The Radiohead Experiment

Everyone who knows me, and I think there are still a few of those who occasionally read this, knows that I dislike Radiohead. Some part of that is just me being contrary, but most of it actually is based on music – I thought Radiohead was just OK, your average alternative rock band, in the 90s, but I actively hated Kid A. It sounded to me like stale “experimentation” lifted from their electronic forebears merged with mediocre rock songwriting. And Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief were just boring. Thom Yorke’s puerile political views that constantly seep into his lyrics haven’t helped with this perception. Actually, Yorke’s lyrics in general have always seemed pretty bad to me.

 

But I can’t help always thinking that I’m not being fair here. Radiohead does have some detractors besides me, but the overwhelming majority of listeners, including people I respect, love them. More than that, they’re viewed as the rock band of today, the band that somehow redeems the mainstream, or something. Every once in a while I try to reevaluate where I stand with certain music that gets a lot of critical respect. Not because I need to align my views with what others have to say – that’s obviously not true if you’ve read a couple entries on this blog – but because it is my opinion that it’s always better to “get” something than it is to not get it. More so in this case, because if I do figure out how to like Radiohead I’ll be rewarded with more than just some more good music to listen to; I’ll be rewarded with supposed all-time classics.

 

So to that end in the upcoming weeks I’m going to attempt to completely revise my views on Radiohead. What I’m going to do is start with Pablo Honey and move all the way on up to In Rainbows, listening to each one at least four times over at least two days. And after each day I’m going to write my impressions of the album. Simple, right? But I felt like it needed a preface, to explain why I’m doing this.

 

If this works out smashingly then I might do Nine Inch Nails next. Them I’ve never hated, but like Radiohead I thought they were decent (but not extraordinary) in the 90s and then just started ignoring them. But it seems like they definitely have a broader audience now than they did then, or maybe their fans have just grown up. I also have more respect for Trent Reznor as a person than for anyone in Radiohead – he genuinely seems like a thoughtful and intelligent guy, and his experimentations in online business have been far more ballsy than Radiohead’s. But we’ll get to that later.

More American Idol

I have a couple of ideas on the back burner, but since I haven’t posted in a while might as well try to kick start things with more American Idol ruminations. This time completely free of a certain former Idol with the initials TH.

American Idol, ’80s Week

I need something to write about, and since I’ve been watching American Idol this season I might as well write about it, no?

 

Overall, this week was pretty underwhelming. Nobody did enough to be safe next week, and only one guy sang badly enough that he needed to go…go. I’ve never really watched American Idol before this year, but the absence of Prince and Michael Jackson songs struck me as odd. I have to assume that this is for legal reasons, since I’m not sure why anyone would sing Simple Minds or mediocore Queen with the two true giants of ’80s music available.

A Note to All Philosophers, Theologians, and People Who Write About That Kind of Stuff

Please stop trying to use quantum mechanics to back up some sort of metaphysical point. You don’t understand what Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle really is, and you have no idea what the implications of Schrödinger’s cat really are. Applying a layman’s understanding of science to philosophy is what lead to social Darwinism.

Pop Music is Art

It’s fun to beat up on Pitchfork Media, and they usually deserve it, but it’s still worth checking them out from time to time. Pitchfork is, apparently, a very big deal in the indie world, and so they’ll often have interesting interviews and other features with artists. One such interview that caught my eye the other day was with the Swedish singer Robyn, who had a couple big U.S. hits in the ’90s but is most known today on this side of the Atlantic for being one of the three European pop stars that it’s hip to like. But I’m not complaining about that, because she does deserve the acclaim. What caught my eye was a comment she made about Max Martin:

 

Max Martin is an interesting example. He’s one of the people that I grew up around, in the studio. He’s still someone that I’m in touch with. I really admire him, and even though we do different things now, he’s still someone I call when I don’t know what to do with a song. He has a very particular way of looking at songs. He is a hit machine. [laughs] That’s his specialty. But that’s what he does. He writes songs. He’s not an artist. He doesn’t have the need for expressing his personal thoughts in a song.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/48760-interview-robyn

As much as I like Robyn, this is a pretty dumb thing to say. Martin would probably agree with her assessment, but that isn’t the point. The artist is not the one who decides whether a particular work is art. Just because a piece of music is created cynically, for money, to crank out hits – whatever – does not mean that in the final summation it isn’t a work of art. What is art may or may not be in the eye of the beholder, but I do know that it isn’t in the eye of the creator.

 

Unfortunately, this conception of pop music is far too common today, and I don’t know why. I think you’d be hard pressed to point out a clear difference between the Max Martins of today and the Burt Bacharachs and Holland-Dozier-Hollands of yesteryear. I would say that maybe this kind of talent is only recognized in retrospect, but since I wasn’t around in the ’60s and ’70s I don’t know whether Phil Spector was looked down on by “serious” artists.

 

Why is it so important that music, if it is to be art, expresses personal thoughts, to use Robyn’s phrasing? We don’t hold other disciplines to the same standard. If a painting looks good and induces some desirable emotion in us, we don’t look to the artist’s motives in making it. We don’t divide Rembrandt’s work into “commissioned” and “uncommissioned” categories. Let’s go even further back. What personal thoughts and emotions, exactly, is Homer expressing in the Odyssey? There we’re dealing with an indisputed work of art that may have been “written” by several different unconnected people over a period of many years. No personal expression there.

 

If it isn’t obvious, my point of view is that what is art is entirely (or at least mostly) subjective. At the base of it art is what gives you pleasure in and of itself. The motives of the creator have nothing to do with it – as can be clearly seen in the occasional reinterpretations of classic advertising images as art. If you can still enjoy something after it is divorced from whatever practical intentions it may have had…then it is art. This nonsense about expressing personal thoughts and feelings is a modern invention. If something is good, then it’s art. Any other distinction is meaningless. Pop music is art, and I’ll take “Since U Been Gone” over Leonard Cohen’s entire oeuvre, regardless of how mercenary Max Martin was when he wrote it.

Guns

Let’s take a look at gun control for an application of some of my ideas, shall we?

 

The traditional libertarian platform on guns is that ownership rights are absolute. No registration, no background checks, and certainly no outright banning. Many libertarians even go so far as to say that all sorts of weaponry should be available if one individual has the means to produce it and another individual has the means to purchase it.

 

Fair enough. I happen to agree with that to one degree or another. But why do many libertarians hold this position? How do they argue for it, I mean? They appeal to the 2nd Amendment. The people, they say, are each individual American citizen. And the right to bear arms, they say, refers to the right of each individual to own and use (without being an aggressor, of course) any weaponry as they please.

 

I used to think this way. But on deeper thought, this is actually a pretty dumb position to hold. At least as far as you are trying to use it to convince others to agree with your position. In fact, I doubt anyone who wasn’t already inclined to believe in gun rights has ever been convinced by the standard libertarian position on the issue.

 

The problem is that we are using an interpretation no one agrees with of a document no one cares about.

 

We are libertarians. Not legalists, and not even libertarian legalists. Because the law says one thing does not mean that it is the right thing, nor even the most liberal thing. Using the 2nd Amendment to argue for gun rights is a tautology – guns should be legal because they are legal. Yet this is how many libertarians, especially those of the more conservative kind, think about gun control and a host of other legal issues.

 

If we are going to convince others of the validity of libertarian reasoning, we need to convince them on each issue that: (a.) individual liberty is a good thing to have, and that (b.) we can have it without any unnecessary damage. For example, I’ve seen literally no evidence anywhere that implementing restrictions on gun ownership in America even reduces violence. Why is this ignored in favor of pumping the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is a short passage on a piece of paper everyone agreed to abide by some 220 years ago. The Constitution has never proven anything to anyone. If libertarians insist on obsessing over every word in this document that, once again, no one cares about besides us, we will never have any political success. Gun rights need to stand on their own, and I think they do, without appealing to the Constitution.

Top Five 90s Bands That Time Forgot

1. The Posies – Mistakenly lumped in with power pop revivalists like Matthew Sweet, they never had much at all in common with grunge, either. Actually, to me more than anything else they sound like a saner and more versatile Pixies. The bottom line is that these guys belong in the very top echelon of tunesmiths, and they certainly deserve to be remembered at least as much as contemporaries like Radiohead or Nirvana. As far as I know, the Posies are actually still around; they released an album in 2005 that I have yet to get my hands on.

 

2. Hum – Yes, “Stars” is in a car commercial now, but I wouldn’t count that as real exposure for Hum. For some reason they get labeled as “space rock” when the only similarity they have with that genre is that they happen to sing a lot of lyrics about science. I can’t really think of a good way to describe them, or a good band to compare them to – imagine something like My Bloody Valentine being played straight by a real rock and roll band.

 

3. Helium – Even more so than Hum, Helium had an utterly unique and impossible to duplicate sound. I suppose Mary Timony can be love-it-or-hate-it as a musical personality, but certainly neither her singing nor her guitar playing sounds at all like anyone else. I love everything she’s done, but Helium was certainly the most capable band behind her.

 

4. dEUS – I only have In a Bar, Under the Sea, but it’s pretty damn good; another band that’s impossible to strictly categorize. Again, like the Posies dEUS is still around. I just haven’t heard any of their newest material.

 

5. Brainiac – Ah, here we go. While Helium and Hum and dEUS were sonic visionaries, they were idiosyncratic ones to the extent that no one followed in their footsteps. Brainiac, on the other hand, despite being short-lived and little known, set the tone for a lot of what’s going on in rock music today. At their peak they combined synthesizers that sounded like the 80s on a bad acid trip, occasionally danceable beats, and punk song structures and attitude to create, well, a more rebellious version of what some of the “scene” bands today are selling. Unlike those bands, Brainiac deeply wanted to mess with your head.

Can we get a libertarian for Obama?

The hostility I see from the more right-leaning libertarians towards Obama is bewildering. I can understand that you disagree with virtually all of his positions – so do I – but there are two things to consider here:

1. Republicans lie. They don’t care about small government. It’s time to face the facts and realize that Reagan was both an anomaly and not as libertarian as the paleolibs who eulogize him today claim. Despite the rhetoric, we’ve been let down by every single Republican presidential nominee since Goldwater. John McCain stands for the continuation of virtually every unlibertarian policy Bush has pushed forward in the last 8 years. The fact that anyone who claims to be a libertarian could even consider voting for him is astonishing.

2. Libertarians need to examine this country and determine what the biggest threats to liberty in America are right now. The biggest theat to liberty is clearly the War on Terrorism. The second biggest threat is the War on Drugs. McCain and the Republicans stand for an even further increase in efforts towards both.

Obama isn’t perfect, but he’ll do better on those two massive issues than any Republican besides Ron Paul would. Libertarians need to stop pretending that if we lower taxes enough everything else will turn out okay. It’s becoming increasingly clear that economic freedom will not lead to social freedom, in the country and in the Republican party – the most economically free states are frequently the most socially oppressive. On the other hand, it seems much more likely to me that modern liberals could be swayed towards the free market, once the realities of economics become apparent to them.

Thus I suggest that the Democratic Party is a more natural ally for libertarians right now than the Republican Party, barring some sort of massive sea change within their ranks. Let the paleolibertarians do what they want; they are more concerned with fantasizing about some ideal conservative libertarian society than actually promoting freedom the best they can. It seems clear to me that an America under Barack Obama or perhaps even Hillary Clinton will be far more free than an America under John McCain.

I will elaborate on my own theory of libertarianism later, because I’d wager that I differ from most on one key point. But I’ll save that for another day…

Excellent Pop of the Past Year That You Might Have Missed

Yeah.

Amerie – Because I Love It. I don’t understand the circumstances, but despite Touch being a decently sized hit this has yet to come out in America. In any case, this is a hell of an album. Everything that made “1 Thing” great is expanded upon here – the tunes are pure pop but with tons of funky rhythm. For my money, though Mary J. Blige is getting all the attention, this was the best contemporary R&B album of the year. Not that Growing Pains is bad by any means; Because I Love It is just better. Can’t imagine anyone not liking this. Best Tracks: “Some Like It,” “Take Control,” “Gotta Work,” “Crush.” Check ‘em out.

Skye Sweetnam – Sound Soldier. I wasn’t at all impressed with Noise From the Basement, which just seemed to follow the trend at the time of letting random 15 year old girls make albums. But this is pretty good – the lyrics are still a little juvenile, but everything is at least catchy. I’m not sure what else to say, because as far as production goes this is only slightly edgier than something like Aly & AJ or Avril Lavigne. Two definite highlights are “Ghosts” and “(Let’s Get Movin’) Into Action,” both written with Tim Armstrong, who looks to be on his way to being the next Linda Perry, if that’s what he wants. I know it’s what I want; I always felt his talent was wasted making strictly classicist punk. In any case: Sound Soldier, good modern pop-rock. Besides the two I mentioned, check out “My Favorite Tune” and “Music Is My Boyfriend,” the latter fortunately not being the annoying iPod song. I’m really interested to see what Skye does next, seeing as she’s still just 19.

The-Dream – Love/Hate. I’ve only given this one or two complete listens, but I can say that it’s good and probably didn’t deserve to be the relative flop that it’s looking like. The-Dream, of course, is most well known for co-writing “Umbrella” with Tricky Stewart. Nothing on here deviates from that formula much, which makes me wonder how much staying power he has, but it’s still a damn good formula. Hopefully this isn’t both the beginning and end of his solo career.

Mandy Moore – Wild Hope. I’ve talked about this album elsewhere so I won’t say much. And I haven’t listened to it in a while anyway, so it’d be hard to recall many details. This is incredibly mellow, but somehow she pulls it off – this is as good as music firmly aimed at an adult contemporary audience can get. You might also want to check out her cover of “Umbrella,” which should be floating around on YouTube. I don’t like it much, but some people seem to.

If you know some slightly obscure pop gem that I may not be aware of, tell me in the comments.

Some Grammy Comments

1. The Song of the Year award is at least ostensibly supposed to be about the composition of the song. Even if you absolutely love Amy Winehouse, if you really think “Rehab” is a better song than “Umbrella” you need to get your head examined. Ask your most tone deaf friend to sing each one and you’ll hear what I mean.

I don’t love Amy Winehouse, but I will say that “Rehab” is at least better than the embarrassing “Not Ready to Make Nice.”

Record of the Year is more defensible.

2. Album of the Year? We all love Herbie Hancock, and he’s getting pretty old, and Joni songs are Joni songs. But…huh?

Frankly, I don’t think any of the albums nominated belonged there. But the real album of the year didn’t get nominated for anything at all, so I suppose Herbie’s win ain’t that bad. If only show biz was as liberal as the right wing claims…

3. I won’t even remark at the absurdity of Amy Winehouse winning Best New Artist, along with Feist and Ledisi and Paramore. Well, I suppose I just did. And hey, even Taylor Swift’s album came out in 2006. But the Grammys have a whacked out idea of what a “new artist” is, so I guess I can’t complain too much. Amy Winehouse was unknown in America, at least. OK, I can complain about Feist. Feist??? She’s been around for eons.

Here’s an idea: instead of having some ludicrously convoluted definition of who a “new artist” is, why don’t we just say that the artist’s first national release had to have come out in the year the Grammys are being given for? Very simple. It’s practically genius, if I do say so myself. Maybe I’ll do an alternate reality Best New Artist of my own when I feel like it.

4. Did anyone catch the Spyro Gyra nomination?