July 07, 2003

Getting Schooled on Pop Music Scholarship

One of the reasons it's hard for me to keep this blog updated everyday is that there's very little published music criticism I find worth reading. Nine times out of ten, when someone gets paid to intellectualize about music, it's very hard for me to make it past the first paragraph without my eyes glazing over.

Like this Rolling Stone piece about Eminem by Kelefa Sanneh, I'm sure it's interesting enough but I just can't bring myself to trudge through it, there doesn't seem to be any point.

So I'm always delighted to find a piece like this one from the New Yorker, which was truly a pleasure to read, and never lost me as it jumped through a wide variety of topics. Coincidentally this guy's main focus is pop music scholarship itself, and he captures pretty well why I find most of it irrelevant, while proving by example that all of it need not be so:

ROCK 101: Academia tunes in

Duke Ellington once had to field a barrage of questions from an Icelandic music student who was determined to penetrate to the heart of the genius of jazz. At one point, Ellington was asked whether he ever felt an affinity for the music of Bach, and, before answering, he made a show of unwrapping a pork chop that he had stowed in his pocket. “Bach and myself,” he said, taking a bite from the chop, “both write with individual performers in mind.” Richard O. Boyer captured the moment in a Profile entitled “The Hot Bach,” which appeared in this magazine in 1944. You can sense in that exquisitely timed pork-chop maneuver Ellington’s bemused response to the European notions of genius that were constantly being foisted on him. He said on another occasion, “To attempt to elevate the status of the jazz musician by forcing the level of his best work into comparisons with classical music is to deny him his rightful share of originality.” Jazz was a new language, and the critic would have to respond to it with a new poetry of praise.

Now Ellington is himself a classic, the subject of painstaking analytical studies. He occupies a Bachian position in an emergent popular pantheon, which is certain to look different from the marble-faced, bewigged classical pantheons that preceded it. The very idea of a canon of geniuses may be falling by the wayside; it makes more sense to talk about the flickering brilliance of a group, a place, or a people. In the future, it seems, everyone will be a genius for fifteen minutes. The past decade has seen the rise of pop-music studies, which is dedicated to the idea that Ellington, Hank Williams, and the Velvet Underground were created equal and deserve the same sort of scholarly scrutiny that used to be bestowed only on Bach and sons. Pop-music courses draw crowds of students on college campuses, and academic presses are putting out such portentous titles as “Instruments of Desire: The Electric Guitar and the Shaping of Musical Experience,” “Rock Over the Edge: Transformations in Popular Music Culture,” and “Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music.”

Pop-music professors, especially those who specialize in rock, are caught in an obvious paradox, which their students probably point out to them on the first day of class. Namely, it’s not very rock and roll to intellectualize rock and roll. When Pink Floyd sang, “We don’t need no education,” they could not have foreseen the advent of research projects with titles like “Another Book in the Wall?: A Cultural History of Pink Floyd’s Stage Performance and the Rise of Audiovisual Gesamtkunstwerk, 1965-1994.” (That comes from Finland.) Ever since Ellington, Armstrong, and Jelly Roll Morton struck up the soundtrack to the bawdy, boozy twenties, popular music has been the high-speed vehicle for youth rebellion, sexual liberation, and chemical experimentation, none of which yield willingly to the academic mind. The pop scholar is forever doomed to sounding like the square kid at the cool kids’ party, killing their buzz with sentences like this: “From the start, hip-hop’s samples ran the gamut of genres, defying anyone who would delimit hip-hop’s palette.”

Then again, maybe it’s not a problem that so much pop-music scholarship sounds conspicuously uncool. For decades, jazz rhapsodists and rock poets were so intent on projecting attitude that they never got around to saying much about the music itself. The pioneering rock critics of the sixties, such as Lester Bangs and Greil Marcus, wanted to mimic the music in their prose, and they had enough style to pull it off. Bangs, whose writings have been collected in a new anthology from Anchor Books, lived the life of a rock star, or at least died the death of one. But his writings are a better guide to the mentality of smart people who went to rock shows in the sixties and seventies than they are a reliable record of music and musicians. Discussing the Rolling Stones in 1974, Bangs wrote, “If you think I’m going to review the new ‘It’s Only Rock ’n’ Roll’ album right now, you are crazy. But I am going to swim in it.” Between prose poetry and academic cant there has to be a middle ground, and pop-music studies is searching it out...

Posted by jsmooth995 at July 7, 2003 07:02 PM
Comments

yeah, that's the sort of great article you'd expect from the new yorker. i will read it and expand on it later tonight in my weblog.

http://www.stinkzone.com/weblog/

great music writing should stand on its own as simply good writing. a good music writer focuses as much on the music, as on the role it plays in the community and pop culture. the reality is that most music critics write about music -- not because they can't make music -- but because they can't write.

the best music writers usually write about a wide range of topics, only one of which is music. like Alex Ross -- author of that New Yorker piece -- good music writers tend to have a sociological perspective, which makes the writing enjoyable and relevant to people who don't necessarily listen to the music.

in light of the current situation in hip hop journalism -- jay hit it right on the head -- i have taken it upon myself to partake in some much needed "regulation". i am going to select various articles from different mainstream sources -- ones that strike me as misinformed, self-serving, and/or dogmatic -- then send the writer an open letters inviting them to discuss their articles and related issues at my weblog. it won't be pretty.

of course, most writers will balk at the prospect of accountability. and i will certainly come across as hip hop's biggest asshole... but somebody's got to do it.

i have already written a critique of an article written by author Adam Mansbach, and sent him an open letter to respond to my critique. i doubt he will show up. but at least he knows someone is holding him to a higher standard. hip hop journalists need to regulate themselves.

anyway, keep up the great work jay... oh, and jay... how about hooking me up with a link on your sidebar over there? i ain't going away any time soon. peace....

Posted by: Eric at July 7, 2003 08:57 PM

dude, i actually attended a publicity meeting the other day and the sentence "well, if {some stupid band i'd never heard of} is added to the bill, it's a guaranteed feature article in the new york times. kalefa LOVES them," was uttered in dead seriousness.

i smirked and nodded.

Posted by: becca at July 7, 2003 09:30 PM

yeah, Kelefa Sanneh. He may be on his way to becoming the new Toure.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at July 7, 2003 09:50 PM

the new Toure . . . ROTFL

Posted by: daikokubashira at July 7, 2003 10:10 PM

if only you guys knew.....

Posted by: becca at July 7, 2003 10:21 PM

i've read some of kelefa's writing, but it seems pretty innocuous. can anyone remember a particularly misguided or ridiculous article he has written?

yeah, simon reynolds (who is actually a pretty good writer) told me about toure -- and that toure's book was a real "mindfuck" -- but when i checked out the book it was like reading a cross between some bad open poetry, standard issue music history, and a loopy horrorscope.

wow, have you seen this? chuck d. vs. toure...

http://www.toure.com/attack.html

i'll bet toure will respond if i dis one of his articles and then call him out.

Posted by: Eric at July 7, 2003 10:33 PM

Eric: I'm half-joking about Sanneh, he's clearly not in the same league as Toure, whose wackness is the stuff of legend.

But the Sanneh pieces I've read in the Times were grasping at straws much like Toure was in that link, describing some new movement or trend that makes for a catchy premise, but failing to convince me that the trend actually exists.

Posted by: jay smooth at July 8, 2003 02:05 PM

LOL... jay, you are the OG of this gonzo hip hop thang.

gotchya on sanneh. he did seem a little fluffy in the sunday times. but someone's gotta do it, right?... i mean: write sophisticated feature-length ads, that is.

oh yeah... adam mansbach sent me an email and it sounds like he will be down for some discussion on his article and my critique. could be interesting.

Posted by: Eric at July 8, 2003 06:42 PM

this is one of the most interesting posts i have read in quite some time. kind of one of the reasons i myself, though a journalist by trade, often despise music journalism and criticism. i hate reading puff pieces all the time...and often wonder where is the criticism. but i also think you guys are onto some new revelations in this thread...worthy of analysis and discussion. But when I read this in the RS article you pointed to: "It's partly a matter of skills; Eminem can rap circles around the competition." I was just like what the f****!

Keep up the good work you're doing over here jay and if you ever see me half stepping out there in the world of black arts and culture criticism you bring it to my attention. i mean that will all seriousness. i like the way your mind grasps these issues...a lot.

Posted by: lynne at July 13, 2003 07:55 PM

Hi K,

This is your coursin, just lost your contact but please to go through articles and would love you to contact me.

This is Pawusu! from the Gambia.

I love reading your articles, try coming home to do something in the Gambian music scene.

god bless


pawusu

For Kelefa Sanneh

Posted by: OUSMAN SANNEH at August 17, 2003 09:53 AM

Mr. Kelefa Sanneh,
I just read your 1/18/04 artilce in the NT Times. "The Sweet Sounds of Really Bad Singing". I would love to chanllenge you one of the singers you claim is bad. I will put up the "bad singer" againgst any singer you want in a dozen or so more categories of singing ( love ballad, sea-chanty, narrative, love song, gospel, blues, jazz etc) I will take one singer and you pick another singer and we agree to a a minimum of a dozen formats of singing and see whose singer comes up first. Nice contest, rigtht?

Sincerely,
Michael Trowbidge
michael.trowbridge@verizon.net

Posted by: michael trowbridge at January 19, 2004 08:13 PM

lmao at Kalefah saneh. This is what happens when you get eminem groupies in high power places a la neil strauss, robert christgau. Talk about generalising" eminem can rap circles around the competition". So he is not merely the best, but the best by a distance. Whatever. Keep that groupie love in check. I wish writers who studu eminem word for word would do the same with other rappers, cause you know they dont. eminem is a one trick wonder.

Posted by: jada1 at July 6, 2004 11:27 AM

Does anybody read Rashod Ollison, the pop music critic at The Baltimore Sun? Any thoughts on his stuff?

Posted by: blithe at October 31, 2004 11:15 AM


Content

Recent Entries

Inane Asylum

New Releases

Movie Stuff

Search Weblog


Hip-Hop Pontification
Audio and Interviews
Photos
Other Favorites
Weblog Archives

Blogville and beyond

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2