Is there Soul in Indie?

[comfortstarr]

As I'm listening to the Pitchfork Forkcast this morning I was reminded of this article: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/m ... frerejones

When it first was published, I had a knee jerk reaction that it was full of shit. But on some more reflection, spurred by the Forkcast and other hunts for new music (e.g., the SWSX site) I'm not so sure anymore. There is something missing from a lot of indie music. It's ephemeral for sure, but it's there... er... not there. For me "soul" in music means there's a sense of urgency (not tempo) that exists for the artist around communicating whatever it is they're wanting to communicate. It's like they'd die if they didn't get it out. I know this is cheesie crit-speak, but it's kind of interesting.

Anyways, curious what other people think. Granted, this is a subject of grand generalizations, but that's the fun innit?

[Tragabigzanda]

Sure there is, sometimes. I consider Sonic Youth and "indie" band (despite the fact they're on Geffen), and I think they're full of soul.

What about Shellac's "The End of Radio" or "My Black Ass"? There's plenty of urgency there.

Spoon is a funny band. Sometimes it feels like there's some real soul in their recordings, other times it feels like posturing.

Hey, even SOUL music is lacking in soul sometimes. Just listen to Amy Winehouse!

[fossiltooth]

(To the original poster) I'm not sure if you got the gist of the article. The author was saying that a lot of modern indie rock music is missing "soul" in the musically literal sense. She was saying bands like Arcade Fire show little-to-no heritage to traditional american "black music", particularly in mood or rhythmic feel. This all began with bands like Television who basically decided to take the blues out of guitar playing.

That doesn't mean it's "soul-less" in the figurative sense. I mean, Maroon 5 show a lot of heritage to Soul music, but I think it's been repeatedly proven that none of them actually have any "Soul" in the figurative sense.

If you've been inandated with too many guitar solos from blues lawyers and cheeseball rock bands, you'll feel "F* this Blues Sh*t. I'm gonna put my guitar in an alternate tuning and go Sonic Youth on yer ass!"

However, if you're hearing tons of epic, unfun, melancholy, cerebral music, you might say to yourself "This sh*t sucks, and every band from Toronto has a singer that tries to sound like the guy from Arcade Fire. I'm buying a Sharon Jones record and learning to play bass!"

Then again you might hear to much Maroon 5 on the radio and say "I never want to hear these guys or even Stevie Wonder ever again. I'm going to put Harvest and Pink Moon on and then make some personal-sounding folk music."

Fads come and go. Even those who aren't swayed by fads have ever-changing tastes.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Arcade Fire, but it's not necessarily because they don't play syncopated rhythms! I mean, I love syncopation, but I also love Neil Young's "Harvest". That's a record with "Soul" in the figurative sense, even if it lacks it in the "musically literal" sense.

Now, if you might that Arcade Fire have no soul in either sense, you're entitled to feel that way..... but that's just not what the article was talking about! Incidentally, if you like soulful music in either sense, you might want to look into alternative resources to Pitchfork. Or create your own! Criticism is important, and can be very interesting. However, reviewers should never feel like they're more important than the art. I feel most reviewers at Pitchfork have it ass-backwards, even when I agree with their reviews.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I saw Arcade Fire on their last tour before they went back into the studio to record Neon Bible, and they seemed to have plenty of soul. They aren't really 'indie' in the most strict sense though; more 'eclectic' or something - I think of true 'indie' (the 'genre') as guitar-based bands like Death Cab and Spoon, descended from proto-'indie' bands like Pixies and Galaxie 500 and VU before them.

Yesterday I heard what can only be a new Death Cab song and it was the most soulless, pointless thing ever. So, yes.

BTW, it really bugs me when I go to rip a CD and the band's CDDB entry lists them as 'indie' in the genre tab. This happened to me yesterday with an Elliott Smith CD. It's no big deal to change it for the rip, but I mean, seriously, it's all 'rock/pop' pretty much. Indie is not a genre. If there is an 'indie' genre then there also should be a 'major label' genre, but there isn't, is there?

Anyway, yes, I saw that New Yorker article when it came out and I did actually agree with it then. She summed up what I had been noting myself. Not that music needs 'soul' to be any good; that's not the point.

[palinilap]

I think it all depends on the artist. Some bands are unique and transcend the genre they're lumped into. Others try and conform to a genre to find their voice, and in the process lose the creative magic that makes a great band. The crappiest bands seem to pop up whenever a "scene" or genre gets mainstream success.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I think it all depends on the artist. Some bands are unique and transcend the genre they're lumped into. Others try and conform to a genre to find their voice, and in the process lose the creative magic that makes a great band. The crappiest bands seem to pop up whenever a "scene" or genre gets mainstream success.

Another route to crappiness is to achieve success and then go about duplicating the stuff that led to the success for another few albums. EG Death Cab. That song really ticked me off.

Somebody please define 'soul' for us so we can argue about it some more.

[cgarges]

I think that soul music doesn't really exist any more, in the modern music world. I've never been one to really stay on top of whatever the next thing is in R&B and hip hop, but I haven't heard anything innovative or even fresh-sounding from either one of those genres in a really long time. I can't even think what might be considered real soul these days.

As such, it's probably harder for soul to influence younger players. I mean, as a general form of influence, rock still exists, country still exists, metal still exists, etc. It's not too hard to find funk stuff that's currently being produced, but I think soul music is kind of dead right now. Maybe I've just overlooked something.

And for the record, Amy Winehouse is not soul in my book. Neither is John Mayer.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i was listening to the latest sharon jones record yesterday and that was pretty damn soulful in the classic sense of the word.

i just mastered a record that strikes me as being really soulful. it's not 'soul' music by any stretch, it sounds like rock music played by smart, pissed off white people, but it sounds like they believe in what they're doing, and they play it like they mean it...and to me that qualifies as having soul.

by the way, sasha frere-jones is a he.

[fossiltooth]

As I'm listening to the Pitchfork Forkcast this morning I was reminded of this article: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/m ... frerejones

When it first was published, I had a knee jerk reaction that it was full of shit. But on some more reflection, spurred by the Forkcast and other hunts for new music (e.g., the SWSX site) I'm not so sure anymore. There is something missing from a lot of indie music. It's ephemeral for sure, but it's there... er... not there. For me "soul" in music means there's a sense of urgency (not tempo) that exists for the artist around communicating whatever it is they're wanting to communicate. It's like they'd die if they didn't get it out. I know this is cheesie crit-speak, but it's kind of interesting.

Anyways, curious what other people think. Granted, this is a subject of grand generalizations, but that's the fun innit?

I just realized that I skimmed over the sentence I put in bold above. It suggests you might actually gotten the gist of the article. My bad! To be fair, it's still a little unclear how you define "Soul". On the other hand, the author of the article is pretty damn clear about what "Soul" means to her on a musically literal level. Then she conflates that definition of "Soul" with the "emotional" definition of soul because she's clearly become bored by whatever collegiate whiteboy bands she's been listening too for the past several years.

It seems like you might be in the same boat. That's cool. It happens. Sometimes such things happen across culture at large. That's how trends and fads start. Some trends turn into lasting phenomenons that have a serious impact on the cultural world around them.

Somethings are just fads. Like Swing Revival, or the Strokes and don't mean much the next year. I'd bet that history will prove that all the Canadian bands springing up who have singers that sound just like the guy from Arcade Fire are starting a fad.

I'm not casting dispersions at Arcade Fire. They're fine and all. I'm also not dissing on Swing Music. Like any genre, there's plenty of good stuff, especially in the original period. However, that doesn't mean the Cherry Poppin' Daddy's should have ever been famous! ...I bet you forgot they ever existed! They used to be on the radio every two minutes. Mmmmm. Sheep food.

But I probably shouldn't diss anybody. I'm sure they're a bunch of nice guys who really like that kind of music. So, more power to them and their fifteen minutes!

I still get to hate the Strokes though, right?

[comfortstarr]

(To the original poster) I'm not sure if you got the gist of the article. The author was saying that a lot of modern indie rock music is missing "soul" in the musically literal sense. She was...

Mmm... I think the lamentation pointed to both the literal and figurative. He says: "Why did so many white rock bands retreat from the ecstatic singing and intense, voicelike guitar tones of the blues, the heavy African downbeat, and the elaborate showmanship that characterized black music of the mid-twentieth century?" So I think he's talking about both what I call "urgency" and musical attributes.

Personally, I think the attribute of "swing" is both. Count Basie swinging isn't the same as P-funk's or the Rolling Stones'. And the thing that accounts for "swing" isn't always so straightforward.

That said, you are right that the author does definitely say there's a literal lack of the typical elements of soul/black music in indie these days.

Either way, it's interesting. As he points out, he was weary after 6 songs. I find this happening to me a lot when listening to records in the "indie" vein.

[jonathan]

Are you guys talking about when soul meets body?

[madtho]

when Elvis Presley stole the world away from Pat Boone and moved popular music from the head to the hips

That's just the first of many HORRIBLE, wrong-headed ideas in that article (I mean, before rock & roll, pop was called SWING for godsakes).
I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and read some more articles by him, but his references and chronology just speak to a 'history started when I became aware' syndrome.

Without wasting time picking the whole thing apart, the main idea that a sect of popular music lacks a couple elements usually associated with popular Black music is just off.

It's funny, but I hear alot of the South, (and I think ther term 'the South' is more better) in Arcade Fire. I mean 'ecstatic singing'?, come on.

I'm a terrible debater, but I'm right.
-mad

[tateeskew]

when Elvis Presley stole the world away from Pat Boone and moved popular music from the head to the hips

That's just the first of many HORRIBLE, wrong-headed ideas in that article (I mean, before rock & roll, pop was called SWING for godsakes).
I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and read some more articles by him, but his references and chronology just speak to a 'history started when I became aware' syndrome.

Without wasting time picking the whole thing apart, the main idea that a sect of popular music lacks a couple elements usually associated with popular Black music is just off.

It's funny, but I hear alot of the South, (and I think ther term 'the South' is more better) in Arcade Fire. I mean 'ecstatic singing'?, come on.

I'm a terrible debater, but I'm right.
-mad

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

[comfortstarr]

I'm a terrible debater, but I'm right.
-mad

This is basically my mantra! Thanks for giving it voice.

For what it's worth, I think his example is wrong, but his point may be somewhat/kind of right. Frankly, Arcade Fire do sometimes generate that mojo ("I know it when I see it") for me.

[;ivlunsdystf]

Oh, he (not she) oops.

I dropped my New Yorker subscription a while ago and I don't miss it. There have been some great writers/cartoonists in there over the years: John McPhee, George Booth, early Roz Chast, Gahan Wilson, Bruce McCall. I also enjoy Anthony Lane's film reviews. However, Malcolm Gladwell and James Suroweicki are terrible. They are pop-sociology douchebags who just happen to be really good at networking and selling books. Pretty much, Malcolm Gladwell and his imitators (including Steven Levy) are the reason I've washed my hands of the New Yorker. They took over the whole scene with their 'conventional wisdom is always wrong' bias.

Regarding the music articles, I pretty much hate all music critics without even giving them a chance, so of course that applies to the New Yorker. I have never been much interested in Pitchfork either. So it was odd for me to see that Frere Jones article last year and actually read it and agree with it.

Reading back over this, I guess I hate everything.

"Soul" the genre is pretty much over. I thought Timberlake's last album had a bit of 'soul' (the intangible quality, not the genre) though.