Article Response: Sterling on R&B

I most agree with Sterling about "Differences," but I fear that I'm agreeing with him in Tom's way rather than the way he's asking for me to look at it. There's very little "glitter" to the vocal performances on that track: they're the "natural center," but they're fairly restrained, subdued ... and this seems to be the running thread to the pop/r&b vocal performances I like most (see also R. Kelly, "Feelin' on your Booty" mix).

I'm not sure if this means that (a) I'm not hearing what Sterling is getting at, in which case I need to go back and listen differently, or (b) that's actually what Sterling is getting at -- that there's a place for vocal performances as the focus of the song where that focus doesn't involve the sort of grating-needless-frills complaint that Tom made.

The essential question about r&b vocals is the same one asked about guitar solos -- at what point to they cease to be entertaining and cross over into being bullying or masturbatory? We each make these decisions on a track-by-track basis, and on what appear to be pretty subjective personal criteria -- but "service to the song" is still the best generalized explanation I've heard of what exactly is switching in our heads when we make those distinctions. I take it that Sterling is not so much arguing against that criteria -- more pointing out that a lot more r&b than we might suspect actually passes this test, if listened to "properly."

Nearly forgot, though: excellent article. Excellent Freakytrigger in general lately -- the resurrection is coming along beautifully.

*gasp* Implying when I edited it that it was DEAD. *cries* ;-)

Nitsuh -- you are korrect, sirrah. The point is to take the music on its own terms.. and also the point is that more ILXers should listen to this stuff.

'Imagine that you're in a limo, and she's in mink. That's how you're supposed to listen to this music.'

Taking the music on its own terms is one thing, contorting your fantasy life to fit a narrow, secondhand version of emancipation-within-the-system is another. What's a bigger crutch, context or canonisation?

Dave's posts like this one *used to* irritate me. I still disagree with him, but now I realise how funny they are.

Excellent article indeed - I like Sterling's switch to smoov-R&B because it's possibly the only post-robo-pop infatuation, ie. what you latch onto after you begin to tire of robo-pop, that's actually struck me as a progression and not a partial-reversion/sidestep, as engaging with pop culture in a vaguely "dangerous" manner (meanwhile I'm *still* stuck on the sounds).

It could be argued, Dave, that the very purpose of pop music is to introduce you to new elements of fantasy life that you'd never really connected with before. This is both the best thing and the worst thing about pop.

This is both the best thing and the worst thing about pop.

GET OUT OF MY MIND.

i plan to tackle all these ideas and more (in fact, i've already quoted dave and tim) in an essay titled "the problem with indie" encompassing the false revolutionary charge of consumer capitalism, d.i.y. as fetish object, d.i.y. as false grail, d.i.y. as security blanket, the debasement and ghettoization of alternative values (specifically relating to commerce), and the comparative size of pop star genitalia. unfortunately this is all turning into a mark s vector-of-the-totality type thing, so look for it circa 2017, or when i get fired.

Jess: I think indie does just as much revelation-of-new-fantasy work as pop music does; the indie fantasies just happen to be both more realistic (emo = achy-breaky "everyday life is so intense") and, even more importantly, more surrealistic (Sigur Ros = whales and icebergs I can breathe underwater! Daft Punk = shiny robot outer- space boogie!). I used to think the difference was that indie asks you to put yourself into these worlds and fantasies, whereas pop makes a fantasy out of you being different -- but now I realize I probably just think that because I'm an indie type.

but now I realize I probably just think that because I'm an indie type.

one of us...one of us...one of us...

i agree with you actually nitsuh, as usual; one of the side themes i'm trying to tackle in the essay is the notion that the more d.i.y. an indie project is the more prosaic it becomes: all those little "scrappy swell maps/'spiral scratch type bands" to quote simon reynolds that came in post-punks wake, dour ebullition-style political hardcore, post-riot grrl (the slampt/k/kill rock stars axis). the "realer" a music is from an underground/production standpoint the less "fantastic" it becomes: harder edged, straight- shooting, the opposite of what le tigre apparently disses in the wire this month as the "girly/ethereal" axis of the cocteaus/dream pop/shoegaze etc. and also ian penman's assertion that what made - albums- (a key distinction) different from the "little bands" who were releasing their one-off 7"s in photocopied sleeves was the return of epic-ness, grandeur, a grab at the sublime brass ring.

Daft Punk = indie??!?!

Frustrating factor in Jess's theory = The Streets!!!

Yeah, I know, Tim. I said it anyway, and for a reason. Reason being that in the US, anyway, three quarters of the people listening to Daft Punk are "indie" listeners, and they are listening to Daft Punk in precisely the "indie" way I'm trying to get at above. So in that sense, yeah.

Frustrating factor in Jess's theory = The Streets!!!

hardcore - from 'ardkore to garage (to whatever comes next) - throws a major wrench into this entire essay/thesis, because while it clearly mirrors "punk" d.i.y. in a lot of ways it's also completely different - values, music (and no i dont mean the sound of the music, sillies), culture - in a way which makes me think i need two theories parallel to each other.

Dave: Fantasy life only has meaning insofar as it is socially constructed and defined. Even kodanashi picked up his fetish-object from somewhere.

Tim: Alternate directions also include country and classiXoR R&B. Rap is my center of listening right now, and I'm branching to R&B and Dancehall still. But R&B is my infatuation, aside from "Superhero" abdominations which better belong in country (which I haven't listened to in months mostly, to some regret).

Nitsuh: I always thought the opposite -- indie is predicated on making you unique and pop on placing you in a social context.

Jess: Coming off that, the hardcore/U.S. indie split seems exactly the social vs. the individual. Value systems are entirely different -- bodyrock vs. disdain for body, status vs. intrinsic value, momentary vs. eternal. Daft Punk of course play the moment off the eternal and hence crossover potential, all things to all people.

Finally, perhaps this is part of the attraction of R&B to me -- transfering our most intimate feelings and moments to the sphere of the social. Indie's insularity also addresses certain aspects (Smog's "Your Face" for example as in "the look on your face when you came" addresses subject matter only elsewhere dealt with in smoov R&B) but like a diary keeps the secrets still locked between the listener and the in-crowd rather than throwing it open and rendering the secret club into a lasershow. Legitimization of emotional development.

Sterling: I agree and disagree, which is why I was positing two axes of indie. The plain-out indierock / emo axis offers you uniqueness, yes ("I am different from chart-pop") but it also offers you the basic fantasy of being a hipster, of living in a shoddy loft with hardwood floors and having frustrating Midwestern love affairs with people who paint. Whereas the more textural side of "indie" offers surreal fantasies of floating or flying or swimming with turtles or living in a world full of chirpy fairies and exploding pies, whence those groping reviews of records like Loveless with all of their miasmic imagery.

Sorry: what I meant was that the first axis is social (if selective) while the second one is more solitary -- although still possibly social, but in an incredibly selective "you like Sigur Ros too? then you must be the fantastically beautiful Other Person from my floating-with-whales fantasy" kind of way. I'm sorry, I just bought some beer.

those groping reviews of records like Loveless with all of their miasmic imagery.

What *can* you mean? *drifts off in haze of cascading ocean waves of sonic bliss*

Though of course this negates MBV's erotic focus, arguably very intentionally blurred on Loveless (like the music, har har).

I liked Sterl's piece but was a tad disappointed it seemed more about the poppish side of R&B than its soulful side. Mainly, I think I was hoping for some names I hadn't already heard of.

interesting article. the seperation of voice from production in ways of approaching r&b recently (differing modes of listening) reminds me of differing approaches to dub as noted by simon reynolds in a wire article about 18 months ago (militant message given primacy by postpunks 79, studio trickery given primacy today by lectronica hedz and postrock dudes). A way of focusing on a music, while almost completely ignoring parts in which you don't relate is fascinating...

But I do relate to the whole thang, my point is that the ILM-style critical massive tends to underrate or dismiss the voice.