| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Lives of the Cannibals: On Courtesy | Main | Is your smile in your genes? »

October 16, 2006

Dispatches: Keeping It Real

On the day after CBGB's closed, it seems appropriate to try something new and dance a little jig to architecture - by which I mean, to write about music.  Not that I'm going to expend a lot of sympathy over the closing of a rock club in a neighborhood that is currently dominated by luxury supermarkets, biodynamic wine bars, and breathtaking, gorgeous NYU dormitories.  If anything, it might speed up the realization that the East Village is now mostly the domain of undergraduates and young lawyers; far from possessing the DIY ethos of a marginal area, it's a place full of pre-affixed brand names, kind of like Whole Foods.  And this is not necessarily a bad thing - but let's not pretend a punk music scene is gonna spontaneously re-emerge where a studio apartment costs two thousand dollars per month.  Anyway, I don't want to imply that lamb shank-eating lawyers are any less authentic than heroin-snorting hipsters; they're not.  It's just that it feels a little strange for the Times's front page to eulogize the place.  What's next?  A new, Renzo Piano-designed CBGB's, putting the encrusted old space "in dialogue" with a new glass enclosure?  Multimedia exhibits featuring Mike Bloomberg telling the story of New York indie music, from Television to TV on the Radio?  Lou Reed's Tomb?

Definitely, though, the issue of authenticity is at the heart of contemporary popular music, which, it seems to me, contains two opposing strands, neither of which needs New York particularly.  One tries to restore it, sort of, the other questions its meaning.  The first is the current folk revival, now at least five years old, including your Devendra Banharts, your Will Oldhams, your Iron and Wines, your Decembrists, your José Gonazalezes.  The rough animating principle for a lot of this music is the idea that the dyad of the acoustic guitar and the confessing subject comprise the simplest approach to the self-expression, like the bedrock of identity.  Not that this idea is by any means new, of course.  This music is a descendant of Romanticism; maybe the best possible description of it would be the Wordsworthian "Lyrical Ballads"--lyric here meaning the singing self, ballad here alluding to a tradition of itinerant musicians.  The songs, of course, are about not having love, finding love, and love going wrong.  When the self confesses, it's so often the ironic confession that you can't always get what you want. 

The other strand includes records made by DJs who create almost no original music.  It's a pretty nerdy genre.  I include mash-ups here, probably most notably The Grey Album, the mixture of Beatles White and Jay-Z Black by the guy behind that song "Crazy" that you've probably heard ten million times.  But I'm thinking more of music that combines many pieces of music instead of just two, like that of The Avalanches, who probably employ hundreds of East Village lawyers just to clear their samples, or Diplo's remixes using samples from tracks like "Walk Like an Egyptian" or "Papa Don't Preach."  This strand can be represented in state of the art form by the recent Girl Talk (actually a guy from Pittsburgh named Gregg Gillis) record, Night Ripper.  Imagine listening to every notable riff, every memorable drum beat in your memory mixed together.  It's hard to explain what it's like to listen to (yeah, sort of like doing the cabbage patch in front of the Seagram Building), but I'm gonna try.

Okay, here's about fifteen seconds of track 5: you're hearing a rap vocal over heavy, crunching Nirvana guitar, then suddenly the guitar dies away, and the classic drums from "Scentless Apprentice" (In Utero) kick in.  Four beats of just the drums alone (they're worth it).  Then, over the top of that drum, comes a "whoooo, whoooo" from The Pharcyde's Bizarre Ride II the Pharcyde (can't remember which song).  One measure, and in comes... the piano riff from Elton John's "Tiny Dancer."  Nirvana drum is gone, "Tiny Dancer" and the Pharcyde sample trade off one more time, and then, deliciously, "I let my tape rock/ till my tape popped": the most endearing voice in hip hop, Biggie Smalls, from "Juicy."  In comes the Pharcyde bassline, now trading with the other sample and the Elton John piano, and now we're getting a sped-up, chipmunky beatmatched version of the Elton chorus ("Hold me closer tiny dancer/Count the headlights on the highway"), with Biggie presiding over it all:

It was all a dream,
I used to read Word Up magazine:
Salt 'n Pepa and Heavy D up in a limousine
Hanging pictures on the wall
Every Saturday Rap Attack Mr. Magic, Marley Marl
I let my tape rock, till my tape popped

Not only does Biggie catch up with and repeat the snippet of himself we've already heard, but he does it over the nostalgic climax of the Elton John song.  The vocal itself is nostalgic; it's the story of the boy B.I.G. dreaming of rap stars (Ahhh!  Heavy's fade! Yellow shirts with giant black circles!), and now remembering clothes circa 1992 or so: "Way back when I had the red and white lumberjack/With the hat to match" (coincidentally the same year Nirvana hit).  So that's about fifteen seconds of the album.  It's like eating a one-pound bag of sugar while looking at pictures of yourself from 1985.  It's so danceable, playing the album in the daytime sounds weird somehow.  And don't think the moment I picked is uncharacteristic.  The whole record is this way: Neutral Milk Hotel, Beyoncé, M.I.A., The Beatles, Outkast, James Taylor, Naughty by Nature, C+C Music Factory, Panjabi MC, The Verve, 50 Cent, Phil Collins, PM Dawn, Sir Mix-a-lot ("Double Up!"), Rob Base, Michael Jackson, whatever.  It's in there (did you think of Ragu?).

The cumulative effect is strange, as though someone has colonized your mind: your musical familiarity, your seemingly particular emotional responses to songs, it turns out, are anything but unique.  Instead, thanks to mass distribution, we all share this "inheritance" of cultural material: pop.  Fred Jameson once wrote that pop songs contain nothing but nostalgia for the last time you heard the song.  That seems true here, but in a good way.  When we all have the songbook in our heads (or at least, most Americans of my generation), a DJ can use it as formal material for a weird collective bricolage.  The best thing about this approach is the fact that it leaves no room for snobbery about pop, or arbitrary line-drawing between genres.  The worst thing about it is it can seem slightly too intellectual (even as I challenge you not to bob your head to this record) and, well, inauthentic.  No one plays any instruments.  (This actually brings up a third strand, where people play instruments but in ways that recognize the computerization of music, but no time for that.)  Girl Talk messes with the idea of authenticity, but can't replace it, and actually, just sets the stage for cyclical revivals of yearning musical simplicity.  And I wouldn't want to be Gregg Gillis' lawyer, for any money.

Night Ripper doesn't respect the distinctions between musical genres, but it treats them differently.  The catchiest or most well-remembered bits (synth, drum, guitar) get used, but over the top is always a rap vocal.  Hip hop is modernity.  The idea that you can retreat to the hills with a guitar and your Self?  Sure, go for it, but from Girl Talk's vantage, that's no more real than downloading beats from a suburban cul-de-sac.  (Or Pittsburgh.)  There's no connection to any landscape here, except the radio.  Late in the album, there is a delicious exchange, starting with 2 Live Crew's (be warned) vulgar call and response:  "Heeyyyyyyyy!  We want some pusssssy!!!  Heeyyyyyyyy!  We want some pusssssy!!!!!" which gets put into dialogue with this crooning, absurdly sentimental proposition from Paul McCartney:  "I... looooovvvve... youuuuu!"  This repeats a few times, touchingly but hilariously. It's worth pointing out that the effect isn't to devalue McCartney's "sincerity" and value 2 Live Crew for "keeping it real," but to question the possibility of either being exactly true.  Both are serious stances, both are ironic poses.  You gotta listen to both.  Truth lies somewhere in between.  (Not to sound too much like Stanley Fish.)  I let my tape rock... till my tape popped.

See my other Dispatches.

Posted by Asad Raza at 12:55 PM | Permalink

Comments

The level of this vulgar 3QuarksDaily article is very low and base.

Posted by: Arnold Schwarzenburger | Oct 16, 2006 2:08:16 PM

Schwarzenburger, I'll refrain from commenting on the level of your comprehension, but if you find erudite commentary like this on the contemporary music scene "vulgar" and "very low and base," I suggest you find some other site to troll at. We do not appreciate your abusive and idiotic comments.

Interesting stuff, Asad. I find it quite fascinating that while all art in some sense relies on what is already in the mind of the audience, in the past this was restricted to things like nature, or common experiences shared by most human beings, but now art (and/or mass culture) can also take advantage of the commonality produced by the mass culture of the last many decades.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Oct 16, 2006 4:57:51 PM

Hi Asad,
While your piece is brilliantly written (and not vulgar or low and base at all like the Governator of my state suggests), I have to argue that today's music *is* tending toward the overtly vulgar and base. This is why, for example, even though I know who Jay-Z is (and how to spell his name!), I have never intentionally listened to one of his songs, nor do I particularly care very much for the "rap" genre. Ditto also for most of the American "pop" and "R&B" genres (though in my experience, I can stomach pop better than rap or R&B).
This is a worldwide phenomenon, as well; just switch on MTV India and you see the same vulgarity in the music videos, hear the same crude lyrics, albeit in Hindi instead of in English. Why is this? Why, instead of borrowing the "good, clean" nature of groups that my parents listened to when they were my age (The Who, Simon & Garfunkel, the Beatles), have these new artists decided to steal old beats but insert vulgar new lyrics?
Sometimes I feel like the Taliban for arguing that rap music should be abolished (mostly due to the vulgar lyrics), but the prude inside of me can't help but wonder:
Whatever happened to the 'good old days'?

Posted by: Jayasree | Oct 16, 2006 5:31:54 PM

Aw, Abbas, don't pick on poor Schwarzenburger! I thought that was funny, and I *did* get a little nervous when transcribing the 2 Live Crew lyric onto this family website.

Jayasree, I'm a hip hop fan from days of Underoos (way back) and not easily offended, though, so I have to disagree with you. Also, I think you might be surprised to discover that The Who, S&G, and The Beatles aren't as squeaky clean as you might think. Also, give Jay-Z a listen, or at least Notorious B.I.G. - they're both lyrical geniuses!

Posted by: Asad | Oct 16, 2006 6:14:58 PM

Until Sharia law is imposed, I am still able to express my opinion freely. Jayasree reluctantly agrees with me about the lyrical geniuses of contemporary music. But, it all depends on a listener's age. The contemporary music of the lyrical geniuses only appeals to people with adolescent minds. The same is true of the whole "hip-hop" culture of speech, dress, and behavior. It resonates with the chronological or mental ages of eleven to nineteen.

Posted by: Arnold Schwarzenburger | Oct 16, 2006 7:25:34 PM

I may agree (and not reluctantly) that today's music is tending toward the overtly sexual and vulgar, but I highly doubt that a piece as well articulated as this can be described as 'vulgar,' Arnold.

I also disagree that ALL contemporary music appeals to only adolescents or, as you deemed it, "people with adolescent minds." I am an adolescent, and as one, I have a decidedly adolescent mind, and yet, I cannot stand contemporary rap and the like. Similarly, I am sure there are many mature folks out there (like Asad) who appreciate the 'lyrical genius' of Jay-Z and co. Me, I'll pass, thanks; but that doesn't mean that I think people who listen to such music are chronologically or mentally 'eleven to nineteen.' The only people I think that of are either the eleven-to-nineteen-year-olds I meet every day or people who actually ACT like that, not just dress/speak/conform to pop culture. And anyway, besides rap, I conform too, so it would be hypocritical of me, to say the least, to judge others on the basis of their music choices.

Asad, you must agree with me that when we see (and more importantly, HEAR) lyrics describing, umm, kitty cats (except not), S&G, The Beatles, and The Who seem a lot more 'clean-cut,' no?

Posted by: Jayasree | Oct 16, 2006 7:54:00 PM

Oh yes, Jayasree, there's no question that 2 Live Crew are cartoonish, vulgar and silly. But their lyrical mediocrity, and Jay-Z's lyrical dexterity, are beside my point - which was that top 40 hits so saturate our minds that a record like Night Ripper can actually exploit that, can make music from our collective familiarity. The ingenuity of that kind of album is that it plays with what's already in our heads, and in doing so genre-bends like crazy. That's part of a positive change in the contemporary music scene: more and more people are listening to all kinds of music without castigating whole genres about which they know nothing (you know, like our silly friend Arnold). That's a good development, no?

Posted by: Asad | Oct 16, 2006 9:35:26 PM

Dear Arnold Schwarenburger, or Toby Shandy, or Braithwaite Prendergast, or G. Lestrade (I am a Holmes fan as well!), or whatever other pseudonym you are going by at the moment:

You are right in pointing out that we at 3 Quarks have a very open policy about comments. We don't have to have it (I could ban you easily enough, not to mention just delete your comments) but we try to have an open exchange of views. All that we ask is that you keep your disagreements with us respectful. Is that too much to ask? There is so much abusive back and forth in the blogosphere already, must we add to it? We think we are running a thoughtful site, and we appreciate criticism, but when you simply and casually declare an article that took some time and effort to write by one of us as "vulgar" or "very low and base," without saying anything about what in particular you found offensive, it seems like an unnecessary provocation. If you have something substantive to say, please say it, otherwise please be more civil.

If you are the sort of person who gets a perverse thrill out of insulting others and then waiting for their reaction, I don't know what to tell you except that you should get help. If, on the other hand, you are truly offended by what we write about here and how we write it, you are either welcome to criticize us respectfully, as we do you, or you can stop visiting a site that you think so little of.

You are simply wrong about hip-hop "resonating" only with those between the ages of 11 and 19. I and my nephew Asad are both much older, but can count ourselves amongst many who find hip-hop not only enjoyable, but an important form of artistic expression. Can we not just agree to disagree about the importance of this music, instead of calling each other names?

I hope you will respond in the spirit of understanding in which I am writing this note.

Jayasree, you are right if we were to judge both Elvis and Jay Z by today's standards, but what you need to keep in mind is that Elvis was a scandal by the standards of his own age, and the rest of the history of R&R shows that it was no less subversive in its own time.

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Oct 16, 2006 9:45:53 PM

I hope you didn't think that I was being elitist; I was merely pointing out that, compared to today's lyrics, The Who and that sort of thing seem tamer. But I'm sure that, back then, even The Who and The Beatles were considered 'revolutionary,' and perhaps not in a good light.

I have to agree with you on genre-bending; that's a good, no, GREAT development, and much of the music that I listen to (including, but not limited to, groups such as "Bond" and contemporary Indian pop music) is "original" in this new way. And frankly, I'm quite thankful for that!

Posted by: Jayasree | Oct 16, 2006 9:50:48 PM

And by the way, I fall into the age group of 11-19 myself and I don't think that rap/hip-hop music is meant for those only in the 11-19 age group. I occasionally listen to rap, but I know many people who are older than me who also do so. Like I said, I don't judge people on the basis of their music choices. That's something that's inherently personal and I'd hate to take away someone's freedom to listen to the kind of music he/she wants to. Oftentimes, when I hear a rap song, I wish that it wasn't so explicit, but perhaps 'explicit' can be a good thing sometimes as well.

Posted by: Jayasree | Oct 16, 2006 9:54:48 PM

I would like to extend an invitation to you to join in on a collective blogging section of our upcoming winter issue of Reconstruction. The issue is the “Theories/Practices of Blogging.” In addition to the special section of posts on blogging there will be about a dozen essays on blogging.

The deadline is October 27th.

Our intent in this section of the issue will be to collect a wide range of bloggers and link up to their statements in regards to why they blog (something many of us are asked) and any statement they have on the theories/practices of blogging.

If you already have a post on this you can feel free to use it, or, if you are interested, you can submit a new one.

We will link to each statement from the issue at our site, with the intent of creating a hyperlinked list of statements on blogging that can serve as an introduction to blogging (or an expansion of knowledge for those already blogging).

If you are interested please contact me at mdbento @ gmail.com

Posted by: michael benton | Oct 17, 2006 12:35:48 AM

Abbas,

You mention that Greg Gillis only uses rap vocals over the top of the tracks as a reference to modernity. While this is somewhat true in so far as they are all rap vocals, I believe there is a technical reason for it. A cappella versions are easily found for hip hop & rap releases and therefore easier to layer over other sounds. That is part and parcel of the hip-hop world, providing the means for others to create new work or remixes using the same vocals. In itself not necessarily a modern tradition but quite an old one.

Posted by: Nathan | Oct 17, 2006 9:32:04 AM

Actually, Nathan, I mentioned that, not Abbas. (All errors are mine alone!)

But good point about the availability of a cappella hip hop vocal tracks. I still think that hip hop is the lingua franca for GG, though, the mark of his contemporaneity. I doubt he'd want to do Elton John remixes with hip hop beats.

Posted by: Asad | Oct 17, 2006 11:37:33 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

waqnis on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Norman Costa on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Hannah Carlton on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Joe on Digging Up Bones or, The Labyrinths beneath Our Feet

JonJ on The Beautiful German Language

cpfaff on Passionate About The Actor's Art: an interview with Michael Howard

Sumiran on Sunday Poem

Ethan on Getting Smarter

Pacificklaus on NORTH KOREA’S NERVE WAR

Félix E. F. Larocca, MD on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Shane on That's not music – that's just noise!

seth edenbaum on Habermas, Adorno, Politics

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

Raza Husain on Think About Nature

Raza Husain on Getting Smarter

johnnyred on Getting Smarter

Lou on Throwing away ancient wisdom, painting with sound and staying awake: a conversation with radio dramatist and ZBS Foundation president Thomas Lopez

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed