WHITE NOISE SUPREMACISTS APOLOGISTS
Look - I'm not one to snub the cultural impact/importance of blogging. And yeah, yeah, maybe we're on the "cusp" of a "paradigm shift" in terms of how the online writing world is catching up with the print world. But seriously, are we really living in an age now where blogging is meant to mean anything more than a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s--- because it's nice to have a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s---?
Which isn't to say that smart things don't get said on blogs - 'tis happens all the time (maybe not here but...). But for chrissake, blogs, by the very nature of their being, are more or less the grown-up equivalent of my daughter's Magna-Doodle. You scribble on them, maybe show a few friends ("look, I drew a kitty!"), and then wipe the slate clean to start on a new post. The problem is that, with blogs, everything gets archived somewhere. Damn you Technorati/Google Blogsearch!
Case in point: John Cook's bizarre piece on race and pop music that appeared as Slate.com's lead story the other day. It's a huffy-puffy slamming of Sasha Frere-Jones and Jessica Hopper for *gasp* daring to suggest that Stephin Merritt does not care for Black artists.
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...
There are some larger philosophical questions to be hashed out here and it's unfortunate that Cook - or perhaps an overzealous Slate editor - chose to frame one of them with such a overblown accusation as the piece's subtitle suggests: "Is Stephin Merritt a racist because he doesn't like hip-hop?" Not only is this a disingenuous reduction of what some of the key issues are, it's really a convenient strawman argument that far too many knee-jerkers have latched onto. Predictably, they're sputtering their righteous indignation without actually, you know, bothering to really read Cook's article, let alone follow the chain of evidence in order to arrive at a better understanding of what's actually been debated.
Like I said, there are some actually important philosophical issues at stake here but let me first address an obvious point that stands in front of all this:
What does it mean that a reputable publication - let alone Slate.com - green-lights a "cover" story about what someone - even the music critic for The New Yorker - writes on their blog?
Seriously - if Sasha were slamming Merritt in the New Yorker itself...that'd be a story, sort of. (At least Gawker might care). However, without Sasha's blog entries, Cook's got nada to write about. And even at that, most of Sasha's more pointed critiques of Merritt came two years ago. Did I mention it was on a blog?
I'm not suggesting that blogs should carry no accountability - I'd never suggest that. But as fast as the online and print worlds are fusing together the way, say, two colliding cars fuse together, I just don't think we're at the stage where the two can - or should - be conflated. What someone writes on a blog cannot be treated the same as something that appears in a publication after it's been vetted by a few editors, if not a legal staff, and then offered up - stamped with institutional approval - to a mass public.
Cook argues, "He ought to take the things he writes on his blog seriously," which makes no sense because if Sasha's comments were meant to be un-serious, then why would anyone - let alone Cook - care? I think what Cook perhaps meant to say instead was, "He ought to be held accountable for the things he writes on his blog" (a sentiment that I doubt Sasha would contest). But I also think the most appropriate forum for Cook to have said that would have been...a blog of his own. At least there, acting royally ass-hurt is a way of life. (For all of us).
Back to what should have been the core question being raised here: what are the politics of personal taste?
Someone is not a racist just because they don't like hip-hop. However, in my experience, people's reasons for not liking hip-hop are rarely so simple as, "it doesn't move me." There are often layers of racial undertones (and occasionally, quite explicit overtones) for why people dislike hip-hop. (In all fairness, those same forces also explain why many people love hip-hop.)
To put it another way, no other music in the last quarter century is as thoroughly infused with meanings and images of race as rap. Pretending race isn't an inherent part to the music itself is simply an act of denial. Race need not be the only reason people enjoy or don't enjoy hip-hop but you can't brush it away as if it wasn't a factor at all.
Similarly, one cannot talk about the history of American pop music in the 20th century without talking about Blackness and the impact and contributions of African American artists since, you know, Black music basically helped pioneer every major genre we have. Yeah, country too.
One may have aesthetic reasons for not liking Black music (though, for the life of me, I cannot possibly imagine what that might be, especially if you claim to like pop music at all) but when tasked with creating a list for to be published not in a blog but rather, say, the NY Times or even Time Out (i.e. places that more than 1,000 people read), one should have the good sense to realize that they are no longer merely sharing taste but are canon-building.
People don't have to like that their personal tastes and choices come attached to politics - and sure, feel free to quote Carol Hanisch here - but 1) that doesn't mean that one's personal choices are devoid of power and politics and 2) that doesn't excuse someone from having to take accountability for their tastes, especially if they're using that platform of a major print publication in which to share said tastes.
Moral of the story: Stephin Merritt needs a blog. Maybe him and Cook can start one together.
Last point: more proof that the world of music fans are filled with men who probably were either spanked too much (or not enough) as adolescents: Hopper's been fielding emails from people calling her a "stupid b----" and "idiot c---" (btw, from speaking with other women music writers, this is practically a daily occurrence) as if her sex had anything to do with her opinions. Mr. F-J, on the other hand, reports "unanimous civility" in the emails he's gotten.
I can promise you this double standard is not on account of position: if Jessica were at the New Yorker and Sasha at the Reader, best believe Hopper's hate mail would overfloweth even more. Jessica notes: "And those of you journalists, who feel called to rep for journalists everywhere when you call me an "idiot c---", best blv I will not hesitate to print yr emails with yr name and your publication's signature footnoted at the bottom right here on this blog."
All I can say is...DO THAT.
<< Home