Both SFJ and Carl Wilson are fetishizing a particular type of authenticity, because that whole upper-middle class college-educated yuppie thing is just as authentic as the rest of it.

They both perpetrate the kind of thinking that keeps music criticism from evolving significantly from the early days of gonzo journalism, which was obsessed with realness and roots. When you inadvertently attach artistic merit to particular conditions of society and economics, you end up not being able to speak as subtly about evolutions of style and the hybridity of content within styles. The bad thing about both Wilson's and SFJ's generalisms is that they both tend to reify what they decry because they focus on the bios and bodies of the musicians rather than the music itself. For example, the "racial identity" that SFJ attaches to the authenticity of popular music mostly sequesters musicians of color into a particular stripe of performance, mainly with how well they do with the paradigm of "urban music" as it's perpetrated in the popular realm (which in and of itself is composed of rigid, easily acceptable models of black life and black music). In any case, this obsession with realness is what keeps the permutations of truly underground hip-hop and hip-hop-based electronic music out of sight while critics harangue over whether Kanye West gets enough appreciation [YES HE'S COOL -- WE GET IT]. Furthermore, it holds "white musicians" at an arms length, as Wilson writes -- with the assumption that SFJ means indie-scene rockers. This despite the fact musicians both white and black in the realm of the independent-type pop music scene love to revive older blues and soul and r n b styles -- Cody ChestnuTT, M Ward, Grizzly Bear, Cat Power, Joe Henry, M'schell Ndegeocello, the Pipettes. That SFJ doesn't speak much about TV on the Radio is telling. I understand the desire to avoid tokenism, but given that the band itself chooses to confront head-on the identity of their blackness in a white genre through the self-conscious appropriation of pan-African sounds, I think that they are a worthy subject for such a piece. However, because they only present a limited number of "black" bodies, they apparently get drowned out -- despite the fact that 1) they are among the most popular of the new rock acts today and 2) people talk about their blackness as only one facet of the music they produce, and not as a quota that's beginning to be filled.

As for Wilson's piece, well, as GenerallyAmused pointed out, "The premise of this piece like the one it analyzes seems similarly strained by the fact that the primary purchasers of "Black" or "working class" music are also college kids of "privileged" backgrounds training as "knowledge" workers." In other words, WIlson's parroting the idea that well-done music that is also relevant always includes this dimension of sociopolitical consciousness/foundation and usually one that's marginalized. However, what this description implies is also a presence of a defined community, something of which many of these new indie rockers were a part in their various college towns. These collectives are real, and as Carl knows, there's a very real tradition of collaboration between musicians of a particular style or region. This gives them a certain amount of awareness about their place in the economic ladder of musicians, of their own development as musicians experimenting with forms and styles. They may lack the kind of active political identity that Carl wants to praise, but it doesn't mean that this kind isn't a form of self-awareness as well. It may also be part of the Long Tail theory (in my crude understanding of it) in which everyone gets a chance to grab a niche and make a profit if they pool resources.

And maybe that's SFJ's and Wilson's real problem, ultimately: that the generation in which it's perfectly possible to have your own XM satellite shows, ipod playlists, and RSS feeds organized only according to what you expect to like is limiting everyone's perspective on the possible in cultural production. In which case, it would be wiser to speak about race and class according to which social groups get access to which types of technological and cultural distribution systems and why. To speak of them purely in terms of "style" only compounds the problem of defacto segregation, as vague as ultimately any discussion of style becomes and therefore useless to a discussion about concrete social divisions.

As a music lover who has nothing to do with the industry, I found both the article and this post (as well as the article's description of Sasha Frere-Jones' argument) fascinating. I work my ass off, and I come home and listen to music for enjoyment, so I've never thought much about all this meta stuff.

That said, I think Sasha has a point (we need more bands like Little Feat!), Carl makes some great points (the widened divide between "black" and "white" music; socio-economic "brain" vs. "body" orientations) and OP makes some great points (plenty of "miscegenation" is out there, if you look for it).

I suppose that class does affect access to some degree, but I think that most people can access the Web if they really want to (even if it's at a friend's house or library). This means that almost anyone can, if they want, delve into all sorts of weird and unfamiliar music (on MySpace, YouTube, Amazon, etc.).

Carl Wilson's sociological arguments are persuasive in their own right, but as individuals, all of us who have Internet access are really limited only by our imaginations, the gumption and curiosity to explore unfamiliar territory, and our insecurities about other people's opinions.

In criticizing SFJ and Wilson, you address what frustrates me in terms of the way most people seem to approach music, i.e. "they focus on the bios and bodies of the musicians rather than the music itself". Yet, this seems the significant component of POP music. If interest in music was dependent on substance rather than context, might BACH be slightly more popular and appreciated than even your coveted indie rockersyah.

But who wants to fuck to BACH..?.. boring.

Also I imagine most people would be really bored if music critics didn't spend a lot of time trying to contextualize music.

Thanks for the nice responses.

Carl Wilson is a great writer and in most instances I would be afraid to try and answer the guy. And really, I have no beef with the first half of the article. However, the strain of argument he presents in the second half is so prevalent among music critics today that it makes me cringe. He assumes the "openly snobbish" and "narrow-minded" quality of indie rock without citing any particular examples, and throws out the same generational judgment that the MSM have been swilling in re the young un's since Time did that big piece on "twixters" in 2005. My generations' "extended adolescence", as it were, is based mostly on the economics of low paying jobs, high college loans, and lack of financial stability. Being a grown up w/ a house, a spouse and two kids is more difficult to come by these days.

happymisanthrope, you're absolutely right, the physical context is very important for pop in terms of allowing audiences to project themselves into the music. But I guess I was talking about how this way of writing about music makes for some implied essentialism in re areas where this move can get pretty hairy. For one thing, race: in SFJ's article, it sounds like a set of gestures that can be appropriated, passed on to talented and metropolitan white folk. In Wilson's class is similarly characterized by the difference in the way musicians dress and move onstage. Both cases seem to cite a certain lack of physicality among the bookish, nerdy set of rockers, but while they mean to praise the rhythm of the other set they also inadvertently suggest that non-elite class rock is somehow free from/lacking serious forethought and construction. It's all natural, it comes from being forced to work with one's body on a regular basis instead of using wit and irony. This does a disservice to musicians of all stripes who I'm sure think about their music and image pretty self-consciously, even if they don't specifically hew to the liberal-arts-grad brand of rock.

Disclaimer: With the exception of a brief stint as a college radio deejay, I’ve spent most of my extended adolescence far, far outside the inner sanctum of independent rock. I am not a member of any scene, have never heard (of) a number of the bands mentioned in either article, and have no background in musicology.

That said, in the discussion of where to draw the racial fault lines in contemporary music, isn't one factor how self-aware these musicians and their audiences are of their “miscegenation” or "authenticity"?

Seems like both music consumers are typically unaware of how constrained their choices are even in this age of supposed “limitless” options via YouTube and iTunes. That “miscegenation” occurred much more frequently and more influentially before this era of media “democratization,” as SFJ puts it, (or is it segmentation?) is telling. I suspect the mixing of sounds in previous pop-cultural eras was more vibrant not simply because musicians were gunning to cross-over to wider commercial success (though that may have been a factor). Maybe it’s because the people making music were human and crafted new sounds (or constructed new identities) based on what they enjoyed--whether in a self-analytical meta-way, or in a visceral, get-down sort of way. In any case, it must have been a less cynical time--maybe more socially aware but less self-conscious--with room for exploration, shock, humility, both in striving for authenticity and in admitting (even glorifying) creative theft.

The thesis in the articles seems to be that indie rock is in some cases lame and represents of much of what is wrong with music today. But is indie "troubled" because it allegedly symbolizes a retreat into middle-class, hyper-intellectual “whiteness”? Or are both the genre and these analyses symptomatic of how some elite music-lovers (and musicians), eager to distance themselves from mass audiences, don’t even let themselves enjoy music any more without flexing deafening consciousness and skepticism about its origins?

Can we gauge the artist's mentality by listening? Were we meant to? Of course, the general audience might exhibit another extreme, as these days, sadly, a consumer’s consciousness might be more dictated by the marketing of titillating images and stylistic standards on MTV. This is perhaps the case now more than ever, as the “convenience” of music media dumbs us own, makes us less inquisitive, and impedes the feedback loop between listener and voice that once upon a time gave rise to the “classic” recordings that transcended generic boundaries. I realize that assessment probably sounds hypocritically elitist and navel-gazing (maybe I’ll start a band). But hopefully there is still some wiggle room in our overstimulated imaginations to follow our guts without degrading our tastes.

wow this article was terribly written. frustrated english writer crams as many big words and clauses as possible into a sentence. i was starting to enjoy the thrust of the article before i decided i was feeling sick. aspiring writers everywhere, especially the pitchfork staff, please rein yourself in a bit.

before i gave up i will add that the writer seemed to be making some good points. i was really starting to feel the "fetishizing authenticity" angle before it got weighed down under its own bloat. maybe its just a pet peeve of mine, but it really hurts to see writing like "reify what they decry" and "socio-political consciousness/foundation," sentence after drawn-out sentence. on a blog for god's sake. thats just pretentious obfuscation.

No - not terribly written. Sometimes words mean really specific things that other words don't mean. So you say 'reify' when you mean 'reify'. That's not pretension. It's just knowing words, and assuming that others do, too.