Christgau on M.I.A., taking off from ILM thread

I don't know about that...

(I'm gonna ignore your second posts because those are SEPARATE MEDIUMS whereas writing is writing. duh)

x-post

double xpost

x-post

okay, I'm letting this go now....

but because M.I.A.'s documentable experience connects her to world poverty in a way few Western whites can grasp.

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0509,christgau2,61608,22.html

Don, did you read the Reynolds' piece? In that context I think that line makes a lot more sense.

x-post

The article takes a sort of interesting "third way" approach--focusing on the authenticity/legitimacy of her political position instead of her persona, and he does actually address the album itself, albeit in a not particularly interesting way.

Still, I'm not entirely happy we're STILL focusing on the goddamned political content of the album, nor am I entirely convinced that an engagement with Sri Lankan history is necessary to fully experience Arular. Maybe this is the over-educated politics major in me talking, but it's not that hard to grasp the outlines of the conflict, and that's all that's really necessary to know what's going on, since MIA's project is broader than that one situation. But a response to Reynolds' piece was highly necessary, so yay.

I'm also not entirely convinced of the accuracy of his interpretation, but we can leave that for later.

And, agreed that the quotes are very, very useful if we want to continue this discussion. Sins of the father etc.

This quote is certainly interesting in light of suggestions that she's an uncritical supporter of the Tigers, or even that the album is a "tribute" to her dad.

OK, so lemme change that to "in 5 years, MIA will be saying..."

Prince comparison kinda interesting here.

I didn't say that she was an "uncritical" supporter - just a supporter. It's just that in the interviews I've read she talks a lot about the injustices perpetrated by the Sinhalese govt in very vivid terms, but I haven't heard her criticize the Tigers at all, apart from a very vague suggestion that her dad is "insane" - which lots of kids say about their dads, even if they don't blow people up.

because asthma and flu = malaria and plague?
because going to bed hungry = death of malnutrition?
because the Southside Crips = the Janjaweed?

yes.

Possibly less clear cut in the case of Ireland (unionists in the north allying themselves with the UK) than in Rwanda (Tutsis enforcing German and later Belgian rule)

yes (although the unionists didn't 'ally themselves' with the uk -- they were uk subjects, unlike participants in colonial wars)

but still essentially valid.

no. xgau does himself no favours by lumping in all conflicts related to the collapse of empires (leaving aside whether ireland was a colony or not, which it wasn't in the rwanda sense). the british ruling class could hardly be said to have 'encouraged' the unionist ultras, given that the liberal party wanted shot of ireland altogether... here isn't a forum for this discussion, but xgau was no way 'essentially valid'.

Obviously this is partly what got up Reynold's nose and is what is annoying people upthread about that Xgau quote.

There's an interesting parallel with this in Anthropology about whether Captain Cook was seen as a god by the pacific islanders and ritually killed (Sahlins) or whether he was killed quite rationally because he was exploiting them (Obeyesekere). This fite then turned into one about the righs of people to speak for others ie that the American Sahlins was less legitimate than the Sri Lankan Obeyesekere because Obeyesekere had also been on the wrong end of colonialism, even though he had no more connection with the people of Hawaii than Sahlins.

Possibly off-topic, but interesting, I think.

At my local Thai restaurant 'galang' is the name of ginger.

I suspect she's laughing at all this over-intellectualising bullshit.

It's like the emperor's new clothes but with 'exotic' skin.

Only got the album this week, saw her last night and heard pft on the train for the first time this morning, so don't get me wrong. I'm currently in the first flush of THIS IS GREAT excitement.

Galangal is thai ginger, but you can eat the skin. It's great too.

I can't help thinking that this

www.tomwolfe.com/RadicalChic.html

is relevant somehow, but I can't for the life of me remember what it says

It won't before long before people start saying that the only reason she's getting attacked so vociferously is because she's a woman, and that the Clash didn't take this much shit because they were white males. See also Courtney Love, Chrissy Hynde, Liz Phair, et al. And I imagine it won't be long be long before some butthole politician turns this into a Sister Souljah moment.

x-post-- M.I.A.'s experience likely gives her more valid and perhaps more meaningful insight to world poverty, but that's not what bothers me. It's the way that Xgau dismisses the empathy of The Man Western whites so casually.

Also I think reading that Xgau quote out of the context of Reynolds piece (which basically dismisses the idea that M.I.A. even HAS dark skin) is the only way you could come to that conclusion.

So last week. ;)

Alex homes in on what's wrong with Reynolds comments (but yeah since this appropriation business is clearly not done I'll gladly receive Reynolds copy of Metal Box.)

-- gabbneb

again, notice it's not a poor person doing the one-upmanship.

I realize that that Xgau is directing that line about honkies (honkeys?) reactively towards Reynolds, but I still don't think it fits.

It definitely seems like this is the direction.

You're right about this not being the forum for a discussion of the political history of Ireland / Northern Ireland (and if it were, I'd still be loath to become involved in one), but the fact remains that the conflict in Northern Ireland is largely rooted in the region's history of a ruling power having used one group to control another.

also, Simon follows up Christgau's piece here: http://blissout.blogspot.com/

Unbelievably OTM. That bit in his latest blog post where he just kinda yells "hey, don't forget ST MARTIN'S!" is just bizarre to the point of psychosis.

This is also very telling.

"you're totally right though that MIA is of the same "class" as the bloggers and journos who celebrate street music... the difference is she's made a record based on those interests, whereas i, for one, haven't... that's a big step, there are loads of ways you can express enthusiasm for these street musics (writing about them, starting labels, promoting events) without actually making a record based on those styles"

IE, he basically comes out and says "musicians should be held to these standards, because they've crossed a line, critics like me are exempt".

Gosh. Well, call me obvious but this is both news to me and actually pretty damned interesting in light of everything else! Discourse really is a mess.

So you shouldn't enjoy the music without thinking about the politics but the politics are not very interesting because the music isn't good? Or if the politics were less objectionable we could enjoy the music in ignorance and if the music were more urgent we could forget all about the politics? Can anyone clarify what they think he means in this paragraph?

But in my mind I keep going back to the question: why his interest in debunking M.I.A? Yeah, just a thought experiment, playing argumentative ping pong with the blogosphere/X-gau, and all of that. And yet she touches a nerve and I can’t shake the feeling that in the end this isn’t about baile funk , politics, etc. It’s about grime, and this perception that M.I.A. will ruin/pervert the changes of grime in the U.S. (still believing in the eternal myth of a new Brit-invasion, have to keep up da dialectic, it’s the way of History.) Maybe next to some possessive idea of “there can be only London sound!” (Reynolds seems intimidated/irritated by the idea that M.I.A. is…let’s say meta-London and not from this or that particular street/hood. This localization-uber-alles all sounds a bit tribal to me. But then again I’m all about pan-European electro-house bobbins flows. ;)

Yeah, but 'revolution' as a word is SO co-opted it's not even funny! Which I know you know and all but still, it's weird to see it used.

No -- we fault them for cheaply using Maoist imagery (indeed, Maoist name). As person upthread said, it is just radical chic in the worst sense. A 'revolutionary vibe' is plain stupid if the 'revolutions' being referred to are as disastrous and bloody as the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It's lame to draw on this counter-cultural capital if you have no actual political ideas.

"gang of four" wz
i. a topical ref which to be "got" required you be "aware of world affairs" (w.subsequent inner-circle levels of "getting"), viz
ii. a self-mocking JOKE (since the actual real Go4—mme mao etc—were somewhat unpopular w.EVERYONE EVERYWHERE at this point, left or right: it functioned more as an um "appropriation" of the scorn* and ignorance of some imagined not-too-quick-abt-marxism opponent ), plus finally
iii. A GREAT NAME as it memorably and exactly (and pseudo-objectively) described WHAT they were, plus sly pun included if you want it (cf 50¢ = "represents change" haha)

they weren't even pretend maoists, were they? more like wannabe situationists (sits being libertarian, anti-party and thus ferociously anti-mao obv)

*"gang of four" = a highly compressed and expressive criminal charge in its original chinese usage

ts: "we are interested in a world outside ourselves, perhaps a bit naively" vs "my suit is white and black foax are all komikal"

i am being unfair because at 25 years' distance the 'problem' is the "bands/film directors were so political back then" meme, which i find a bit grinding when the emphasis is "they were political" instead of "this is what they were about". it's a matter of emphasis in current discourse rather than a prob with the bands "as such". obviously my not knowing all that much about G04 other than 'they were quite left-wing' is product of this problem!

ooh no-one's mentioned LUKE HAINES yet.