Compare them to the A.V. Club's top 3 albums of 2012: Frank Ocean's Channel Orange, Japandroids' Celebration Rock, and the Cloud Nothings' Attack on Memory. The historical reference points for each are just as obvious- Prince-like smooth R&B, Springsteen-esque drama-rock, and a mix of pop-punk and raw '80s post-punk, respectively- and reviews haven't hesitated to point them out. Yet not once in those reviews have I seen the words "retro" or "revival" associated with them. Instead they're using "influences" or "reimagining" their genres- probably intended as innocent descriptors themselves, but ones with less of a whiff of dust and cobwebs about them.
I don't get it. With some exceptions, any music with any degree of recognition and popularity is going to use the song structures, instrumentations, production techniques and other trappings of a specific, definable genre. (And the exceptions- say, EMA- can usually be defined as mixing multiple definable genres.) For all but those few fans of the avant-garde, I think it's fair to say it's typically a precondition to enjoyment- we need some sort of context. So why are Sharon and Black Joe "reviving" "old" genres, while, say, the Cloud Nothings are simply following in Fugazi's footsteps?
Is it because their genres are tied to the '60s and '70s, while the three albums above are tied more closely to the '80s? Maybe so- for someone my age, that's the difference between hearing the genre on an oldies station or hearing it in more contemporary contexts. But at a certain point making such a division seems like a fallacy. You may or may not like a given genre, and your preferences may well be connected to your generational touchstones. But if we're just trying to identify good music in and of itself- to rate an album or judge the best of the year- it seems fairer to focus on what they're doing with the tools of the genre they've taken on for themselves.
Personally, this brings me back to the two core criteria posted below: whether a band is avoids the saturation principle either by doing something that sounds new and unique relative to my accumulated listening experience, or by demonstrating those characteristics of craft and good songwriting that I'm slowly working to define. And I'd argue that Black Joe and Sharon face at least as much of a burden for me in reaching those criteria as the other artists mentioned above. I'm familiar enough with smooth R&B and Springsteen, but they're not integrated into my bones the way the Motown sound is.
Yet for me, both bands get over the line with creativity and appeal to spare. The vocals are a big part of it: both can belt it out just as well as the forebears they're "reviving," whether that's Wilson Pickett or Tina Turner. But that presence alone isn't enough. The Detroit Cobras, for example, have been doing fine work for over a decade finding little-known garage-rock songs and singing the hell out of them. But at the same time, most of their music feels more deserving of the slightly derogatory connotations I see in a term like "retro"- not just because they're digging up vintage material, but because the performance as a whole never seems all that distinctive, with a basic instrumental setup and straightforward arrangements. They're doing justice to the genre, but it doesn't sound as fresh and vital as the first time I heard James Brown, and it's not something I can see myself returning to all that often.
Black Joe Lewis and Sharon Jones may not sound original after hearing James Brown, but to my ears they DO sound fresh and vital, because they're following Birdy's Law: they're doing more with the genre, putting their own stamp on it. For Black Joe Lewis, the biggest part of this stamp is the Honeybears' ability to convey a sheer energy that keeps with Joe's vocals. I'm a particular fan of the driving, nonstop guitar line in "Livin' in the Jungle," which rapidly jumps between notes in a melody that still sounds unpredictable after a dozen listens. Or listen to the way the band uses multiple tricks- higher horn notes, the use of a splash cymbal, a general crescendo- to drive the horn lick to more powerful level the third time it's repeated at :37 and 3:30.
Sharon Jones, meanwhile, has the benefit of some fine arrangers within the Dap-Kings. The musical pieces of "How Long Do I Have to Wait" are perfectly familiar, from the wah-wah guitar to the short horn stabs to the thick Motown-style bass sound. But much like Phoenix does in a more poppy vein, they're put together so smoothly and tightly that they still sound new.
Or take my favorite single musical moment of theirs to date, the low guitar tone underneath the chorus lines of "Give It Back," at :56 and 1:38 and 2:18. The layering of that tone on top of the bass sounds incredibly rich, in a way I haven't heard before in similar songs- and in a way that might not have sounded quite as clear coming through a '60s-era control board.
All this said, I acknowledge that mileage may vary greatly in your appreciation for genres like this. I'm seeking out craftsmanship and uniqueness quite deliberately, and if you aren't, it's totally understandable that your saturation point for this type of music has already been hit by your exposure to the historical classics. That, in turn, may lead you to categorize these bands as "retro" while others are merely "influenced." But I suspect that says more about your relative genre preferences, or the public profile of a given genre, than anything more definitive about the music. Within a genre you follow and love, it hardly seems right to call anything "retro" or "revival" music. They're just open books on which the great artists can continue to place their own stamps.
No comments:
Post a Comment