Ah yes, the wonderfully circular legitimacy debate rears its head yet
again.
I have the new Bjoerk CD. I don't really like it. And nothing really
grabs me as an obvious single. (and for those who have yet to hear it:
there sure are a lot of strings on that there record. why no uproar about
the arrangers/conductors not getting enough credit, huh?) But gosh, even
though it's late, I just had to give everyone some more gristle to chew
on:
Which is "braver:" putting out an album that sounds like a sequel to your
most commercially successful album to date, or going somewhere that is in
commercially uncharted waters?
If collaborating with other people (and crediting them!) is undeniably
naughty, where should we draw the line? Last time I checked (for
example), Autechre is not an individual. So? Well, if we're going to be
picky, we should disallow all psuedonyms and group/collaboration names.
What the hell does a group name mean? People come and go. (And why does
Mike Paradinas do all the work for this Jake Slazenger fella, anyway?
JAKE SLAZENGER IS A THIEF. Who cares if Paradinas is paid or not?) Does
Miles Davis not deserve his name on all of those records because he didn't
actually play every fucking note on 'em? Bandleader schmandleader, I say.
Noone deserves credit for concepts or getting people to work well
together.
And since when did all of us independent-minded "intelligent" folk
(whoops, sorry, for a minute I forgot that it's the MUSIC that's
"intelligent," not the people who listen to it) give a shit about to whom
credit is given in the mass media? Yeah, so someone in a review gives
more credit to the woman (nice misogynistic sub-thread, BTW) whose face is
on the cover of the album is due...so? The people whom the music strikes
will open the book and get the correct info. Playing information police
is futile. (If someone empties a feather pillow, would you try to find
every single feather and stuff it back the pillowcase?)
As for Bjoerk "hiring talent" and legitimacy...doesn't that imply that the
people she's hiring are whoring themselves to commercialism? How can
someone ride the legitimacy coattails of someone who's only in it for the
money? Don't think that you can character assasinate that "bitch" without
affecting the people near her....
Think: Brian Eno has produced an improbable number of successful acts.
He has also produced a decent number of conceptually brilliant albums that
were also popular. He rarely receives more credit than "produced by."
(How many casual listeners care what that means?) Where's the protest
here? (Why no mention of this during the great U2 _Pop_ debate six months
ago?) Do you think Brian Eno perceives this relative anonymity as a
slight? I don't. Surely the intellectual approach to making popmusic
must satisfy some of the faceless wizards behind the curtain...why would
Eno continue to do it? Could the thoughts of Mark Bell et. al be similar?
(I sure so love second-guessing people's motives thought the music they
make, don't you?)
Sorry this is so long. I didn't have time to make it short.
-w.
ps For more fun and enjoyment,try finding the unemoticoned sarcasm!
--
Warren Lapham (ceremony-owner@monkey.org)
laps@monkey.org (laps@umich.edu)
http://www.monkey.org/~laps/ (laps@m-net.arbornet.org)