MIA

"Story to Be Told"=damn that divebombing bass!

Then I started getting serious and realised that a lot of people were debating their right to deal with serious issues, being white, middle class and privileged, which I thought was really dangerous. ...It’s like you can’t have an opinion on something if you come from a privileged position so that leaves those people to rot away. I walked around saying, What are you doing? And all my friends were saying, We’re going to make films about UFOs. Nobody questions my right to talk about aliens.

this is so crazy fucking otm.

Rereading that transcript, she's OTM about a lot of things. I don't want to clog up the thread but this exchange seems to anticipate a lot of the stuff people are talking about now.

Why did you namecheck the PLO?
"I don’t like the way that everybody picks up on that. In hip hop they say der der der, like, der der der. They compare things. Surrender and PLO were the easiest words to put together. Why is it worse when it comes out of me? I think that’s what we have to look at."

A little later…

"Come on that’s not fair that I can’t mention Palestine. It just seems like they’re one of the people that are going to get treated like the Tigers. What we’ve done is said all the acts of terrorism or rebellion or revolution are all connected and there’s one big conspiracy of terrorism. That’s dangerous. So I’m going to talk about the PLO because there’s issues about the PLO that people don’t know and if a line like, Like PLO I don’t surrender, puts that idea in people’s heads that’s a good thing."

Are you maybe just lobbing that word in and then running away?
"It doesn’t matter what I think! It just doesn’t matter anymore. Because we can’t even say words like that on our media anymore and it’s really important to find out what <everybody> thinks about the PLO, not what [i] think. This is why I got made on the internet because I lobbed that word out and they discussed it to pieces. A Sri Lankan comes in, an American, a Palestinian, a Chinese person, they’re all discussing it on the internet and they get to see what they think about each other and you get to hear the story from both ends."

it’s really important to find out what <everybody> thinks about the PLO, not what I think.

I don't think its important at all. I guess I consider myself an intellectual before a pop music fan, and that's why I could never take MIA seriously.

leave

When it comes to talking about pop music I think it's best to be a pop music fan before an intellectual.

http://www.peterguy.merseyblogs.co.uk/eggheads-quiz-champions.jpg

guess I consider myself an intellectual before a pop music fan, and that's why I could never take MIA seriously.

no offense, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

"As eggheads, we refuse to take MIA seriously. See you on the Adorno thread!"

"We’re going to make films about UFOs. Nobody questions my right to talk about aliens."

wait where are these ufo movies?

tubes

no offense, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

None taken. In those interviews and her subsequent media persona a big part of MIA's appeal/mission is the inclusion of generally marginalized people in big conversations about the world's problems, politics, etc. through her music. What she is describing in art school, that white privileged middle and upper-class kids felt unable to comment on the political realities of marginalized people she sees as a huge problem, as something that was disappointing and dispiriting. That these kids weren't using their resources to "blow up"/turn the lens on the world's problems is something that nagged at her.

She then goes on to talk about how mentioning the PLO opens up the conversation so that everyone can think about it. I don't think that all perspectives are equal and I could care less what people with little background think about the PLO or the history of armed struggle generally. MIA herself seems particularly ignorant of the deeper theoretical/intellectual issues surrounding armed struggle/marginalized people, which is not a prerequisite for being a pop musician of course. However, continuing to invoke genocide, warfare, armed struggle, and violence in your music without the slightest hint of self-awareness, and then acting indignant at the mere suggestion that this might be problematic is enough to turn me off permanently.

Interviews are cool and add color, but they're irrelevant to analyzing an artist.

don't think that all perspectives are equal and I could care less what people with little background think about the PLO or the history of armed struggle generally.

whether or not you care about the ensuing dialogue, might not opening up the conversation have some value in itself? (not saying that it does, necessarily)

x-post: too absolute. an artist's statements can shed light on his/her art.

beyond which it's like - there's a lot of shit that gets invoked in music (& poetry, and literature) as emblematic/symbolic of some broader concept: are you really coming hard against "genocide, warfare, armed struggle, and violence," or just against the PLO? because if the latter i call bullshit; either all cases are worth your ire or none are

imo

The only other person I can remember describing themselves as an intellectual is Adrian Mole.

I don't agree, Alfred. They shed light on intent. Depends if you're an intentional fallacy guy, I guess.

MFB, how many current musicians do you think are well-informed about "the theoretical/intellectual issues surrounding armed struggle/marginalized people"? I can only think of Tom Morello and Michael Franti. I don't understand this rule that people have to be up on their theory to make records about a subject. They're not standing for office.

Could someone put "intention is irrelevant!" in the FAQ so Alfred doesn't have to keep decreeing it?

if we're putting mia on trial, intent ought to be able to count for something. maybe difference between 2nd degree artcrime and involuntary artslaughter

I don't understand this rule that people have to be up on their theory to make records about a subject. They're not standing for office.

Insert obligatory Wyclef reference.

It's not a "rule," I suppose, but it would certainly help. It also seems that in MIA's case specifically she has made this political material central to her music/message. Additionally, in many of her lyrics the references to third world countries, violence, etc. seem tossed off. {"You could try to find ways to be happier / You might end up somewhere in Ethiopia," "From Congo to Colombo / Can't stereotype my thing yo") thrown in there as a rhyme with no insight. I object to these kind of real world struggles and problems being appropriated for pop music lyrics/style and I rarely listen to music with any sort of overt political content/references. Of course politics and art directly collide constantly but the way MIA does it lacks subtlety or self-awareness on any level.

Any artist has the right to say what the want with any tools/references they like, but at the same time that art is not created in a vacuum. Perhaps MIA wants to open up a dialogue with her music, and perhaps that is a good thing, but it's a dialogue she has no interest in participating in.

Great interview.

I missed the part where she got indignant, or said "all perspectives are equal." I read her to say she sparked an online conversation that wouldn't happen on TV. Is this controversial? Seems like that's exactly what happened here on ILM five years ago.

I wish artists would explore issues of violence more thoughtfully too, but I don't see how referencing the PLO in a rap lyric requires that. Can we maybe just admit that there are real and expressible political differences here between M.I.A. and her detractors?

xpost. "Overruled, counsellor. Interviews are irrelevant to analysing the crime in question. One more interjection about the real-life inspiration for Lovalot and I'll have you in contempt."

Where are you getting this transcript from Dorian? Because honestly, it feels as though since the earlier days of the MIA project, she's gotten more reticent to talk at length about some of this stuff without falling into shorthand or sloganeering - in large part maybe because that's what journos are prompting, or those are the stories being written c.f. NYTimes, but those quotes are kind of wonderful context for alot of this stuff.

I rarely listen to music with any sort of overt political content/references.

I think that may be key. A lot of the criticisms people have of MIA are problems they have with politicised music generally. I don't hear many people saying that MIA does it badly but [insert artist here] does it well. Maybe it's because she heightens the contradictions and flaws of the form that she's become almost the sole flakcatcher. I see your POV but I don't have problems with real world issues popping up in fragmentary ways in pop music if (a) the records are good and (b) the intent (sorry Alfred) is sincere and not cynical.

Alex, this is from an interview I did with her when Arular came out. I don't know what she'd be like if I interviewed her now. I was just posting them as useful background info from a time when she was less paranoid and more willing to talk openly about stuff.

(b) the intent (sorry Alfred) is sincere and not cynical.

No way you can prove this! And who cares anyway? Constructing narratives and finding correspondences is our job, not the artist's.

xpost Yeah, I figured that was the time period, I just didn't know if the interview/transcripts were widely available or were your own personal interview.

It's interesting to see how closed off and blustery and purposely provocative (at times) she's gotten, especially because circa ARULAR, I remember her seeming pretty eager to discuss her work and engage and explain. The paranoia of /\/\ /\ Y /\ is maybe as much a reaction to responses to her project as anything else?

Not primarily, of course, but it seems as though especially since KALA there's been a pretty swift spiral towards the current 'connected to the Google' etc. iteration of Maya.

xpost. We just have divergent critical approaches. I love finding out, for example, that Whitfield/Strong's classic Motown protest songs were mostly cynical attempts to capture the angry youth market and that Whitfield didn't give much of a shit either way about Vietnam or black power. It doesn't mean I like Ball of Confusion any less but it enriches my understanding of it. In this case, it matters to me whether MIA is, however imperfectly, trying to say something that matters to her rather than chucking around some buzzphrases because they sound cool and will get her some attention. Again, it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the songs if she was a shallow provocateur but it would affect how I discussed them.

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

― torch song trill o.g. (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, August 5, 2010 7:29 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh lord dude in the age of google brain farts arent even close to the lol zings you think they are

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

― Mayor Hickenlooper and the liberal agenda (HI DERE), Thursday, August 5, 2010 11:55 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and youre taking sides hypocrit

Alfred, why do you say who cares if people clearly care? If you don't want to consider intent that's fine. It doesn't HAVE to be relevant to one's take on a song. But there's no pure relationship between the listener/critic and song, our perceptions are shaped by what we know and believe. And if we know facts about and quotes from the artist that influence our opinion, so fucking be it. If there's no right answer we have to search for through journalism, there's no wrong answer either.

xpost lol someone just woke up

groan at all this 1940s-era new critic anti-intentionalist bullshit

p much what da croupier said

xpost lol someone just woke up

― da croupier, Thursday, August 5, 2010 6:42 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

just got back from work. hope u missed me

impressed by your restraint in not posting these belated "fuck off"s this morning, then

It's a natural instinct to read what an artist says if we're fans and/or the music leaves us with questions; I own quite a few rock bios and autobios. But it's too easy now with the internet to play the journalist and draw lines between this or that statement uttered by an artist -- it's that post-therapy world in which explaining your motives matters as much as what you're creating. Sometimes for the sake of saying a good line because the artist is drunk, bored, and wants to bullshit with the reporter.

I had problems with Dorianlynskey's "the intent is sincere not cynical" because, like I said, how do you prove this? Even when they're explaining themselves -- mediated by what the interviewer's included and the editor's chosen to publish -- there's no way of gauging cynicism or sincerity.

Part of my problem, I suppose, is that when I write fiction I never begin with intentions, i.e. "This is a story about loss and the pain of separation" or "I want to write a story about loss and the pain of separation." I sit down on the computer, tap some shit out, assemble it, and am kinda amazed that it coheres into something. That's why I'm always suspicious of intent -- most artists don't intend anything other than to write some songs and record them.

history mayne, check out your big brain! You know about New Criticism!

Dorianlynskey, sorry for snapping at you.

pretty sure everyone's "suspicious" of intent here, just not a fan of the popist/rockist false dichotomy where it must matter or DOES NOT matter

holy moly, just used the phrase 'false dichotomy' twice unrelatedly on here this evening, check out my big brain

u are really caught up on this passage-of-time thing huh

the two minutes between your last two posts, were u just sitting in silence marveling at your double-use of 'false dichotomy'

pretty sure everyone's "suspicious" of intent here, just not a fan of the popist/rockist false dichotomy where it must matter or DOES NOT matter

Yes.

Dorianlynskey, sorry for snapping at you.

It's OK - I took it as impassioned rather than rude.

annnnnnnnnnd it's time for another deraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai-aiiiiiiiii-aaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiil (ding)

lol maybe not

Thursday, August 5, 2010 8:24 PM I Love Music User: blap...tremendo has been banned from thread: MIA temporarily

"We’re going to make films about UFOs. Nobody questions my right to talk about aliens."

Here she reminds me of that political girl in the art class scenes from Ghost World. You can't take an art class simply to learn about art, you need to have a dialog.

"I sit down on the computer, tap some shit out, assemble it, and am kinda amazed that it coheres into something. That's why I'm always suspicious of intent -- most artists don't intend anything other than to write some songs and record them."

Isn't this what the anti-MIA contingent is accusing her of? Purposeless (maybe even witless) grab-baggery?

Yes, but some of the pro-M.I.A. rebuttal is "it can be as witless as it wants to be if I enjoy the end product".

I guess I'm with the proMIAs, then. Rocky IV is pretty awesome regardless (maybe because?) of intent/witlessness.

entire genre of rock and roll to thread.