MIA

lol

hold up guys I'm reanimating my grandfather so I can tell him that in 1992 he got the year wrong that Meet the Beatles came out....

be sure you don't mistakenly release an elevator with a hydrogen bomb attached -- don't wanna release those damn villains.

i'm gonna run around my laptop really fast and see I can't get this thread to go back an hour

I really runalot

da croupier, just a warning about your little time travel plot, I better not open my eyes and find myself in 1993 ,on some shitty BBS playing Legend of the Red Dragon

deej is just superpissed bcz he had had the idea to sample "Straight to Hell" and MIA got to it & turned into such a ubiquitous song that there's no way he could ever get away with doing it now...

secret origin of butthurt deej

the bit about defiance being felt and not spelt out, and the sudden chaotic force of realization is some pretty writing but still, i think, complete bullshit. im not sure who is ventriloquizing for whom there. kind of don't think that there is a chaotic force of revelation felt by people who are actually being fucked over by the rulers of the world. imagine they perceive their lot right quick.

So you're saying a raised consciousness is as Western/Northern as pimping your authenticity as style?

I think radicalization is a lifelong process, with many realizations along the way (sometimes the same ones over and over, because we forget), and it cuts across the world. Sure, it's relative to power and privilege ("Amazing Grace" versus Nat Turner), but nobody's born free, whatever M.I.A. and Andy Williams have to say about it.

As for sputtering--what was it Jordan said? "90% of verbalized thoughts about politics in any form are sadly shit." I obviously don't agree about M.I.A.'s lyrics and album: To my ears, she's really going for this harmony-out-of-chaos, "Oh, now I see" Magic Eye thing in words/music like someone stepping back and seeing things for the first time.

Re: The above. Do you honestly think MIA is in the process of becoming "radicalized" and this is expressed in her music? That's an interesting take I hadn't thought of before.

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its 'straight to hell' of sandanista

papa papa papa san

― deej, Thursday, December 4, 2008 3:42 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Do you honestly think MIA is in the process of becoming "radicalized" and this is expressed in her music?

Hadn't really occurred to me--I was more thinking the music evokes this process, whether or not the inspiration is recent, autobiographical, or even entirely intentional or conscious.

(after reading some of my posts on the 2008 Grammys thread, I kinda wish I hadn't linked to it...)

dan's post upthread aways is very otm in its otmness.

Hadn't really occurred to me--I was more thinking the music evokes this process, whether or not the inspiration is recent, autobiographical, or even entirely intentional or conscious.

i guess i get this, but i'm uncomfortable w/the idea of assessing music in too much of a vacuum - even a cursory knowledge of m.i.a.'s career to date would reveal that she's used signifiers of political radicalism from the get-go, so the idea that this album is the starting point for her radicalisation doesn't really ring true.

Well good thing I never expressed that idea.

Or either of those ideas, I should say.

even a cursory knowledge of m.i.a.'s career to date would reveal that she's used signifiers of political radicalism club a dub dubba lubba wubba wub from the get-go

Ha, is that you liking the album better?

he same phenomenon that gets dudes like contenderizer writing essays about big boi records & no other rap music

& no this isnt about me & i dont actually want contenderizer writing essays about husalah, im trying to point out a lack of critical perspective

― blap...tremendo (deej)

i dunno what your problem is, deej, but fuck you. i'm allowed to like the shit i like. i'm even allowed to be interested in stuff that happens to be popular. i don't have to pass your fucking rap test to be an outkast fan, okay? you come and write an "essay" in rolling punk about some garage band i dig, i'm not gonna shit in your eye for having improper credentials. know why not? cuz i'm not an asshole.

damn

is your eye infected

xxposts:

scattered political signifiers have always been there, and so have scattered clubba wubba wubba dubs and tweetin-like-tweetys. this is the same person who had a song called URAQT on her first album. i guess it's always all struck me as her own sort of pidgin-pop mediaspeak, which suits the music and her delivery. (and i think pete's description of her vocal approach is right on.)

these type of artists always tend to lead to such divisions and shitflinging (unnecessarily). I'm surprised it hasn't happened with more Gaga threads here

Quite relieved to see that it's not just me deej is being a prick about irt MIA. "Why must you all talk about this artist you find interesting to talk about?" I don't know, it's a mystery.

after listening to Maya, all I wanted to do was talk about it to see what other people were drawing out of it and compare it to mine.

then I came here, tried to search upthread for some of said commentary, and it's def. there, but because it had so much BS sprinkled within it, I gave up....

Don't give up! Post your thoughts; deej will invariably come back to say something profoundly stupid and insulting because that is all that he does these days but most everyone else will actually have a conversation with you.

Thinking about what Lex said...

There might be a basic difference between me and a lot of ILXors I respect in that I think taking artists in interviews too seriously is just another version of letting them review their own work. For me, the person making the art and the person talking about it later might as well be different people--close friends, sure, but not the same person. People don't always know what they're making. And I notice it's often detractors who keep turning to interviews for evidence that art is bad--I'm thinking of various film threads. I don't know if I'm a completely author-is-dead guy (Nabisco edumacating me)--I love interviewing artists and reviewing biographically--but the relationship between art and maker is too mysterious for intention to trump all, or even always be part of the equation.

I probably will later -- I spun it again earlier but I was distracted so it wasn't a worthwhile listen. still enjoying it immensely though even if it isn't as immediately ear catching as Kala.

Good point. I think some artists have an intellect which keeps pace with, or is ahead of, their art so if you're interviewing, say, Neil Tennant you'll get a full insight into why PSBs records are how they are. Whereas MIA seems like someone who makes records quite instinctively and then struggles to justify, or even explain, what she's just done. It's not fair to assess both kinds of artists in the same way.

A lot of her negative critics argue from the standpoint that she is an infallible narrator and get angry when it's proven that she isn't.

― Mayor Hickenlooper and the liberal agenda (HI DERE), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

yeah, this. also, it seems to me that a lot of negative criticism directed towards her is predicated on the idea that she is ostensibly significant and that this significance is predicated on something demonstrably false, or at least misguided. the falsity is usually attributed either to maya herself (usually to her politics & identity, the authenticity of) or to the other critics that supposedly fail to see her for what she truly is. in either case, she attracts a particularly intense, mask-ripping sort of criticism that sometimes resembles criminal prosecution - the lynn hirschberg piece being only the most celebrated example. she's defined herself politically, and politicized identities tend to generate vehement responses so it's understandable, but it's also a bit disturbing, given that political risk-taking is relatively rare in contemporary pop.

deej otm itt

she's defined herself politically

really, go on

what are mia's politics?

she's defined herself politically, and politicized identities tend to generate vehement responses so it's understandable, but it's also a bit disturbing, given that political risk-taking is relatively rare in contemporary pop.

not going to go that far; there are plenty of examples in mainstream pop of people going off on culturally political tangents from the Dixie Chicks' anti-Bush stances to Toby Keith's angry Democrat steez to Miley Cyrus being all "GOD LOVES GAY MARRIAGE" to Beyonce's girl power anthems etc etc etc

M.I.A.'s big crime is talking about stuff a lot of people don't ever encounter or really pay attention to and using that as the foundation for contradictory self-aggrandizing sound collages that sometimes work and sometimes fail

it's also a bit disturbing, given that political risk-taking is relatively rare in contemporary pop

are you saying...m.i.a.'s detractors are trying to silence political risk-taking in pop? not at all! i could give you several examples of artists politicising themselves in inspiring, cogent and specific ways from this year alone. m.i.a. is not among them. i think what most people are arguing is that she hasn't politicised herself ENOUGH beyond the surface signifiers...it's just ~handwaves~ ~radical~. i don't want to rehash this argument though.

moving on to artistic intention, i totally agree that the artist isn't usually the best person to "explain" their work - "but they obviously didn't mean any of that" is my LEAST favourite response to theorising about music. i think the last time i encountered it a lot was w/r/t ashlee simpson. but an artist's experiences and explanations are part of their art's context. to say that you can't ignore the context isn't the same as upholding authorial authority. obviously this differs from artist to artist, and to an extent you can pick and choose what you take seriously, but sometimes the context has such an obvious impact on the art that it shouldn't be ignored - eg re: rihanna's last album, when chuck complained about everyone bringing the chris brown incident into their readings of it, but...i think that bit of context was absolutely integral to the album, unignorable. cf the comments in this jukebox thread - http://www.thesinglesjukebox.com/?p=1910

M.I.A.'s big crime is talking about stuff a lot of people don't ever encounter or really pay attention to and using that as the foundation for contradictory self-aggrandizing sound collages that sometimes work and sometimes fail

haha dan did you read this (pertinent) björk interview? http://grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/Bjork-Feature

^^THAT is how you talk about political stuff a lot of people don't encounter in a cogent and passionate way

really, go on

what are mia's politics?

to be defined politically =/= making a particular political argument. but to the extent that she has a clear political agenda, i'd say she attempts to establish solidarity among/with the supposedly despised and dispossessed. i.e., she creates a pop, therefore relatable, persona built up from identities that are typically defined as "outside" or even opposed to the western cultural self. this is an act (in both senses of the word) with political dimensions and consequences, regardless of how/if she presents her own political views.

haha dan did you read this (pertinent) björk interview? http://grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/Bjork-Feature

^^THAT is how you talk about political stuff a lot of people don't encounter in a cogent and passionate way

my "talking about" was supposed to be "taking"

I don't dispute that M.I.A. often has a thinner-than-CliffNotes perspective on things; my point is that I don't care. It's great that Bjork is knowledgeable and speaking out on an issue she finds important; that is not a requirement for me to enjoy her albums.

she creates a pop, therefore relatable, persona built up from identities that are typically defined as "outside" or even opposed to the western cultural self

loool "therefore"?

ne way idc abt 'what it all means' cuz MIA music is so shitty

but still: lool

^^^^^ post would have had some level of content if it was merely "."

not going to go that far; there are plenty of examples in mainstream pop of people going off on culturally political tangents from the Dixie Chicks' anti-Bush stances to Toby Keith's angry Democrat steez to Miley Cyrus being all "GOD LOVES GAY MARRIAGE" to Beyonce's girl power anthems etc etc etc

that's fair. maybe i give to little credit to the depth & breadth of the political conversation going on in contemporary pop. i'd never argue that political speech is entirely absent. but it does tend to come as a detail on the side of most pop artists' identities. and dixie chicks are a good example of the risks involved in courting real controversy.

with the above in mind, the degree of maya's alignment of her own identity with a potentially controversial view of global politics still seems unusual to me. bono has done something somewhat similar, of course, but in a way that seems calculated to avoid (rather than court) controversy in the West.

MIA music is so shitty

but still: lool

― ☼ (Lamp), Thursday, August 5, 2010 5:48 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

blazing post

seriously I am going to start banning you content-free dickfaces from this thread

if you're just posting so you can make fun of other posters or shut down conversation, gtfo and feel lucky I don't just temp ban you from the board since this is basically what you do on 80% of the threads I see you on

loool "therefore"?

yeah, "therefore". i'd say that pop personas are successful in large part only to the extent that they're somehow relatable. therefore, they are in some sense "meant to be" relatable. maya's creating a pop identity (a self that invites identification of some sort) that encourages identification with often despised, excluded, exoticized selves. i see that as political in and of itself.

yea i mean i ain't one of those confrontational ILX headhunters but Lamp's contributions to debate lately have seemed to be lil more than the equivalent of 'lol u stupid'

enh read better threads

i'd say that pop personas are successful in large part only to the extent that they're somehow relatable

i feel like the opposite is the case - the more distancing and opaque a 'pop persona' is the more successful it becomes? lady gaga for e.g. isnt partic 'relatable'? i dont think theres the same need for closeness/identification w/ pop stars there is for like movie stars (lol 'king' of pop) bcuz the relationship btw author and audience is so different.

also i dont see how hipster art student is 'opposed to the western cultural self' - feel like her 'politics' are so transparently the politics of stlye/self - this is totally western... ugh nvm ill take the thread ban.

maya's creating a pop identity (a self that invites identification of some sort) that encourages identification with often despised, excluded, exoticized selves. i see that as political in and of itself.

― a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO (contenderizer), Thursday, August 5, 2010 5:57 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark

you set a pretty low bar. i think there is quite a bit of exoticization of mia herself w/ all this 'maybe she doesn't know what she's saying' ish. but i dunno, all of what you say is pretty much 'up to you really'. 'pop personas are successful in large part only to the extent that they're somehow relatable.' k, each to their own.

dunno what to make of dan's intervention there. maybe if i'd studied cultural studies i could bring whatever it is conderizer brings to the mia table.

also i dont see how hipster art student is 'opposed to the western cultural self' - feel like her 'politics' are so transparently the politics of stlye/self - this is totally western... ugh nvm ill take the thread ban.

― ☼ (Lamp), Thursday, August 5, 2010 12:27 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad280/sapphirah444/christ-on-the-cross.jpg

The intent of my "intervention" was to make you guys stop being lazy and write, for example, the last posts you and Lamp (aside from the martyrdom nonsense) made.

I don't think contenderizer is correct in what he's saying, mostly because the stuff he's privileging isn't anything I particularly care about, plus I think there's almost willful ignoring of similar confused political garbling in a myriad of other musicians' work (hi dere Rihanna and Eminem). If the music doesn't grab you, the correctness of M.I.A. as a political pop star is irrelevant. If the music DOES grab you, the correctness of M.I.A. as a political pop star is irrelevant because oh hey, awesome music.

I do agree that there's a certain amount of thinness on this album that makes it hard to talk about specifics within some of the songs, which is another reason why the middle stretch is my least favorite.

i think there is quite a bit of exoticization of mia herself w/ all this 'maybe she doesn't know what she's saying' ish.

What exoticisation? That's a weird assumption on your part.Nobody's saying she's a noble savage, just that maybe she doesn't think through every lyric before recording it.

lady gaga for e.g. isnt partic 'relatable'? i dont think theres the same need for closeness/identification w/ pop stars there is for like movie stars...

also i dont see how hipster art student is 'opposed to the western cultural self'

gaga is something of an outlier, but the obvious points of identification are queered-ness (as broadly as that can be read) and safely radical artiness. self = tough, weird, smart, arty, draggy, sexy. plus (perhaps) some skin borrowed from already-relatable pop personas like madonna's.

and i don't think maya presents herself, within the context of her art, as a "hipster art student." more as third-worlder, immigrant, outsider, "terrorist", hustler.