Radiohead In Not-A-Bunch-Of-Black-Guys Shocker!

I can't see why Christgau would mention Africa if he simply meant that Yorke's voice had little mbalax (or juju, or Afrobeat) in it? And this is different from Cobainbuckleyknowlesdioncreedaguilera how? I get the sense that "Africa" is meant to invoke some tradition which includes r&b and leaves out guys like Yorke.... which I think is misguided and disingenuous.

I hope this doesn't turn ugly because I'm not trying to make fun of you or anything, Matos, I'm honestly a bit confused at this point.

xpost

(don't we all wish we could describe music in terms that are more vivid and concrete!!)

but there's no dichotomy being set up! he's using lack-of-Africa as a description of Yorke's vocal style--it's a parenthetical comment, used to shade the comment. he's referred to De La Soul as pretentious college boys too and you won't see him refusing to say they're African.

Change "Xgau" to "pretty much every writer for the Village Voice except for sometimes Douglas Wolk" and you're OTM. Really, if anything is manifesting itself in my posts in this thread, it is just a full-on disgust with the writing/critique style typical of the Village Voice music section. It's a philosophical difference in how art and music should be discussed.

So, I've got a question. What about all the other white Europeans and Americans who don't have any trace of "Africa" in their singing voice and in their music. What about them? How is observing that Thom Yorke's voice isn't at all like an African's a unique thing about his music compared to loads of other musicians? It's hardly like he's alone in being a popular white singer who doesn't affect mannerisms that people would normally associate with black singers of any nationality.

I think that depends on whether or not you are willing to consider writing music reviews for free newspapers given away on the street corner to be an artform.

I still think the review was lame.

TS: Radiohead vs Eagles vs POX Eagles

so does Xgau, as anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to him ever can attest

Matos, one day you will be famous enough that people will assume you are saying Xgau is gay. They may even start threads about it.

I'm probably not reading enough into it, but my general impression of the piece was: jeez, they might be the best Band That Matters we've got, but it sure would be nice if they were actually better. Being in the "I like Radiohead but..." camp, I'm sympathetic. I think the only generation gap that shows up here is nothing to do with taste and mostly to do with how much you thing it matters to have a Band That Matters. I think Christgau cares more about that than I do, and I even kind of understand why. But it doesn't invalidate his perspective, and I think he's fun to read. Of course he's a pretentious college boy, and he's writing for an audience of "pretentious college boys" (a demographic group that, of course, includes lots of men and women of all ages), and so when he puts down something as being too "pretentious college boy," he's assuming his audience will get the joke. I think he's one of the funniest writers out there, and that's why I like him. I like his jokes.

My culpa.

I read "Africa" here as a stand-in for rhythm, both in terms of influence and contemporary product (in that the chief marginal distinction of the continent's music, writ large, is its rhythmic qualities, i bushwa). The piece ends up quite clearly on a (re)statement of Xgau's aesthetic position - he favors foregrounding rhythm over harmony, on principle. In practice, Radiohead does not (though Xgau liked Kid A because it veered into something approximating a groove).

doesn't this:

"But no matter who's right, if anyone is, the future of Hail to the Thief is unlikely to have much bearing on the future of rock or anything else."

suggest that there is NOTHING going on there?

he's referring to what the album represents (privileging non-rhythmic elements in "rock" music), not the album itself. he considers the album pleasant, though not necessarily his style, as i understand it.

a.k.a. "the narcissism of small differences: part MCMXIII"

Then what do you make of his Distinctions Not Cost-Effective trope?

I should read the whole piece, but the deep irony of ending that paragraph with "this is the idealized voice of a pretentious college boy" is staggering me.

said before, but this pretty much approximates his stated perception of his audience. and considering his self-description as a "peculiar combination of pretentious and unpretentious" (paraphrase, perhaps), it's at least somewhat self-referential.

christgau's pretty far along in his critical career for the idea that compelling music can be made without obvious reference to af-american idioms to be such a revelation!!!

he's been putting classical music down for 35 years. but he said similar half-nice things about a prog-record or two in the 70s book.

the problem comes because he's been putting these terms forth for years, in much more concrete ways, elsewhere and in other pieces, and he definitely expects his readership to catch the x-references. so those of us who read him a lot (like me) do, and he alienates lots of other folx. not sure what to say to that except shrug.

ditto.

oh, and ha, my immediate first two responses to who has emotional range - S-K and Baaba Maal.

Fraught and self-involved, sure; but Thom's actually a really funny guy. I guess if you don't think things like The Castle or Buffalo 66 are funny, or can't see the humor built into personas from Bryan Ferry's to Mark E. Smith's, or haven't really listened to the lyrics ... "Karma Police" is a funny song; so are "My Iron Lung" and even "Fake Plastic Trees." "Living in a Glass House" is positively silly. People are too credulous about all the 'despair.'

Oh, and "Sulk," if not quite cheery, is a pretty bracing tune.