Comments on: Jay Reatard – It Ain’t Gonna Save Me

By: The Week in Jukebox « Desperation Tentacles

The Week in Jukebox « Desperation Tentacles — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:28:59 +0000

[...] [7] Owl City – Fireflies [7] Martin Solveig & Dragonette – Boys & Girls [8] Jay Reatard – It Ain’t Gonna Save Me [9] Morandi – Colors [4] An answer to a question nobody asked. Namely, what would happen if [...]

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:07:08 +0000

Honestly, my biggest problem with rock music these days is that it isn’t (or [i]doesn’t[/i], take your pick) rock [i]enough[/i]. Which I guess somewhat aligns with Frank’s “tired and stodgy results.” (And which, again, doesn’t mean I don’t find some other genres at least as tired these days.) (And again, if we’re talking “adventure and mystery of the night,” I don’t see how the Reatard “Lightning Bug” song I quoted above doesn’t aim for that, since that’s what the song’s [i]about[/i].)

By: Frank Kogan

Frank Kogan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:29:57 +0000

(Also, the adventure and mystery of the night is a role that rock once laid claim to, the electric excitement of the electric guitar, and rock’s night-time adventure is something that Marshall Jefferson in Chicago and the techno guys in Detroit were consciously emulating, right?)

By: Frank Kogan

Frank Kogan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:18:07 +0000

Martin, I’m nowhere near being someone who creates or consumes the codes surrounding “funky house,” but it sure seems to be coding something more than just “fun dance music” – I hear stylishness, and the adventure and mystery of the night, and not just anyone’s night (no mere boshing Cascadas here), but a discerning listener’s poignant and risky night.

Not that it shouldn’t, since something that’s “just fun” usually isn’t all that fun, but I don’t know of much that’s trying to be nothing more than fun anyway.

I read you more as being fed up with rock’s tired and stodgy results, but that’s not a knock on rock’s ambitions, is it? I do see where one can argue that rock’s old ambitions have now become a cover for what’s actually defensive and unimaginative, but that’s not a result that’s written into either the ambitions or drawing on the not-so-recent past for one’s vocabulary.

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:13:23 +0000

Well, I guess you’ll say that Jay Reatard’s (and maybe Biffy Clyro’s — I actually don’t know enough about them to say) “images” are rebellious. And yeah, I suppose he’s packaged himself that way. Just don’t really see how that impinges on this particular song (which btw is less good than some of his more explicitly rebellious earlier songs.)

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:04:50 +0000

Okay, I’ll bite. Where exactly does this song (or, say, the Biffy Clyro song we just graded) claim to be anything more than fun (and maybe expressive, though I doubt you’d deny some funky house shoots for that, too) punk music? Guess it’s possibly I didn’t listen to the words close enough. But I mean, come on — rock that doesn’t “see itself as the sound of youthful rebellion” has been around at least since the early days of Bachman-Turner Overdrive. And plenty of non- rock presents itself (or is marketed) as rebellion (youthful or otherwise), too. (As for “funky house,” the tracks I’ve heard sounded pretty decent, but I wouldn’t have figured it for a “new” genre if somebody hadn’t pointed that out to me.)

By: Martin Skidmore

Martin Skidmore — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:13:15 +0000

Funky house at least still sounds pretty new, and isn’t claiming to be anything more than fun dance music. Rock routinely, implicitly and explicitly, makes bigger claims for itself, and very little of it even sounds at all new, or like a fresh combination of ideas.

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:47:14 +0000

And actually, there is a kind of rock these days that’s as obsessed with new strange innovative sounds as the most extreme kinds of electronic dance music or whatever, and it’s called metal. But just like in dance music, supposed metal innovations now seem to happen in almost indiscernible increments, within a more and more conscribed perimeter, so you need to be an expert with a microscope to even notice them. And I don’t count myself as one of those anymore. But if you want rock that isn’t a rehash, that’s still where to look.

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:24:23 +0000

(Not that I have anything against production gimmicks, mind you. But they mostly fall under the heading “craftsmanship.” And if Jay Retard is anything, probably, he’s a craftsman.)

By: Chuck Eddy

Chuck Eddy — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:17:37 +0000

Well, part of my point was that it’s not just rock music that recombines old sounds now; all types of pop music do it (for instance, as far as I could tell, the definitions of supposedly “exciting, cutting edge” so-called “funky house” music I’ve looked at entirely depended on the recombination of old genres, and obviously lots of Winehouse-era British soul pop, or Maxwell/Badu neo-soul or whatever, is as much third-rate rehash of old r&b as Jay Reatard is a third-rate rehash of old punk.) So I don’t get why rock should be singled out. But then again, for whatever reason, it’s not like much new rock is exciting me these days, either. (Though then again again, lots of the new country that excites me these days also recombines old rock sounds.) (And privileging certain non-rock genres just because certain sounds — production gimmicks, mainly — code as “new,” whether there’s a decent song attached or not, doesn’t make sense to me either. But I’ve said that before, many times, and there’s a good chance I’m battling a strawman when I do.)