Sach O’s like: WHO TOLD THEM CATS THAT IT’S OKAY???
I think I was fair to James Blake in my album review (not to mention the two other pieces I wrote about him), mostly because I made a point to rate it based on solely on the music rather than any preconceived notions about the guy. For the record, FACT and Resident Advisor, two publications that know a thing or two about electronic music, had their ratings in the same ballpark. Then I woke up to Pitchfork’s blowjob (pause) this morning. Dear Lord.
Race and music is a complicated issue and pardon the stupid pun, it’s not black and white. I heard Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix on the radio as a kid but never James Brown or Parliament. That’s not because of skin color, that’s because the first two, for lack of a better term, sounded whiter to programmers and listeners. That’s also why Eminem is the most popular rapper of all time, why dance music among many people my age (but not our younger siblings!) is still “gay” and why lily-white rap critics will promote just about any emcee that drools on himself as long as he’s embraced by the black teen demographic*. So when Pitchfork, a website that otherwise relegates UK Bass music to 6.0 reviews and Martin Clarke’s column, suddenly gives the most singer-songwriter influenced dude in the scene a golden 9.0 rating a week after he got American major-label distribution, it brings up a some major issues in my mind.
I get why they did it of course. Blake sings, displays none of the scary darkness of his predecessors and on the album, he does away with dance music as a form, transforming his sound into a rockist confessional. Indie snobbery loves all of those things, but the problem is those are the worst fuckin’ elements of Blake’s music! I didn’t want to throw the kid under the bus but I’m not going to tolerate a bunch of neckbearded, bespectacled interlopers stepping in and imposing their values on someone else’s music that they don’t have a fucking clue about the second time around. The Source never went around giving 2.0’s to Neutral Milk Hotel and 5 Mics to I dunno, Korn so what exactly gives the Indie scene the right to rate someone else’s music according to their own values? That may not be “racist” but it sure as hell stands as cultural appropriation and in 2010, that’s pretty fucking awful in my book.
So I stand by my review: good album, shitty crossover elements. Go buy it. But buy a copy of Digital Mystikz’ Return II Space along with it. Buy a copy of Headhunter’s Nomad, Plastician’s Beg to Differ, Ikonika’s Love, Contact, Want, Have and Guido’s Anidea. Most importantly, listen to Rinse.FM, buy some singles and go to a dance. Hear the music how it’s meant to be heard, don’t just integrate it into a pre-fab rockist worldview. That’s the gauntlet, I’m throwing down: if the indie scene is as progressive as it says it is, then the people buying this James Blake album should have no problem appreciating the music that shaped it on the same terms as he did when he was making it. Otherwise, maybe I can interest you in a mid 60s Elvis record?
*Also why Douglas Martin has to answer stupid fuckin’ questions.
Download:
MP3: Gemmy – Watta Down Sound
14 comments
dalatu says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:39 am (UTC -7)
Don’t sully the good name of Elvis comparing him to James Blake. I understand why people could like James Blake’s LP, but it is just so bland. The influences that he is taking in and was working with earlier last year resulted in some interesting music. Now he is just making “coffee table music”, and that is not something I want to listen to especially when he cannot sing all too well or write lyrics I care about.
Sach O says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:47 am (UTC -7)
I’m not THAT antagonistic towards Elvis (Suspiscious Minds is an anthem) but you can’t tell me that his Hollywood era records were any good.
Young Jesus says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:53 am (UTC -7)
Phenomenally ignorant– as if you’re the only one in the world who likes UK Bass, fuck outta here with that mess.
If you want to get attention or bloggy hits, go get a tattoo– that, or eat a dick.
hungrych says:
February 9, 2011 at 1:55 pm (UTC -7)
The indie rock people like James Blake because he brings together modern dance/electronica trends and, you guessed it, indie rock. And yeah, the rock people are gonna want it to sound like rock, and the dance people are gonna want it to sound more like dance. People like things that are the things they like; I don’t really see the problem.
I think the REAL problem here, though, isn’t so-called “cultural approbation,” but the exact opposite. I mean, when you say shit like:
“what exactly gives the Indie scene the right to rate someone else’s music according to their own values?”
Well, what the fuck exactly gives you, or the dance scene, or ANYONE the right to tell people they can’t rate ANYTHING according to their own values? That unless you’ve spent every night of your life raving since you were 3, you’re just not allowed to have an opinion on anything that may be dance-influenced?
What is most bizarre to me is that usually people say this to defend things from people judging them negatively. I mean, if a rock fan didn’t like Digital Mystikz and thought they were boring, it would be pretty valid to point out that perhaps they are not judging the music from the right framework, and that they should maybe learn more about it and try harder before passing judgement. But to claim that someone isn’t allowed to LIKE something unless they like it the same way you do, because they aren’t authentically getting it like you? That something that touches you shouldn’t unless it touches you where I say it should, and that if if you let it you’re a culture pirating hipster douchebag? Well, that’s the real culturalimperialism.
Besides, who exactly are these mysterious indie scenesters whose musical curiosity towards electronica is limited soley and completely to James Blake, and who would never even consider checking out his influences and/or other, similar music? After all, Elvis, whatever you may think, drew plenty of white people into discovering black music they otherwise probably never would have even heard of.
PS: I think I better comparison than Elvis would be Nine Inch Nails. I mean, it’s pretty much the same argument, no?
dalatu says:
February 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm (UTC -7)
Ehh. Third attempting this post (internet O I love you), I will just say that I disagree with hungrych. Also bad Elvis is better than bad James Blake, but both are worse than bad Slim Dunkin.
Sach O says:
February 9, 2011 at 2:40 pm (UTC -7)
“People like things that are the things they like; I don’t really see the problem.”
…And then redefine them along their own cultural values. This is problematic. It’s a question of representation. Ignoring the worldview of the community that creates an art form and imposing one’s own on it is appropriation. Period.
“I think the REAL problem here, though, isn’t so-called “cultural approbation, but the exact opposite. ”
I can see why you wouldn’t think so. Go on.
“Well, what the fuck exactly gives you, or the dance scene, or ANYONE the right to tell people they can’t rate ANYTHING according to their own values? That unless you’ve spent every night of your life raving since you were 3, you’re just not allowed to have an opinion on anything that may be dance-influenced?”
You have the right to an opinion, I’m not calling for censorship. But if your opinion comes out of a distorted context, people will call you out on it. Again, if XXL were to ignore all rock music, suddenly bestow a 4.5/5 rating to Creed and a significant number of rap fans began to say Creed was the greatest rock band of the decade, the indie community would shit itself. Except XXL doesn’t do that. This is a specific problem many people have had with Pitchfork’s coverage of Hip-Hop and other non-guitar based music for a long time.
“I mean, if a rock fan didn’t like Digital Mystikz and thought they were boring, it would be pretty valid to point out that perhaps they are not judging the music from the right framework, and that they should maybe learn more about it and try harder before passing judgement. But to claim that someone isn’t allowed to LIKE something unless they like it the same way you do, because they aren’t authentically getting it like you? That something that touches you shouldn’t unless it touches you where I say it should, and that if if you let it you’re a culture pirating hipster douchebag? Well, that’s the real culturalimperialism.”
If you were to try authentic Indian food for the first time and find it strange or overly spicy, that’s cool. Maybe you’ll try it again, maybe not, that’s your prerogative. Fine. But if you were to say that a bland, watered down version toned down for a foreign palette were BETTER or generally IGNORE the more authentic version in favor for the blane one, obviously people who know their Indian food will get pissed off at you.
“Besides, who exactly are these mysterious indie scenesters whose musical curiosity towards electronica is limited soley and completely to James Blake, and who would never even consider checking out his influences and/or other, similar music?”
I suggest you attend the site’s music festival. Or hell, just go to Brooklyn or The Mile End in Montreal on any given Saturday night.
” After all, Elvis, whatever you may think, drew plenty of white people into discovering black music they otherwise probably never would have even heard of.”
And then those white people promptly reconfigured it in their image while stonewalling the originators who influenced him. Ask a random 50 year old to name more than 2 artists that influenced Elvis. Exactly.
Bottom line: the reviewer says the songs are bigger than the defense of any microgenre. That’s where he doesn’t get it. To dismiss a scene of people who work to create and promote something as a “microgenre” only to casually pick and choose among their innovations based on his own prejudices while rejecting the rest is arrogant, dismissive and frankly nauseating.
Will J. says:
February 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm (UTC -7)
This whole conversation makes me think of the recent Brainfeeder takeover for Benji B’s show… In it keyboardist Austin Peralta says “I’m in favor of genre disillusionment.”
Now I’m sure the Fork could never let go of their precious categories but I think it would serve all music fans good to let go of some of their preconceived notions about any music and just start to enjoy the sounds that are flourishing these days, where ever they come from, whatever instruments used.
Passion of the Weiss says:
February 9, 2011 at 3:18 pm (UTC -7)
I think Datalu’s first comment speaks to the real issue–this just isn’t a very good album. It’s “interesting” and he does novel things to a dubstep template that has obviously strayed very far from its core roots. Those are inherently good things. But he’s not yet learned how to write compelling songs that stand out as anything more than music to boil your tea to.
I think Blake was actually able to convey a lot more emotion with his beatz and other people’s vocals than his own. This album certainly has some nice moments and it isn’t bad, but it basically feels like a weaker post-dubstep Bon Iver record.
Precisely, the sort of stuff that you’d expect an indie-skewing crowd to flip over. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing and I don’t think Sach was railing at the people who like this record. He likes this record. I like parts of it and so does most of the staff to varying degrees.
What he’s getting at is a dilettantish approach towards the genre. It feels like tokenism. If Pitchfork would give a BNM to Digital Mystikz or Scuba Nosaj Thing or Guido, rather than arbitrarily setting a ceiling at 8.0, there would be no complaint. To me, it feels a bit like bet hedging. James Blake is obviously wildly gifted and figures to be a major figure in music for the next decade. Might as well get in on the sweepstakes early and say I told you so. As he rightfully pointed out, Fact and RA wrote restrained and thoughtful reviews. Admittedly, that’s expected because they are electronic publications. But the Pitchfork editors are very smart and know what’s up–otherwise, they wouldn’t hire Martin Clark to write about the genre (or any number of the very talented writers they have on staff, including Douglas).
However, when you have such a big platform and choose to make major statements about a genre that you grapple with only occasionally, it makes for bizarre reading and emotions like these to surface. Personally, i don’t care. I don’t have any stake in genre or authenticity or anything. The album just isn’t that great. I wish it was. I love the EP’s.
Anyway, my two cents. Time to go make a pot of English Breakfast.
hungrych says:
February 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm (UTC -7)
Sach O:
Again, I get what you’re saying. I just feel that “If you like James Blake, then you should definitely check out Digital Mystikz, Ikonika, Plastician, etc?” is kind of a more productive sentiment than “If you like James Blake, but haven’t checked out Digital Mystikz, Ikonika, Plastician, etc, then FUCK YOU.”
Sach O says:
February 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm (UTC -7)
Well I did say the first productive part.
But if you review James Blake, an admitely indie-influenced album for a major indie-centric publication and go ahead and make a statement that this is numerically THE BEST Dubstep (or Dubstep influenced) album EVER (even better than Burial’s Untrue)…I think you need to back up your position better than that review did. To say the least.
I know for a fact that Martin Clark LOVES the album. James Blake gets a lot of support from the community. My problem is with the review and the site’s attitude towards non-Indie music. I rarely let it affect me these days and I don’t do personal attacks but I think its important to discuss these issues.
J Rey says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:56 pm (UTC -7)
Pitchfork is a joke. Elvis was stealing the style of black artists of his time who couldn’t get the play time cuz they weren’t white. James Blake pales in comparison to other producers of our time whose style he heavily borrows from then throws in a lil “indie” and tries to act like he’s doing something special.
Hank Erins says:
February 10, 2011 at 12:28 am (UTC -7)
I read this site religiously and never comment, but I have too many feelings about this post that I would like to share.
Sach, you are right that it is a shame that pitchfork – the most influential popular music publication by a mile – saves their highest praise for music that conforms to a rockist point of view. It is a shame that they do not judge music based on its “genre-normative listening situation,”* or more precisely, that they virtually never champion EDM that functions solely as EDM while serving high praise to indie rock that is only successful as indie rock. That’s why a song like Footcrab – probably the dubstep SOTY – gets no love on their end of year list. It’s a great tune, but it’s not exactly built for noise-cancelling headphones on a late night L train ride.
Now I own virtually everything James Blake has released. I prefer Air and Lack Thereof or Pembroke to I Only Know (What I Know Now). I also preferred Los Angeles to Cosmogramma and College Dropout to 808s and Heartbreaks. But James Blake, FlyLo, and Kanye are all artists who say that they started in hip-hop/dubstep because it was an existing genre that helped them realize the musical ideas floating around in their head. However, as they honed their talents, all these artists evolved to making “the music they always wanted to make.” These new sounds may not always be as appealing to us beat-heads as the ones that got us interested in the first place, but the tradeoff is that we get a closer view into the minds of the artists that make them. Yes, I would have loved an album full of Harmonimix-style bangers. Instead, I got the intensely intimate experience of hearing what one man believes to be exquisitely beautiful. I may not have identical tastes to his, I may not drop any of these tunes in upcoming sets, but I better understand a man whose music deeply interests me.
In my opinion, Blake has earned this record. Its an aesthetic-autobiography, a glimpse behind one astonishing curtain. You listen to CMYK to enjoy the music, you listen to “James Blake” because you want to learn more about the mind that crafted CMYK.
It’s perfectly fine to criticize a James Joyce biography for being poorly written or historically inaccurate, but to criticize it because Joyce’s life just wasn’t as interesting as the stories he wrote himself – that misses the point. You shouldn’t be reviewing it if the content doesn’t interest you regardless of execution. The same goes for this record. If you don’t like it because the song-writing isn’t up to par or its aesthetic is confused, so be it. But to criticize it because it doesn’t contain the music you wanted/expected it to is to ignore the artist’s intent in your judgment – the very crime you (rightfully) accuse pitchfork of committing.
I understand that this piece is more a criticism of pitchfork’s review tendencies than Blake’s record itself. I also understand that this album has some compositional weaknesses (nothing on the LP touches the soaring 4 part counterpoint of his Stop What You’re Doing remix.) But I would hate to see James Blake become another immensely talented artist who loses potential fans simply because some people don’t like the way other people enjoy his music.
Thanks for the great writing, this is the best blog on the net.
-Hank Erins
*Ola Stockfelt – Adequate Modes of Listening. but you already knew that
Sach O says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:31 am (UTC -7)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply H.A.
At the end of the day, I think we agree even though James Blake sort of got dragged through the mud with all of this. At the end of the day, I the songwriting on the album varies wildly, some of it quite good, some of it rather sloppy. That’s my criticism of the album in the original review along with a few other things.
My objections here were based on what I believe to be a publication’s systematic promotion and idealisation of musical elements I find boring, something I could care less about when it’s about something I’m not involved in but that obviously affects me more when it’s related to music I care about.
The irony in all of this is that a few months ago, I was puzzled that Pfork (and only Pfork) slagged Dark Star’s North, a “post-Dubstep” album that’s just as in love with the pop form. I wrote 2 glowing pieces championing the fact that it brought the darkness, paranoia and attittudes of Dubstep to “band music” and how this dialogue could be important if done right. I just don’t think James Blake did it right, but the fact that I still enjoy his release is a testament to his talent. He’ll be fine.
Joe W says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm (UTC -7)
I have to hand it to Will J. and Hank Erins for helping bring the discourse to a level closer.
Like Hank I’m a daily visitor with a huge respect for the writing talent at POTW who is compelled to comment for the first time.
Pitchfork is infamous for hyperbole – just ask Radiohead. I agree with the general feeling that in this case the score is on the high side and that the content of the piece is not insightful. That said iIf a 9.0 rating from such an influential publication drives even 10% of the readership to explore/purchase Blake’s earlier work and the artists that influenced it, then that’ll be a gorgeous thing.
If Blake continues to do his thing unchanged by the breakout success, releasing more EPs on labels like Hemlock and R&S? 1998 hot shit, Lord Have Mercy! It’s hard to fuck with Blake’s musical integrity and I choose to have faith he will continue to explore his dance floor interests in some form or another.
I feel similarly about the Magnetic Man album. It’s almost too easy to deride it for it’s crossover leanings. To me the underground purist is just as dull as the indie scenester. If the MM album sells decent and allows Skream to eat well and drop more Skreamism freshness on us, the Passion crowd are big winners in the long run.
Big IFs, big dreams. As Sach says – go buy it. The more support for the album the better, whomever shows it.