On "Lad Rock"

I have been terrible about updating here.  It's my thoughtful blog, and I've been too swamped at work to have thoughts.  That's what modern life will do for you.

But I saw a review today that said something to get me started:  "The Roses stand accused of giving birth to a movement or aesthetic that would later evolve into Oasis, or The Libertines, or Kasabian; a lineage that (according to the argument) was backwards-looking, musically conservative, or that appealed to questionable notions of nationalism, tribalism etc."  It isn't the author of the article that bothers me, mind you; it's actually rather insightful.  It's that argument itself, which I'm all too familiar with, concerning the genre mislabeled "lad rock."

If we actually bother to listen to or watch these bands perform, it will become clear that the label has nothing to do with the music and everything to do with the audience.  The Libertines seem like proper punks to me.  90% of Oasis songs are sentimental ballads - I guess they appeal to the football crowd in the same way that my dad's army buddies would get drunk and sing "You are my Sunshine."  As for Kasabian, let's not even bring up the musical genius of WRPLA -  I want to know how many times Tom will have to dance with an inflatable dinosaur, make little hearts with his hands and wear a Micky Mouse hat before he stops being called testosterone-fueled and arrogant.  Oh, I suppose that the pillow fight in Lyon was testosterone-fueled...like many girls' slumber parties.

Actually, I love the writer of that article for saying this: "...let’s not even begin with the implicit classism that can be detected in a lot of that discourse."  As a US resident who loves British bands, it's so painfully obvious.  When I read negative things about Kasabian, 50% of them are really negative reviews of Kasabian's audience.  And while some of it is justified (just what is up with throwing urine in the pit?!?) most of it reads like a classist screed.  I really wonder if those critics who clearly want to seem cool and hipster by dissing Kasabian realize that they end up sounding like a 17 year old who wants to belong to the right clique.

It's funny, because here in the US Kasabian is a "cult band" that appeals to a completely different demographic.  I'm a college professor, and a woman, and I love them.  Trendy people, artists, intellectuals are into them.  99% of the US population wouldn't know a Midlands accent from Urdu, and have no idea that the Midlands are about as cool as Boise.  The accents of Tom Meighan and David Cameron sound exactly the same to most of us.  That kind of gives us a different perspective, maybe lets us see the music for what it is without all the cultural baggage.

I guess I'm a purist.  My friend M argues that you can't divorce pop music from its context, that an artist's image and impact on the times are just as important as the music.  Me, what I think about is that 200 years from now, what will survive is what is pleasing to the ear.  We'll look at what's artistically important, and then go back to see how the context shaped it.  That's how it is for literature, at least, with the exception of a handful of works that impacted the socio-political trends of the time (and weren't necessarily very good art - Sinclair's The Jungle comes to mind.)

But one thing is for certain.  If you judge someone by the behavior of their fanbase, then Jesus is in real trouble.