The times your music taste deserted you....

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Poop.

Turns out it's taken six months for the music over here to osmorsify (?!) its' way into my brain.

Nah, I still hate J-Pop, pretty much all the J-Metal and all the boy band and female Idol stuff....

However J-Ska and J-Jazz is a whole different matter.

Ego-Wrappin' and Oreskaband just to name two.

Watch this and tell me that there's no hope for me.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Sw0zHfxKM (Ego-Wrappin')

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdq0FEDPKsQ (Oreskaband)

[MalaCloudy Black]

Never. Hey, that was an easy question. Gimme another.

[Blue Rosler]

My taste is pretty appauling to start with, but my friends seem to mock Simon Webbe the most. Fuck them all, both of his albums are really listenable. They're not classic albums, but you can just whack them on during the summer and chill out.

No Worries, Lay Your Hands, Grace, Coming Around Again.

I hope he tells the rest of the guys in Blue to fuck off and keep making solo stuff.

[YI]

Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra > *

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PeDE6kNSOo8

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KDeW-6yc3tA

Edited December 21, 2008 by YI

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I don't like anything I couldn't defend. Because otherwise... why would I like it?

I watched the J-Ska video. The problem is that it all just feels so ersatz. I mean, ska originally arose as a Caribbeanisation of American jazz: it has a distinct history and character of its own despite drawing on at least two obvious sets of influences. Is J-Ska like that? Does it blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of the dialectical process? Or is it just a bunch of Japanese kids who have heard some Specials LPs?

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I don't like anything I couldn't defend. Because otherwise... why would I like it?

I watched the J-Ska video. The problem is that it all just feels so ersatz. I mean, ska originally arose as a Caribbeanisation of American jazz: it has a distinct history and character of its own despite drawing on at least two obvious sets of influences. Is J-Ska like that? Does it blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of the dialectical process? Or is it just a bunch of Japanese kids who have heard some Specials LPs?

Ego-Wrappin' blend some Japanese vibes with a jazz and ska crossover, especially in live shows. That stuff is great. A lot of other Japanese ska bands....Not so much.....

[YI]

I don't like anything I couldn't defend. Because otherwise... why would I like it?

I watched the J-Ska video. The problem is that it all just feels so ersatz. I mean, ska originally arose as a Caribbeanisation of American jazz: it has a distinct history and character of its own despite drawing on at least two obvious sets of influences. Is J-Ska like that? Does it blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of the dialectical process? Or is it just a bunch of Japanese kids who have heard some Specials LPs?

I really, really, do not like that thinking. Music is a universal thing, what you're basically saying is that it should be segregated to specific people and specific areas, which I just flat out don't agree with. Yeah, they're Japanese kids who've heard some ska, they like it, there's some good bands (Ska Para who I posted), who gives a fuck. You're basically out there saying these kids shouldn't be playing the music they love, because they don't 'fit' with what the ideals of ska was the best part of 50 year ago.

[Cactus Drags]

I don't like anything I couldn't defend. Because otherwise... why would I like it?

I watched the J-Ska video. The problem is that it all just feels so ersatz. I mean, ska originally arose as a Caribbeanisation of American jazz: it has a distinct history and character of its own despite drawing on at least two obvious sets of influences. Is J-Ska like that? Does it blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of the dialectical process? Or is it just a bunch of Japanese kids who have heard some Specials LPs?

I don't think anyone has ever come across as more of a cunt when discussing music. So because I'm a white middle/working-class guy, I can't go out and start rapping, because I'm not black and from the streets? Fuck off, people can do what they like, if they're influenced by something and like how it sounds, they can feel free to incorporate it into their own music. Eh, YI explained it better than I could, but yeah, basically that's a load of elitist bullshit.

I like some fucking odd stuff, but as has been said, I wouldn't like it if I couldn't defend it. Probably wouldn't generally admit to liking some stuff because I know the amount of stick I'd get would be endless. Still, it makes me weirdly proud in some situations, like my boss has been deliberately putting music on at work to either make me laugh or get on my nerves. He came up to me Friday and said, have you heard of Jean Michel Jarr (fairly sure I ballsed up the spelling), I replied that I had and the Oxygen album was ace. He looked incredibly dejected when he told me the whole album was upcoming

[EWFan]

Too many times to mention, some times I'll just start humming the words or whatever the song and then be like "Why the fuck am I humming this crap?"

[AnnIQ Edison]

That first song was absolute crap. Not only was the song bad but the singer was bad aswell.

I must say though that the second one wasn't that bad.

But to add to this I normally just end up getting a song in my head that will have been from ages ago or just a bad song in general and it will be on constant loop. A good example would be "I kissed a Girl" by Katie Perry which just was annoyingly catchy and no one could really hate it

[Skummy]

Fuckshit's argument is something I get caught up in a lot, when it comes to the context of music and whatnot. On one hand, I think music should exist devoid of context - if a song is good, it's good, and there shouldn't be any historical baggage to consider. But on the other, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth seeing upper-middle-class white men sing the blues, as an obvious example, or any of the multitude of white reggae fans with seemingly no cultural connection to the genre other than "dude, Bob Marley smoked weed".

Certain genres of music do have a lot of history attached to them, and it can be a little disconcerting sometimes to see bands outside of the "right" cultural background making that music.

However, music can pretty much only grow through the combination of aspects from different genres, and I think deep-down my problem is with any band that just recycle what's been done before them, rather than trying to add a new aspect to the sound.

Anyhow, back on topic...like Fuckshit said, I don't like anything I wouldn't defend, there's no sense in being ashamed of the music you listen to. But stuff that people tend to be surprised/not believe me when I say I like is usually pop stuff; Leona Lewis' first single, most of the more upbeat Girls Aloud tracks, that kind of thing. Some people tend to be surprised that I'm in to a fair bit of rap, considering I'm about the whitest man alive.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Sorry to bump a somewhat old thread, but I forgot about this one, and only just noticed Dragsy, YI and Skumfrog's posts, and thought I'd better cuntily clarify some of my cunty opinions.

I don't think anyone has ever come across as more of a cunt when discussing music. So because I'm a white middle/working-class guy, I can't go out and start rapping, because I'm not black and from the streets?

It's not to do with ethnicity or 'credibility' (in terms of social class), but more to do with how 'sincere' the appropriation is, and whether or not it adds anything new to the genre. What's the point in J-Ska existing if all it does is amount to jukebox-y cover versions of some Japanese kids' favourite ska tunes? (By the way, I should point out that I know basically fuck all about J-Ska, and was framing my comment in an 'if this is what it's like...' manner, which I thought I made pretty clear).

Music crossing over previously-existing cultural and 'ethnic' boundaries can be a fantastic thing. For example, 70s Punk made an obvious attempt to incorporate reggae into its sound, and many Punk bands did cover versions of reggae songs both due to the latter genre's association with political resistance and counter-culture and as a sign of good-will from a (mostly) white musical movement towards a (mostly) Black cultural movement. Sure, this wasn't a principle that was accepted across punk (cf Johnny Rotten and "the niggers don't have to like us"; M.E.S. in a sense -- although he's a personal fan of reggae he usually keeps it quite distinct from his own work; Oi! and, most obviously, Rock Against Communism) and the actual quality of the musical output was sometimes questionable (a lot of 'Sandinista!'; Gang of Four's skull-shuddering Marley cover). But that doesn't matter: the spirit of the movement was correct, in that it unified two complementary strands of political, anti-authoritarian music together with genuinely anti-racist motivations in mind.

In an 'equal but opposite' vein, Bad Brains drew on traditionally 'white' forms of music, combined that with reggae and made something incredible.

But to view genres as just a bunch of stylistic options that an artist can draw on freely without any cultural implications is too simplistic. If a movement of middle class whites attempted to adopt stylistic elements of 'rap', but contented themselved with subject matter relating to how well their GlaxoSmithKline shares were doing or how long they have to wait to get seen at the dentists' surgery, they'd be explicitly challenging and seeking to redress the historical functon of the genre known as 'rap'. There's no denying that: it would amount to a repudiation of rap's history as a channel for Black working class experience.

This is not, incidentally a Black-white thing. Rap is already an area in which there is significant division between Black artists. Look at the way ithe genre's associations with Black Power and Left-wing politics have morphed into a glorification of Black masculinity, misogyny and personal wealth gain. This, too, has been the subject of debate and dissention within the genre, and within Black cultural criticism generally. On the other hand, like him or not, Mike Skinner has at least had some success in re-phrasing rap/hip-hop in a way that makes a significant musical departure, and redefines it as a conduit for White working class experience. I don't know a tremendous amount about his work, but I at least find it interesting.

People always want to reduce this into a discussion about what they "can't" or "aren't allowed" to do: that's incredibly weak, since no-one is advocating censorship of anything. But genres, especially those that are or have been politicised, are contested territories, and attempts to re-define them in a way that appears to strike against the history of the relevant genre will be met with a backlash.

For an extreme example of this, look at 'Rock Against Communism'. It's a musical movement that drew on many of the same influences as punk, and, like punk, served an expressly political purpose. But it explicitly sought to re-orient punk away from Leftist politics and anti-racism, and towards White Power and right-wing working class politics in general. This isn't about what people "can't do", but is it any surprise that R.A.C. is fiercely disowned by punks, and generally treated as a separate movement?

I really, really, do not like that thinking. Music is a universal thing, what you're basically saying is that it should be segregated to specific people and specific areas, which I just flat out don't agree with.

No, that's not what I'm saying. My argument is that musical movements which seek merely to recreate other musical movements without substantially changing their musical/political/aesthetic content are usually ersatz, pointless and boring.

Revivalism is always something that makes me roll my eyes. I mentioned in another thread recently a band that I've come across who claim to be doing 'Oi! revival' or somesuch. The problem here is that the band (like a lot of bands that immerse themselves 'bad faith'-style in the cultural reference points of the things they're 'recreating') are just 'performing' the genre so that people who remember it can nod their heads in recognition. If someone reheated the leftovers of my lunch and served them to me for dinner, I'd nod in recognition, but I wouldn't want to eat it. Revival movements are useless because they're musically boring (unless they substantially change the content of that which they're 'reviving') and politically irrelevant (unless etc). This 'Oi!' band apparently have a song called 'Still Fighting Thatcher'. Fine, but wouldn't it be much better for them to be 'Now Fighting Brown / Blair / Bush / Sarkozy / Samuel Huntington'? Metaphorically speaking.

It reminds me of the recent trend amongst Fucking Student Wankers of refering to all of their fucking nights out as 'raves'; covering their pasty fringed faces in glowsticks and listening to C.S.S. (caricatured more narrowly as 'Nu Rave', I suppose). It's just so fucking tedious and insincere and objectively bears no mark of the experiences of these cunts. It's just ersatz, bad-faith, vaguely ironic for-the-sake-of-it revivalism. In both cases, it is to a large degree the self-consciousness that's irksome.

Yeah, they're Japanese kids who've heard some ska, they like it, there's some good bands (Ska Para who I posted), who gives a fuck. You're basically out there saying these kids shouldn't be playing the music they love, because they don't 'fit' with what the ideals of ska was the best part of 50 year ago.

The bolded part is actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying. The question I asked was:

Does [J-Ska] blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of the dialectical process?

That's what I'm interested in: whether or not J-Ska innovates; whether or not it shows a genuine debt to and appreciation of its roots (and hence deserves association with 'Ska' in the first place) and yet builds on this with musical and aesthetic modifications that reflect the Japanese experience. My argument isn't that they should be attempting to perfectly recreate 'Toots and the Maytals' albums; that's the opposite of what I want. Wouldn't it be fantastic for a Japanese band to communicate the experiences of Nippon youth via such a (supposedly) disparate and un-Japanese genre as ska? I think it would; and I'd love to hear something like that.

What I don't want, however, is a Japanese juke-box that just plays 'Ghost Town' over and over again but in funny accents; or a kind of Japanese pop that offers cursory references to a by-gone musical tradition without apprehending or being sincerely interested in it.

But on the other, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth seeing upper-middle-class white men sing the blues, as an obvious example, or any of the multitude of white reggae fans with seemingly no cultural connection to the genre other than "dude, Bob Marley smoked weed".

Yes. If cultural movements cite, as a reason for their existence, some kind of 'legacy', then they at least need to understand and appreciate why the things they're influenced by worked. For me, all I ask is that people are genuine. How can, to use examples that are already in play, a middle-class white sing a song about Black struggle for freedom (as found in reggae) with any real sincerity? How strong was Sandi Thom's desire to be 'a punk rocker with flowers in her hair' REALLY? I bet she wouldn't even go to Glastonbury if there was more than a light drizzle.

The "reggae = cannabis" thing is an interesting example of this. Thinking of two recent white bands, one American and one British, who sort-of incorporate reggae into their style (Capdown and 311), both have made much of their pro-legalisation stances. Pro-legalisation is a worthy (if marginal) cause, but implicitly drawing the conclusion that reggae is part of the cultural arm of Black pro-marijuana activities re-inforces the (incredibly right-wing) tendency to see Rastafarianism as essentially a 'front' for drug pushing.

However, music can pretty much only grow through the combination of aspects from different genres, and I think deep-down my problem is with any band that just recycle what's been done before them, rather than trying to add a new aspect to the sound.

Agreed, and the operative word is the one I bolded. Straight-up revivalism, or revivalism that takes the name (but not the virtues) of the music it's influenced by doesn't extend or build upon anything.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Turbo Yannis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-LhyAVzDBI

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Just re-read my above post in the cold light of about 1:30, and would like to make a couple more points. Then I will leave you all alone.

i) I'm genuinely not quite sure how my original post (which was about revivalism in music) was interpreted as a kind of essentialist statement that particular types of music should be limited to particular geographical areas or 'races'. Does this slightly de-sloppified version do anything for anyone?

I watched the J-Ska video. The problem is that it [...] just feels so ersatz. I mean, ska originally arose as a Caribbeanisation of American jazz: it has a distinct history and character of its own despite drawing on at least two obvious sets of influences. Is J-Ska like that, [in having a distinct history behind it]? Does it, [say], blend traditional elements of Japanese music with ska itself in a continuation of [a] dialectical process? Or is it just a bunch of Japanese kids who have heard some Specials LPs?

What I was getting at was that, originally, ska drew on a noticeable set of influences whilst still being distinct from what had gone before it. And I wanted to ask whether J-Ska was also like that in being original (but sincere and respectful of that which it was claiming a debt to). Anyway, it's no big deal... I don't think I'm the first person to have been misunderstood on the internet.

ii) My last post might have seemed like it was some kind of Hegelian shit, presenting music as a completely dialectical process in which someone takes a genre, adds a new element, creates a new genre, and the process repeats. Obviously, that's a bit simplistic: people draw on wide pools of influences to different degrees, and what they add doesn't necessarily have to be musical (it can be political / cultural etc). But I think it's the case that people are moved to make music because they have built up a frame of reference, and, within that, see ways to modify, 'correct' or fill in gaps.

iii) I made some references to 'straight revivalism' (and similar) in my last post, but I do agree that, in the last analysis, it's impossible to step in the same riff twice. Dismissing, say, Bloc Party and Franz Ferdinand as just poor imitators of their 80s forebears (Gang of Four, Mekons, The Au-Pairs, Delta 5, Josef K, bits of The Fall, Minutemen, Mission of Burma) may not be inaccurate, but it is slightly reductive. There are still unique things about this 'second wave' (their lack of engagement with wider political and artistic movements as compared with the bands listed earlier, their different musical influences and reference points, their slightly poppier sound) that are worth explaining. It might not make much difference to your evaluation of the bands generally, but those things are still there.

Right. Hopefully I've managed to say something intelligible. Next time it might not even take me three posts.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit