ext_281244 (
freakytigger.livejournal.com) wrote in
poptimists2008-03-28 11:12 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Just to make the same link come up 3 times a row on my friendslist
Lex interviews Estelle - and the 'racist music industry' argument gets into the main news section too. IN YR BROADSHEETS SETTING YR AGENDA.
The opening bit of the interview reads - probably unintentionally - like classic Morleyan entrapment though: get Estelle to rant about how Adele ain't soul and she can't tell me what soul is, then ask Estelle what soul is and get staggeringly vague answer.
The opening bit of the interview reads - probably unintentionally - like classic Morleyan entrapment though: get Estelle to rant about how Adele ain't soul and she can't tell me what soul is, then ask Estelle what soul is and get staggeringly vague answer.
no subject
I think that sounds fair, and that it's reasonable to say that there's an issue there. However, it's a shame that there wasn't more space for the Winehouse discussion, because this sentence:
"As a black person, I’m like: you’re telling me this is my music?"
is the prime candidate for interpreting as "white people cannot do soul". I think the distinction between white and whitified is perhaps one that could have more time spent on it (in the world at large). Is it really that more often than not, the "whitified" versions are promoted over as-authentic-but-as-such-not-as-mainstream "white" performers? (Amy being an obvious exception here) I'm not sure, but I think that thinking in those terms makes for more interesting discussion than simply white/non-white.
no subject
The trouble is once you start ACTUALLY USING words like 'black' and 'white' you end up having to qualify and double-qualify everything you say; it'd be a good candidate for a stand-alone column but in a piece with the focus on a specific person, there just wasn't room.
no subject
no subject