Comments on: sasha frere-jones, a paler shade of white..

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:30:18 +0000

Your last point is a good one. Punk rock was rhythmically rote and devoid of the funk but the post-punkers found the groove (however white) and threw it in the mix. Even those plain vanilla boys from Manchester, A Certain Ratio, managed to swing when playing ‘Shack Up’….. oh the irony..

By: DDDaaaVVViiiDDD

DDDaaaVVViiiDDD — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:21:14 +0000

“What I’ll say here is more of an artistic arguement. I think that most indie artists have made a somewhat conscious decision to eschew the blues-influence that basically birthed Rock as an attempt to be taken more seriously as “artists” rather than “musicians.” Among the reasons for giving the blues the axe is that 1. its simple, repetative, and less avante-garde, 2. Its been done, a lot and 3. Its cheesy. That is, over-emoting and entertaining (instead of “communicating”) seems to have less artistic merit.”

Let me respond:

1. How is simplicity or repetitiveness not avant garde? Are Steve Reich, Terry Riley, The Fall, or Spacemen 3 not avant garde?
2. I’ll see you there. Although the article isn’t talking specifically about blues but any black influence, especially influence from modern black musics.
3. Who is defining “cheesy”? Where is the line between emoting and over-emoting? I’d consider any Arcade Fire song a million times more melodramatic than any Leadbelly song.

I think a more interesting article would be about the lineage from punk to indie rock, the differences, and their different relations to black music. And why are white artists now so reluctant to take ideas from modern black artists, when they will readily be influenced by electro or funk or any black music that is at least 10 years old.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:14:44 +0000

I have this terrible feeling that God stopped listening to me, or vise versa, many years ago….!

By: Hugo B

Hugo B — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:33:06 +0000

From your lips (and Sasha’s) to god’s ear - especially your point re. Arcade Fire - who mostly leave me cold. I hear more fire and passion in contemporary heavy metal nowadays….as verging-on-boring/repetitive as a lot of it is.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:44:52 +0000

I think the post - 9-11 point is true. Whatever their reasoning, I think we can agree that artists have been trying to create a more “serious” sound, which often ends up being reserved or paranoid. But I suppose that too shall pass, as trends do. Personally, I’m not aware of a lack of creativity in all this - I’m quite happy with the music out there, even if the dominant indie genre is Anglo-Fear.

By: Dave Allen

Dave Allen — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:05:06 +0000

Justin, I agree with you on the broad spectrum of music in indie rock. I think it’s too simplistic though to say that musicians dropped the blues to be considered more as artists. There should be no such division; music=art=culture. It’s an oddly American contrivance to try and neatly button things up and compartmentalize them. As SFJ argues rock and roll is a torrid sexy beast and has always been that way until recently - now the spark has gone. I don’t think anyone misunderstood the fact that David Byrne, the nerdy art school protege and erstwhile frontman for Talking Heads, was anything but both an entertainer and a big thinker. Some of the videos he was responsible for when the Heads were at the top of their game are pure art plain and simple; Talking Heads were supremely funky too.
In the big picture world view it might be worth noting that this turn towards earnestness in indie music is perhaps a response to the way the world, and especially the USA, has turned post 9/11. People are more reticent and defensive than before and perhaps there is an unwillingness amongst the educated, middle class, white male indie rockers (they do dominate you must admit) to let it all hang out figuratively speaking - Arcade Fire had the finger pointed at them by SFJ and I have to agree with him. I sort of like their songs but I lose interest really quickly as the same sound keeps tumbling out of the speakers song after song. They sound like they have one great song done 20 times over. They never let go, it’s all too controlled so inevitably I no longer trust that their passion is authentic.
On the Moose home page today in the MP3 list is the Ratatat remix of the Biggie Smalls track ‘Party & Bullshit’. Now that shit rocks me but what I’ve heard of Ratatat’s own stuff doesn’t. What’s wrong with that?

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:34:09 +0000

I made an arguement on Slate in which I pointed out that I considered what is commonly termed “indie rock” to encompass a broader spectrum of sounds and be a better assimilator of genres than any other popular music scenes going on in America today (namely mainstream rock, country, and rap).

What I’ll say here is more of an artistic arguement. I think that most indie artists have made a somewhat conscious decision to eschew the blues-influence that basically birthed Rock as an attempt to be taken more seriously as “artists” rather than “musicians.” Among the reasons for giving the blues the axe is that 1. its simple, repetative, and less avante-garde, 2. Its been done, a lot and 3. Its cheesy. That is, over-emoting and entertaining (instead of “communicating”) seems to have less artistic merit.

I don’t personally hold these opinions to be true. However, I can understand the appeal of pushing the focus of rock from the hips to the head.