Gavin
booty bass intellectual
I don't think it's inappropriate to use the minstrel example to show how appropriated culture has political effects, especially when some people say things like "I think it's more a case that a lot of people are just sick of the way so many things that really have nothing to do with politics invariable get politicised" in a thread expressly devoted to political implications in music (copy-pasted, natch). People use Nazis/Soviets/Fascists as legitimate cases/examples in political and historical discussions, and I wasn't accusing anyone of being a minstrel, so 
I'd like to think I'm pretty much past the whole "tar and feather the imperialist invader" when it comes to music (esp. since we have much more tangible imperial invaders now deserving of our condemnation). I'll agree that, for example, castigating Daft Punk as white appropriators for sampling black funk as a means of atoning for one's own guilt/racism makes for poor discussion. But why must all critiques get painted in such a wide swath? Can't we dissect why certain "appropriated" things work while others rub us the wrong way? I'm not suggesting we not listen to certain things, or that artists should be forbidden from using certain sounds/styles. But I don't think artists should be immune from criticism when they do, nor should it prevent us from using their examples to illustrate things we may find appalling. In fact, I (and I'll own up to being a cult stud so we can put a face on that strawman) appreciate the contributions on here from artists/creators/producers who tend to have more interesting takes on these issues than your average newly minted uni grads.
I was actually thinking of this thread while listening to the Talking Heads... I think one reason why thieir music "works" is that it's not just a straight rip of afro-beat. It's got a nervous, anxious energy that struck me at the time as making their whiteness visible. Sort of like how Eminem deliberately adopts a nasal tone to his rapping, or Daft Punk turn funk into something robotically sexy (sexily robotic?). It comes off less as appropriation than a hybrid by materializing whiteness (and yes, robots generally code white, or so I would argue).
And usually a distinction is made between appropriation from below and from above, although I think this is a hard distinction to uphold in practice (how marginal is marginal enough? How privileged is too privileged?). In this sense, SOS isn't really appropriation at all -- Universal owns Rihanna as well as Soft Cell's catalogue.
Aesthetics aside, music is increasingly reflecting a globalized economy that's structured in inequality yet depends on the contributions of marginalized groups. It's a great way to talk about economics, especially since cultural products are such a huge element of consumer capitalism. Yeah, it's not going to tell us why that Kanye song sucks or whatever, but why limit our discussions to that.
I'd like to think I'm pretty much past the whole "tar and feather the imperialist invader" when it comes to music (esp. since we have much more tangible imperial invaders now deserving of our condemnation). I'll agree that, for example, castigating Daft Punk as white appropriators for sampling black funk as a means of atoning for one's own guilt/racism makes for poor discussion. But why must all critiques get painted in such a wide swath? Can't we dissect why certain "appropriated" things work while others rub us the wrong way? I'm not suggesting we not listen to certain things, or that artists should be forbidden from using certain sounds/styles. But I don't think artists should be immune from criticism when they do, nor should it prevent us from using their examples to illustrate things we may find appalling. In fact, I (and I'll own up to being a cult stud so we can put a face on that strawman) appreciate the contributions on here from artists/creators/producers who tend to have more interesting takes on these issues than your average newly minted uni grads.
I was actually thinking of this thread while listening to the Talking Heads... I think one reason why thieir music "works" is that it's not just a straight rip of afro-beat. It's got a nervous, anxious energy that struck me at the time as making their whiteness visible. Sort of like how Eminem deliberately adopts a nasal tone to his rapping, or Daft Punk turn funk into something robotically sexy (sexily robotic?). It comes off less as appropriation than a hybrid by materializing whiteness (and yes, robots generally code white, or so I would argue).
And usually a distinction is made between appropriation from below and from above, although I think this is a hard distinction to uphold in practice (how marginal is marginal enough? How privileged is too privileged?). In this sense, SOS isn't really appropriation at all -- Universal owns Rihanna as well as Soft Cell's catalogue.
Aesthetics aside, music is increasingly reflecting a globalized economy that's structured in inequality yet depends on the contributions of marginalized groups. It's a great way to talk about economics, especially since cultural products are such a huge element of consumer capitalism. Yeah, it's not going to tell us why that Kanye song sucks or whatever, but why limit our discussions to that.
