Bigger than Burkas

I'm watching Question Time as I write this, and the irate musings of half a dozen middle aged white people has turned onto one of the UK's (and even the world's) hot topics: the burka. You all know what it is, the female Islamic facial garment which covers the face. Now, I'm going to assume that you are acquainted with the arguments for and against- sexism, security, tolerance, integration and so on. I'm not writing to argue for one way or the other. My stance, as a strong Evangelical Christian is this: whilst I believe nothing in the Islamic religion and my own faith is opposed to it, I disagree with enforcing a ban on it as that is part of the same attitude which would lead to my fellow Christians not being allowed to wear crosses or offer to pray for people they encounter in a working environment. It's through love and relationships these barriers are crossed, not through legislation.

ANYWAY. I'm not here to further a pro or anti argument. I'm not even here to pose the (by now quite cliched) "well what about people who wear hoodies/halloween masks/football shirts?" No. I want to point out something bigger than the burka.

A common argument against the Burka is that it oppresses and degrades women. Robs them of their power. Devalues them. I want you to think though: what else constitutes oppression of women?

Thousands of clothing/shampoo/make-up/perfume/fashion adverts which promote a size-zero, horrendously unrealistic idea of what a woman should be, and then forces countless young women into dressing a certain way. Does that constitute oppression?

The idea pumped into every 21st century female's mind through films, magazines, TV, even (I'm genuinely serious) Twilight that you need a boyfriend. Films and books that manipulate female emotions to make women believe they need to find a man for worth, to define themselves against, otherwise their life just isn't really worth bothering with. Is that oppression?

The untold amount of pornography that is so readily and easily lapped up by 21st century guys, giving them warped perceptions and expectations of women. Enforcing an idea that women are machines for sexual pleasure and that sex doesn't have any kind of innate emotional intimacy. It gives guys horribly warped ideas of women and absurd expectations which girls then have to rise to. Does that constitute oppression?

Oppression isn't just directly and physically forcing someone to do something. It's much more than that. It comes through the media. It comes through advertising. It comes from everywhere and gets into people's minds. In order to sell things. In order to satisfy selfish desires. Women are far more oppressed, I think, by our self righteous Western society than they are by a foreign piece of clothing. I'm by no means endorsing the Burka. I just want it to be clear that oppression comes in many different ways from many different directions. And we've got to be aware of it. Am I suggesting a revolution to topple our society's warped view of women and the apparatus that upholds it? Not exactly. If a young (or even old) woman can go away from this realising or remembering just a little bit what our world is pumping at her, I'll feel happy. Most of the women reading this won't be wearing burkas. But people are trying to oppress them and make them conform to their false view of what a woman should be.

Eminem: In Context

No doubt you'll have been aware of Eminem's recent quasi-comeback. It began last year with the appalling Relapse album, and has been continued this year with Recovery. It's been intriguing to say the least. Last night I was reading an artical by legendary music journalist Nick Kent called Eminem's Rage in a Cage, written back in (I think) 2001. I'm basing several parts of this post on it. In the article, he quotes something that Courtney Love said about Marshall Mathers back then: "Without context Eminem is nothing".

Now, that's a statement that's true for a heck of a lot of stuff in music. However, it's especially relevant for Slim Shady. Eminem has always been about context. And that explains why he was such a sensation the first time around, why he was such a flop and joke this time last year and why his new stuff hints at (though doesn't reach) a return to form.

Eminem released his second album, The Slim Shady LP, in 1999. He was a reincarnation of one of America's favourite archetypes: the angry young man. The musical world had offered Axl Rose in the late 80s, who was succeeded by Kurt Cobain in the 1990s (note: I'm fully aware Cobain and Rose despised each other. I know they were nothing alike but, despite what you may think about Cobain, he was an angry guy). Cinema had just given America Fight Club and American History X. It was clear that America was angry. And violently so. That's what probably led to the Republican Bush Administration being elected in 2000 and, at the totally opposite end of the spectrum, what made Eminem such a sensation. He was angry. He was violent. He swore a lot. He was loud. It's all over The Slim Shady LP- "My Name Is", "Guilty Conscience", "Brain Damage", "As the World Turns". I don't think it was a case of Eminem seeing the state of America and deciding to use it. He was as much a disaffected, angry and violent young man as any other young American. He expressed that in his music and just wanted a way out of his crappy life. And it came at just the right time. He was what America wanted. Well, half of America at least.

Also, you've got to look at the wider context of hip-hop back in 1999. Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G, hip-hop's biggest names and brightest stars, had both been gunned down only a couple of years previously, leaving a huge gap. Also, Dr Dre, another huge hip-hop name, was looking to distance himself from the gangsta rap scene. He found a way to do that in collaborating with Eminem.

Marshall Mathers' contextual relevance certainly allowed him to make a name for himself. Every Conservative group in America was laying into him in a way scarcely seen since The Sex Pistols' brief appearance in America in the 70s. Congresswoman Lynne Cheney described his outpot as "viloporn". Slim had made a huge impact. The release of his third album, The Marshall Mathers EP, and all that came with it, worked so well because he had in fact created his OWN context. He was working within the context of himself. Performing against the backdrop that he created with The Slim Shady LP. Nowhere is that more evident than in the lyrics of "The Real Slim Shady", one of the greatest self-referencing hip-hop songs of all time:

"'Slim Shady, I'm sick of him
Look at him, walkin around grabbin his you-know-what
Flippin the you-know-who,' 'Yeah, but he's so cute though!'
Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in your parents' bedrooms"

That song is just brilliant and distils prime Eminem into four and a half minutes. As well as focussing in his own personality, he turned and spewed his judgement upon the hypocritical conservatives who criticised him and the wave of imitators who sprung up after him.

One enduring facet of the whole Eminem mythology has been his personal life- the turbulent relationship with on-off girlfriend/ex-wife Kim and their child, Hailey. Including this in such visible, controversial and visceral ways on early songs like "Bonnie & Clyde" and "Kim" created a personal context in which people would view Eminem's subsequent material. Songs about his personal life in which he expressed his undying love for his daughter and his constantly changing feelings towards Kim became more fascinating than songs other artists wrote about their personal lives because, consciously or not, Eminem made the context of his personal life huge. It was an integral part of the character of Slim Shady. It made everything more compelling and produced some of his most impressive work.

So. That was then. The Eminem Show and Encore came out in 2002 and 2004 respectively and were both classics, all enhanced by the contexts I've been talking about. But Slim Shady vanished from the public sphere. One of the world's biggest superstars just dropped off the face of the earth. What happened?

Five years of sleeping pill addiction and writers block that's what. Despite commerically successful singles, the critical reception was mixed. Fans, observers and critics were less impressed. The state of his personal life was tragic, but I don't think that was the main factor. He was out of touch. It was 2009 and he was rapping about Ashlee Simpson. Huh?

It had been five years since we'd last seen Eminem. Back in 2004, he was still fully able to revel in the context of himself. In 2009 however, we'd all moved on. He'd faded out of our collective consciousness. Upon his return, with singles "We Made You", "3 AM" and "Beautiful", it felt as if Eminem was trying to pick up where he left off. But that just wasn't possible. Things were very different on the grand scale as well. Obama was in the White House. MTV was defnitely dead. We were entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hip-hop itself was in a bad way. That's why Eminem flopped with Relapse.

His new album, Recovery, is a slightly different story. Once again, we're able to view it in context of Eminem himself i.e. the deplorable Relapse. Shady himself says in the lyrics of cracking single "Not Afraid":

"And to the fans, I'll never let you down again, I'm back
I promise to never go back on that promise, in fact
Let's be honest, that last "Relapse" CD was ehhh
Perhaps I ran them accents into the ground"

Rarely will a musician apologise and admit his own faults in such a fashion. Especially in a genre as self aggrandising as hip-hop. But Shady manned up, in more ways than one. Recovery is by no means a return to form for Eminem. But it's aptly named. A step in the right direction. He's reasserting himself, and I for one am desperately hoping that he'll be able to find his place in the context of the world and hip-hop in the next couple of years. Jay-Z (who, contrary to popular believe, is actually rubbish) is the only big rapper around nowadays. Lil Wayne is in prison. 50 Cent is nowhere to be found. Canadian "sensation" Drake is a pretender to the throne, neither hip-hop enough for the hardcores, nor big enough for the mainstream. Hip-hop has died a death, usurped by thoughtful indie music as the most compelling genre around. There are some incredibly promising rumbles in the underground however: Jay Electronica and Gucci Mane to name the most prominent. Maybe Slim will utilise that. Who knows. Contextualising himself has always been Eminem's gift, as well as the ability to pen some insanely genius rhymes. Here's to the future folks.

Musicians of Parliament

It may just be me. It may just be the indefinite derision that the position attracts. It may be totally true. But, as far as I can see, whenever a British MP decides to mention or become involved in music, it becomes one of the most embarassing and cringe-worthy PR moments imaginable. I don't mean all politicians, no. Barack Obama's musical tastes briefly became law a couple of years ago, and he exudes cool and savvy in this clip where he honours Bruce Springsteen (go to 1:40 for the hihglight):



But it just seems to me that not a single British politician can pull anything like that off. Why? Are they all just so out of touch, un-personable and unbelievable? Gordon Brown offered one of my personal favourites with his Arctic Monkeys gaffe back in 2006. Having mentioned them in a previous interview about his listening habits, Gordon was pressed for more information and responded: "You've got to laugh, because actually I was asked did I prefer Arctic Monkeys to James Blunt (of 'You're Beautiful' fame), and I think I said I'd prefer Coldplay. But I made a joke that Arctic Monkeys would certainly wake you up in the morning. So, I mean, I've heard Arctic Monkeys and they're very loud." Oh Gordon. That, to me, seemed like Gordon performing a little on the spot PR "magic" only finding that he didn't know how to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

This incident just enforces the image of nearly all British politicians: overweight, out of touch, middle aged, white and male. David Cameron has had his fair share as well. Consider his Lily Allen goof whilst on the campaign trail: "I got one of those [iPod] connections for the car and my daughter is obsessed by Lily Allen, who I think is slightly unsuitable. So a bit of a fight takes place. 'I want to listen to Lily Allen.' 'No, it's The Jungle Book.' And in the tussle it broke [the connector]". I'm guessing Lily Allen was relieved that Cameron wasn't endorsing her (and, to be fair, I wouldn't let my kids listen to Lily Allen, even if she does have her finger on the pulse a bit more than Cameron might) but, once again, this incident rocks up the cringe factor. Allegedly, he's a fan of Florence + the Machine, and lent Barack Obama some CDs by The Smiths, Gorillaz, Lily Allen(?) and Radiohead when they first met. Even though I fully believe that Cameron is the best person to be Prime Minister right now, I still can't shake the feeling that I want to avoid listening to the above bands for a few days. I wonder if, after mentioning at a party that the band playing are one of Cameron's favourite, the dancing might ease off a tad.

A different yet infinitely more painful and deplorable example is parliament's resident dad-rock band "MP4". Yes, literally, four MPs slung on guitars and threw together a load of sub-Status Quo/Oasis rock slop. It really is embarassing to listen to. It still would be even if they weren't MPs. But the fact that they are just exacerbates it. Why exactly?

I think it really does come down to the general view of British politicians. Serious and grave as politics is, especially in the current world climate, politicians will never cease to attract derision and to conform to stereotypes. There will always be that filter created by Mock the Week, 8 out of 10 Cats et al which simply prevents us from taking them seriously. And I think it will remain that way as long as the vast amount of British politicians remain white, middle class and male. I'm of course not claiming that there is inhererent discrimination within British politics. It may often be that those best qualified happen to fall into that demographic. I do believe however that I would be more inclinced to hear Diane Abott (the black, buxom, female candidate for Labour's leadership election) potentially rave about Aretha Franklin than watch Tony Blair awkwardly sip champagne with Noel Gallagher, or listen to Gordon Brown try to describe the merits of Klaxons inventing nu-rave.

Mercury Prize 2010

You may or may not be aware of the annual Mercury Prize. This is a prize given out every year to (according to the panel, consisting of different members of the music industry) the best British album of the previous year. Most of the winners have been hugely influential or popular albums- The Seldom Seen Kid by Elbow, Myths of the Near Future by Klaxons being two of the notable recent winners. The next round of nominations are set to be announced next week, and it's all set me thinking.

The prize dumbfounds me really. It's generally considered quite prestigious, and I often love most of the bands nominated, but the nominees and winners can be plain baffling and offensive some times. Ms Dynamite beating The Coral in 2002? The Darkness nominated in 2003 (I don't mind The Darkness, but it's baffling in the context of the award's general clientele)? M People beating Pulp in 1994 ("M People? Who the fudge?" I know right)? OK Computer losing out in 1997? That one baffles me because I get the impression that the award was, back in the 90s, and still is now, totally officiated by Britpop kids, maybe with an occasional oldie like Nick Kent thrown into the fray. How THAT mix didn't result in OK Computer winning I just do NOT know. Heck, Radiohead have lost out FOUR times, and Kid A wasn't even nominated! Thom Yorke even lost out with his solo album in 2006 (though to be fair, it was to Arctic Monkey's debut)

Last year's winner was a shock all round. Young female rapper Speech Debelle won with her debut Speech Therapy. No one could make head nor tale of it. She was up against The Horrors' Primary Colours, an absolute stunner (and worked out, across all the reviews, to be 2010s most critically acclaimed UK album). It was clear to me that she won because whoever was in charge looked at the last few winners- Elbow, Klaxons, Arctic Monkeys, Antony and the Johnsons, Franz Ferdinand- and the rest of that year's nominations- Kasabian, The Horrors, The Invisible, Friendly Fires, Glasvegas- and though that the trend of white male winners needed to stop. Now I'm all for promoting a diverse range of musicians, but if they're not the best, don;t bloody pick them. The hip-hop winners in the past have, to me, seemed like the white middle class panel trying to seem "down with it" i.e. Dizzee Rascal in 2003. Despite Dizzee not being as mainstream back then, it was a "safe" hip-hop bet. I'd have been far happier if Sway's This is My Demo or M.I.A's Arular had won when they were nominated.

So my predictions for this year?

1. Laura Marling is a dead cert for nomination, and a very likely winner.

2. I'm loathe to say I reckon Muse's last album will be in there.

3. Gorillaz are a tricky one. They requested the nomination for their debut to be removed, so I don't know. Lots of people may expect it to be nominated, I'm not so sure. If it is, it definitely won't win, the big international acts never do.

4. Possibly Crystal Castles, though it's rare to see electronic acts in there. Having said that, Hot Chip were nominated and I reckon will be again this year, but won't win (much as I enjoy them, I'd be outraged if they did)

5. Marina & The Diamonds are very likely and I would probably be quite happy if they won. Incredible pop album!

6. Foals are also certs for nomination I think, but won't win- the trend of hyped NME bands up until last year was too long for another one to pick up the award.

7.Los Campesinos! won't be nominated, but I reckon they would be more than worthy winners.

8. Going out on a limb- Plan B?

9. These New Puritans are also certs.

10. There will be a token jazz act and, seeing as one hasn't won yet, this could be their year if the panel are all for breaking trends.

I'm a bit sad that The Coral's new album Butterfly House just missed the deadline for consideration due to its release date, and it could very well be forgotten about for next year. I reckon they might "do an Elbow" and win it after a decade of consistent awesomeness.

Who knows. At least the awards give an extra boost to some usually brilliant bands and push them into the eyes of the idiotic British public for a a few weeks as the nominated albums are plonked at the front of HMV. I just hope that Lauren Laverne is doing the coverage again...

What is that noise?

I picked up a copy of The Daily Telegraph on the tube last week and turned to the music section. Despite the central article involving a huge picture of Sting looking like some retired estate agent who was welling up with pride after buying a villa on the Costa del Sol with the Missus, I read on. There was an article on Gustav Mahler's "Symphony No. 5". It described the first time it was performed to the public- October 18th, 1904, in Cologne. It was conducted by Mahler himself and, in a not unusual turn of events, the reception was "not friendly", as The Daily Telegraph put it. In an admirable display of self awareness, Mahler fully understood the reaction of his unsatisfied public. He said "And the public... what are they to say to this primeval music; this foaming, roaring, raging sea of sound?"

This got me thinking. That description is the kind of thing you'd see in music media nowadays to describe, perhaps, something like this:



Or, a decade or two ago, something like this:



Or, in the 1970s, this:



Or the 1950s:



Or even the 1920s:



Reading that article, I was really struck by the fact that what we call "noise" or just "sound" in music is totally, totally relative to the context and the music that's around at the time. As musical boundaries are pushed further and further with the progression of time, that which is defined as "noise" constantly changes. No sensible and informed music listener nowadays would call 1970s punk "noise", at least in a derogatory sense. Neither would they say the same of late 90s gangsta rap, or 1950s rock n roll. It would seem absurdly prim and conservative. As far as I'm concerned (and experience has nearly always demonstrated this to be true), only the uninformed and close minded will describe any form of arguably abrasive or intense music as "just noise".

A truly interesting thing though is the fact that, nowadays, that which literally is (in a purely clinical sense) "noise" i.e. arbitrary sounds recorded and produced, with no traditional musical instruments or structures, is considered a genre. It's given musical merit, and taken seriously and thought about. Take for example that first link above, from nosie music giant Merzbow. The stuff he produces genuinely fascinates me and a few of my contemporaries. There are plenty of other, more and less "listenable" examples of artists who use noise and present it as music: Yoko Ono, Lou Reed, Rhys Chatham. For me, that is fascinating. It really pushes the question: what is music? If I record thousands of industrial machine sounds, slap them together and create an album, and I believe that it is music- designed to make you think and challenge all of your ideas and preconceptions- is it music? Is the definition of music limited to that which appeals to traditional structures? Or is it about what you take away from it, and what you think it is? Going back to my opening, Gustav Mahler himself despised the idea of producing programmes at performances which told audiences what the music was about. He declared "Death to all programmes... let the audience make up its mind!"

So was it left to that audience in 1904 in Cologne to decide whether or not what they heard was music or, indeed, a "foaming, roaring, raging sea of sound"? Mahler's 5th would now seem to those not really versed in music from the Romantic, Classical eras etc. as a boring piece of orchestration (although, having listened to the piece since, I can't imagine why, it is stunning!). But culture's views on what constitutes "noise" in the music industry are incredibly transient and subject to change. Perhaps more so than our opinions on any other area of music, though we may not realise it. So what is noise? Does it even exist as a legitimate derogatory term any more? Noise artists have hi-jakced the insult and turned it into an actual genre, proudly proclaiming "yes, this is noise! Now what do you make of it?!" For me, it's the last real area of active post-modernism in the mainstream creative arts. What do you think?