« Video: Complicated Drumming Technique | Main | Retrohump: Thanksgiving »
November 21, 2007
Music Criticism vs David Brooks vs Music Criticism
It would be overtly hypocritical of me to viciously criticize David Brooks' recent op-ed piece on "fragmentation" in popular music (not to be confused with the technical, classical definition of the term): I, too, enjoy argument for argument's sake. Still, I always find it fun when prominent, public personalities decide to comment on things they don't really seem to care (or know) about.
Bemoaning an era when everything was apparently classified as "rock", his primary target is his own concept of fragmentation, which he imaginatively defines as the increasing specialization of genres within music. Brooks's main point floats from one crotchety cliche to another. There are no more major rock bands. Rock music was better when I was a teenager. Kids today don't know anything about history. Get off my lawn.
Where as the bands of his youth, such as the oft-cited the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin, were genuine in their aping of African-American music (mainly the blues), for modern day acts, "It's considered inappropriate or even immoral for white musicians to appropriate African-American styles." For those of us that have ever talked shop with a member of the '60s generation, this sort of swooping, denouncing generalization is nothing new. Taking it one step further, Brooks claims that rock music has become nothing short of elitist from both racial and social standpoints.
As a result of this false premise, the rock music of today, particularly indie rock, is a whitewash of artists and fans that have no understanding or appreciation of the music and musicians that came before them. Furthermore, these nefarious means are a result of an intentional move by the fans of indie rock to fragment rock music into so many specific subgenres that a sort of caste system is created, separating the educated from the uninformed. This is purposefully set up in contrast to the music fans of his generation, who allegedly like music for all the right reasons.
It's easy (and tempting) to simply cry "bullshit" on Mr. Brooks and call it a day, but that would drastically cheapen the few legitimate points he actually makes (at least the ones left standing after he's done sabotaging his own article).
While Brooks certainly suggests as much, he never actually explains why fragmentation is a bad thing. Is it because it makes people feel left out? Is it because it's so constantly changing that only the uber-connected can keep up? The answers to these questions do not seem to interest Brooks, but by positioning these unsaid questions with claims like, "There are many bands that can fill 5,000 seat theaters, but there are almost no new groups with the broad following or longevity of the Rolling Stones, Springsteen or U2," Brooks utilizes the "we report, you decide" approach to journalism: toss around a bunch of unsubstantiated comments and questions, let the readers jump to their own conclusions.
But then, believe it or not, things get worse. Saddling-up alongside the equally-bitter Steven Van Zandt, Brooks rides his high horse all the way to the nursing home, and instead of offering any insight into the implied (by him at least) racial and social ramifications of fragmentation, he comes across as the worst kind of aging hipster, nasally complaining that the bands he likes aren't popular anymore. Don't worry though, when Silvio Dante is involved, you can be sure it's really all about the children.
Apparently, when he's not pretending to run a strip club, one of Little Stevie's pet projects has been to create a sort of canon of American rock'n'roll, like what already exists for literature, poetry, classical music and other things. This collection could be used to educate future generations, "that they are inheritors of a long conversation." I guess Brooks believes that bands like the White Stripes, the Black Keys and My Morning Jacket (and their fans) are completely ignorant to the influence (black) blues and gospel musicians have on their music. That, again, cries for simply brushing off Brooks's entire article as junk, but it's the support of Van Zandt's canon that is beyond ironical: somehow Brooks manages to miss the fact that the generation whose music he so adamantly lifts up is the same generation that completely denounced, and almost rendered meaningless, the Western literary canon.
Posted by Randall Monty at November 21, 2007 10:32 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.merryswankster.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1316
Comments
And isn't it a little rich to say that we should "now establish" a rock canon, as if past their prime boomer rags like Rolling Stone hadn't made that their life's mission for several decades now? I think we've been on to devaluing and reinterpreting it for quite some time.
Posted by: Jeff K at November 23, 2007 12:51 PM
I found a 2004 column from David Poltz on Slate analyzing David Brooks by saying "it's become clear that he doesn't have enough ideas—or anger—to sustain a twice-a-week column." I think this is another perfect example.
Posted by: Yonah at November 23, 2007 02:07 PM
If you focus closely at the end of the column you can almost feel him hanging up the phone...
Posted by: Sebastian at November 24, 2007 05:05 PM
