Why does this always have to happen?

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Instruments in themselves aren't worrying, it's just the (OK, fairly implicit in this interview) idea that using 'real' instruments = growing as an artist that is worrying. Who needs a drumkit when you can make rhythm sounds as amazing as the ones on Dizzee's releases so far on virtual instruments?

" Lyrically and production wise I’ve progressed, you’ve gotta understand that ‘I Luv U’ was like the third or fourth beat I made. " - and wtf is wrong with the production on that tune? Sounds great to me, and to a lot of other people as well. No need to apologise or make excuses for it - quite the opposite.

If Dizzee 'does a So Solid' and jettisons grime for something more 'musical' (to be fair, there's absolutely no sign of that in his music so far), then he can only expect to go the same way as them.
 
I'm really happy when artists don't make enduring careers but rather burn up bright and disappear as fast as they came out of nowhere. the reason is that, while maybe not doing the same thing all their life, artists nevertheless mostly produce but variants of an idiosyncratic style that listeners understand quickly -- all the more so when an artist, because successful, spawns copy-cats -- and grow tired of rather soon. the though of, say, dizzee doing a U2 and clogging my cochleas for the next 20 years fills me with infinite dread, as much as i appreciated his initial efforts
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
matt ob said:
God forbid that he should grow as an artist. Time for the backlash is it? :rolleyes:

:eek: My wrist has been duly slapped.

I never said he shouldn't 'grow as an artist', tho' I'm not sure whether that's supposed to mean 'make better records', 'do something different', or 'use real instruments (man)'. And I was only referring to his comments in an interview, not to his music - you call that a backlash?

To me, Dizzee's music is still amazing,and I hope he has a long career in the biz. But why apologise for your early efforts when they're so incredibly good?
 
baboon2004 said:
To me, Dizzee's music is still amazing,and I hope he has a long career in the biz. But why apologise for your early efforts when they're so incredibly good?

common artistic problem: how to synchronise my aesthetic judgements about my work with that of its prospective or imagined audience? after all, you will have spent literally months listening to the same 4 or 5 bars before they hit the airwaves, turntables and P2P sites. and that changes your perception drastically.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Good point, well made.

Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

Echo-friendly - surely it is the artists who manage to overcome the problem you highlight who most often achieve longevity?
 

bun-u

Trumpet Police
I’m a bit suspicious of this kind of sentiment…reads to me like you want to somehow bottle the raw, angry and ignorant dizzee (enjoy the dayly hour of ghetto escapism, away from your more mundane, unreal world). To see him growing as an artists…. wanting to learn instruments, leave the grime scheme, the ghetto, discover other influences…become dare I say it….more like you or me, seems to sound the alarm bells
 
baboon2004 said:
Good point, well made.

Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

Echo-friendly - surely it is the artists who manage to overcome the problem you highlight who most often achieve longevity?

let me start by saying, as explained in a previous post, that artistic longevity isn't neccessarily a positive attribute. I do see the trend you are pointing to. i'm not sure goldie is a good example as one wonders how much impact he has had on the productions, sold bearing his name (can you say rob playford? what is playford doing these days i wonder?)

maybe this trend is because in the transition from home-keyboard nerd to serious musician, one encounters more and more conventional musicians and their aesthetic ideals are (unconsciously) accepted, another thing one has to bear in mind is that often a musician's early efforts may have tried to achieve a conventional "smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality'" in the first place and it was just the lack of producer skillz that prevented the listeners/us to see that.

I often think that luck/coincidence is a cruicial factor. Luck in the sense that for some the personal aesthetic trajectory coincides for longer with that of the audience than for others.
 

hint

party record with a siren
baboon2004 said:
Still, while this may well not prove to be the case with Dizzee, a disheartening trend exists (the first example that comes to mind is Goldie's downward slide from 'Terminator' to those jazz-funk lite tracks on 'Timeless') whereby artists who break through from the underground to the mainstream consistently undervalue their previous work, and begin to equate 'progress' with increasingly smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality', definitions that they themselves challenged in the first place.

"timeless" was a big album - loved by many, many people. the "downward slide" is your take on it... perhaps goldie sees it as doing what he always wanted to do, but couldn't before?

he certainly doesn't undervalue "terminator". I think perhaps the problem is that others overvalue it. goldie says he wrote it cos he wanted to fuck up peoples' minds at Rage... i.e. just hit them hard on the dancefloor with something that sounded fresh and raw. job done - the track's monumental.

look at photek - he totally nailed a unqiue sound... made his mark... and moved on. why should he try and improve on a standard that everyone else since has failed to match?

I love the fact that dizzee is not only inspired to try new things, but is also happy to talk about it in frank and honest terms. "I luv u" may well be his "terminator" - but how many legacies does one artist need? we're talking about one very talented, ambitious young man listening to another very talented, ambiutious young man (marvin) and having his mind opened. if you think that's a bad thing.... jeezzz... so be it.

how did you feel the first time you heard "what's going on?"... what did you do with that feeling?
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Bun-U - with all respect to the point you've made (and I understand the suspicion) I think you're reading things into my posts that just aren't there. My points don't relate exclusively to Dizzee and other 'ghetto' artists, nor am I seeking to live vicariously in the ghetto through grime (at least, no more than can be alleged against any middle-class person who listens to music 'from the ghetto').

My point would be the same if, say (this may not be a well-thought out example, but I'm sure you'll understand my point), Superpitcher or Aphex Twin hinted that they wanted to use real instruments instead of synthesisers, and started to say that their early productions were a bit limited. And for all I know, these two artists could be, demographically speaking, very much 'like me'. Personally, I don't give a shit if Dizzee Rascal is making his music out of Bow or a penthouse in Chelsea, just that it's not afraid to be 'musical' on its own terms, and doesn't try to fit other people's notions of 'musicality'. Surely this adventurousness iswhy most of us love grime?

And when did I seek to deny Dizzee the right to pick up new influences? Indeed, it's quite possible (as many have remarked) that Sylvian and Sakamoto could have been influences on some of the 'Boy in Da Corner' tracks, and Dizzee often mentioned his love for Nirvana in interviews - clearly he already has a wide range of influence from all corners of the music spectrum.

And it's you who seem to be calling Dizzee 'ignorant', because I certainly didn't.....
 
bun-u said:
leave the ghetto,

yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet.

i wonder if most western adolescent's lyrics and that banging on about the street/hood and how dangerous it is, is just because 3 months ago these guys had to be home before 10 or else their mum would not allow them to watch TV for a fortnight.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
echo-friendly said:
let me start by saying, as explained in a previous post, that artistic longevity isn't neccessarily a positive attribute. I do see the trend you are pointing to. i'm not sure goldie is a good example as one wonders how much impact he has had on the productions, sold bearing his name (can you say rob playford? what is playford doing these days i wonder?)

maybe this trend is because in the transition from home-keyboard nerd to serious musician, one encounters more and more conventional musicians and their aesthetic ideals are (unconsciously) accepted, another thing one has to bear in mind is that often a musician's early efforts may have tried to achieve a conventional "smooth, uncluttered production, real instruments and an embrace of narrow definitions of 'musicality'" in the first place and it was just the lack of producer skillz that prevented the listeners/us to see that.

I did note your first post about longevity, but, given the way you phrased it, I wasn't entirely sure whether you were being ironic. Sorry 'bout that.

Agree with almost all you say (really don't know enough about who did what on Goldie records), but I don't really buy the last point there. Couldn't it be perceived as a little patronising (not saying that you were trying to be) to suggest that the unconventionality in 'terminator' or 'i luv u' is there due to lack of skillz, and not on purpose?
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
hint said:
"timeless" was a big album - loved by many, many people. the "downward slide" is your take on it... perhaps goldie sees it as doing what he always wanted to do, but couldn't before?

I love the fact that dizzee is not only inspired to try new things, but is also happy to talk about it in frank and honest terms. "I luv u" may well be his "terminator" - but how many legacies does one artist need? we're talking about one very talented, ambitious young man listening to another very talented, ambiutious young man (marvin) and having his mind opened. if you think that's a bad thing.... jeezzz... so be it.

how did you feel the first time you heard "what's going on?"... what did you do with that feeling?

Of course that's just my take on 'Timeless', and I love some of the album. It's just that certain tracks seem overly conventional, and surely if Goldie had been that conventional from the beginning, no-one would see him as an innovator? Again, to make it clear, that's just my opinion.

Re the Marvin Gaye comment :rolleyes: I never said that listening to Marvin Gaye was a bad thing.
 

matt ob

Member
echo-friendly said:
yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet.

i wonder if most western adolescent's lyrics and that banging on about the street/hood and how dangerous it is, is just because 3 months ago these guys had to be home before 10 or else their mum would not allow them to watch TV for a fortnight.

:D

Regarding Rob Playford - didn't he fall out with Goldie, hence the album after Timeless being a heap of shit? As far as I know Playford runs Moving Shadow these days.
 

appleblim

Well-known member
interesting thread.....

i agree that "maturity" and proficiency on instruments doesn't equal better tunes, but give the boy a chance!

if he can make I Luv U after school on minimal equipment, maybe he can get other instruments to work to his advantage...

lets judge his music when it hits....

its as bad to presume that musicality will ruin music as it is to presume it will improve it....even in the now generally slated 'intelligent' or jazzy d&b scene that emerged round '96, there were still wicked tunes coming out of it, even if there were a lot of shitty "lets noodle on sax and double bass" ones....
 

bun-u

Trumpet Police
"My point would be the same if, say (this may not be a well-thought out example, but I'm sure you'll understand my point), Superpitcher or Aphex Twin hinted that they wanted to use real instruments instead of synthesisers, and started to say that their early productions were a bit limited. "

Perhaps I was reading something that wasn’t there, but from my experience this point is only ever made about (for want of a better phrase) street-based artists, who as the fable goes, are wrongly yearning for a higher level of sophistication....

"yeah, stepney green, a cosy borough in one of the wealthiest palaces on the planet."

No poverty in London...wow, when did this happen, I'd better give up my day job!
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Yeh, Appleblim, good point :)

Maybe it's just that I hear too many comments about wanting to learn real instruments, with not too many the other way ie not too many indie bands (any more at least) thinking about incorporating elements of grime/garage into their music (though I suppose the Junior Boys could be interpreted that way??). On top of that, I just always genuinely preferred scenes with a healthy disrespect for the idea of being musical or having to play musical instruments. Surely one of the great things about smaplers/synthesisers etc is that its' imagination, rather than fingering skills (!) which counts.

Or maybe I'm just wrong.
 
Top