DISCO ESSAYS RSS

Essays on pop culture.

Archive

Jan
15th
Thu
permalink

Speak, Memory, of the Cunning Lady…

It wasn’t anything I had planned on, but after a few months of hearing it on the radio, I became obsessed with a song.  Not just any song.  The worst song in the world. 

Question:
Am I a bad person because I really like the song “Just Dance” by Lady Gaga.
Answer: Yes.


The song praises the most terrible, heathen aspects of contemporary culture.  It might singlehandedly prove the death of Western civilization.  When I first heard it, I imagined that it was the song that the sirens sang to Odysseus and his men in the Aegean Sea.  Of course, some of the sailors would still listen to the song and would find it irresistible.  But I think if Odysseus had heard the song he would have cried from sadness.

.

The sophistication of the beat is fit for a thirteen year old and, coincidentally enough, that’s 80% of Lady Gaga’s audience right there.  That seems appropriate, until one remembers that the message of the song is to push through the blackout drunk dizzies and continue to dance, thereby attracting as many one-night stands as possible.  When I was 13 I still listened to the Shiloh book on tape.  A lot.

So it’s not the awful music, it’s not the concerning lyrics, it’s not anything that the song stands for.  And it’s absolutely not the video, which is maybe the most contrived thing I’ve ever seen on YouTube.  And that’s saying something—they have clips of Blind Date on there.  What is it, then? 

The enthralling qualities of “Just Dance” stem from its fulfillment of the three original purposes of song-making: to tell a story, to inform the listener’s moral sense, and to offer reassurance and hope.  Since I already mentioned it, let’s go back to The Odyssey: the original chart-topping hit.  The epic poem, which was sung to generations of misty-eyed Greek boys, is one of the very first existing works of Western literature and is quite possibly the crux of the entire Western canon.  Just as the poem is typical fare for 9th grade English classes as an introduction to all of literature, it served (and arguably still does) as the fixed gold standard for fiction.  Homer not only created a story, but he created the story, and the way to tell it.  There’s no need for me to go into any analysis of the poem—hundreds of scholars (real ones) have done so.  But I will note that the poem serves three primary functions:

1.    Entertaining. The Odyssey is, at its core, a really great story.  Sea monsters, Cyclops, beautiful and seductive women, deities, alcohol, food, gruff suitors, a love story, a father-son bonding story…it’s every movie on imdb rolled into one.  What else is there to do in 8th century Greece at night or on a lazy Sunday?  Invent Calculus?  I don’t think so. 
2.    Didactic. Watching Sylvester Stallone reruns on TV offers a pseudo-parent that informs a young boy’s moral compass.  Right: fighting for what is just.  Loving your son.  Working hard.  Wrong: Guys who fight dirty.  Guys who are wimps.  For young Hepatitis or Ajax or whoever, enter the oral poet, the first lo-fi babysitter.  All of the characters in The Odyssey are conveying a moral message that instruct and develop its listeners’ moral sense.
3.    Encouraging.  Would the poem have survived if Homer had been Debbie Downer, and Odysseus had never made it home?  Would it have survived if Telemachus had decided, instead of going after his father, to just hang out at home and drink himself into oblivion?  Would it have survived if Penelope had been feeling all girly and made out with one of her suitors?  I have no idea.  But the story is, without a doubt, overwhelmingly positive and proactive.  It’s The Seven Habits of Highly Successful Aegeans.

“Just Dance” is the contemporary equivalent of The Odyssey, perfectly suited for our attention span at just over four minutes.  Or, perhaps “equivalent” is too selective a word.  The song realizes all of the same functions as The Odyssey (and, for that matter, most of Western literature)—a rare accomplishment for contemporary top 40 hit.  Most songs execute one function: they’re a good story (“Mrs. Officer” by Lil’ Wayne ft. Bobby Valentino), they’re ethically instructional (“Live your Life” by T.I. and Rihanna), or they offer some sort of hope (“Ride” by Ace Hood).  The fact that “Just Dance” does all three is, I believe, what has skyrocketed it to being the number one pop song in America right now.  I know it’s not her bangs.

It’s entertaining, of course: a girl is having an adventure fueled by strong drinks and kickin’ beats: who knows what will happen!  Oh wait.  I think I do.  Additionally, it’s didactic, overtly so: Lady Gaga is actually telling us what to do.  We are free to make our own choice, but we have a specific sense of direction from the singer.  We should dance.  We must dance.  If we don’t dance, something bad might happen.  This explication is even more straightforward than the Homeric kind.  In The Odyssey, it’s pretty obvious that the hero is the good guy, and that we should strive to embody his arête in our lives.  But that’s too open-ended for Gaga.  The hero of the song is just going to dance.  From our experience with Western Literature, then, we would assume that the protagonist is the honorable character that we should imitate.  But Gaga explicitly confirms our assumptions, repeating instructions over and over: yes!  Just dance! 

The didactic nature of old songs was moral—listeners received ethical instruction on how to live.  Though the instruction in Gaga’s song is an action, dancing, within the context of the song it acts as a principle.  “Dancing” for Gaga doesn’t just mean stepping to the foot-stomping party anthems.  In the song, the protagonist chooses to fully commit herself to the moment.  She refuses to concern herself with trifling details like the location of her phone or the name of the club.  She isn’t going to worry about her wobbly vision or the history of her costume changes.  These are unnecessary wastes of time and energy that offer no productivity.  The club is dark and loud and crowded—it’s highly unlikely she would ever find her phone that night.  She’s not going to be tested on the name of the club, so it’s unnecessary information at the moment—she can determine that when she leaves.  She’s already had too much to drink, so her dizziness isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.  Somehow her shirt got turned inside out, but it probably still looks good and, ultimately, she still has a shirt.  She is going to embrace the situation and dance, thereby signifying her differentiation between what is worthy and what is inconsequential—just like Odysseus.  And, just like Odysseus, she will pursue her quest (in this case “getting hosed tonight”) without being defeated by trivial obstacles.  She even alludes to the characteristically Greek virtue of physical fitness as part of her instruction: “Go!  Use your muscle, carve it out, work it hustle / (I got it just stay close enough to get it) / Don’t slow!  Drive it, clean it, lights out, bleed it / Spend the lasto / (I got it) / In your pocko / (I got it)”  Clearly, Lady Gaga is not keeping her Homeric references subtle.

The final function of classical songs is to offer a sense of hope and reassurance to the listener.  If the song was sung during a time of famine, war, pestilence, or other uncomfortable conditions, it didn’t matter.  Listener, take heart: good will ultimately win, and evil will ultimately lose.  Despite years and years of setbacks including witches, his own incompetent sailors, and actual deities working against him, Odysseus made it to Ithaca and reclaimed his wife, son, and home.  To any young boy listening who felt that sometimes the gods were conspiring against him, The Odyssey offered unequivocal comfort.  Heroic and honorable qualities would eventually fare stronger than any obstacle, and everything would be fine.  That exact sense of optimism exists in Gaga’s song.  “It’s alright, alright, just dance, gonna be okay…”  The word “just” in this case doesn’t really mean “no less than” or “neither more nor less than”, as in “When I heard this melancholy News, I was just ready to expire with Grief” (John Melton, 1726, Astrologer or the figure-cast), or as in “don’t do anything other than dance”.  It means “simply”.  Though these two definitions of the word sound congruous (and, indeed, are listed in the same breath in the Oxford English Dictionary), they are mildly differentiable.  To be instructed to “do this, only this, and nothing else” and to be instructed to do “simply this” are different in tone.  The former is highly specific, the latter is much more soothing to hear.  Simply dance, and everything else will take care of itself.  Oh look, here’s Colby O’Donis.  He’s saying that you can leave the club with him.  See?  You don’t need to fret over your lost keys.  You’re fine.  We’re fine.  Everything is fine.

Lady Gaga’s “Just Dance” executes the three classical functions of songs in a truly contemporary, over-the-top, no-room-for-questions manner.  It offers an exciting story of adventure complete with a hero and a traditional myriad of obstacles.  It offers the listener explicit instructions and guidance about being a virtuous human being.  And, finally, it offers a supreme sense of encouragement.  Like Odysseus, the protagonist in the song is battling various forces in the name of doing the right thing, on a quest towards the fated happy ending.  However, unlike Odysseus, and despite the song’s reassuring message, we are never positive that everything works out okay for Gaga in the end.  Did she make it home?  Did something bad happen to her on the dance floor?  Though we have been instructed not to ask such trifling questions and to embrace the moment, and though we have been assured that dancing will ward off all evil, we are ultimately left with questions and concerns regarding the well-being of our beloved protagonist.  Perhaps this aspect, more than anything else, fuels my (and fifty million other Americans’) insatiable desire to hear the song.  When the familiar synthesized invocation spills out of the speakers, we momentarily suspect that, maybe, just this once, we’ll hear the extended version—the one with her gallantly returning home to a joyous welcome from her roommates.  We sit impatiently, just as the boys of ancient Greece did, reveling in the same story that we’ve heard a thousand times before.  We wait for the end, restless for the fantastic finale that we can only imagine.  And though it never comes, and the song fades into a car commercial, we sit back, fully content with the previous four minutes, anxious for it to begin all over again.

Dec
26th
Fri
permalink

Oh, Oh Sheila, Where did you go wrong?

The other night I was sitting with Christine, Rayhan, and Adam Sparkles (the cat) and we were watching our favorite TV show, Franchise Live We were anticipating a stellar show—Ronnie Ron had totally killed it the other night when he had an entire show of Luther Vandross videos, and then a few nights later an entire show of Beyonce videos. Instead, though, this show ended up being much like those awful public television giving campaigns: two or three unexceptional videos would play, followed by 5 minutes of Ronnie Ron asking for donations. So I was in an unreceptive mood, and then Ronnie Ron played this:

It’s the video for “Numba 1” by Kardinal Offishall ft. Keri Hilson.

The song itself is terrible—so awful, I don’t think it really deserves any more comment. But watch the video. What happened to hip hop dancing? Look at 0:53 onwards. It’s bad, but not in a funny uncoordinated middle-school-dance way. In fact, it’s too coordinated, too considered, too choreographed. It’s academic, it’s thought-out, it’s deliberate. But what it’s really trying to say is, “Hey, I’m not too old yet. I’m still relevant. I’m cool and spur-of-the-moment. Please like me. Please.”

Personifications aside, the video really does question the evolution or, perhaps, the de-evolution of hip hop dancing in videos. The format of dance in the videos—small groups of people showing off choreographed moves to a crowded hall—recalls hip hop dancing’s earliest roots on a cardboard square in the South Bronx in the late 70s and early 80s. Yet unlike its predecessor, the dancing in this video is pure merchandise, meant for entertainment only.

It’s an obnoxious cop-out to say that the earliest days of some trend—music, dance, art, fashion—were the realest, the most pure. To say that the beginnings of punk or hip-hop or twee or whatever was when stuff was really happening is meaningless. It’s self-congratulatory babble that says nothing of the cultural trend, only that the speaker was there, man, and, like, totally knows. It’s easy to chalk up the poor, overly-aestheticized dancing in the video to the woeful decline of hip hop and voila! Say no more. But that’s boring. And dumb. So can we get some contextualization or what?

A VERY BRIEF CONTEXTUALIZATION OF KARDINAL OFFISHALL’S VIDEO

As I previously stated, the video clearly references the earliest roots of contemporary hip-hop dancing: breakin’ in the Bronx. Bronx teenagers found their voices through their bodies; they built up and perfected a large vocabulary of moves to communicate a wide variety of emotions and messages (though I’m not sure how many interpretations The Dick Spin could have). Each move merged with the next to create a fluid poetic language. Like other cultural dances such as salsa, every move had a goal, a purpose for execution. Grandmaster Flash stated this eloquently when he said that breaking was a “way of expressing how the music sound[ed]…like a Fred Astairish type of thing.” Yeah. It’s just like tango: there’s a bank of moves stored in the dancer’s memory. Based on the beat of the music, the circumstances of the dancing, and personal emotions, the dancer will create combinations with these moves. These combinations are not pre-meditated, however—they are a spontaneous, unchoreographed chaining of steps driven by the energy of each dancer. Like hula, the dance moves in breaking aren’t just aesthetic actions. They are gestures, filled with emotion, concept, and message. Young guys would grab their crotch to symbolize greater virility than their opponents. They would point or stare at their rivals or move toward another individual, violating his personal space and thereby threatening him. Yet unlike hula, hip hop dance wasn’t really for storytelling.  More than anything, though, hip hop in the early 80s was about competition. It was male-dominated, and the cardboard square was the ego on trial. There were constant challenges, and each challenge presented an opportunity to gain dominance and respect or be defeated. The entire culture of the dance mimicked what young black teenagers felt at the time. Things were bleak—the war on poverty turned out to be an extinguished false hope, while racism and segregation were very much present in everyday life. So the teens mimicked the struggle they felt in the real world on the dance floor. They created and acted out epic dramas of enemies, tribulations, and romance. These struggles were in no way less real than the ones they faced in everyday life, but they were, perhaps, more controlled. Or, at least, because they were somewhat self-imposed and self-mandated struggles, they appeared to be more feasible—it was possible to win at dance, whereas it wasn’t really possible to win against The Man. A win on the dance floor was a true victory—hard work and effort being rightfully rewarded by praise, admiration, and hot girls. The American Dream, fully realized.

Cut to 1998. We’ve made it through the those 7-minute epics by Newcleus and Doug E Fresh and Slick Rick, the invention of (and unequivocal height of) the mixtape by geniuses like DJ Battery Brain and Dr Dre, the raw anti-establishment in-your-face ethos of Wu-Tang Clan and N.W.A., the violent angriness of the east coast-west coast battle (remember when that was actually a thing?), and, of course, the constant commercialization of the movement (exhibit A: Vanilla Ice). By commercialization, I don’t mean to imply that hip hop was being watered down, or was attempting to be more palatable to mainstream America (listen to “Super Nigger” by Schoolly D if proof is necessary). But over the course of those 18 or so years, hip hop went from something accessible to a very small group of kids to being a commanding presence on any top 40 radio station anywhere in America. It went from Bring da Ruckus to Bring da sweatshirts, da shoes, da gift basket. This is no different from other music sensations—who doesn’t have a Beatles piggy bank, an Aerosmith lunchbox, a Guns N Roses novelty tie? In 1998, hip hop was still in a very early stage of commericalization. It had just emerged from a fiery and aggressive early 90s adolescence. By 1998, hip hop was a high-school senior. The songs were, in general, a manageable 3-4 minutes long, dominated by a bumpin’ beat, and the political and social fierceness had been largely replaced by more common themes of problematic relationships, lusty feelings, and maybe a slight innuendo of unapproved activities—sex, drugs, violence—but that was much more hush-hush than it had been five years prior. Most importantly, though, hip hop was still weird. In the age analogy, hip hop was the senior in high school who thought everything was really figured out, and was wearing really crazy clothes (remember the hats?) thinking, “this is not a fad. This is real. This is the future.”

It is right at this point when the video for “My Way” by Usher came out. The video serves as a perfect middle ground between the breakdancing of the 80s and the Kardinal Offishall abomination of today. Lest we not forget, Usher gave off an entirely different public persona back then. His fashion sense was bizarre, outlandish, and trendsetting. His own choreography had a distinct personal style that lived somewhere between the angularity of The Robot and the fluidity of acrobatics. The video for “My Way” was groundbreaking, and is of particular interest to this essay because, like the video for “Numba 1”, it references the dance-offs of the Bronx. So watch the video, especially 2:20 onwards (do you see what I mean when I say hip hop was weird back then?)

The video chronicles the very theatrical beef between two dance crews and a girl caught in the middle of them. To win her affection, Usher and the antagonist (and their respective crews) battle it out on the dance floor. Just like his recent hit “Love in da Club”, he wins the girl in the end (in this sense, there is no difference between the Usher of 98 and the Usher of today—he’s still a stud).

The big dance-off in the video mimics and dramatizes the battles of the Bronx. However, there are a few noticeable differences—the most obvious, of course, being that this isn’t breakdancing anymore. There are moments in the choreography that allude to breaking, like when Usher’s spinning around on the floor or a few moves that are frozen. The competition is gone—the dance’s purpose is for entertainment only. It has developed similarities to other highly choreographed styles of dance such as ballroom and ballet. It has acquired a new language—instead of getting in an opponent’s face, dancers now get in the face of inanimate objects (like the camera) or non-responsive partners. As a result, there is no longer a reactionary or interpretive element to the dance.

This is not to suggest that, at the time of “My Way”, hip hop dance had sold out at all. Though it was navigating a very different terrain than it had 18 years previously, it was still in a process of adaptation. It was still being integrated into the American consciousness. Though there was a vocabulary of moves specific to 80s breakdancing, there wasn’t really the same thing for hip hop dancing in the late 90s. In other words, it wasn’t really clear as to what hip hop dance was. The genre was still relatively new, as was the music. Subsequently, the field was ripe for experimentation without any authority to dictate what was acceptable and what was not—there was no overarching aesthetic dogma concerning what things should look like.

Today, the authority is absolutely everyone. By now, hip hop dance has become so integrated into pop culture, the fourth graders I worked with over the summer of 2005 taught me Missy Eliot’s famous two-step (no joke. I also learned the Souljaboy dance from a 5th grader I worked with.) We’ve seen the videos, been to the dances and clubs, and watched the footage of teenagers in France on YouTube. Not only that, but now we have classes at every gym and dance studio to teach us the genre. 45-year-old moms are getting in shape shaking their yogapants-clad booties to Ja Rule. We can even buy the videos that teach us the specific dances from the songs we love. Hip hop dancing is ubiquitous in any normal contemporary lifestyle, even if said lifestyle has nothing to do with listening to Power99 and hanging out at the Gallery—it is impossible to watch television, use the internet, or walk around Philadelphia without being exposed to it. We know what it is, we know what it’s supposed to look like. As a result, the area for experimentation has been greatly reduced within mainstream hip hop. Of course, hip hop dancing struggles against its own commercialization and popularity. There’s a pressure for the dancing in music videos to be a step ahead of that which is freely available to the public. After all, the video costs millions of dollars to produce. It features the famous choreographers, the famous hand-picked dancers, and the ultra-famous stars. So it has to be better than the stuff in clubs, the stuff in beginner classes, the stuff on YouTube, right?

Yeah, I guess. Take the video (finally) for Kardinal Offishall. Or, atleast, just take the dancing (because, honestly, I’ve watched the video 20 times now and I still can’t figure out what’s going on—they’re at a Carribean club where they’re performing, and there are tattoos being given, and a photo shoot, and a barber shop…? And can we just try to figure out what’s going on with the lyrics? Kardinal is rejecting a part-time girl because he’s not really into her, he doesn’t want her to have any substantial part in his life. Meanwhile Keri plays the part of the girl, wanting to become Kardinal’s Numba 1. So they’re in disagreement, but nothing in the video reflects this, especially in the dancing (it’s not like they settle the disagreement on the dance floor, which might make sense) And what’s with the displaced phrases like “light it up” and “the tide is high”? How do those make any contextual sense?) I’m standing proudly next to de gustibus non est disputandum when I say that the dancing is horrendous. It’s aesthetically displeasing, relying heavily on overly circular movements that are awkward and disjointed when sequenced. This is the product of the academicization of hip hop. The dancing is obviously choreographed; moreover, it’s obviously choreographed from a self-conscious source. It’s not like the Usher video, in which the dancing, albeit bizarre, seems to still flow within a logical framework. “My Way” dancing is suave and, most importantly, it’s relevant. By “relevant” I mean that the dancing is something that the viewer can actually take to the club and implement. The purpose of the dancing is entertainment, and Usher’s choreography never attempts anything more than just being some really smooth new moves. In the Kardinal Offishall video, it’s hard not to hear the choreographer questioning “is this cool? What does this mean?” The dancing clearly isn’t relevant or applicable to the viewer—though I haven’t been to Palmer’s Social Club since the video debuted, I’m pretty sure people aren’t dancing like that. The choreography is obscure and focuses on grand gestures and fast and furious dance moves as opposed to moving the body to the beat. Therefore, because the dance isn’t really about dancing (or, rather, for dancing), it has the presumption of being about (or for) something else. It’s trying to be the next big thing, it’s trying to outwit common, everyday hip hop dancing, it’s trying to move the genre forward. But in attempting all of this, it only succeeds in just trying too hard. Because of the commercialization and ubiquity of hip hop dancing, the entire field has become self-aware that it is a movement, that it has historical roots and is allegedly going somewhere. So every choreographer in every new video is attempting to clarify that direction. This is different from ten years ago, when hip hop dancing didn’t have enough history or as large a public eye on it for it to be so self-conscious.

I fear that the majority of my essays conclude with nothing more than “this pop culture phenomenon, which I have just dissected in a semi-academic manner, seems to be nothing more than a product of its times!” Duh. It reflects pop culture at a specific juncture in history—that’s why it was a thing. I also fear that I don’t have anything much more sophisticated than that to say about the three eras of hip hop dancing that I mentioned in this essay—the breakdancing of the early 80s, Usher’s “My Way” video of 1998, and the Kardinal Offishall video of 2008. Clearly, the commercialization and academization of hip hop have indelibly influenced the dancing seen in mainstream videos. The dancing has become self-conscious of its own standing as a real, serious genre—one that gets attention from middle schoolers, moms, and university professors alike. As a result, the choreography has to be about something now—that it has to be really serious and dance-y and artistic, as opposed to just being the stuff that happens in the clubs on Delaware Avenue. Because it’s taught in the same studios as ballet and jazz, hip hop is a legitimate art form, and its presence in music videos reflects this new, serious identity. Additionally, because of its ubiquitous presence in daily life, everyone is an expert on it (whether they acknowledge that or not). Hip hop dancing is constrained by a large and severe public opinion of how it should look. Both factors limit the genre—now hip hop dance has to be unique and artsy, but not too weird and experimental because, hey, it still has to be hip hop. We as the viewers are left with a slew of videos featuring obviously choreographed and highly considered movements that are unappealing, irrelevant, and uninspiring. So thank goodness for YouTube—2 Live Crew’s “Pop that Pussy” is forever available, the absolute best teacher of booty-shaking. And without the yogapants.

Sep
17th
Wed
permalink

Pump Up the Jam

Abdi Farah wrote a really fantastic entry about the Slate article titled “Lil Wayne and the Afronaut Invasion”.  The Slate magazine article, and Abdi’s analytic post concerning it, bring up a flurry of themes and motifs that I find fascinating to dissect.  Just as in the literature of Central America, hip-hop has its own fantastical mythology in which anything is possible.  Ghosts, human flight, ancestors, inter celestial travel—all completely feasible within both genres of storytelling.  I’ve been waiting for an article to come up on JSTOR that finds something for my “laura esquivel AND lil weezy” advanced search.  I’m still waiting.
But I want to touch on another aspect of the “space and hip-hop” phenomenon that both Slate and Abdi reference.  There is certainly a tradition of planetary travel and outer space within hip-hop; additionally, there is a more concrete occupation of space by hip-hop.  I’m thinking of a specific scenario: I’m at my little cottage house on my baby southwest Philly street, working on some needlepoint or something unbearably sweet like that.  Suddenly, the scene is like that moment in that movie that I never saw completely when they humans are sitting around and suddenly the water in a cup starts shaking and they know something bad is coming—aliens or dinosaurs or peasants with pitchforks or something.  That’s what happened, and I held my cat for dear life as a distinctive thud was approaching my house.  I looked out the window and I saw a massive car—well, no, it wasn’t really a car.  It was like a subwoofer on four wheels with a drivers seat.  A driveable stereo system, blasting some mildly outdated top 40 hip hop song, “Get Low” (remember that one?)  I’m no stranger to cars with loud music pumping out of them, but this was unimaginable din.  The glasses in the kitchen were actually shaking.  Being from the land of earthquakes, I did what I learned in elementary school and ducked under a desk, covering my neck with my hands (at this point I had released the cat from my squeeze).  Surprisingly, our house did not collapse in on itself, and the car presumably drove along to some other baby sidestreet, or back to its family of ridiculously loud and big cars that haven’t bought any new cd’s since 2000.  For lullabyes they all listen to “All my life” by K-Ci and JoJo at a 1 on the Richter scale. 
The entire hyprebolic and overly dramatized event got me thinking about hip-hop’s connection to physical space and presence.  Certainly, as Slate and Abdi pointed out, hip-hop has a real, humorous, and often fetishizing relationship with the extraterrestial (I’m thinking of Kool Keith’s “Supergalactic Lover” song in particular, in which he plays a heroic Prince Charming from the projects that rescues a distressed maiden and takes her into space,where everything is perfect and he can treat her well.  Actually, there’s a lot more to say about that song.  Different post, though).  Hip-hop as a genre, is not merely textual—it is also contextual.  Traditionally, rap is about something in a way that squeaky clean pop isn’t.  It’s not just boyfriends and girlfriends and everything bein’ so complicated.  Hip-hop is political and socially aware in a way that boy bands aren’t—in a way that boy bands can’t be.  Of course, this is obvious with those older hip-hop giants.  Listing a string like “Tupac, Notorious B.I.G., NWA, Ice T, Wu-Tang Clan” isn’t just about listing those great albums that your older brother hid from your parents in the early 90s.  It’s also listing a string of popular artists tackling huge issues like race, poverty, crime, drugs, and the government and throwing them at the American public, ready or not.  But I would argue that this tendency hasn’t gone away in hip-hop, even in mainstream hip-hop.  It’s easy to simply generalize that all hip-hop is now is hookers and blow, but I would argue that (1.) the big number one hits are usually referencing money and materialism somehow and (2.) these references are alluding to (a.) the uniqueness or specialness of the party that has fountains of Moet or the man dressed in head-to-toe Louis Vuitton, (b.) white culture’s own infatuation with wealth and the display of it and, through these allusions, the songs can reference (c.) the de facto state of affairs for a significant portion of black America who feel abandoned and rejected by their government and country (insert Barack Obama campaign commerical here).  So while the new generation of hip-hop isn’t explicitly talking about social problems in the way that their predecessors were, it seems that their excessive displays of their wealth and socio-economic status calls just as much attention to social and racial issues, albeit a little more subversively. 
So hip-hop is contextual—it demands of the listener not only an attentiveness to specific current events which are referenced within the song, but it also demands an attentiveness to the sites of its experience, be it the club or the car, wherever you are.  Especially in such sites in which the hip-hop itself is used to alter the relationship between the public and private.  Especially when the hip-hop makes that relationship discordant, as in the man driving a stereo down my street.  When the bass of Wu-Tang’s “Bring the Ruckus” blasts out of a trunk, space is reclaimed in an authority-unapproved version.  While I’m doing needlepoint in my living room and Lil Jon rides down my street, there is an ethical decision in addition to the aesthetic one.  Of course it looks cool.  Duh.  But also, there is a conscientious decision made by the driver to disrupt any pacificity through lyrics about hearses and gold and private terrorism (as in the case of Wu-Tang) or all the skeet skeets (Lil Jon).  The lyrics, the beat, and the stereo system become weapons against the tranquil mases and an assault on public space.  It’s an ad hoc war of position.  This public audibility is flaunted by black youth who pump the jamz.  They too are taking notes from predecessors.  In the vein of Watts, Compton, and NWA, these top 40 volume-blasters are creating their own acts of defiance, just with less carnage.

So, whereas we have the fantasy of occupying space (celestial space, that is) with the lyrics and beats of Kool Keith, Lil Wayne, OutKast, etc, we have the real occupation of physical space with the bumpin trunk stereo systems.  Both are dissonant from the standard “way things are/way things ought to be” notions of mainstream America.  I don’t have a problem with either one, particularly the latter.  I’m not afraid to admit that I really like “Get Low”.  That wheeled stereo can blast it anytime it wants outside of my house.  Maybe I’ll start making requests.  Maybe that “Country Grammar” song.  Remember that?

Aug
15th
Fri
permalink

I like America and America likes Lightning Bolt

«<»>«<»»«<»>««<»»««<»»>«««»»>««»»>«««<»»««»»>««»»«<»>

November is in 3 months. I’ve been thinking a lot about that, mostly about how this will be my first presidential election in which I get to vote. I’m so excited—I love elections. They are so filled with energy, with the promise of something better and more perfect, with the awe-inspiring images of millions of people across the country going to rallies, volunteering at campaign offices, and staying up into wee hours to find out the winner. It’s so cute, this democracy in action.
More than the metaphors, more than the rhetoric, I love the music at election time. I mean, really, when else has “Born in the U.S.A.” ever sounded so good? Blasting out of a 1984 Tacoma? Forget it. Blasting out of a massive campaign bus is more like it, greeting the presidential candidate as he steps out and delivers a winning smile. Or bouncing off the walls at a packed national convention auditorium, that’s really more like it. The radios all have something vaguely patriotic playing, iTunes promotes its “Americana” and “Election Night” playlists, lots of people over the age of 9 actually sincerely listen to “America the Beautiful”. There’s more intensity to all of the music, too. Rather than, say, July 4th, whose purpose is fireworks, cookouts, and, oh yeah, getting wasted, election time is serious business. No jokes, no irony, no Boyz2Men concerts. Just some good, old-fashioned men making promises and kissing babies. Real professional-like.
One of my three favorite songs of all time is “Dead Cowboy” by Lightning Bolt, which also happens to be one of the most patriotic medleys I’ve ever heard. It’s not just a song about America, or how great this country is thanks to the pilgrims and founding fathers, or how awesome we are at doing things. It’s pure religious ecstasy, rallying the populace to mutiny, bathing them in the traditional melodies of peasants. Examine the lyrics:

Take George Bush to Afghanistan
He’s gonna bathe in a river of blood
He wants to party till the wheels fall off
Six feet under ground

What the world needs
Is another dead cowboy

Take George Bush to Afghanistan
Throw him in an oil pit, six feet deep, six feet wide
We’re gonna cook him till his ears fall off

What the world needs
Is another dead cowboy


Right, that’s all of them.
First, an ambiguous protagonist (W. or H.?) is whisked off to a country where he hasn’t done anything right. But he isn’t showered with love and candy, he suddenly becomes the Pharaoh of Exodus, who is forced to bathe in blood after refusing to let the Jews go. But he doesn’t want that power, or that heady symbolism. He just wants to party like his boys in “The Next Episode”: what a motherfucking gangster. He’ll do it, too, until everything is rendered completely immobile and then he’s really fucked everything up until it can’t be fixed, until he’s dug himself a grave. The verse straddles something between fantasy and reality. The initial line is an imperative statement, as if the act is something that could actually be accomplished. There is an omitted “if you” at the very beginning of the phrase, thus making the entire scenario seem less fictional than it actually is. The rest of the lines seem to follow in some weird sequential logic—do this, and then this and this and this will happen. The first stanza isn’t worded as an “if-then” statement, therefore, it comes across as more story-like than pure unadulterated fantasy.
Then, THEN, a nod to Burt Bacharach’s/Jackie DeShannon’s classic 60s cocktail party tune, but what the world needs this time isn’t love, it’s another dead cowboy. John Wayne, Chuck Heston, the Marlboro Man aren’t enough—let’s take Texas down as well. It’s an invocation of necessity, both completely uplifting in its possibility and disturbing in its sincerity. Tell us, Brian Chippendale, what we should do: you are wiser than we are, and we will follow you anywhere.
The second (and last) verse begins in the same way as the first—as an imperative declaration rather than an “if” possibility. This verse is decidedly more violent and mutinous than the first, though—Pharaoh is not just uncomfortable, he is now dying at the hand of his own mistakes. The final line is a brutal assertion, referencing the previous “till the wheels fall off” line, as well as the vicious, hippo-eating cannibals in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, meanwhile kicking Rousseau’s romanticized noble savage to the curb. Take that, George Bush. We’re going to kill you.
But, really, when it comes down to it, the lyrics are almost unrecognizable in the thunderstorm that is Lightning Bolt’s music. Er, rather, it’s almost unrecognizable that there are any lyrics at all—that those sounds aren’t just coming from some pedal—much less what it is that Brian Chippendale says. It is their heavy, spastic, drum-and-bass combo that controls the narrative of the song and puts it at pure genius. Here’s the short version of the story: midway through the song (approximately 3 minutes and 30 seconds in, to be more precise), Brian Gibson pulled just the right sequence of notes to make his bass transform into a laser, which he then used to blow a hole in heaven so large that it kills God. We feel triumphant but are briefly saddened by the loss of our God before replacing it with a new God made only of rock.
The song begins, clouded in a distorted mist of sludgy bass. At 1:30, we hear the first of Gibson’s bass warming up, and at 1:50, we hear his first attempt to turn his bass into a laser. Alas, he is unsuccessful, and the rhythm kicks back in, returning the song to a comfort zone. We don’t need a revolution just yet. Let the people settle down, quench some of their demands, and refocus their attention elsewhere. But a minute later, at 2:56, the people are fed up again. Here it comes, the moment that everyone from Marx to Tzara to Heath Ledger have fetishized: down with the standard controlled order of things! Up with the proletariat, with revolt, with chaos! At 3:07 we are hit with it: a bomb of reverb, the transformation of the working man’s tool (his shovel, his hands) into a means of revolution. Everything is anarchy, everything is confusion, we listen in terror and in rapture to the person with the loudest voice: in this case, it is Gibson and his weapon. Even Chippendale is silenced, waiting attentively for the necessary moment. At 3:20 he reenters the revolt, egging Gibson on. At 3:30 Gibson’s bass is transformed into a laser, he holds it steadily and points it at the clouds. At 4 minutes, he is shooting God. He has done it: he has completely upturned the entire system of normalcy, imbuing the people with their own sovereignty. At 4:10 God is falling down, down through the clouds, down through the safe comfort of everyone’s superficial established order of the universe. Forcing people to accept and embrace their own sovereignty is as terrifying as it is liberating, which is why at 4:20 the music is a confused mix of happiness and fear. The people are freaking out. They don’t know what to do—they just watched one of themselves kill God. This. Is. Huge.
There’s terror and fear that ripples through the populace, but it is only momentary. At 5 minutes, everyone realizes the awesomeness of the situation. They begin to rejoice, holding hands in a circle in the town square, dancing and skipping and kissing each other. Flowers are streaming from balconies, maidens are wrapping ribbons around the pole in the center of the town square. All the farmers have come in from the fields—today, there is no more work. There is only the communal ecstasy at the new possibility, the new self-goverened order, the new potential. At 5:30, Gibson’s bass echoes itself, as if whispers and shouts are moving through the town in a storm. Everyone is running to each other, saying “Did you hear? Did you see?” The echoes on the bass become more powerful and noticable, as if giving itself omnipotent knowledge and self-imposed authority. By 6:30, the issue has been decided: Gibson’s bass is the new God, a God of rock and roll. Everyone is ready to follow because, in reality, everyone’s a follower. You can’t actually give everyone their own sovereignty, as individual leaders. You just have to make them think that they are in control of their own destiny. However, order must be reestablished for the culture to sustain. Hierarchy is necessary. Therefore, the new God is no less controlling or powerful than the old one: it’s just more awesome. The end of the song is tribal, recalling the cannibalistic imperatives from before. The people will follow the new God without question. This is the new system.
As I said before, the song is the ultimate American anthem. The song runs the gamut of all things U.S.A.: filling the people with hope, presenting democratic understanding and unity (whereas, in fact, everything is oligarchy), religious ecstasy and rejoicing, and the peoples’ ability to change the administration, clear allegories to cocktail lounges and Long Beach rap, and some Biblical references without stepping on that church-state division too much. It’s also got some Lord of the Flies vibes mixed in as well. The song is the triumph of the common folk, manifesting its own destiny of raucous noise music. It’s the perfect bedtime story for a 6 year old: the old country, the time before worshipping rock and roll, a time of starvation, depravity, and Wagner.

«<»>«<»»«<»>««<»»««<»»>«««»»>««»»>«««<»»««»»>««»»«<»>

Jun
30th
Mon
permalink

I’m all remixed up

80 percent of my daily music consumption is radio top 40 hip hop. As much as I love having my ears blasted by Pedestrian Deposit, or furrowing my brow while I listen to Robert Ashley, or doing silly shoulder dances to the jangly Messthetics compilations, there’s something equally rewarding about listening to Power99 for an hour to hear “Sexy Can I”. That song rules. There’s quite a bit I have to say about radio top 40 hip hop and r&b; right now, I want to focus on the notion of a remix as a conversation.

The concept of a remix has changed dramatically in the past decade or so. In middle school, I remember listening to pop songs and their Carribean/radio/club remix. It was like a “spot the difference” game in the back of a tabloid—the two songs were virtually indistinguishable from one another. Maybe the synthesizer was a little faster, or maybe it had a little congo track added to it. At some point I heard a Beyonce song that had been slowed down and had new lyrics added to it. My middle school friends and I were overwhelmed by the idea that a remix could be an entirely new song. Of course, now, remixing a song by slowing it down or putting it to a totally new beat isn’t nearly as scandalous as it was back then. Moreover, the remix of a huge pop song is as culturally expected and anticipated as a blockbuster movie sequel. Both follow an equation: same narrative, new setting. Of course, neither are ever as good as the original. But who can help shelling out 9 dollars to see the second Dirty Dancing? And who can help singing along to that Darkchild remix of Britney Spears’ “Overprotected”, despite the fact that it’s uncomfortably slow and completely undanceable? Only men with hearts of steel, that’s who.

(John Wayne a man with a heart of steel.)

On the radio right now, there are two songs that are getting a lot of airplay. Lucky for me, because I think they’re both totally awesome. One is “Touch my Body” by Mariah Carey, the other is “Love in this Club” by Usher ft. Young Jeezy. Also on the radio right now are both songs’ remixes: “Touch My Body Remix” ft. The Dream, and “Love in this Club Part 2” with Beyonce and Lil Wayne. Thinking of both of these songs in syntactical terms, the originals are both imperative statements, the remixes are declarative conversations. Let’s take them one at a time.

“Touch my Body,” besides being an amazing song that rockets Mariah Carey back to the genius level pre-mental breakdown AND having one of the most inventive and wildly popular videos of the year, is also an amazing assertion of strong woman vibes on the level of Destiny Child’s “Survivor” and TLC’s “No Scrubs”. In the song, Carey tells her lover what to do and what not to do. The short list:
To do:
touch my body
put me on the floor
wrestle me around
play with me some more
throw me on the bed

To not do:
catch this flick on youtube
run your mouth and brag about this secret rendezvous

The song hits its peak when Carey says that if she finds out her lover did anything on the “to not do” list, “I will hunt you down.” That statement is amazing—not only because Carey is a totally liberated post-post feminist, but also because there’s still a trace that she’s a little psychotic still. The remix, featuring The Dream, becomes a conversation between man and woman. To her to-do-to-me list, The Dream answers:
I’ll give you
What you deserve
But, I be the one
At the end of the week
Makin’ you moan
When we alone
To make you shake
When you speak

(and then later)

When I touch yo
Work yo, taste yo body
I want you to do to my
Get up on my
Sit up on my body

Not only is he responding to her initial sexual demands, but he brings up his own requests at the end! The initial (amazing) assertion of independent womanliness and intimacy is suddenly met in equal partnership by her lover. The dynamic of the song is now give-and-take, a healthy dialogue of wants and desires.

(Andy Warhol and Edie Sedgwick, not in conversation, not in a healthy relationship)

“Love in this Club” is another totally great song that is more an anthem than a blazin’ hip hop tune. The beat is almost religious in its euphoric crescendo. The lyrics are slightly less church-approved: Usher basically just really wants to have sex with a girl in the bathroom at the club. Kind of simple for such a fierce and resonating track, but whatever. The original is filled with Usher’s imperative plea to this woman—that he wants to make love, in the club, get undressed, right here, give it to her non-stop, and he doesn’t care who’s waaaaatching, watching, watching, watchinnnggg. It’s an assertion of brazen masculinity that’s only sexy because it’s Usher. If th regular club-going men that I’ve seen standing outside the Bamboo Bar on Delaware Avenue said this to a young lady, it might be a different story. Ew. Oh God. I just cried a little bit. Wow, sorry for that. REGARDLESS, though, the intention of the song is something primal and savage—he needs her (or just sex), and he’s willing to do whatever it takes (make his friends take care of her friends, for example) to get it. The remix, though, is a different story. First, we hear the voice of this temptress—none other than Beyonce, everyone’s favorite strong and in-control lady. And, true to form, she is the voice of reason to Usher’s unadulterated and unchecked passion:

Baby, you know I’d be down
But we can’t have all these people staring, standing around
This right here is only for your eyes to see
But you getting carried away, saying “we can do it wherever”…
I’m not hesitating, I just don’t wanna rush

What was initially Usher’s bold imperative statement (“let’s make love in this club”) now turns into a dialogue with an opposing side—one that makes a pretty compelling argument, I might add, in this fictitious scenario. I’m pretty sure I’m on Beyonce’s side here—Usher needs to slow down and think this thing through. But, of course, it is Usher. And it’s Usher’s song. So he’s going to win. The final third of the song is a back-and-forth dialogue between the two singers in which Beyonce relents, ready to comply with Usher’s request:

(Usher)
Come a little closa
Let daddy put it on ya
Need ya to know
What happens here stays here

(Beyonce)
Well I’m ready and willing
Mama’s got to glow
Gotchu standing at attention
Happy to go low

(Usher)
Ain’t nobody watchin
Don’t worry they cant see us
I know I got you HOT
Now let me iiiin

(Beyonce)
You in the club or the car
Whereva you are
Run and tell da dj
Run it back on replay

Ah! Then they do it.

With only a small sampling of hip hop songs right now, I feel uncomfortable making any sweeping generalizations about the remix as a music form, or the future of remixes. However, I do find it interesting that both of these songs share many of the same features. The original songs are strong statements of individuality and proposed self-importance: I want you to touch my body, I want love in this club. The songs are little ego-trips, totally self-indulgent. This is nothing new for hip-hop: songs generally configure to the “look at me, look at my bling, look at my lifestyle, look at how hot I am” equation. Even Carey’s fresh declaration of feminism is pretty two-dimensional. The remixes, however, are grounded in the real world. The original songs become privy to a second perspective, in which we, the audience, suddenly question the singers’ initial assertions. We are subject to a conversation in a relationship—motifs of equality and mutual giving enter the picture. The song is liberated, a true product of the hyper self-awareness that Cosmo and Dr. Phil give us all.

Jun
10th
Tue
permalink

ROMANCE. BY VERSACE WOMAN

I’ve been thinking a lot about Meg Ryan lately. To justify such thoughts to myself, I try to preface them with some sort of philosophical inquiry (really, though, I think I just like watching youtube clips of You’ve Got Mail over and over and over). Sleepless in Seattle, that’s a good one too.

The relative impracticality and fictitious nature of romantic comedies recall that lovely book, The Unbearable Lightness of Being by my main man, Milan Kundera. The unbearable lightness of romantic comedies is obvious and completely self-aware. (admitting my fascination with  Ryan is precisely because her movies are so painfully obvious, which is why I’m self-conscious for knowing all about them.) Romance (of the Meg Ryan variety) is nothing less than a whirlwind of fantasy, wonder, and exotic escapades with dashing leading men. Ryan romance has no thought towards long-term, serious significance. Romance is what happens when you need to call someone to escort you to your best friend’s wedding, or a Christmas party. The provincial love-and-marriage-horse-and-carriage is hinted at, and gestured towards (usually in the form of some final wedding scene where Meg and Tom/Julia Roberts and Richard Gere finally get together (like we knew they would)). The movie focuses on the courtship of the romance, as opposed to the second part of romance: the routinized life as a couple (this is not a flaw of the movie necessarily—You’ve Got Mail part 2, in which we just watch Meg Ryan getting a lot of spam and Amazon coupons would be horrendous/awesome/actually horrendous). So, we can criticize Meg Ryan movies as being “reactionary”, perpetuating the cultural Hollywood myth of romance as an idealized form of intimacy and one that will never be extinguished. She even admits it in one of her best/worst/worst films, Kate and Leopold (starring Hugh Jackman, where he is a duke from 1876 and magically time travels to her in contemporary New York and they meet and fall in love):

Kate: I’m not very good with men.
Leopold: Perhaps you haven’t found the right one.
Kate: Maybe. Or, uh… maybe that whole love thing is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus; just a myth we’ve been fed since childhood. So, we keep buying magazines, joining clubs, and doing therapy and watching movies with hit pop songs played over love montages all in a pathetic attempt to explain why our love Santa keeps getting caught in the chimney.


Aw.  The fantasy of true love—it might just be the stuff of make believe.  Of course, she takes it all back when she realizes she’s in love with Leopold. But Ryan romanticism doesn’t have any pretense of being anything other than “for the time being”, “in the moment”. The template shares many similarities with other stories throughout history (fairy tales, Shakespearian romance, etc characteristically end with a “happily ever after”). However, I think there is something distinctively modern (post-modern?) in the momentariness of Ryan romance. Perhaps I’m simply stating the (obvious) fact that the films are clearly products of their time.

Joe Fox: You’re crazy about him…
Kathleen Kelly: Yes. I am.
Joe Fox: Then why don’t you run off with him? What are you waiting for?
Kathleen Kelly: I don’t actually know him.
Joe Fox: Really?
Kathleen Kelly: We only know each other - oh, God, you’re not going to believe this…
Joe Fox: Let me guess. From the Internet.
Kathleen Kelly: Yes.
Joe Fox: You’ve got mail.
Kathleen Kelly: Yes.
Joe Fox: Three very powerful words.
Kathleen Kelly: Yes.

What were the “three very powerful words” of romantic dramas and comedies of the 1930s are now the observation of a new form of communication: a confluence of permanance and temporality, occuring instantaneously. This flavor of romance is mutually equal, as opposed to the male-driven pursuit scripts of yesteryear.  M4W is the same as W4M—through the new technology highlighted in Ryan’s film, both men and women have equal roles in the searching, flirtation, and ensuing romance.  Kathleen pursues Joe as much as he does her (but she doesn’t know it’s really her enemy—wokka wokka).   Ryan romance is, in some way, distinct from its predecessors: it is notably progressive, recalling the 3rd Women’s Lib movement and the just-beginning-to-get-mainstream liberal lifestyles complete with buying organic food, going vegetarian, buying from local vendors, and owning Macintosh computers.  Ryan is the mocha latte of the late 90s—after coffee started becoming fancy but before we realized we should ask for soymilk instead.   The movies are not only historical artifact—they are a distinct subgenre of romantic comedy. Her comedies fill a cultural niche that extends beyond mere entertainment value. We are a species that demand to be lied to, that demand to slip up on our own modernity. Ryan romance is our solution: we immerse ourselves in fiction, in unbearable lightness, for 90 minutes with no thought towards the future (our own or the characters’). We’re caught in a ascension of leather jackets, crushed velvet tank tops, and platform sandals that reemphasize and idealize the present. For real, Paula Cole: I don’t wanna wait.