Genre rockist beef (again)

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Crikey, dance music beef is sprawling over the blogosphere following Todd Burns's dissection of Justice & Simian Mobile Disco fans over at Village Voice (thanks to Fluxblog for the link). Here's Idolator's view on the subject. All these articles I've linked to bring up reasonable points. HOWEVER there still seems to be this awful mindset that you are only allowed to like certain types of dance music (or rock music), and if so you can't like the 'opposite' type. And then there's the 'oh but it's all POP anyway so ya boo sucks' business. This irritates me in a way I can't really put my finger on, so I drew a Venn diagram to help me work it out:



The diagram above covers the genres I'm interested in ('everything else' I just don't know enough about to appreciate properly).

The yellow 'rock' part covers stuff like prog, indie and metal.
The green part would probably include Bon Jovi, Kelly Clarkson and My Chemical Romance.
The pink 'dance' part covers stuff like techno, electronica, drum-n-bass, all stuff you'd buy off Juno.
The purple bit would be Booty Luv, Kylie and Roisin Murphy.
The blue (un-named as I couldn't fit the text in on my crappy version of Paint) parts would be mum-pop ballads on one side, and hip-hop/RnB on the other, I guess. These could obv have extra crossover circles of their own, but I'm sticking to 'rock' and 'dance' here to keep things simple.

And of course, 'X' stands for 'Xenomania'. Clearly this is the awesomest section.

The articles I link to above seem intent on putting Justice and Simian Mobile Disco in the green or pink sections for better or worse, when I think they're obviously part of X. It's a difficult category to do well in, and a lot of the time it doesn't produce great results. But it can be WONDERFUL as we poptimists know. The ideal song in X would be one where you don't even notice the guitars or the bleeps, but they're still there (the song I have in mind right now is 'Something Kinda Oooh').

I sympathise with Burns in his dislike of dancing to Justice/Simian, because I prefer *to dance* to pounding 4x4 beats that build up and drop out and that you don't need to know the words to enjoy - getting your head down and grinding away for hours rather than having to 'sit the next one out'. But I would also therefore dismiss a whole bunch of stuff in the pink section (I can't really dance to breaks, for example). That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there! Or that other people aren't allowed to find it good!

But the real advantage of having X present in your genre-list is that rockism should be meaningless here. There are influences from every direction, and people who complain about their precious rock/dance being 'infected' by other stuff will be waylaid in the purple and green sections. Although after reading Burns' essay I get the impression he's doing his best to remove X altogether and make everywhere a battlefield. Sadface.

Comments

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I vaguely agree with Todd Burns, fwiw, though I don't think he puts his case well at all. My beef with Justice is that you can't dance to it, it doesn't follow the rules of dance music, but it DOES follow the rules of rock music. It's dance music for rock fans to feel slightly better about themselves to. Saying "I like dance music, I like Justice, they're the best in that field" - which is what the bulk of the criticism has been - is like saying "I like hip-hop, I like MIA, she's the best in that field". ie, those people only really like dance music when it's NOT dance music, hip-hop when it's NOT hip-hop, and their refusal to actually engage with what dance and hip-hop fundamentally ARE prevents them from recognising this.

I also disagree that X is the best area, and I certainly don't think anyone should aim to end up there. It's like fusion cooking, a bit of this and a bit of that makes the whole thing seem either slapdash or just a bit grim. Of course, it can end up great, but this is more happy accident than the rule. Basically I think that formalism, genre rules and so on, don't really constrict so much as provide a template which the artist can make their own; and it bothers me when acts which make a big deal out of deviating from genre rules get so much praise for it. It's almost like they're saying that those rules, that formalism, and therefore the genre itself, is worthless.
Whereas formalist signifiers often act like a shared language, an indication that the artist is on your wavelength. (This could be the build-and-release structure of dance music; or the r&b/hip-hop tendency to quote lyrics or beats from other r&b/hip-hop; etc.)

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

rockist.


KIDDING, KIDDING.

X is the best area though, happy accidents are where all the stellar bits of pop happen. templates are kind of ok, but mainly so one can play *with* the rules, not *by* the rules...

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

yeah but to "play with the rules" don't you have to be a bit of a formalist?

(actually one area of fruitfulness is where the somewhat-formalist listener has hishead fkd with the accidental or unintended formalist-busting activity of the idiot-savant maker: the busting being a total free lunch on the part of the "doesn't really get what s/he just did but it's awesome anyway" artist-type...

one of my (many many many) beefs abt "influence" is that it is flailed around to firm up arguments from intentionality which are exactly not the point

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

yes EXACTLY - this is why old-Timbaland was so amazing because he wasn't cack-handedly wading into the r&b genre and ripping up the basics just to be an "innovator" - some of his early stuff is TOTAL HOMAGE to trad r&b values and rules, but at the same time presented in a completely new way, but the innovations would never have had any heart if he hadn't been steeped in the genre already...

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i guess to expand on my point re "influence" here, timbaland is someone so deep inside a tradition he probably doesn't see it clearly as anything but the shape of the world -- i oncep roposed that i wd be happy if ppl usin the phrased "i am influenced by" repalced it by "i believe in" -- and is looking to say things in that world that have never been said

critical beatz maven X [insert pet hate here], earnestly "critiquing" r&B/hiphop, are also 9perhaps) lookin to say things in that world thsat have never been said, but i. don't know the world well enough to notice that actually they HAVE been said; ii. are in bad faith abt their relationship to that world (viz to choose to "rescue" is an act of obsessive love; but obsessive love is not always the heriocally desirable thing it imaigines itself to be); iii. sometimes external point-missing is able to generate something ELSE (arguably "post-punk funk/disco" did this -- it taught us little in the way of NEW BEATS, but it taught us lots in respect of how music and words are at war with one another... )

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

heh but after the first accident, can it any longer be thought of in that way or does X become a template of itself? Xenomania are arguably in a rut now, judging by the last GA alBUM. One I happen to still enjoy, but IMHO it's as much a formula now as the one Status Quo are alleged to have developed in the 70s (cf. latest Popular discussion).

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

My venn is a bit misleading here what with me missing out the intersections for hip-hop/jazz/industrial/whatever etc. In reality X would be made up of absolutely everything, not just pop/rock/dance (that's just what the articles were focussing on and what *my* focus falls on). So I think there's still plenty of room for interesting X.

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

Sure. And on that view of X, this is exactly what I look for in a record to.

My beef with genre is that people make the mistake of assigning artists to them. In reality they move about your Venn ALL THE TIME (because pop* is not static). So e.g. just cos an act might get in to X once with one record, doesn't give 'em the inalienable right to stay there with their next one.

*in the 'oh but it's all POP anyway so ya boo sucks' sense

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

also:

your beef with justice is that YOU can't dance to it, not that it is undanceable to

isn't it?

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Well, they're undanceable by the rules of dance music - ie they completely abandon the concept of the groove, the steady beat to lose yourself in; it's all chopped-up and awkward instead. Which is closer to the rules of rock, really. No coincidence that I've rarely seen people actually throwing moves to Justice, it's more...jumping up and down, "moshing", that sort of thing.

My other problem with Kat's conceptualisation is that it doesn't take into account r&b or hip-hop! I know the other blue bit is meant to be the black bit but none of the examples of X have had anything to do with it, when have Xenomania ever acknowledged hip-hop? (Please don't cite GA 'rapping', please don't.)

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

No, the middle circle is pop, which is why the pure-blue bits are pop without dance or rock.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Yes - hiphop etc deserve intersecting circles of their own, I just left them off as they weren't mentioned in the Burns beef.

[umlauts.livejournal.com]

But GA rapping IS acknowldeging it! It's just that YOU don't like it. Hip-hop was a party music, you know, and some of GA's rap bits are in the spirit of "Rapture" if not anywhere near as well-done.

(Though you are correct about Justice and the rules of dance music, though in this case it seems to be wilfully avoiding rather than not understanding)

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I do like GA's rapping though! I'm just saying that the rapping itself isn't really any indication of engaging with hip-hop to the same extent as they engage with rock and dance.

Yes, wilfully avoiding rather than not understanding, I think that is why it infuriates me even more actually.

[umlauts.livejournal.com]

Okay, serious answer: "7 Ways" by Abs.

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

fair dos, but that's still dancing. i'm not really arguing with the central point that justice probably are rock, just that "dance" music doesn't have the monopoly on dancing.

kat does point out that it's not a grand unified venn diagram of all music, just a visual aide for this pretty particular discussion...

[mindtaker-cro.livejournal.com]

Well, they're undanceable by the rules of dance music - ie they completely abandon the concept of the groove, the steady beat to lose yourself in; it's all chopped-up and awkward instead.

geez, you're making it out as if it all sounds like SebastiAn or something. well, it doesn't! a lot of blog-house grooves along in a straightforward way, is specifically produced to be mixed by a DJ, has breakdowns and build-ups etc - it's no less dance music than, say, big beat. and the "steady beat to lose yourself in" thing depends also on the DJ - few months ago i went to see three Hungarian dudes spinning this type of stuff, and they had a straightforward groove going on, concentrating on the Vitalic-indebted side of blog-house instead of mixing it up with baltimore/baile/etc. and i had a great time, dancing to it in a definitely non-"jumping up and down" fashion! yes, it was non-stop bombast all the way, and yes, i wouldn't have minded a moment of etheral calm and beauty and release here and there - but then again, the same could be said about some sets of monochrome metallic chugging tech-house (ie Proper dance music) that i've endured lately.

[koganbot]

it's all chopped-up and awkward instead. Which is closer to the rules of rock, really.

Closer to the rules of rock? I'm not understanding you. Some rock is awkward, but that's just its not being very competent. But since when is rock "chopped-up"? Most rock is monotonously monomoniacal in its rhythm; it's just that a lot of time it isn't a good rhythm (as opposed to rock and rock 'n' roll grooves of the past).

Seems to me that hip-hop and jungle and grime - not to mention the Houston screwed-and-chopped thing - are much more chopped-up than rock is (discounting a few avant-gardish rock subgroups) but that they're sometimes playing a game of chicken with the groove, which is to see how much you can chop up the groove without losing it. Hip-hop seems to do this best.

Back in the day, I recall white people having trouble dancing to James Brown because the rhythm was too "confused." Which is to say they had trouble dealing with syncopation, even though the syncopation made the groove better. Disco was an easier beat for white people.

Also, I'm basically too late for this conversation, but it seems to me that techno in Britain in the '90s and maybe into the '00s functions socially much as rock did in the '60s, as a kind of progressive busting-up from the "underground" dance scene, that techno definitely has its avant-art-prog tendencies, whether they're called "prog" or not. And it's the tendency to go "hard," meaning brutal and/or difficult, that's one of the things that distinguishes techno from Eurodisco and Italodisco and Europop and that connects it in my mind with rock. (And if you look historically at Bronx hip-hop and Detroit techno and Chicago acid house, in some respects these are movements away from disco and towards a more experimental or progressive approach. The name "acid house" might have been something of a coincidence, but the 303 really was functioning something like a psychedelic wah-wah guitar. I don't know this history all that well, but I don't get the impression that in Britain the underground garage was aiming at the average teenybopper Spice Girls fan. Underground garage had social ambitions, right?)

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Music for people who can't dance and therefore ignore the rhythm anyway?

Personally the stuff I like to dance to has interesting rhythms/basslines in it, not just four to the floor, even if it's supposed to be music for dance music. I mean, something like Chic's "Good Times" or the Jacksons' "Want You Back".

PS I have never heard Justice so have no idea what their beats sound like.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

This one here actually has a very Chic-esque bassline. I think you'd like it!

Totally off topic but zomg innit

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Lex I just heard the nu Mary J Blige! That 'fine-fine-fine-fine-fine' bit is brilliant! The middle eight is all weird and flip-flopping all over the place in an unsettling but interesting way. And the video is awesome :)

Re: Totally off topic but zomg innit

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's great - the album is awesome, I reviewed (http://music.guardian.co.uk/urban/story/0,,2246263,00.html) it today, and Rich Juzwiak's post about it (http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2007/12/mary-me.html) is amazing.

[pot80.livejournal.com]

It's dance music for rock fans to feel slightly better about themselves to.

See, I feel like that's a really unfair thing to say, and when people say that shit it always sounds like projection of intent to me.

[pot80.livejournal.com]

Also, and this is kinda the thing I hate about the Burns essay, I think this prescriptive attitude towards danceable music is really bizarre and uptight -- "dance music sounds like this, and you do this to it, in this specific context." The Justice record is a pop record, and for the most part, any dancing that happens to it is less geared towards dance floors and more focused on moments in life -- you move a little bit while listening to it on the subway platform, you walk a little faster down the street, you dance unselfconsciously in your room, or at a party. It's more about spontaneous movement, which I think it more exciting.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Aargh formalism ISN'T prescriptive though - it's not that dance music HAS to be like X, it's that X is exactly what makes it dance music (and not just dance music: dance culture, dance values, the dance world). If you take away X (and I'd argue that a huge X in dance music is, you know, being geared towards dancefloors) you're obnoxiously saying that dance music is worthless.