Transferrable poptimism?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

When you start exploring a new genre do you make any assumptions about whether the best-known acts/records/choons in that genre are likely to be the best or not? Do you think, for instance, that there must be a load of obscure better records lurking behind the famous ones that the Real Heads know about?

Of course I think for most people the answer is "depends" - but what does it depend on? For instance, here are two statements someone might make:

"James Brown isn't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure funk acts who are way better than him."

"Incantation aren't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure pan pipe moods acts who are way better than them."

I think statement #1 would raise eyebrows and statement #2 would be more generally accepted as likely to be true.

(I started on this train of thought because I realised when answering a thread on sukrat that for all I knew Merzbow might be a huge noise sell out and despised by all the real noise fans.)

Comments

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I always assume obscure better records lurking behind the famous ones b/c of what I know about the music I'm a Real Head about! It doesn't usually mean the famous ones are bad, but - especially with genres which are less mainstream - the reason the crossover hits actually crossed over is because they were different in some way to what the genre fundamentally was. And there's a fine line between adding to the genre essentials to cross over (eg in the form of a big pop hook which isn't at odds with what the genre was best at doing) and diluting them (eg thinning out the production).

I'm also suspicious of examples which are famous because of critical canonisation...like Outkast in hip-hop. I really hate the thought of some hip-hop newcomer being directed to stuff like Outkast and the Beastie Boys and Kanye (all of whom I like) (not so much the BBs though), rather than TI or Trina.

[piratemoggy.livejournal.com]

Outkast are a weird one, though, aren't they. Cus people like them and Kelis are, unless I'm hugely mistaken, fairly weird and groundbreaking in their own rights but in doing so, have sort of ostracised themselves from their genre's womb.

Kanye is a totally different story. I do not like him much at all... I see him as just ripping off a lot of other people's stuff and doing it worse, only being acceptably "white" enough to get a lot of mainstream play. Possibly the same is true of Outkast and Kelis and I just didn't notice it when I started liking them because I was younger and less aware of things like that but still.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah Outkast and Kelis ARE weird and innovative - with varying degrees of success - but their innovation is so often used as a stick to beat the genre they came from and have now separated themselves from. Kelis = classic beyond classic; people who won't listen to r&b except Kelis = dud.

tbh I think a huge factor in Kanye's crossover appeal is his voice - he's similar to Missy in this respect, they have these very distinctive voices which aren't particularly tied to traditional hip-hop ideas of good flow, and they both really enunciate their words (as well as, in their singles, not using too much impenetrable hip-hop slang) (while still retaining lots of hip-hop mannerisms and signifiers to NOT separate themselves from their genre as much as Outkast).

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

But there's obvious hooks for why newcomers might be sent to Beastie Boys (white, been at it for 20 years, "grew up" sharply after first album) or Kanye (mega producer, finds his voice, likely to have a rap best-of guesting on his records). Outkast as far as I can tell, people recommend them because they like the music they make.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Oh come on Andrew - LOADS AND LOADS of Outkast copy involved Andre 3000 as hip-hop's Bowie - gender-playing dandy in the midst of all that nasty guns and bling stuff. It's only after that film they did flopped that Big Boi's getting much of a look in again, coverage-wise.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Oh! I genuinely didn't see any of that. I mean, I quite like that he isn't about guns, I'm not sure how he's not about bling!

Also even when all I knew was the video for B.O.B. (or even just the mp3!) it all seemed very "Andre 3000 and his the mighty Outkast".

[weasel-seeker.livejournal.com]

Was that really always the case though?

I definitely got that sense circa Speakerboxx/The Love Below when everyone was enamoured with Dre's spotty attempts to become Prince, but ATLiens? Stankonia? They've certainly been presented as kind of a yin/yang Poet/Gangsta group, but it's not as through 3000's been completely devoid of gun talk or bling.

Is the question whether or not there are BETTER acts than crossover-to-pop acts, or are we talking on the meta-level of how they're written about in the press and the narratives that get created to faclitate mainstream acceptance? Because those seem fairly distinct from one another.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Outkast's big hook = "not like other hip-hop".

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

That's a good hook! Okay, point taken.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Also what if the thing that's been lost in mainstreaming it was one of the pillars of the genre, but unfortunately a pillar of sh1t that the genre could never have been popular without?

(eg "oh no this is new jaunty country music" - good, keep it coming!)

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

If one of a genre's pillars is a pillar of shit, it's unlikely I'll care much about that genre in the first place!

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, but you might like a crossover hit that did away with it.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I almost certainly have! (eg indie with an actually decent rhythm section and competent voices.) Sometimes I think "validity of a genre's particular pillars" could be a discussion worth having, ie why is this thing which is so fundamental to a genre liked by its fans/disliked by non-fans, etc.

[piratemoggy.livejournal.com]

This is what stops me exploring older music, to a large extent, aside from the fact I've got enough to be getting on with with current releases. It's just a neurosis, really but there is always that fear that I'll end up being stupid about it.

This of course comes from my urge to intellectualise music. Which I think it's a bit of a poptimist tension generally.

Although, that said, I don't think my music taste is very genre-specific at all. I can't really think of anything I specifically know more about than anything else, these days.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Yeah ditto to the older music thing. Even when I'm on the verge of buying a Motown best of or something I think about what would be put on an equivalent CD in 20 years' time for some of the genres I love, and shudder and put it back.

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

Yes but Motown existed almost entirely as a pop hit factory! Is there very much hidden away there?

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know! People might say the same about r&b now.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

The difference is that R&B is a genre whereas Motown is an organisation designed to produce hits, and was very very good at spotting what would make a hit. It's not that there aren't hidden gems, but pretty much any "Best Of" 60s Motown is solid gold.

You could actually say the same about R&B though - it's not that the stuff that doesn't hit big is better than the stuff that does, it's that it's often as good so you shouldn't STOP after that initial compilation.

Whereas with reggae, say, you will find reggae fans making a case that the best stuff rarely was commercially successful outside Jamaica, and though I wouldn't agree with their hypothetical disdain for pop reggae I wouldn't deny their point either.

[weasel-seeker.livejournal.com]

"fear that I'll end up being stupid about it. "

This is the one instance in which its very useful to have friends who are otherwise frustrating in their writing-off of broad sections of popular music due to their supreme dedication to [70s funk/soul/pan-pipes/dubstep/what-have-you].

[whalefish.livejournal.com]

I've had about four "Pendulum aren't actually that good - there are loads of..." conversations this week.

[piratemoggy.livejournal.com]

ARGH I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THEM. They're pretty much the ultimate contemporary example of this.

[whalefish.livejournal.com]

Number one in the midweek album charts! It's distressing.

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

i'd rather Pendulum and Scooter up there than The 'Insert Bland Word Here' or Duffdele tho

[whalefish.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm delighted Scooter are up there! Finally managed to blag a copy of that the other day, I hope my neighbours appreciated it last night.

[piratemoggy.livejournal.com]

I'm not actively against Pendulum, it's just that there's A LOT of stuff that's like 'WOW THE BEST DRUM N BASS ACT EVER' about them and that's, well, just not true. They're not even really a drum n bass act; they're a great act, as a big stupid rock thing but none of them can DJ for crap and their d'n'b elements are very generic. They're drum'n'bass in the same sense that Enter Shikari are trance, IMO.

Also, their last two singles have been essentially abysmal, although I like some of the mixes of their current one.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i wonder if there isn't a bit of a suspect assumption here about primary audiences and their unfallen closeness to their "own" culture -- that "over there", in some utopian and blessed way, popularity and quality coincide, whereas "here", in our confused and fractured world, they are far apart

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

having said that, in my experience, the best and the most popular motown -- 63-68 anyway -- DO coincide, so maybe the assumption arose empirically rather than dodgily?

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

I guess the area I know most about is probably soul, and for me the biggest names are some of the greatest (Otis, Al Green, Aretha, etc.) but there are also genuinely and comparably great more obscure acts (James Carr, O.V. Wright, Irma Thomas). Genre fans have their own canon, which can be different from the more general genre-section of the canon, so the rock 'n' roll hall of fame might have my first three in, but might be unlikely to shortlist the second trio, whereas big soul fans might have them more or less on a par.

Whether that means the serious genre fans can point you at obscure stuff you'll love as much as or more than the famous stuff is another matter. The famous stuff is often famous for a reason, and while that may not always be quality, it may be that whatever made it famous is what makes you like it, what draws you into looking at the genre, and the genre may not have so much more like it.

In Northern Soul, incidentally, I think there is little to match Motown amongst the more obscure stuff - Motown had great singers, musicians, songwriters and producers, and most other Northern Soul records seem to fall short in at least one of those areas. There are some great obscure Motown records, of course. In Southern Soul, the quality distinction between the most famous and the unknown seems far less sharp.

[mcarratala.livejournal.com]

James Carr, to me, is a classic example of where I get confused by the experts. I know I've been told endless times that he's better than Otis, but I'm damned if I can equally hear it – they sound pretty equivalent to me (and both excellent). And that's where you start to suspect one-upmanship – is the reason for JC's higher status in serious southern soul circles the fact that he didn't charm the hippies at Monterey?

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

I love James Carr a bit more than Otis, but I deliberately bracketed people I thought were kind of in the same quality class and stylistically comparable, but with different fame levels. Carr has a gigantically powerful voice, though he lacks something in subtlety, and while he recorded a few really great tracks, his oeuvre is pretty shallow, so it depends what you want, what you value. I love his Dark End of the Street, for instance, more than almost anything else in '60s southern soul. Yes, I'm sure there is some obscurity oneupmanship happening too - there usually is.

[justfanoe.livejournal.com]

Exactly this, re: genre canon versus overall canon. When seeking out a new genre or new era/type of music, I seek out the genre canon first, not necessarily the most famous. E.g. when I wanted to start listening to country, I went to the rolling country thread and the country universe top 100 albums, I didn't just go out and indiscriminately buy Garth Brooks and Johnny Cash and etc.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

is the underlying dynamic something to do with assumptions about crossover, and about different audiences looking for different things? incantation viz bein aimed at "panpipes tourists", who are offput and puzzled by what the real actual panpipes hardkore krew fixate on?

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Actually, yes, Tom's old article about "this is (being valued as) pop" vs "this is (being valued as) folk" to thread!

You have to reckon Pan would be offput and puzzled too.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

yeah - who it crosses over ~to~ is impt. music which crosses over to indie critics = alarm bells ring...

APOLS for the INDIE

[hoshuteki.livejournal.com]

Those kinds of genres like noise tend to attract the kind of people (people I've met through my life, lived with, shared opinions on music with, emulated to a certain extent) who dismiss any act who's famous or in any way 'known' as somehow infra dig. It's certainly a big failing of a lot indie music lovers. My serious phase of music interest started with American indie stuff in the 90s, and you'd have guys like Will Oldham or Jim O'Rourke who in the mid-90s all the hipsters were all over, but by the early-00s it was considered de rigueur to dismiss out of hand (because they were too popular). And everyone chooses their own little aspect of whatever the genre was, to focus on. I personally went for the drone side of indie and started to exalt bands like Labradford or Pan Sonic, and then on to more obscurantist stuff (like the local NZ acts I could list ad nauseam), and someone else might be following through on the Americana side and dig Townes Van Zandt, and then there were the people (mea culpa again) who wouldn't allow any discussion of indie credibility to go by without mention of Tim Hardin, Scott Walker, Phil Ochs, Fred Neil, and the like. This is my experience, I imagine similar kinds of fracturing of hiphop or whatever. And this experience colours my assumptions of any other genre I get into, though I try as much as possible to follow an amended statement #1: "James Brown IS that good, but loads of other obscure funk acts are just as good".

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

I tend to think the cream rises to the top (in critical 'consensus' terms at least) sooner or later and I'm a little suspicious of those who pursue obscurity as authenticity or place so much value on this. I know I've done this myself in the past tho.

[koganbot]

Well, "fame" and "better" aren't the only issues here, and the meaning of "crossover" isn't always clear.

James Brown, for instance, wasn't merely making the best funk music of 1965 and 1996, he was making the only funk music of 1965 and 1966, though this is using a definition of "funk" that means "what James Brown did starting in 1965 and 1966." And actually "funk" was in the language both in jazz and soul and meaning other stuff as well, and though I was too young to know what was going on with genre terms (and too ignorant to have heard much James Brown), I think JB was generally classed as "soul" along with a lot of not-as-funky dudes. So in the years when he and his band were inventing funk, if there were loads of obscure funk bands in the of any quality, whether better or worse, I don't know about them. But James Brown took funk to the extreme where it basically was so rhythmic through and through that the pattern of melody on top and rhythm underneath no longer held. And I can imagine someone who basically likes the funk a lot but doesn't want it to outshout the melody, so he actually prefers James Brown right before Brown developed funk full blown, or prefers some not-as-funky funk from Dyke & The Blazers or the less-funky-still performers on Atlantic and Stax-Volt etc., and when Sly and Kool and Earth Wind & Fire and the P-Funk mob all come along, he might prefer them to James Brown for all the melody and guitar solos and rock they added, even if they had to sudbue some of the funk to do so.

And when the Stones and Yardbirds came along in '63 and '64 they were pretty much the only ones who sounded they way they did (I occasionally read attempts to put the Pretty Things in their class, but I've never been able to hear this; and maybe the early records by Them were already being released). But come 1965 there were a whole slew of garage bands that to some extent or other got the Stones and Yardbirds sound, often aping the Yardbirds' instrumentals and the Stones' vocals. And actually I have heard the claim that a lot of the garage bands were better - more desperate or sincere or scrappy than what they were imitating. The Stones and the Yardbirds were more forceful, so I don't go for this argument really, at least in comparison to the Stones, except for occasional one-shots that were up there in quality. (Keith Relf's vocals were a relative weakness with the Yardbirds, so sometimes I'd prefer a Yardbirds' imitation. And when Yardbirds-like drones and crescendos seeped into the Kinks' sound in 1965 this not only made the Kinks better, the Kinks' superior singing and tunes arguably made them better than the Yardbirds, though never as powerful as the Yardbirds.) But I think the real argument is that the whole mess of music, good and bad, the Stones and Yardbirds and Chocolate Watch Band and Remains and Mysterians and Seeds and Electric Prunes and Count Five and whoever was playing the dance in your local high-school gym etc. etc. was a lot better than the Stones and Yardbirds presented in isolated majesty. And also, if we're thinking of musical events rather than timeless sounds that we're now hearing on CD, the bands taking the music into the potentially hostile environments of high schools and local dances might have been more significant than the Stones and Yardbirds playing better in the safety of London bohemia. ('Cept I'd hardly call the life of the Stones in the '60s safe.) Don't know how much of any of this comes across in the grooves of the old records.

I'd say there were lots of freestyle and NY and Miami dance records in the '80s that were as good or better than Madonna, but Madonna - maybe owing to fame and money - was able to do well consistently, rather than just putting out one or two good tracks.

[jel-bugle.livejournal.com]

I take it as a given that the leaders of the scene probably ain't that great, and that there are loads of things I would like more. I do tend toward the underdog. So, yeah, I'm sold on the crappy artificial authenticity thing that Steve describes. It explains why I have so many CDs I never listen to.