MUSIC THREAD

I listened to that a couple times last year when it was on a bunch of "Best of 2012" lists and I really have no interest in going back to it. Not my style.

 

Yeah, I've tried to listen to it a few times before, but yesterday I finally committed to it (it was a dark, rainy day so it seemed fitting). It's one of those albums I can appreciate it, but not something I'd necessarily want to listen to again. I do like post-rock stuff (Godspeed You Black Emperor, Mogwai, Explosions in the Sky, etc.), but that music at least has some cathartic release. The Swans stuff I've listened to is just unrelentingly bleak.

 

I don't know where you're getting the latter statement. The single most discussed aspect of Yeezus was its sheer audacity, both lyrically and sonically. I recently read Lou Reed's review, and he is almost fixated on it.

West's lyrics are one thing. I mean, he says outright, "Soon as they like you, make 'em unlike you" and dedicates an entire track (the best he's ever done, in my opinion) to discussing his relationship with Kim Kardashian, including trying to convince her to abort. I never found "I Am a God" to be so bad because, in the concept of a polytheistic view of the rap industry, he certainly is.

But the audacity of the music is what draws the attention. He's hiring guest producers to add one sound to a song. He's speeding up Nina Simone. He's starting the album off with a sound somewhere between abrasive bus horn and fart. He's creating these minimalist soundscapes full of random sounds largely unconnected to the concept of a beat. The audacity is what makes it interesting. He's doing a lot of things no one ever thought to or had the balls to do. I could see him sampling Beethoven or Mozart. I could see him doing his own version of "At Last" about something inane and/or commercial now, a year after Etta James died. That's the kind of artist he is.

The egotism isn't being swept under the rug. It's being admired.

 

I'd agree with that. It jibes with the late 60s/70s period of film -- a heady time -- and if West is in that conversation for me, rest assured, he's done something pretty effective. I don't admire all the work from the 60s/70s, but I respect the risks taken, the visual ambition, etc.

But, at least on the last three albums, West seems to be more of a well-funded bullshit artist. (Which, one could argue, has its own value; some hustles are enriching.) The signified has, at least for me, begun to well outpace the signifier. West is relying on his interviews and critics to imbue his work with more meaning than, on a listen, I'd argue it has.

I'm not immune to the concept, though I am on West. I'll sit here and defend a movie like Dancer In the Dark, which many find to be maudlin, childish melodrama. I'd also argue Lars Von Trier knows precisely what he's doing on both levels -- medium and message -- whereas West has works the medium as hard as he does with the intent that an outside narrative reinforces the message.

This review -- while hyperbolic (all the reviews there are, plus too "epic" by half) and too reliant on adverbs -- nails a lot of it for me. It also makes the argument sans le savoir, at least for me, that West would be better served releasing "projects" one at time, like events. He wouldn't be better served commercially, per se, but a performance artist would never try to glom seven different pieces together into compilation. They'd hone the craft on one.

A female friend of mine -- pretty, brilliant, halfway caught up in useless culture like pretty, brilliant women tend to be -- followed the whole "Kanye can't be a fashion designer and open his own store" storyline this summer, and my response at the time was and still is: Tie the line to fashion shows that feature unreleased West music.

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/kanye-west-yeezus

<i>"For all of the awe involved in the response to Kanye, people may as well be watching a Cirque du Soleil that talks back. If there’s anything universal in his music, it’s incidental. He’s propelled purely on his own hot air — his own intuitive sense of the world around him — and as such Yeezus is utterly the most proactively singular reflection of the conflicted, confused, embittered self to ever make it out of someone’s head and onto an album. It’s the apotheosis of personal content opened to be read as universal, rather than vice versa. As such, what you carry into this determines what you carry out; it requires buying in. It’s hard to develop new feelings on a prisoner just by staring at him harder.</i>

 

I don't understand how any of that is a problem. I mostly agree with the review. It's singular in its singularity. That's what's so impressive about it.

 

I see David Fricke gave it 4 1/2 stars in the Rolling Stone I fished out of the mailbox yesterday. Must have let him hang around the studio for a cover story!

 

Singularity alone isn't necessarily impressive. Tom Green's "Freddy Got Fingered" movie was singular. Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" was singular. It doesn't mean they were celebrated the way "Yeezus" is.

 

Yes, Kanye West's singularity is enjoyable.

Alma, if I may ask, how much rap do you listen to?

 

For those interested, a stream of M.I.A.'s new album: http://www.stereogum.com/1550101/stream-m-i-a-matangi/mp3s/album-stream/.

 

Probably about as much as the average West listening clientele do. Or maybe not the average. The mode.

How much rap does West listen to?

Is his performance art popular because it trades LCD topics like sex, celebrity and fashion -- because it is "of the moment" --- or is it popular because folks are having a timeless reaction to the art? I mean it as a legitimate question, not some party pooper, but perhaps it's already been "resolved," insomuch as those things can be, by experts on his work.

I know that West is aiming for timeless; I think it feeds into his god complex, that if you could create timeless art, you are kind of a god. But, too, I know how effective simply stating your intentions can be on a market. West basically dares people to tell him he's not all that and a bag of chips, and the critical public has only seemed to pick up the challenge twice: His rant on TV post-Katrina; and his hijack of Taylor Swift at the podium. But those were easy shots. I'm not sure what the critical argument against West would be other than, from my ears, he seems to be shitting around, using phrases like "new slaves" in insulting, morally offensive ways, seeing how many ugly noises and disgusting images he can pull off without being questioned. In other words, the usual artist's hustle. It just doesn't often pay this well.

 

I have no interest in celebrity or fashion.

Kanye West is great to me because he's revolutionized rap production. His past two albums have been praised and loved much, much more for their soundscaping and musical influences than for his rap. His words are secondary. That's part of what gives him the freedom to be so audacious.

Few with a knowlegeable opinion of the genre think Kanye West is an all-time great rapper. His topicality interests me much more for his brashness than anything else. I do think he has pulled off the incredibly interest feat of being completely honest yet utterly unrelatable. But I have no doubt that his music will be viewed as timeless. The production is truly revolutionary.

I am sure you would rather discuss the social consequence of his work, but that would be irrelevant without his musical inventiveness.

 

Saw her on Jools Holland. She was interesting. She's got some depth.

Speaking of Jools Holland, what a great show. He gets an unbelievable mix of talent on there each week. Typical show from last season: Vampire Weekend / Yeah Yeah Yeahs / Dido / Seasick Steve / Jacob Banks / Eric Burdon / Ludovico Einaudi. Marling's episode: Phoenix / Rokia Traoré / Eric Church / Laura Marling / Petula Clark / AlunaGeorge.