No Mr Reynolds it’s not a dream….
Pitchfork reports that the Arctic Monkeys and Dizzee Rascal are to record a single together.
Come back 90s dance acts! It seems the world still wants ridiculously incongruous collaborations. (speaking of which, when is the new Chemical Brothers record out, and will dude from Kasabian be on it? Or perhaps Brandon Flowers deserves a shot at some Springsteened acid house, actually that’s so freaky it could be good)
I mean ok, what’s so intrinsically awful about cross genre collaboration? Is it the utter meaninglessness of these sporadic, fumbling gropes in the night? The fact that they are always just a compromise for both acts and a poor bridge between two irreconcilable musical places? The inescapable sense that the most interesting part of such a collaboration is reading of its existence on Pitchfork, and from there on it’s all downhill? The faintly sickening sense of genre harmony that’s at the heart of these unions? “Everyone likes either Dizzee Rascal or the Arctic Monkeys amirite???”
It’s all of these things. Imagine if all music was like this! People sometimes ridicule or bemoan the idea of genre or “pigeon holing” (”dance music has lots of genres, who knows what they all mean! tee hee!!”), but the reality is genre and pigeon-holing are what makes music vital and interesting, these are the things which give it bite and cultural impact. There’s nothing to believe in without genre.
It’s weird how collaborations like this seem tailor made for people to leak to each other on blogs or forums, listen to once, and then discard forever. It’s like that’s their actual genre:”downloadable rock”, or “deletable rock”. Doesn’t anyone else get the sense that the worst elements of the music industry would love if the brief period where rock/dance/pop all sat together in 2002 lasted forever? “We’ve gone beyond genre now, it’s the noughties! Everyone likes all music!”. These people are getting caught out by the day.
The whole sensation they give is a little like when you see a mixtape (of the beatmatched DJ variety) and the tracklist has the Beatles, NWA, Booka Shade and the Stooges on it. Doesnt it make you think “does this person actually like more than 3 acts in any genre? Have they ever gone beyond scratching the surface of any form of music?” Too often the “fun” is in the initial wow factor of the zany tracklist and the chances of the mix being any good or making you give a shit one way or the other are zero. Exceptions: Optimo (and very few others)
There’s nothing wrong with liking plenty of different genres of course, just not served all at once please, plus you know, these sort of collaborations are so horribly harmonious. Does anyone really want Dizzee Rascal to like the Arctic Monkeys? I don’t, no more than I don’t like it when I read Timbaland bigging up Coldplay or something. In a perfect world these acts would all have lurid beefs with each other. But then I guess you can’t expect musicians to actually care about music! (at least not in the partisan way that their listeners do)
Do you disagree? Will you be rushing out to hear this tune? Will you buy the new Chemical Brothers record on the way home? Am I being an asshole? (If yes to all 4 I have a feeling this blog may not work for you, here’s a deal, I’ll blog about this when I’ve actually heard it too!)
Technorati Tags: Dizzee Rascal, Arctic Monkeys, Eclecticism
jB wrote:
Hmm.. You must acknowledge though, that the fusion of two genres of music/ elements of one genre incorporated into another can give rise to a whole new genre/sub-genre/sound. For example, aren’t many genres or ’sounds’ of electronic/dance music these days a result of the combination of different genres/sounds.
Maybe not in Arctic Monkeys’ or Dizee Rascal’s case, but in a general sense?
Personally, I’m all for experimenting and fusing different sounds and genres together. While the product is probably more often than not a weak offering musically, now and again something truly innovative comes out.
I would go as far as to say that the fusion of different genres & sounds almost forms the basis of progression in genres, and even in music itself.
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 4:42 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
well…sure, there are differing influences at work in lots of genres…but this sort of major league eclecticism has no aesthetic whatsoever (unlike some of the fusions that go on underneath the radar).
perhaps the key point is that as soon as rock is involved in the fusion it automatically swamps the other genre..
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 9:27 am ¶
Jamie R wrote:
“The whole sensation they give is a little like when you see a mixtape (of the beatmatched DJ variety) and the tracklist has the Beatles, NWA, Booka Shade and the Stooges on it. Doesnt it make you think “does this person actually like more than 3 acts in any genre? Have they ever gone beyond scratching the surface of any form of music?†Too often the “fun†is in the initial wow factor of the zany tracklist and the chances of the mix being any good or making you give a shit one way or the other are zero. ”
ahem, 2 Many DJ’s. lol
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶
jB wrote:
Oh right, you’re referring more to mainstream & commercial music then? In which case you do have a point (Eminem & Elton John anyone?)
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 1:07 pm ¶
Linds wrote:
JAY Z + LINKIN PARK = what ronan?
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 6:40 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
haha…well gimme jigga and linkin park over arctic monkeys and dizzee ANY DAY OF THE WEEK
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 6:43 pm ¶
Niall wrote:
“deletable rock” - i like it.
It’ll no doubt be a shit collaboration, perhaps as bad as Dizzee’s excruciating verse on that Band Aid song a few years back.
I do believe you are right that it’s probably more interesting reading about it than listening to it (probably) but it’s ultimately harmless.
Although I’d give my right arm to hear a coke fuelled Brandon Flowers over a Paul Oakenfold tune or somebody…twould be hilarious
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 3:00 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
it has to be a possibility…there’s a fine line between coldplay/the killers/u2 and bigroom trance…something about that unforgettable fire sound….no coincidence that oakenfold plays it apparently…whatever the fine line is it seems to make people feel one style is sincere and the other is to be treated with contempt (maybe it’s just bono has more personality than ian van dahl’s gigantic synths, marginally)
I agree though the collabs are harmless, just silly really!
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 3:04 pm ¶
Niall wrote:
They are news-worthy, therefore they are worthy. word.
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 3:10 pm ¶
Justin wrote:
I agree, where silly novelty collaborations are concerned — I’d go so far as to say the same applies for silly covers, although Ladytron’s cover of The Tweets’ “Oops Oh My” is one of my perpetual favourite tunes…
But eclectic mixtapes can be pure genius! Optimo, as you say — the “Acid Test - Test One / Simple Minds - Theme for Great Cities” mix from Psyche Out is amazing. and 2 Many DJ’s — you just can’t knock them!
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 5:26 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Oh believe me I can! Ah 2manydjs are ok I guess…
Optimo don’t like to be called eclectic, or compared to 2manydjs I guess. To be honest with Optimo it’s more like finding similarities between supposedly disparate genres rather than wackily mashing them together…
Silly covers are also quite annoying, José Gonzalez is pretty inoffensive but if I hear another pained cover of a pop song by him I don’t think I’ll be able to take it.
But then when I worked in Carbon Records we sold about a zillion copies of any and all novelty cover version CDs in existence….there are so many of these (Cosmosonica, Paul Anka, Richard Cheese etc etc etc) and they sold like wildfire…the only one I liked was Paul Anka…for some reason. Some of the covers on Cosmosonica (a comp put together by Tom Middleton) were horrendous, people would come up and be like “WHAT IS THIS PLAYING NOW” with a wide eyed look in their eyes as you thought “urgh” and reached for a fresh copy of it to sell…(now that Carbon is closed, Urban Outfitters just play these sorts of CDs on a loop all day and have nobody where we used to be…2 years of my life to be replaced by some cocktail glasses and stupid fucking “retro” optics for the discerning middle class indie!)
Posted 01 Mar 2007 at 5:34 pm ¶
Donny wrote:
The Judgment Night soundtrack is better than this blog post
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 12:06 pm ¶
Justin wrote:
yeah ok, I wouldn’t really compare 2manydjs to Optimo. fair enough. But do they really not like the “eclectic” tag? wtf.
Also, god I hate Jose Gonzalez and his Knife-stealing ways.
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 12:38 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
“The Judgment Night soundtrack is better than this blog post”
??
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 2:26 pm ¶
Donny wrote:
I may be alone, but I think the best thing about music today is the complete breakdown of genre. Purity is over. Enjoy.
It’s unclear to me whether the beef is with the said collaboration (and some sort of calculatedness inspiring it) or genre-hopping in general.
Like, what if Bjork had said in ‘89, “I am only a rock band singer. I cannot roll with Goldie or ?uestlove or Matmos.” The history of music is partly the story of X music meeting Y music and making Z music.
Don’t mean to preach, but:
http://www.discobelle.net/2007/01/06/mixin%e2%80%99-it-updj-drastik/#comments
http://playlouder.com/news/~theres-a-mouse-i/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kila-Oki/dp/B000IB0JV6
Still wouldn’t be surprised if Dizzee/Monkeys crap. But dont see why it necessarily has to be.
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 5:25 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Well I don’t see purity as being over. I seriously think people want to be told they are open minded and like all music so that’s what the industry does, it’s just a fashionable selling point at the moment.
As for Bjork, she’s a typical example of the way major league album artists cherry pick what’s cool and re-sell it to people who don’t follow those scenes.
And there’s nothing wrong with that except that if you are someone who follows those scenes it can be intensely annoying when people or history acts like the big album seller invented the genre rather than just aped it.
I’d argue the history of music is more the story of X music robbing from Y and making Z where Z=a gigantic multi million selling album.
And fine stuff needs to be popularised but if there were no genres, if there REALLY were no genres and no pure music, there’d be nothing left to pillage, no subcultures, no gang to be a part of.
Posted 02 Mar 2007 at 5:41 pm ¶
Pablo neruda wrote:
Hey ronan. great blog.
I’d agree that a lot of the genre mixing gets very irritating very quickly. (for eg. if erol alkan plays here again i’ll start throwing rocks at him). its all quirks and no depth.
what’s just as irriating though (and this is particularly relevant in the techno world) is the neurotic obsession many have for the creation and maintenance of rigid microgenres. its as if the scene or the fad is being followed and not the music.
i take ur pt that we all like feel part of something but it can get very herdish (and nerdish)
Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 9:33 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
I dunno….generally when people find fault with micro genres it’s just people who don’t like said microgenre and assume it’s a fad…it always gets my back up when someone does that awful hackneyed mockery of complicated subgenres, usually saying “illbient hipstep” or something equally unfunny….
creating new language is part and parcel of innovative music…the only reason it’s easily mocked is because anything new is a risk…things which are fashionable generally go out of fashion and things which are never fashionable never do.
I mean, of course, these labels allow people to follow the trends a bit too much, eg electrohouse or “electro”…probably the most saturated bloated load of shit in the entire musicverse at the moment. was good when it was fresh though.
Posted 04 Mar 2007 at 11:45 pm ¶
Pablo wrote:
“creating new language is part and parcel of innovative music…the only reason it’s easily mocked is because anything new is a risk”
i agree wholeheartedly.
but there’s a limit to this. there can be a fine line between innovation and pretension. for me, there’s a distinct ‘emperor’s new clothes’ quality to some recent mutations within dance music. (eg certain strains of ‘minimal’).
Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
which strains?
personally I find whenever people say something like “emperors new clothes” or “style over substance” I think there’s a 95 percent chance they’re talking about something great.
at least the phrase tends to say very little about the records…
plus in the original story the people cheered the emperor because of the vast discrepancy of power between them and him….doesn’t really apply very well to modern culture!
Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 5:16 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
a little like how disliking minimal house seems to have little or nothing to do with the topic of the post……
Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 5:18 pm ¶
ben ross wrote:
You are aware this is a small B side on the new arctic monkeys single. Its a bit of fun, AM like Dizzee as an artist so asked him to collaborate. So why would anyone care?
Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 11:18 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
Why care about anything!
Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 11:20 am ¶