Reviewing My Own Past. I am an idiot.

Within an academic context, Radical Subjectivity is a problematic methodology. Having coined the term to describe a range of diverse strategies within my own popular criticism, I adapted its definition to suit any approaches I'd later use within The Vile Blog. 

In one memorably incoherent article, I attempted to discuss semiotics by evoking a couple of productions that I had seen (Slope and Tomorrow) and Honzl, a Czech theorist I must have found in one of my trawls of Marvin Carlson's writing. Although, on first reading, I can't imagine why I thought publishing an article like this on a blog that is supposedly dedicated to 'populist' critique was a good idea, it does represent some aspects of radical subjectivity's style.

First of all, there is the awkward juxtaposition of academic and popular criticism. The focus of the article is Honzl's analysis of theatre semiotics - he observes that any object, placed in a theatrical performance, can take on a variety of meanings. However, the references to Untitled Project's Slope and Vanishing Point's Tomorrow allude to contemporary performances (in 2014) and the process of reviewing. 

The two forms are shoved together shamelessly, with Slope and Tomorrow providing examples of Honzl's semiotic analysis. This suggests both a historical context for the two productions, and updates Honzl into a contemporary context.

The framing of the article also insists on a contemporary context: both the first paragraph and the last (a circular structure, doubtlessly influenced by theatrical performances - such as Robert Softley's Purposeless Movements which ends with the same lines at the beginning and end of the show) discuss the then-relevant threat by Anonymous to publish material that would shame Iggy Azalea. 

This reference, of course, dates the article. 

Then there is the repeated use of humour, often misplaced. This supposedly lessens the seriousness of the material but also reveals the personality of the author (confused and childish, most likely). 

Elsewhere, I place my methodology within a tradition of reader response theory. 

Special Guest: Baudriller-killer sorts out The Azies

'I'd like to thank you for taking the time to come on The Vile Arts, Mr Baudrillard. It is always a pleasure to have you.'

'Thank you, Gareth. While some people might see your refusal to take an absolute position as a dereliction of your role as a critic, I regard it as an impeccable response to the postmodern condition.'

'Thank you, I think. Now, you have something to add in the battle of the rappers, I believe?'

'Indeed, yes. I think that what we are seeing here is a conflict about authenticity and imitation and, as you know, I had a passing interest in these ideas.'

'An interest in so far as you deconstructed them?'

'Exactly. Let me delineate. The crux of this row - if we can have such a thing, in a debate that seems to flying off in several hot topic directions - is between the ideal of Azealia Banks' music being real hip hop, and Iggy Azalea's being a pop appropriation.'

'There is also the hierarchy there: that Banks is more talented, more authentic...'

'Pause just there. Banks' music is seen as being a sacrament: it is a reflection of the real, of life, of the hip hop tradition: its value comes from its connection to something concrete.'

'In hip hop terms, it keeps it real.'

'Although her collaboration with Ariel Pink, who is a maverick rock musician who uses an ironic take on musical traditions does disconnect her somewhat from at least some of that sacramental order.'

'So, Banks represents an ideal of the real... the association of sacrament suggests holiness.'

'That is why the sacramental order is concerned with purity and authenticity: to deviate from its order is a form of heresy.'

'This makes Iggy Azalea a heretic?'

'You are probably putting words in my mouth, but I would suggest that Iggy Azalea's music is being described as a 'perversion' of the sacramental order. Instead of elucidating the culture, Iggy is obscuring it, remaking it. It could be classified as a simulacrum.'

'In that it claims to represent the real, but actually doesn't?'

'There might be a few questions here about whether Iggy makes any claims to represent real hip hop, but we can take her inclusion in The Grammy awards for best hip hop artists as evidence that she does.'

'It seems an open and shut case: Azealia is real, Iggy isn't.'

'It would be if you were living in the Roman Empire. But you aren't. It's late capitalism time, consumerism is the dominant ideology, and the function of media in consumerist society is to disconnect the signifier from the thing in itself. This process has gone so far, we have no idea what is real anymore.'

'I am thinking of those adverts for alcohol. The people in them are having a high old time - there's romance, maybe fireworks, and plenty of beauty. But the reality of alcohol is pissing the bed, hangovers, bad sexual choices and having a fight in the car park, with a fucked liver.'

'We could read those adverts as the fantasy of an alcoholic, under the impression that they are walking on the beach with a supermodel, when they have actually passed out in the gutter and are about to suffer hypothermia.'

'So - are you saying that Banks' claims to authenticity are spurious?'

'Totes.' 

I Just Want this to End (part 4)

I regret ever getting into this beef. I have no answers, I am confused as to whether there are any answers, and everyone involved keeps talking like there are such things as 'authenticity' and 'appropriation'. 

There are, however, three men who got involved - since they are men, we can take their opinions more seriously than these bickering girls, right, fellas?

First up, we have Q-Tip. It's a shame that Q-Tip used twitter to

deliver his lecture on the history of hip hop, because it makes quoting it difficult (some of the tweets are half a sentence). Quite why Q-Tip can't sit down and write a proper article is a mystery (or an email, if he is really trying to school Iggy). It's not like he has been troubling the world with superb raps lately.

Anyway, Q-Tip's lecture, in another context, would be well cool. He connects the culture of hip hop to a specific period of history, and appreciates how that context defines many of the themes of the music. He recognises the depth of hip hop culture, and sees it as an integrated aesthetic. Most crucially, hip hop has a social importance and is the expression of a particular community. It's a nice introduction to the form - smooth as his better raps, and a nice balance of his personal understanding and wider discussions on hip hop. 

Surprisingly, Iggy takes him down. Like the joker behind the false Mary Brennan account on twitter, Q-Tip isn't providing a public service, he is trolling her. He is showing off how clever he is (which he is), and Iggy replies that the whole thing is patronising, treating her like a little girl who hasn't a thought in her head. 

Earlier on, Eminem contributed a sagacious rap, in which he said something that sounds like a rape threat. Even if he has been doing this since he was relevant, it's not a good look. Iggy could have got me totally onside when she replied that she was sick of hearing this kind of thing, if she hadn't added she wanted to hear more about young women making money. Of course, having Eminem promise to give you one is always going to give you the moral high-ground, expose the misogyny of the music business, et cetera. 

Finally, Will.i.am chimed in. He was on Iggy's side, seeing her appropriation of hip hop as positive, comparing it to Blondie's Rapture as an example of how hip hop is a global property. Mind you, isn't he a judge on The Voice now? That doesn't make him an icon of hip hop, more trash culture? I haven't seen it, but I presume that, like most TV talent shows, it puts a premium on matters technical (like singing in tune) then cultural (like having an emotional connection with the material).

Actually, I saw some bloke off The Voice in a pantomime a few weeks ago. He had a confident delivery and a sweet vocal range. Then I watched his video on The Voice and he was a screaming harridan. I don't think it is a show that brings out the subtle nuance of the great vocalists. 

But that isn't the point. There is a final organisation to mention. Anonymous. The hackers.

Obviously, the governments of the world have chilled out lately, because Anonymous had time to threaten Iggy, instead of attacking the injustices of the state and multinational corporations. I'll get into that debacle in another post, but the bullying tone they employed put me right off having a revolution with them. And it emphasised that while there are questions of privilege and opportunity that are offered to young white women, the patriarchy likes nothing more than having a go at them. 

Even if the original beef has some substance, these contributions

are just more of the same masculine dismissal of pop that has buggered criticism ever since the first man realised that pop music was messing with his erection. While I don't want to slip into a simplistic reading of patriarchy - there is currently a dialectical tension between its oppression and feminist resistance which is actually quite encouraging - when it rears its head, it's familiar and consistent. 

Getting Subjy with two Azies

This is hard work. I am trying to avoid making too many aesthetic claims about the artists in question: whether I like it or not, the relative critical worth of Iggy and Banks is subjective. As Mark Boyle from BHP pointed out when I kept playing Iggy's videos: 'this music is not for us.' 

(He didn't mean that in any cultural sense, just that some pop music has an intended audience that doesn't include Glasgow's top rock DJ and a semiotician with a fetish for performance art.)

The question of whether Iggy is performing blackface or just making generic pop might be beyond my ability to discern. I am, however with Lodge, Rahman et al when they consider Iggy's music as an appropriation of hip hop. But since I live in a postmodern milieu, I'm not sure whether this is a priori a bad thing. 

Hip-hop is now so global, a passive listener would be forgiven for not being familiar with the politics of race relations, Lodge continues. But even if you look at this situation oblivious to the issues, it’s not hard to see that something has gone wrong.

Azealia Banks is making creative, boundary pushing music that deserves awards, whilst Iggy Azalea’s music is dull, formulaic pop. Yet it’s Iggy who is being hailed by Forbes as "one of hip hop’s most exciting new artists". I'd hazard a guess that 70 per cent of Iggy Azalea’s appeal is based on the fact that she is a conventionally attractive white woman doing work that’s associated with black men. She captures the imagination of white consumers. It’s a gimmick.

I broadly agree with Lodge here although - at the suggestion of my man Psignal, I am listening to Azealia Bank's album. I really loved 212, but I am not sold on Broke with Expensive Tastes as 'boundary pushing music.' Tracks like Heavy Metal and Reflective has a harsh rhythmic energy and an eclectic orchestration, which graft EDM intensity onto a bold, sexual aggression, while BBD recalls an updated version of Missy Elliot's tracks with the antics - coarse, intelligent music for the club, all rattling percussion and snarled whispered. But it is anyone's guess what she was thinking when she recorded Nude Beach A Go Go. 

I'm also worried about 'the gimmick.' Most of pop music is a gimmick. To challenge myself, I am going to list ten artists and define them by their gimmick. A gimmick is another word for a unique selling point.

Lady Gaga: she's pop, but she's well art.

Public Enemy: the political commentary you can dance to.

Led Zeppelin: it's the blues, but toughened up.

The Wurzels: they have West Country accents.

Ariel Pink: he records Kim Fowley tracks, which are kitsch and poppy.

The Bee Gees: it's disco, but they are straight men.

Amanda Palmer: oh, she's so fucking alternative.

Steve Albini: he's all about the honest rock sound, man.

Miles Davis (1970s): it's jazz, but with rock ambitions.

Miles Davis (1950s): it's jazz, only cool and laid back.

And as for the list of artists who sell their music through a filter of soft porn imagery...

I suppose what I am saying is: taking sides in this beef means assuming that subjective opinions have authenticity. And that's got me on the phone to Baudrillard.

Azaelia, Azalea and Me (part 1)

I am really getting into this beef between Iggy and Azealia. Even the frickin' Daily Telegraph is getting in on the action - although they put the article in the 'women's life section' for reasons I can't understand.

Being a minor media pundit, I am more interested in the way that the issue is being handled than any 'truth' in the accusations that Iggy A is appropriating hip hop. And I seem to find myself siding against an artist I admire to protect a cookie-cutter pop chick. The Telegraph article is a pretty good survey, though. My notes in italics.


...rapper Azealia Banks had a viral hit with 212,(which was a storming track)... she’s also known for her long-standing feud with the Australian rapper Iggy Azalea... Last week, Banks gave an interview to New York based radio station Hot 97. When questioned about her feud with Iggy, she burst into tears at the cultural appropriation of blackness, calling it a "cultural smudging".

She seemed particularly upset that Iggy Azalea was nominated for Best Rap Album at the Grammys. “The Grammys are supposed to be awards for artistic excellence… Iggy Azalea’s not excellent,” Banks said. 

I did watch a bit of Iggy and, while I am not ready to define excellence, I don't think she is as good as Azaelia. But let's have a look at the Grammys' past winners to check whether they are about 'artistic excellence.'

Records of the year have included Phil Collins, Coldplay, Eric Clapton (in the 1990s when he has that revival), U2, and The Captain and Tennille. The most striking consistency is that artists get this award long after their music might have been exciting or relevant (Sinatra in the 1960s, Carlos Santana in the 1990s). When Eddie Veder won an award, he questioned its value in his acceptance speech, and Sinead O'Connor boycotted the event. Even the wikipedia page notes that it tends to go for commercially rather than critically notable artists.

I am concerned that Azaelia gives a shit about The Grammys. Her viral hit had a chorus about 'that cunt's getting eaten.' She is not making commercial music. In fact, the pleasure of her songs comes in the disregard she has for the niceties of conventional pop: the sexuality she celebrates is rough and tough and determined, and is a long way from Iggy's white-bread fantasy persona. 

“When they give these Grammys out, all it says to white kids is, ‘You're great. You're amazing. You can do whatever you put your mind to.’ And it says to black kids, ‘You don't have s***. You don’t own s***, not even the s*** you created yourself.’ And it makes me upset.”

So, I did check the rap awards at The Grammys, and it is a mixed bunch of artists. It isn't as redundant as I'd expected (although no Public Enemy, Tribe or De La Soul and P Diddy has won twice). The racial profile (hmm) of the awards does not suggest that it either favours or ignores black or white artists. Given that Iggy and Azaelia have had beef for a while, I wonder whether she is picking out The Grammys to continue the ruckus. 

Reni Eddo Lodge's article is better than most of the clickbait about this beef, because she gives Iggy's response. It's not impressive. 

“You created your own unfortunate situation by being a bigot and don't have the mental capacity to realize yet,” she wrote. “Probably never will. Now! rant, Make it racial! make it political! Make it whatever but I guarantee it won't make you likable & THATS why ur crying on the radio. Enjoy continuing to bang your head against that metaphoric brick wall & Savor this attention. I'm the only way you get ANY.”

Up to now, I have been on Iggy's side - for the reasons that will come clearer later. But this is some bullshit. It's rude. It makes it personal (Azaelia was making a point about The Grammys, and using Iggy's aesthetic quality as an example. She might be wrong or right, but saying that someone's art is not excellent is fair critique. Saying that they are a bigot and stupid is not). 

And to quote Skin off Skunk Anansie: of course it's fucking political.