Sleater-Kinney live, Minneapolis 10/8/02

As a show it was a very "rock" show; Brownstein and Tucker would play at each other ala...I dunno, Skynyrd or something. And Weiss took a huuuge drum solo near the end of their set. A drum solo! As if her cuteness wasn't enough to set man and dyke hears aflutter, Brownstein dropped Townsend moves l and r. The set was primarily One Beat, with most of the oldies being drawn from Dig Me Out, save for a riotous "Doctor"-"Joey Ramone" in the encore. I came grousing about the all-age crowd, but the dancing was undeniable.

I was struck with how much Brownstein has changed. She's the consonant to Tucker's immovable, mountainous vowel; chasing, hectoring, peppering her way through the songs. Her singing (esp on Combat Rock, my fave from One Beat) has gotten further into a mannered girliness, everything a pinched yelp. They sing the way they play guitar; big broad lines vs spiky feminine Andy Gill-isms. It makes them easy to love and easy to think about. After matching each other scream for scream (say, in the chorus of "One More Hour") Tucker recedes behind her swathe of dyed hair, Brownstein can't but smile.

Weiss is no longer a great girl drummer or a great punk drummer but a great drummer, period.

Other people have and can deal with their politics, but when Brownstein sings "They tell us there are only two sides to be on," I don't think of Sontag pissing on the national parade, but of Hitchens ditching the Nation. But that says more about me than them.

Still, the word that their lattice-work roar wouldn't deafen was "polite." They're polite people, S-K. But the music, too, it's very, well, polite. Brownstein's off non-solos are delightful, not jarring. Tucker's famous wail is warm and inclusive, Weiss' rhythms are ever-supportive, never punishing. This isn't any kind of a slam, who needs any more boorishness? But it's not exactly the industry standard for the Greatest Band in America, is it?

you left out the part about them lezzing up

and yes, Weiss was always just a great drummer. most of the tunes i can really take or leave, though.

there is no "greatest band in the world" and it's a ridiculous idea, but they're still pretty damned good.

but why not try and unpack that honesty, and see how that attractiveness affects your judgments of the band? because your discussion of how tepid the show felt to you, when contrasted with a) the constant critical fuss over them and b) your own statements about the bandmembers' looks, says a lot more about what's going on with their reception -- from the copycatted greil marcus accolade on down -- to me.

not to mention that the whole review is based around this construct: females are object to be viewed first superficially, then scrutinized on the basis of message structure. i mean, would you start off a review of the strokes -- who in most of these circles would be considered as conventionally attractive as s-k -- with how hot they are? wouldn't you dismiss any piece of criticism by a woman that mentioned the way the male bandmembers looked first and foremost as teenybopperish and not worthy of serious regard?

wouldn't you dismiss any piece of criticism by a woman that mentioned the way the male bandmembers looked first and foremost as teenybopperish and not worthy of serious regard?

no, absolutely not. My favorite review of Strokes (lucky you brought them up) was Tricia Romano's Pazz & Jop comment: "I like how the Strokes don't have a lick of angst in them. I also like how they are all really hot and fuckable."

As for the "construct," it was really meant to be a getting-out-of-the-way rather than a foregrounding. And the show wasn't "tepid," their music is "polite." The Marcus rip was intentional and meant to be a dig on him & the crit establishment for not having anything to say about the "politeness" I heard.

Sorry, gotta go.

maura: what do you think of this?

i think this is the part of the review that gets my goat the most. i'm sure janet'd be real stoked to find out she's made it in boyland. sheesh! women have been proving since time immemorial that they can make music just as well as men. and yet some people still sound INCREDULOUS about it.

I've seen S-K a couple times, heard their first three records, read scads and scads about them. They're okay, but it's beyond obvious that all the "critical acclaim" they get is very much framed in the "Greil Marcus fantasizes about lesbians" tone that Maura rather pointedly detected and then dissected. It's just that S-K can be perceived as more "authentic" than, oh, I dunno... Joan Jett (another lesbian with a guitar!) Which is just bullshit, because Joan's songs are better anyway...

Most of these Sleater-Kinney threads end up being "responses to responses," I've noticed. I agree that the kind of hype the band gets tends to be somewhat distorted (every article HAS to mention that they cover "More Than A Feeling" and have a song about Joey Ramone just to make sure you know this is a ROCK group, buddy, not one of those icky girl bands) but I think Marcus's SK-admiration is a lot more sincere than you give him credit for. I mean, he was raving about Heavens to Betsy before SK even existed.

If I ever write anything about the Strokes, I intend to preface it with something on how BAD they look just to make up for my oft-expressed Carrie B. crush.

B-b-b-but Joan Jett doesn't write her own songs!

also i think this is irrelevant. salivating over s-k in a review only reinforces the idea that female musicians must be attractive to men to be worth listening to in the first place. male musicians generally don't have that expectation placed upon them, or at least not to the same extent.

IS ANYONE GOING TO THE SHOW IN NYC ON THE 15th??

Who wants to see an ugly band live anyway?

So I can follow along, which one is Corrin Tucker in that picture above -- she has lighter hair, right?

Q: Why do people talk about Sleater-Kinney as a "girl band"?

A: Because they listen to the lyrics.

I mean, on All Hands it was inescapable. Part of their music is based in dealing with femininity and exploring what it can and can't mean. Even on Dig Me Out a track like "Little Babies" was undeniably female and I can't imagine a male covering at least half of those tracks to anything like the same effect.

Anyone...?

I would disagree with this point -- look at the taste-makeup of the people covering rock in most places. Most of the people writing about shows and records are somehow entrenched in indieland, even if they are trying to get the word out to a mainstream audience.

Also: What Di said about the relative lack of appearance expectations on male bands, although part of me feels that the "prettier" male rock bands are also getting more play these days.

Also also: How many people who do frame S-K as a "girl band" are seriously doing that on the basis of the lyrics more than what they see?

Good point -- I see now we're talking more about critical reception than fandom (S-K having a lot of critic-fans anyway, right?)

As to Joan Jett being better, no dice. I've seen her live and it was wretched. Her singles, fun as they are, are a little gimmicky, no? Not fam w/ Quatro.

By "unpacking my honesty" you seem to want me to "admit" that "S-K are really kind of a boring girly band, gee I wish they'd take their clothes off." If this had been a review of One Beat as an album and I'd gone on about my (reflexive, undeniable, embarrassing, fannish) attraction to them, that would be absurd and offensive. But if I had written about their live show without dealing with my reaction to the physical presence of these three women on stage, that would have been wrong too.

(Not that this will convince any gathered here, but the group I was with included a straight woman, two lesbians, and another straight man. In the glow of post-show euphoria we all agreed, with rather nervous laughter, that, wow, they were charming, cool, and dead sexy, among many other reactions, of course.)

You've all got the equation backwards. My attraction to them isn't the root of my liking their music, it's very much the other way around. Is the "salivating" the chink in the the armor of their (over-)praise? Are S-K really mediocre, only lauded because of personal reactions like mine? I really don't think so. My take on their show is being seen as yet another example of S-K overpraise due to indieboy lust. My reaction to their music/show was impressed but mixed; my hyperbolic praise of their looks/"look"? Problematic but merely true, and quite respectful, so I thought. What is at issue here? Should I have not said what I said? Or should I have not seen what I saw or felt what I felt?

salivating over s-k in a review only reinforces the idea that female musicians must be attractive to men to be worth listening to in the first place.

A nasty issue, to be sure, esp. the diff btw packaging of men and women musicians (but take it to the "Dirrty", or a cheesecake classical thread first, imo). For my part, I can only say this: It's not that "female musicians must be attractive" to me in order for me to like their work, it's just that S-K simply are. My review was, at heart, (self-)descriptive, not prescriptive (a flimsy defense, I know). And (again, no convincing) my "first place" exposure to them was a tape with Doctor on one side and Dig on the other, no packaging, no credits. If it's only tacky or ill-considered to gush a bit over the (yes, sexual) attraction to much-admired stars in public, that's the only sin I'll cop to. Judging by the response, it didn't "reinforce" any such poisonous idea at all.

Who wants to see an ugly band live anyway?

I do. Kind of a dumb thing to say, no? Especially in the context of this argument? (yr FT thing was v good, btw SC)

none of this implies that female musicians must be attractive. s-k are just involved in making a kind of music where attractiveness plays SOME kind of role.

But the Strokes are hot. Kinda.

Listening to "Under Control," I can understand what some women (and men) find sexy about whatshisface the singer.