"Should we be suspicious of hipsters’ newfound love of R&B?" or "Race and indie music, part 4762"

maybe i'll try to see if i can get all the way through that frank ocean album again

haha scott, i listened the crap out of that haircut 100 song when i first discovered it

the thing that irritates me the most about the initial ramble posted is that the provocative headline covers maybe three paragraphs of what was actually written

also, ppl won't stop trying to make Azealia Banks happen

everybody should understand everything about the history of all music before writing anything

that's what i did, and look at me know.

i like the ann powers thing after jason's thing. on slate.

scott otm. suspicious about all this suspicion. it is no surprise that bad writers write badly about good music, but i don't perceive any great injustice in the embrace of this or that by these or those, even if it's just shallow-end dilettantism. everybody's gotta start somewhere.

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 22:01 (24 minutes ago) Permalink

Everybody does gotta start somewhere. Why can't they just admit that? Why can't people just be like "oh yeah I heard this Frank Ocean album was really great from Pitchfork and Fader and etc. and then I heard about the Miguel album too, and I checked them out and quite liked both of them, and that's two R&B albums I've liked this year, which is unusual for me because I don't really listen to the style much" rather than "R&B has been vapid and formulaic for some time now, but thankfully these two dudes have turned up to save black music from itself"

welcome to my heavy metal universe, tim.

why can't people who don't understand everything about the history of all music avoid making blanket statements like 'R&B has been vapid and formulaic for some time now'

xxp: because no one cares about someone's personal journey through music but everyone cares about identifying The Next Big Trend

tim also otm, but see bad writers writing badly

it just feels like some pulications are inventing reasons why they were ignoring RnB for so long.

xxp: because no one cares about someone's personal journey through music but everyone cares about identifying The Next Big Trend

― GIMME SOME REGGAE (DJP), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:35 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess the thing is, no way would any vaguely reputable publication (specifically pitchfork in my case but it would be the same anywhere else) ever give me the job of writing about Vampire Weekend or Grimes or any other indie-approved artist I continually disappoint Lex by happening to like, because only liking a handful of things in a particular style per year means that I rate below many other writers who could be relied upon not to imply that X artist had turned up to save indie from itself.

Whereas it feels like, once you move beyond that sphere, writers good or bad get given briefs to write about stuff that's really outside their area of knowledge or even understanding. And I have to conclude that this is because a lot of editors also basically agree with the worldview being espoused.

Ugh, first Jason King doesn't understand black people, now I got people on twitter saying he doesn't understand queer people. Is any unfamiliar author a straight white person?

http://www.urantiansojourn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/BBILL-1.jpg

"Is he a straight white person?"

only liking a handful of things in a particular style per year means that I rate below many other writers who could be relied upon not to imply that X artist had turned up to save indie from itself.

but it's really easy to write about, say, yeah yeah yeahs or santigold without asserting that they've saved or revitalised indie. and what's notable is how few frank ocean/miguel/weeknd boosters managed to do something similar - even when they wrote well about why they liked the music, there was almost always a dig or dismissive sweeping statement about r&b included too, or some unhelpful OTT praise about how they were changing music (i don't think it's ever, ever a good idea to write that anything is "changing" music)

but it's really easy to write about, say, yeah yeah yeahs or santigold without asserting that they've saved or revitalised indie.

i don't know about santigold, but the whole yeah yeah yeahs/strokes/interpol/white stripes etc was all about the RETURN OF ROCK etc etc, it was totally sold on those terms....also throw in the "revitalization" of NYC as a post punk rock mecca etc

i don't know much about RnB, is it true that Frank Ocean and Miguel are revolutions in the genre? because that is what it seems to be the critical consensus (esp. for Ocean), and it seems a bit huge.

especially when predicting what will change music ends up usually the most banal, least expected thing (e.g. Cher's "Believe").

xpost to lex

people write ludicrous crap about this or that band saving indie all the time, and no one particularly cares

i don't know about santigold, but the whole yeah yeah yeahs/strokes/interpol/white stripes etc was all about the RETURN OF ROCK etc etc, it was totally sold on those terms....also throw in the "revitalization" of NYC as a post punk rock mecca etc

― Andrew WKRP (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:56 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thing is, there ARE concrete changes & things that can be discussed & described, but you have to be v v careful about using them in writing b/c so many people use the language of spotting actual musical trends as music marketing language

I guess the thing is, no way would any vaguely reputable publication (specifically pitchfork in my case but it would be the same anywhere else) ever give me the job of writing about Vampire Weekend or Grimes or any other indie-approved artist I continually disappoint Lex by happening to like, because only liking a handful of things in a particular style per year means that I rate below many other writers who could be relied upon not to imply that X artist had turned up to save indie from itself.

Whereas it feels like, once you move beyond that sphere, writers good or bad get given briefs to write about stuff that's really outside their area of knowledge or even understanding. And I have to conclude that this is because a lot of editors also basically agree with the worldview being espoused.

a couple of things:

- lolling that, by this metric, MTV is not a reputable publication on music based on the article linked in this thread (not because I think they are, mind you, but they should be)

- there's also the nebulous "editor is looking for 'a different opinion'" motivation where the belief is that unfamiliarity will bring an exciting new perspective that hopefully allows the author to say something no one else has; I don't know how widespread this motivation actually is though, given that most people to be saying the exact same things ("they have saved R&B!"/"wtf R&B doesn't need saving" rinse and repeat)

R&B must be on its fifth or sixth generation of older fans who don't want their ideas of the genre to be messed with by now.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:57 AM Bookmark

But R&B has historically been one of the genres with the least divide between what older and younger audiences listen to. Obviously there are a few artists and songs that are going to fall distinctly on one side of the line, but there's quite a bit of overlap between the r&b that gets played on an urban AC station and a youth-driven r&b/rap station, not to mention whatever older r&b the older generations introduce to the younger.

the whole yeah yeah yeahs/strokes/interpol/white stripes etc was all about the RETURN OF ROCK etc etc, it was totally sold on those terms....also throw in the "revitalization" of NYC as a post punk rock mecca etc

oh yeah i forgot about that era! i was thinking of latter-day YYYs

especially when predicting what will change music ends up usually the most banal, least expected thing (e.g. Cher's "Believe").

totally. the "THIS changed everything" moment in hindsight is never what you thought it was/would be (plus it's never usually a singular moment or individual genius but a sequence of maybe-unrelated events, various things stacking up incoherently around each other)

gotcha, ppl forget the yeah yeah yeahs were basically a garage punk band at first

i remember loving the YYYs back then DESPITE them ~saving rock music~

lex i think there's just a part of you, deep down, that just wants to rock out to some nasty riffs

i have never made any secret of the fact that a small but significant part of my life is spent enjoying exactly that!

who are you favorite rock acts? (not like kate bush who's nominally considered "rock" but you know like lunkhead dudes with guitars and shit?)

first couple YYYs EPs are great

YYYs
hole
pj harvey
ashlee simpson
kelly clarkson (not as much of a cheat as it sounds cuz i prefer her when she's scuzzy and rocky to when she's poppy)
queens of the stone age i guess? i don't know why i don't actually own any of their albums

- lolling that, by this metric, MTV is not a reputable publication on music based on the article linked in this thread (not because I think they are, mind you, but they should be)

no by "sphere" i was referring to indie, not "reputable publications" - my point was that even reputable publications will happily run BS about R&B, dance music etc from writers who don't know what they're talking about.

Now obviously reputable publications also publish BS about indie-rock too, but please find me an article published by Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Spin etc. even MTV in the last hundred years which was about indie-rock but appeared to be written by someone who listened to and knew of hardly any of it (like really, not just b/c they're too stupid to understand what they listen to).

i've been commissioned to write about pj harvey, laura marling and several others who are genre outliers...

about indie-rock but appeared to be written by someone who listened to and knew of hardly any of it (like really, not just b/c they're too stupid to understand what they listen to).

is Dylan indie rock

Ugh, first Jason King doesn't understand black people, now I got people on twitter saying he doesn't understand queer people. Is any unfamiliar author a straight white person?

Oh heavens no. They're straight white MALES.

I mean apart from contrarian slash "let's do this for the lol factor" antics like the guardian getting lex to write about the klaxons.

lex writing about female fronted rock doesn't count either.

eh i'll read anyone on anything if they're good at it. would love to read tim f. on un-tim.f music. doom metal roundup would be nice.

hey, speaking of writing about stuff that you know i really enjoyed reading philip's thing in spin:

http://www.spin.com/#articles/state-of-dance-music-2012-have-we-already-peaked

cuz i learned stuff. gonna listen to to his top trax of the year when i have a moment. and i want to hear that mix cd he talks about at the end of his thing.

and yeah this did make my eyes bug out a little:

"According to Forbes, the top DJs made money hand over fist; the magazine claimed that Skrillex, Swedish House Mafia, David Guetta, Steve Aoki, Deadmau5, Kaskade, and even Pauly D all earned $10 million or more a year apiece. Tiësto topped the list with an estimated $22 million salary"

(as someone who also wrote a year-end r&b omnibus, seriously if anything i write about genres music gets tokenistic PLEASE TELL ME, as i really try hard to not do that because i am so sick of indie hegemony) (and so sick of love songs, so sad and slow, etc)

(sorry not to make this all ME ME ME but oh well you know, exchange of ideas right? also i really just found the frank ocean record such a wash, although he certainly captured the imagination of a lot of people i know)

also, doing research on writers before you assume their backgrounds is probably a good rule of thumb!

Now obviously reputable publications also publish BS about indie-rock too, but please find me an article published by Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Spin etc. even MTV in the last hundred years which was about indie-rock but appeared to be written by someone who listened to and knew of hardly any of it (like really, not just b/c they're too stupid to understand what they listen to).

in terms of combatting this you either focus on making rock/punk/indie-centric publications less that (which is short-sighted), or focus on developing alternative but popular channels for criticism with no history of that particular centricity (evidently more difficult).

well obviously pitchfork, rs, and spin don't take r&b or edm or rap as seriously as they take animal collective, spin doctors, and green day or whatever their modern day counterparts would be. but spin getting people like philip or tim or others to write about that stuff is a good start. spin at least has a history of having good dance coverage. rs is a lost cause. and pitchfork has simon and tim and others so they at least make the attempt. they don't really even have to attempt. i'm glad they hire some writers i like.

what is the best online site for r&b and what is the best site for dance music? best writing, that is.

ILM.

Yeah I'm certainly not saying that the big publications never write well about R&B, rap, dance music etc!

Obviously they do, quite a lot. Which is a great thing! I just wish it was more reliably the case.

I think one thing I tend to do in my own writing - which I wouldn't advocate as a rule for anyone else - is to try to get as close to (what I perceive as) what the music is doing as possible, and to avoid using a wider lens unless I'm really really confident (and even then it'd probably be still a fairly honed lens like "how does this fit into broader uk funky trends or etc."), because what deej says here is super OTM:

thing is, there ARE concrete changes & things that can be discussed & described, but you have to be v v careful about using them in writing b/c so many people use the language of spotting actual musical trends as music marketing language

But the flipside of that is that it's that kind of airy worldbuilding that people engage in that probably makes it a lot easier for the novice reader to engage with a narrative w/r/t say an R&B record and find that narrative compelling enough to commit to checking out the music.

Like, writing about R&B in R&B terms is probably the number one way to guarantee that crowd will pass over. "Good riddance" you might say, but having the lowest hits per review on pitchfork isn't something I (or I expect anyone else) would actively strive for.

(as someone who also wrote a year-end r&b omnibus, seriously if anything i write about genres music gets tokenistic PLEASE TELL ME, as i really try hard to not do that because i am so sick of indie hegemony) (and so sick of love songs, so sad and slow, etc)

― maura, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:20 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

twiw i thought it was a good piece, esp because it looked beyond 3 artists (which seems to be becoming the maximum number of artists for a trendpiece rather than the minimum) and didn't really fall to the narrative traps being decried itt