're telling me my parents, who, as long as I've known them, have been into Celtic and Old Time music, are racists because they don't own any hip hop?

I think older folks are, indeed, racist; they were socialized in times far more oppressive than our own, and while they may be aware of / enjoy the work of white rock musicians, they probably don't know much about the black founders of rock music; while they may know ella fitzgerald, they don't know too much else about jazz, even though they might listen to kenny g. This has everything to do with race, and that's not an insulting or disrespectful observation in my book.

Some white folks who are older or first or maybe second-generation also prefer their own heritage's musical tradition. For us third or fourth or later generation white folks, that's not really sensible, is it? It's not the same to us. It can't be. We are white now. It has everything to do with race, and that's not an insulting or disrespectful observation in my book. Although it is a pretty sad truth.
posted by Embryo at 1:29 AM on May 25, 2006

Everyone's playlist must exactly represent the racial makeup of society at large. According to the CIA, a United States citizen's playlist should have the following representation of ethnic groups:

• white: 81.7%
• black: 12.9%
• Asian: 4.2%
• Amerindian and Alaska native: 1%
• native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander: 0.2%

These are only estimates, but approximate adherence to the above numbers should be sufficient to prove that you are not racist on a US national level. Of course, to prove that you are a true citizen of the world and not secretly a KKK member, your playlist always should be about 17 percent Chinese (with approprate racial breakdowns), 17 percent Indian (with approprate racial breakdowns), 5 percent United States (of which the racial percentages should be as above), ...
posted by pracowity at 2:44 AM on May 25, 2006

pracowity, I guess if your main goal is to prove you're not racist, rather than actually work towards ending racism, then that would be a sensible response to what I've written.

However, that's not my goal. Percentages are good for painting a certain picture, but tracing cultural ideas is good for understanding ourselves and each other. That's what I'm interested in. Though you are trying to use sarcasm to make fun of my view for being overly simple, in truth this is a very complex way to engage a very complex issue.
posted by Embryo at 9:01 AM on May 25, 2006