How is it that the notion of a CD containing "The Best Music of 2006" would be preposterous while the idea of book collecting "The Best Music Writing of 2006" is readily accepted?
Is it due to qualitative differences between music and writing? Does authority swoop down in the gap separating (source) art and (secondary) reportage? Is writing about music easier to rate than music itself? What rhetorical techniques does music journalism employ to gain understanding -- or at least the appearance of semiotic control -- over sound?
For example: imagine if dance, rather than writing, was considered the main mode of music criticism! Rhythm, response, realtime -- bodies on the line, first-person present, no third-person with its anonymous voice of authority. And it's true, watching a good dancer can help you understand the music, how it operates and inhabits us.
Back to the best. When do we use 'the best' as a primary category of anything cultural?
-What type of music do you listen to?
- The best.
- "The Best"?!
Best Music of 2006, the album. Such as CD, mass-marketed as the Best Music of 2006, is more or less unthinkable. Such a book exists. (I know because I'm in it-- included as a commentor on Wayne Marshall's piece).
You wouldn't buy a "Best Music 2006" CD for at least 2 reasons. First: because you probably wouldn't like most of the music on it. Music fans divide up the world of sound by genre, geography, scene, sound, and so on -- only after everything else has been whittled down do 'best' considerations i.e. 'this band is better than that band' enter into it. 'Best' is -- at best! -- a secondary category of music appreciation.
The second reason you wouldn't buy such as CD is slightly more subtle -- the lack of discernment that it implies. People who claim they like "good music" usually don't, oddly enough.This is why I silently groan whenever a stranger finds out that I DJ and then say "you're a DJ, that's so great! I LOVE music!"
.
And yet you might buy that book. The reasons cited above for not buying such a CD don't translate. What is different? An anthology of 'Best Music Writing' makes sense, somehow. How?
What is the nature of this transformation from art to art criticism? The body of journalism feeds off music but births something else entirely. What happens in the guts?
Music criticism is a machine (taxonomical, hierarchical, expository) that transmutes music and musical culture into words, narratives.
*
I'm not trying to criticize the inclusion/exclusion aspect of creating any anthology. I'm just wondering how this machine functions. And besides, Jeff Chang already did that in his essay on the Da Capo series:
"Half the essays were about rock. Only 2 were about hip-hop. None of the writers were of color... Da Capo's Best Music Writing series demonstrates the old problem that activists of color, feminists, and gay and lesbian activists raged against during the 1980s. A very particular kind of worldview – in this case, one that favors white, male, English-only, New York-approved, rock-centric writers and writing – is passed off as the universal standard of excellence... Canons are never accidents. They get made."
Return of the White Noise Supremacists - Jeff Chang
His argument, however instructive, is a bit misguided. If you debate inclusion/exclusion from a critical canon, then you are not debating the idea of a canon itself: you are reifying it, acknowledging it as a site from which Big Meaning flows, underscoring the significance of its power to exclude you in the first place. It's easy to walk through walls if they don't exist -- and as it turns out, they often don't. I feel all minority criticism should start from there.
.
That said, I sympathize with Chang's piece (particularly enjoy his breakdown on how the guest editor thing works). But rather than see SPIN do cover stories on Imazighen pop written by Najat Aatabou, I'd prefer music journalism which investigates the standard U.S. pop-heroes but f%cks with the organizational logic underpinning cultural assumptions. Imagine: an essay on 'world music' profiling the few artists with truly global reach: 50 Cent, Shakira, The Rolling Stones. Ethnographic sheen optional!
.
Or, better yet, imagine a piece on Joanna Newson, Devendra Banhart, and west coast freaky folk in relation to the demographic shifts which have made white people the ethnic minority in California State. How long can 'white' music remain untouched by the forces which (rightfully?) require every serious reggaeton article to employ demographic data and musings on ethnic identity? Just as examining reggaeton's popularity without linking it to the Latino population boom would be considered sloppy journalism, so too is discussing freaky folk's rising fame while allowing its relation to whiteness (real and imagined) to pass in silence, as the unreferenced norm.
You could even do it as a visual essay!
Banhart at home in his Williamsburg apartment
*
Everywhere music fans gather you'll find music criticism. It may not be formal, buyable, or 'the best' -- but it'll be there. Perhaps in the form of good dancers.
/
]]>
