Archive for the ‘American Culture’ Category

#379 – Black & Blue

Monday, April 5th, 2010

allen lowe’s madly-intriguing preview of an upcoming talk: the blues as “a vertical sound in a horizontal world.”

When I interviewed Wynton Marsalis not too long ago I asked him about his recent negative comparison of hip hop to old time minstrelsy – isn”t that the point, I said, for artists to take control of the means of oppression, to make it their own through manipulation of stereotypes in their own favor? Think Fats Waller, think Louis Armstrong…

He informed me in no uncertain terms that minstrelsy was nothing but an instrument of racial, social, and political degradation; and that I was just an ignorant academic, cloistered in my own narrow (white?) world. The blues, he said, was everything, minstrelsy nothing. And Louis Armstrong was god’s creation through the medium of the blues.

This led me to thinking: Was Armstrong really a great blues player? Was Marsalis really a blues player? Do jazz musicians know anything about the blues? Or do they proclaim their love for something that, in their hands, remains a shadow of its former self?

And I concluded: Louis Armstrong’s was a minstrel soul. But the blues is a haunt. Sometimes it comes in the form of reality. Sometimes in the form of fantasy. If you love it you accept it for what it is (not what you want it to be): part minstrel creation, part deep Delta, part pop, part everything else out of the genius of African American creations: a vertical sound in a horizontal world, a piece of consciousness as racially skewed as the rest of America.

Allen Lowe, “Looking at Down from Up: Blues from Blackface to Whiteface (or: All the Blues You Could Play By Now if Stanley Crouch was Your Uncle),” description of upcoming talk at EMP 2010 Pop Conference

Allen Lowe’s website.

Continued: Culture Rover #380: Black & Blue, Part Two.

#349 – New Music Seminar

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

datapanik in the year 2010.

Rereading Michael Azerrad’s Our Band Could Be Your Life this week for a class I am teaching left me thinking about indie rock now.

With all the end-of-the-decade retrospectives (see here and here, for instance), it seems like American indie rock has at once traveled far and wide, yet gone nowhere since grunge. A strange kind of spinning of the wheels for middle-class kids who have explored many a nook and cranny of American and global musical forms, yet never quite formulated a movement with the energy to alter the larger mass culture industry. Sure, there’s been amazing, ear-startling sounds. And fascinating explorations, reimaginings, and adventures. But nothing has acquiesced into a movement. Lots of stirrings, but no coherent, centripetal musical forces breaking apart and reassembling the machine of pop.

Maybe, as many have pointed out, this is good. Maybe it’s poptimistic instead of rockist. Maybe it’s the end of American cultural empire. Maybe it’s the new, fragmented, post-Fordist reality of mass culture segmented into niches and slices and taste groups. Power is diffused. There is no more mass in mass culture. The conquest of cool has been completed and resistance is futile (since resistance itself is a particular niche market now).

Of course, the mass culture industry of pop music itself is dying. Maybe the lack of a “grunge” breakthrough/breakdown is a sign of how much the changing nature of muscial distribution and marketing affects music’s cultural significance and power. We can’t go back to a world unflooded by information and knowledge, of centralized taste-making and control over mass communications technologies (much as the RIAA and other industry groups are trying).

Moreover, even within the music industry, we’re going on decades now of pastiche, irony, retro-fittings, referentiality, and pop self-consciousness. We’ve got not one, but two museums of rock and pop music now (The Rockhall in Cleveland and Experience Music Project in Seattle, not to mention the Motown museum, Stax museum, and other public halls of pop-music memory. And sometimes even the performance of incredible sincerity and deep emotional commitment feels oddly like a retread of a retread of a retread.

This is what rereading Azerrad’s book (published in 2001) at the end of the decade left me thinking (and it’s a strange thought for a historian to have): perhaps the weight of history has accrued so much—the Internet not only keeping so much alive, referenced, documented, but also fundamentally diffusing the modes of musical distribution, marketing, and community-making—that the only path toward something with momentum and crystallization and clarify requires forgetting. I never thought I would write this since I spend most of my time thinking about the past, but it does seem like musicians might need to forget a little these days, throw off pop knowledge, get a little lost, and start anew: to declare year zero without consciousness of datapanik in year zero.

#342 – Grow Up Government!

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

exercising the option on the social contract.

It seems unjust. But look what happened to the global economy after Lehman failed. Unemployment in the U.S. went to 9.5 per cent. It’s not just Wall Street that suffers when you ‘teach people a lesson.’ The tragedy of financial populism is that you do terrible things to innocent people. – Timothy Geithner

You can’t just go out and shoot the bankers. You can’t have an economy without a functioning credit system. People are angry. They’re furious. But you have no option but to live with these people. – Barney Frank

From James B. Stewart, A Reporter at Large, “Eight Days,” The New Yorker, 21 September 2009.

Obama will have to directly attack the fortified bastions of the newest ‘new class’—the makers of the paper economy in which he came of age—if he is to accomplish anything. These interests did not spend fifty years shipping the greatest industrial economy in the history of the world overseas only to be challenged by a newly empowered, green-economy working class. They did not spend much of the past two decades gobbling up previously public sectors such as health care, education, and transportation only to have to compete with a reinvigorated public sector. They mean, even now, to use the bailout to make the government their helpless junior partner and if they can they will devour every federal dollar available to recoup their own losses, and thereby preclude the use of any monies for the rest of Barack Obama’s splendid vision.

From Kevin Baker, Barack Hoover Obama: The Best and the Brightest Blow It Again, Harper’s Magazine, July 2009.

In the quotations above, what’s so remarkable about the difference in perspective between, on the one hand, Timothy Geithner and Barney Frank, and, on the other, Kevin Baker, is their sense of possibility for anything other than neoliberal capitalism. Geithner and Frank simply cannot imagine anything outside the binary of inegalitarian “free” markets  or what Geithner calls “financial populism.” It’s either give the über-rich what they want or shoot them.

Baker, thankfully, calls for government to grow up.

Part of this growing up involves imagining a new relationship between government and the financial sector, and a rethinking of assumptions about capitalism and the equitable distribution of wealth.

It means imagining government neither as witch doctor, hoodwinking the populace or conjuring up magic cures, nor as witch hunter, madly convicting the guilty and innocent alike.

Instead, the financial crisis offers a moment to rethink what should be normal in our society, what should be privileges (the privilege to be “too big to fail,” for instance) and what should be rights (health care, a good education, policy for the greater good of all). It’s a chance to reimagine what freedom is and whose freedom “free” markets and the government policies that shape them really serve. And, as Baker suggests, it’s a time to admit that there has to be a struggle—probably a nasty one—between those who reap the rewards of the current ideologies of neocapitalism and those who seek a better alternative to a jobless recovery and the suffering it causes along the way even if the economy comes booming back.

And since it was government, after all, that stepped in and saved us from a financial catastrophe wrought by anti-government free marketeers, there is a chance now to take stock of the possible positive and beneficial roles for American government all grown up. Contrary to Barney Frank (bless him), there are other options to exercise, other bonds that should reach their maturity in the coming years.

#337 – Bowery B’hoys as Frat Boys

Friday, October 16th, 2009

the steep theater’s history of frat boys in america.

America is tense with latent violence and resistance. The very common sense of white Americans has a tinge of helplessness in it, and deep fear of what might be if they were not common-sensical. – D.H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature

hollowlandslogo

The best part of Steep Theater’s production of The Hollow Lands was how the actors Jonathan Edwards and especially Boyd Harris played their characters as corn-fed frat boys in the mythic, misty history-scape of America.

Their choice to play these bowery-b’hoy-turned-frontier-ruffians as displaced Alpha Beta Deltas mingled youtful entitlement with an angry, violent undercurrent. These frat boys in America were happy-go-lucky, tolerant, and open to strangeness and yet, on a dime, could turn rageful, reactionary, and close-minded. They reminded me of the boys on spring break with Bruno who will go along with anything until Sasha Baron Cohen’s character asks them to say hi to Austrian gay TV.

It was a brilliant way to link the present to the past in this epic play squeezed into a tiny performance space: fraternity brothers lost in America, alive and innocent and virile, on a death trip, haunted by guilt, and creepily intolerant and unempathetic.

They were on Whitman’s Open Road and locked in Limbaugh’s closed-circuit demagoguery all at once. They were, as D.H. Lawrence famously wrote in his Studies in Classic American Literature, trying to get away, most of all from themselves — pursuers of freedom and recoilers from its wild implications.

6a00d8341c58f853ef011570a4b550970c-500wi

Jonathan Edwards and Boyd Harris (center figures) play frat boys in the misty, epic American past.

Images: Steep Theatre

#330 – Echolocation #17: Darkening the Brightness

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

at first it seems like utterly normal folk-rock, but then frontier ruckus’s “strangeness never ceases.”

fr_img03_hires

Frontier Ruckus, “Mona and Emmy,” Live at Paste Magazine

Frontier Ruckus‘s best song, “Mona and Emmy,” is not on the group’s new album, The Orion Songbook, though there are many good songs on that release. There is, however, a wonderful version of “Mona and Emmy” recorded for Live at Paste Magazine.

“Mona and Emmy” is a parable, but about what? At the Paste Magazine performance, lead singer Matthew Milla says it’s a “childhood love kind of song about this girl who I was childhoodly in love with.” He explains that the girl who he loved was from an evangelical family. When baptized by her father, she was surrounded by a hoard of black flies, which her father took to be a bad omen.

But that seems to only be partly what the song is about. It’s a kind of triangle love story, perhaps, between the singer, Mona, and Emmy. Or is it simply a moment poised between memory and the future, between a childhood love and an adult love? The song is certainly about sins committed and desires unquenchable, pranks gone awry and restlessness wrested into dreams, lost opportunities lost for good, and the renewal of spirit in remembering what’s gone and what still remains.

Most of all, it’s about the feeling of a summer night in a nameless small American town on the edge of the Interstate.

As the story unfolds, the singer is getting off work at the local market, where he works “nine to five around the hiss of the ice box compartment.” He and Mona, who has been buying milk and honey, seek to set the town on fire, but instead there’s just stillness, a wonderful kind of delicious American night stillness. Stirring the weeping willows like a gentle wind, the song’s chords float by, quintessential old-timey-folk-music-by-way-of-Neil-Young chords, as David Jones’s banjo clatters past like a train and trumpet player Zachary Nichols puffs a melody just behind. Anna Burch plays the role of Mona, the singer’s “only friend,” and together they share the memory of Emmy and her baptism and a second memory of the singer jokingly plunging Emmy’s head underwater while swimming one night, causing Emmy’s father to cry.

Wandering through the “neighborhoods from Mona’s house to the interstate,” the singer wants to flee “for railroad tracks in other towns,” but at the same time longs “to hold to something longer, something meaner, something stronger.” He urges Mona to depart with him, setting out on the Interstate to the promised land, but Mona points out that the Interstate dead ends, and together they ask: “Is the promised land just a funny way to say the strangeness never ceases?” At song’s end, Mona and the singer grasp at the memory of Emmy’s religious childhood: “‘Cause Emmy, you have baptized me to pieces.”

With every listen, the story keeps unfolding in a new ways. In fragments, the mystery of the song only expands into the starry sky. And as the singers’ voices blend and separate, as the banjo plucks into and out of the old chords, as the snare drum skip along and snap back, as the trumpet rises and falls on the simple chords, one discovers again—surely, sadly, thankfully, and quite miraculously—that the “strangeness never ceases.”

#315 – The People’s Republic of Miller High Life

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

of beer and advertising the proletarian revolution, or, workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your hangovers!

In CR #301, we explored the spate of new commercials that almost instantaneously incorporated the current economic crisis into their advertising. These commercials — for fast food, cars, and even for financial investment products (!) — seek to absorb the anxieties of the current crisis into the fantastical dreamworld of consumerism.

Perhaps the most fascinating recent advertising campaign of this type is the Miller High Life “Delivery Guy” series, which features a delivery man re-appropriating bottles of Miller High Life from elites who are out of touch with the common man. The beer is taken back from a luxury box at a sporting event, from the fancy-hats crowd at a Kentucky Derby-like race, and from the hip elites behind the velvet rope and bouncer at a nightclub.

The message of the ads, delivered by a working-class delivery guy, is a strangely sublimated version of disaccumulation, of redistributing private property from the top to the bottom. But instead of smashing the state, or smashing the machines of capitalist alienation, here proletarian revolution is merely bottled and redistributed in a consumer fantasy of working-class reappropriation.

As such, the advertisements speak in the realm of leisure (and of beer, which has a long history of involvement in class struggles — just think of all those German socialists in the 19th century U.S.) to class resentments and fantasies of class resistance. So too, the ads keep those feelings and ideas bottled up and puts them on ice, then pours them out into humor and intoxication rather than actual revolution.

The true high life remains for some, but not for all.

Miller High Life “Delivery Guy” Ad Campaign

#301 – Buying Into It By Buying Out of It

Saturday, April 4th, 2009

advertising the recession.

Remarkable to see how quickly the current recession is surfacing in television advertising.

Perhaps it marks how much of a challenge the economic crisis is to the existing order of things. Where once advertisers urged us to spend conspicuously, since happiness was “priceless,” now ads caution us against profligacy. Turns out there is a price tag. The debt is coming due.

But, these ads insist, just because we misled you before does not mean that you should question the larger logic and system of consumerism. Instead, these ads seek to contain the new mood of thrift and anxiety within the old consumer order.

Various fast food commercials, car rebate ads, and other ephemera from the consumer spectacle interpellate us: “Quick! You, Consumer, you can buy your way out of this mess by buying into it even more!”

At this juncture, there is no space within the ads to address the deeper problems and issues we now confront. All they do is associate (brilliantly) their products with the new desires, regrets, and urges of our times. The affective economy of consumerism remains intact even as the affect changes.

Yet, it remains to be seen where these new emotions, desires, angers, loathings, and worries will carry us. Can we see glimpses of alternative worldviews and ideologies through the cracks of the consumer dream machine? Or just new ways of authorizing the same old orders and charges?

Most stunning of these ads is Fidelity’s “Turn Here” campaign, which urges us — against all other evidence — to trust our money to the very financial system that screwed things up so badly in the first place.

Addendum: “The Hard Sell: How Mad Men Spin the Recession,” Mother Jones

#300 – Culture Rover’s Unfamiliar Quotations

Saturday, April 4th, 2009

The work of any man of knowledge, if he is the genuine article, does have a distinct kind of political relevance: his politics, in the first instance, is the politics of truth, for his job is the maintenance of an adequate definition of reality. — C. Wright Mills

(With a nod to Alan Wolfe, “Gonzo Sociology”)

#289 – After Shock & Awe

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

moving beyond & thinking back on “shock and awe.”

…You’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. — Barack Obama, First McCain-Obama Presidential Debate, October 2008

Mark Landler of the New York Times, one talking head in Frontline’s marvelous “instant history” documentary, Inside the Meltdown, describes Hank Paulson and Ben Bernacke’s decision — after much avoidance — to go to Congress for direct capital injections from the federal government to the private banking system as “almost the economic equivalent of ‘shock and awe.’”

It’s an intriguing comparison, one that commentators such as Ariana Huffington pointed out at the time.

It makes me wonder two things:

First, during parts of the “Dubya” years, “shock and awe” seemed so powerful as a technique. It inspired fear and loathing (and analysis) on the left such as Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. Aside from “shock and awe”‘s obvious problems (small things such as killing a lot of people and causing plenty more to suffer), what seems more striking now is what a failure “shock and awe” seems to have been, both in its military and financial versions. What initially appeared as such agile legerdemain — the spectacle by which neoconservatism (in the political realm) and neoliberalism (in the economic sphere) was able to dominate, steal, overwhelm, and even win — now seems like such a desperate ploy: the anxious posturing of a vulnerable bully; the last sucker punch from a heavyweight going down for the count.

Second, and more intriguingly, now that its moment is perhaps passing, might begin to think about the broader metaphor of “shock and awe” during the first decade of the twenty-first century? Does it, will it, serve as a useful tool for understanding a wider swathe of cultural production in the face of shifting technological and social foundations? Now that we are moving from the hatchet blow method of power (shock and awe them and bop them — or ourselves — over the head) to the Obama administration’s surgical scalpel, can we ask: what was “shock and awe” all about in a deeper sense?

Was it a kind of collective spell out of which the U.S. and the world is beginning to snap? And snap to what: attention or pieces?

#283 – Culture Rover’s Unfamiliar Quotations

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

Approach politics from behind and cut across societies on the diagonal. – Michel Foucault