- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Ramblin' Rose asks why anyone would bother to intellectualize about music- something we either plainly like or dislike for visceral rather than intellectual reasons- then goes on to slam anyone who would presume to do so. Well- because it is FUN. To elaborate a bit further: while the word "criticism" has negative conotations, to listen to something, care enough to have an opinion about it and want to express that opinion so that another can understand it is an act of love. I don't think any sane critic or partisan music fan- being someone who likes something more than they may like something else- expects others to simply adopt their views. They- we- are just articulating ours. Talking and writing about music is the next best thing to actually playing it.
I strongly agree with Dr. Locrian's view on musical miscegenation. I personally find purists in music or any other genre to be a pain in the ass. Musical hybrids tend to be more vigorous than inbreds in exactly the same manner that genetic ones are. The notion of purity- that folks from a specific place should only play a certain type of music endemic to their place, and that only people from that place can play that kind of music- is patently absurd because it denies both the individuality of the players and assumes that some genre- say, bluegrass- is so constrained that it cannot incorporate new material or approaches. As if it sprung full-blown from Bill Monroe sans musical antecedents and free of either experimentation or influence. When extended to the idea that there is strictly "white" music and "black" music- and that the history of modern popular music and culture in general is the story of whitey ripping off the blacks- is bullshit as well. Everyone stands on the shoulders of their particular selection of giants, and this selection is both multi-colored and consists of people outside the strictly musical realm. The evolution of popular music is as technology driven as it is strictly culturally driven. Culture is a collective endeavor. There is nothing new under the sun- but there is always the possibility of recombining and inventing as the technology makes the latter possible.
Planetary Eulogy's musical analysis is pretty much right on. I'd only add that the biggest change in popular music I've seen since the rise of guitar rock to the mainstream was the rise of grunge. Not so much because of grunge itself, which was largely an update of the Led Zep aesthetic- but because most popular music prior to the grunge thang at least acknowledged the blues in either its form, harmonic structure, or aesthetics (solos, lyrical themes). Much post grunge music does not reference the blues in any respect, and this is a sea change.
As for world music- I object to the term because it implies that there are all these genres of Anglo-American music, while everything from Sweden to Zimbabwe to Peru can be lumped into one bin. This view is patronizing as well as musically absurd. That being said, Planetary Eulogy's assertion that world music is a boring bunch of crap couldn't be more wrong. There is a lot of great music out there, and I listen to more of it these days than Anglo-American music. Not because I am a snob or have outgrown that 'white boy stuff', but because I've heard (and played- I play guitar in a classic rock band and in a funk band as well) enough Anglo-American pop music over the decades that I like to listen to something different. And I find myself liking the feeling of Andean folk music, Afro-pop, West African music in general, Celtic and Scandinavian fusion music, flamenco, and Middle Eastern music. As for brit-pop of the ilk described in the article- hell I like much of it too.
