Is there Soul in Indie?

[madtho]

no need to read anymore of his articles. they are often ridiculous.

...and Pitchfork just makes me angry.

I like the music criticism in Big Takeover (but I can only do like 1 issue a year), in the Other Music emails (though that's marketing and not really criticism, it's thoughtful and sincere).

For what it's worth, I think his example is wrong, but his point may be somewhat/kind of right.

Sure his point could be, somewhat, kind of right. There must be indie bands that lack 'soul'.


His Brother makes pretty rad type though.

-mad

[Tragabigzanda]

Hey, Cat Power's last couple albums could be categorized as soul, couldn't they?

[Knights Who Say Neve]

I don't hear much syncopation, "ecstatic singing"* or "intense, voicelike guitar tones" in contemporary black music, either...but that writer insists that lack of soul is a race thing. It's a cheap shot, and I call bullshit.


*histrionic, yes; ecstatic, no.

[fossiltooth]

I don't hear much syncopation, "ecstatic singing"* or "intense, voicelike guitar tones" in contemporary black music, either...but that writer insists that lack of soul is a race thing. It's a cheap shot, and I call bullshit.

Good point. I'm astonished that no one else made that comment. It's not too often that I hear soulful black music these days (in either sense of the word). At least not on the radio.

I just worked with a band for a week that was all old school Americana, Funk, Soul and Roots Rock. Of course, they were all white boys. But I tell you what: They were really good at it.

Sure, it's painfully "unhip" music, I guess. They kind of sound like The Band and CCR tangled up with Tower of Power and Stevie Wonder, with a equal doses of Mowtown, Donald Fagan, Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger thrown into the mix for good measure.

My Fiance was amazed I could "bear listening to the stuff" because of my "Indie" background. That's crazy. It was fun. The only thing I was amazed by is home awesome they were at playing music (especially for a bunch of White Boy in their Twenties) and the fact that they sold out the Bowery Ballroom without even having a record out! I think they have a cheesily produced live albm or something. Oh yeah, and the fact that music is fun for them and they make a living at it.

True, I can't relate to the majority of their fans (many of whom seem to be around college-age and look like they grew up on the Dave Matthews Band) but I'll tell you what I could relate to: the sincere and unpretentious joy they took in making music everyday. They really love the sh*t they do, and they try to do it as best they can. I just wish they had a record that could make their fans happy, and open them up to alternate tonalities. They also remind me of Dr. Teeth and Electric Mayhem onstage, which is a huge plus.

I got to help them make a record that sounds truly rootsy, "real" and I guess "Indie" (whatever that means) instead of a record that sounds like a "souless" over-polished Adult Contemporary Turd (it otherwise would have been). They love it. (I just hope the established Nashville engineer they have slated to mix it doesn't try to F* it all up and take the "soul" out of it!)

Anyway, they ain't going to be "hip" anytime soon, but they'll probably play to bigger audiences than the average band that gets a n 8.9 in pitchfork. The last one of those that I saw had the Mercury Lounge at half capacity. These guys sold out the Bowery Ballroom and they don't even have a real record out.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

I don't hear much syncopation, "ecstatic singing"* or "intense, voicelike guitar tones" in contemporary black music, either

my coworker at my day job listens to some internet r'n'b station all day long, they play what i can only assume is contemporary black music, and it is as soulless as anything else these days. most of the singers sound like they are badly in need of a laxative.

I just hope the established Nashville engineer they have slated to mix it doesn't try to F* it all up and take the "soul" out of it!

*fears worst*

[kdarr]

Well, let's face it, a lot of the music known as "indie" rock (The Genre Formerly Known As Alternative) is based around conceptual postmodernism and irony, which sort of removes both the artist and the listener from any real, visceral, gut-level emotional experience, which I reckon is something of a hallmark of "soul." I mean, how was Pavement ever gonna be soulful? You're not gonna tear your heart out singing about how funny Geddy Lee's voice is, y'know?

Oh, and I think that the gal from The Gossip is a hell of a soul singer, and the indie kids just love them. So there you go.

[<|>]

[brainfreezebob]

Soul, apart from any ethnic or genre connotation is a part of most of the indie music I love. I would say that Neutral Milk Hotel's In an Aeroplane Over the Sea, for example, is an incredibly soulful album.

I get the feeling, though, that what we're really talking about here is the politics of style. Too much Pavement, not enough Motown. Whatever. People should make and listen to whatever moves them.

If you feel it in your soul, it's got soul.

[fossiltooth]

I get the feeling, though, that what we're really talking about here is the politics of style. Too much Pavement, not enough Motown. Whatever. People should make and listen to whatever moves them.

I love people who can take an idea I could just barely communicate in a paragraph and say it clearly in a sentence.

Beautiful. You're a smarter man than I!

[Mudcloth]

Everytime I read a music critic's piece about anything I cringe.
Putting sound and communication [music] into nice neat little boxes is the first mistake. How do you define soul music? Or blues? Jazz? Whatever? Somebody write a definitive book on music genres so I can adequately label everything. How about calling music "Organized sound with the intention of either communicating ideas or emotions, or simply facilitating the rythym to which one may dance if they so choose." and call it a day.

I'm not a big fan of what people describe as indie music. It's clearly not influenced by music I enjoy listening to or playing. As a type of artistic communication, I realize it's not for me and I'm not the intended audience. Neither is Sasha Frere Jones so why even write a fucking article about it. Why attempt to intellectualize it? Just let it be what it is and let people enjoy it.

Arcade Fire isn't a soul band? No shit. If only they played with more of a soul influence Sasha Frere Jones would like them. Oh, but it's not their fault they're not soulful! Condescending tripe. Who cares?


edit: can't spell

[Mudcloth]

I don't hear much syncopation, "ecstatic singing"* or "intense, voicelike guitar tones" in contemporary black music, either...but that writer insists that lack of soul is a race thing. It's a cheap shot, and I call bullshit.


*histrionic, yes; ecstatic, no.

And this. Soul music isn't hereditary. Take an infant from Senegal and raise him in Ireland as a Irish musician and he will play Irish music as well as any Irishman.
Take an Irish infant and raise him in Senegal as a Senagalese musician and he will play Senagalese music just as well. Anyone with a brain, ears and hands can play any style of music he or she wants, authentically. Playing an listening to music is a learned behavior. How does this music writer not know this?
Sasha Free Jones could stand to read This Is Your Brain On Music by Daniel J. Levitin.

[Jay Reynolds]

If you look at this with the whole of 20th century American music as a backdrop, I think you can say that there is something unique going on starting in the late 70's/ early 80's.
Generally, it goes like this:
1. African American music gets co-opted/re-interpreted by white artists operating at fringes of mainstream.
2. This hybrid/stolen sound becomes increasingly popular and invades mainstream.
3. African American artists abandon genre and explore new idioms that haven't been absorbed by the majority/anglos.
4. Repeat.
You can set your watch to it. I'm not saying one group is more valuable than the other (though some will), but its pretty obvious in a lot of cases.
But starting with the advent of punk and hip-hop, this crossover has largely stopped. Yes, hip-hop elements wind up in pop still, but it doesn't take the long way around anymore. And despite a couple notable exceptions, white audience don't seem to be very quick to accept white MC's. So, because of the lack of the traditional ethnic "farm-team" fringe movement, white artists have to find new ways of scaring their parents and their fans' parents.

[madtho]

Not to discount page 1, but page 2 of this thread just rocks.

*histrionic, yes; ecstatic, no.

I'll tell you what I could relate to: the sincere and unpretentious joy they took in making music everyday.

"indie" rock (The Genre Formerly Known As Alternative)

word.

Everytime I read a music critic's piece about anything I cringe.

I end up cringing often, but I go into it really wanting to read something good about music. Have you read any 33 1/3 books?
Sometimes (often), based on the description of how a band or song sounds I get sounds in my head that lead to songs that i'm sure sound nothing like the band I read about. That's really why I keep Big Takeover around

I would say that Neutral Milk Hotel's In an Aeroplane Over the Sea, for example, is an incredibly soulful album.

ah, the 'Soul' soulful conundrum.


This thread had me thinking about Talking Heads all day. Square, white, indie (for all intents). Soul. no doubt.

My thanks to Sasha Frere-Jones for saving me from another 'help me spend money' thread. What's with them anyway?

-mad

[lukievan]

much of what i read in the new yorker these days is just dreadful. the best thing in the new yorker are the ads that middle aged women drunk on wine post about needing to find a man fluent in 10 languages.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The New Yorker is full of great journalism - on politics, Irag, the economy, history, culture, books, humor, language, etc., etc. It's the only magazine I subscribe to besides TapeOp. The contributors alone: John Lee Anderson, George Packer, Seymour Hersh, David Sedaris, Hendrik Hertzberg, Philip Gourevitch, Ian Frazier, Steve Coll, Jack Handey fer chrissakes! Not to mention great fiction and poetry. Yes, the Talk of the Town is often NY-upper crust snarky, but so what.

I do agree that Sasha Frere-Jones is mostly worthless as a pop critic. But then, most are, really. Lester bangs, R.I.P.

[caffiend2049]

I just worked with a band for a week that was all old school Americana, Funk, Soul and Roots Rock. Of course, they were all white boys. But I tell you what: They were really good at it.

Sure, it's painfully "unhip" music, I guess. They kind of sound like The Band and CCR tangled up with Tower of Power and Stevie Wonder, with a equal doses of Mowtown, Donald Fagan, Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger thrown into the mix for good measure.

That sounds like a curious recipe! Are you open to name drop? I'd like to check them out.

[comfortstarr]

Wow... some serious anti-intellectuality on here. Talking, reading, and writing about art is something a lot of people enjoy. This includes artists (see: T.S. Eliot). Mr. Jones is a musician by the way. Most "critics" write about their subject because at heart, they love it. OBVIOUSLY people should just listen to what they like. OBVIOULSY it's not the Arcade Fire's fault that the writer doesn't like them. But it seems like some are advocating for people not to even ponder such questions, as irrelevant and un-answerable as they may be, as this one. I find that ludicrous. I WANT to read interesting arguments about these things, whether I agree with them or not. I think the whole process is useful for artists and those who just enjoy it. Good criticism, and I think Jones' qualifies as that, makes you think harder about things.

P.S. I don't see how anyone can slag off the New Yorker, especially after what they've done around the war in Iraq and other government malfeasance over these past 8 years. Once the Tina Brown-era ended, the mag got a lot better and pretty much returned to where it once was.