|
@Mars: That's a persuasive argument, I understand your angle now. It's the "I don't care about the politics" attitude that some reviewers are adopting that I take issue with. Seems like a hollow way to approach this record, given that the band's social justice beliefs are clearly important to them (they want to create music that spurs change in society).
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
And I'd say that's fair enough. If the band wants to market themselves/the album in a very specific and especially outspoken way, it should be addressed. Try as we might, music boils down to subjectivity, and viewing a given release in a strictly objective perspective is not only very difficult, but not entertaining or even honest.
| | |
One of the reasons they don't want straight cis white men to review it is they believe they are inherently not capable of understanding these life experiences.
certainly a fair and compassionate point. still, i have some reservations regarding the notion that reviewers (and perhaps also listeners) must engage with their politics. marskid's reasons for not doing so are good examples. furthermore 1) i think most obviously, most of the songs arent really that political, and 2) i feel like it ought to be valid to review this album from an apolitical standpoint, albeit with the requirement that the reviewer is still conscious of their politics. in my mind, the idea is analogous to how i think "other" people should be treated in society - as equals, but also with respect for their difference (equality =/= treating people the same). i might suggest that a possible approach for doing this while simultaneously avoiding the appearance of "mansplaining" (which i argued repeatedly in the nuked thread as being inherent to the situation of a man reviewing a work by a woman) or other forms of ignorance could be to write without attacking / making assumptions about the character of the artist (e.g. positing that the artist was "lazy" or "foolish" in making their art), or by frequently referring to the work as if distinct from the artist ("the album affected / didn't affect me in this way or that way" rather than "this band affected / didn't affect...").
It's opportunistic of them to adopt a political aesthetic then barely deliver any political songs.
i can't see any reason for why a band that writes apolitical music can't then have very political public engagements (sorry for the double negative). really, no reason. furthermore, i think part of the point of their politics is that they shouldn't have to feel compelled to be political in their music or otherwise.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
This record is kinda really boring musically.
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
"i can't see any reason for why a band that writes apolitical music can't then have very political public engagements (sorry for the double negative). really, no reason. furthermore, i think part of the point of their politics is that they shouldn't have to feel compelled to be political in their music or otherwise."
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Lucid's point dealt with how the band aggressively marketed themselves as a political entity, but their music seemingly betrays that constructed perception. You're right, artists may hold onto whatever beliefs/ideologies/etc. they wish. However, the fact that this discussion is going on in the first place shows how influential their media presence has been, on both their music and themselves as a whole.
Can this be reviewed with little/no regard to the political aspect? Yes, I believe so, and I do believe there's merit to that. I'd be lying, though, to say that it wasn't difficult, as that very aspect is the one that can be pushed furthest in front of the given listener. I simply never engaged with this band's material before--music or otherwise--so I was able to enter this from a fairly objective (by music standards, mind) standpoint.
| | |
That first paragraph is exactly what I'm saying Mars. Of course a band can keep their political beliefs separate from the music. But this isn't a band that writes "apolitical music," and that certainly wasn't the impression they gave this album cycle. There was a fiery political single, which served as a launch point for their media campaign, followed by an album that is notably lacking in other political statements. How come? In the other thread dimsim argued that Georgia is mostly concerned with personal songwriting. She might be uncomfortable covering political topics, so she stayed within her safe zone. Okay, then why the misleading branding?
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
No ‘shit soundbite filter’ activated, I don’t think they have a master plan, they’re just a bit sloppy
| | |
If the band wants to market themselves/the album in a very specific and especially outspoken way, it should be addressed.
it should certainly be addressed in general, but for the reasons i stated ^above, i think it's ok for a few reviews to not do that. also i have some issues with the term "marketing" which i discuss in the big post below.
viewing a given release in a strictly objective perspective is not only very difficult, but not entertaining or even honest.
to momentarily nitpick, i think not discussing a band's politics doesn't necessarily result in a "strictly objective" review, because the reviewer's experience of the music itself is already v subjective.
| | |
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) Lucid's point dealt with how the band aggressively marketed themselves as a political entity, but their music seemingly betrays that constructed perception.
while i can certainly see how a listener could expect from hearing about camp cope via some form of informative media that they are a political band, i strongly oppose the notion that its therefore ok to hold it against camp cope when the listener finds that they are not in fact a political band. my view is based on the belief that a band can be v political in their non-musical stuff while largely avoiding this subject in their music.
perhaps our divergence in perspectives results from the differing means by which we discovered/familiarised ourselves with this band: i have followed this band since they were formed, before they released a note of music or said a single word on their politics. i have always known georgia as a personal songwriter, and always thought of camp cope as just a normal band, before they ever gained a reputation as a "political band". most others, especially those outside of australia, probably discovered them well after they had gained that reputation, and likely through an article that bore some headline to the effect of "camp cope are rippin thru the confines of our patriarchal society".
(cont. in next post)
| | |
(cont. from previous post)
by repeatedly engaging the topic of feminism, and with the addition of the strong media focus on this aspect of their band, it is clear that they have become "branded" as a "political band". i have a strong distaste for the characterisation of camp cope's use and presentation of their politics as "marketing" or "branding", partly because i think it connotes that the band are using it to sell their music and that they are not v genuine about their politics (although, having just attended two marketing classes, i acknowledge that the technical definition of "marketing" does not necessarily have anything to do with selling). but even deeper than that, my real issue with terms like "marketing" and "branding" with respect to this band is this notion that they attempting to craft a particular public image for themselves by way of their political agenda at all. in my view, they are attempting to do nothing of the sort. why is it not plausible to think that they are simply people who happen to have strong political views, express them because they feel their views must urgently be communicated, and have little concern for how this makes them look because it is the political issue that is important, not their image? the band is probably conscious of the fact that this communication creates a particular image of them in the public eye, but to look at it from their perspective: is it preferable to vocalise your political views which you feel are urgent for the advancement of an important issue, or to refrain from doing so because you are worried about the image your vocalisation may form (and the implications of that image)? so my response to lucid's question "why the misleading branding?" is that they are not attempting to "brand" themselves at all, regardless of whether their politics necessarily results in their "branding" as i think it is the intention that's being questioned here.
(cont. in next post)
| | |
(cont. from previous post)
so with all those factors in view, heres my main point: that people see camp cope as "political" does not change what i believe to be the fact that they are, at their foundations, a band that simply came together to make some music, not a "political entity" that merely uses music as a marketing tool to spread their political agenda. imo the ultimate point of camp cope's politics is that they are fighting for themselves--and other bands consisting of people other than the stereotypical straight white male musician--to be treated simply as bands, for their art to be treated simply as art, and for neither to be treated as abnormal or lesser by reason of their racial/sexual/gender differences. perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, this has involved the making of bold, clamouring statements towards this point of equality, thus yielding them a distinct image. but as i argued in the last para, such a direction was necessary for them to contribute towards positive change. their music, however, reveals clearly to me what they are about as artists: art that draws from personal feelings and experience, whether that entails writing anthems against oppression or a song about georgia's dead dad.
-fin-
p.s. i am saving this three part post as i feel that it sums up a significant proportion of my views on this band and i fear that mod will wipe them from this thread
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
No reason to wipe a civilized discussion I think.
It all depends on how you view the band's intentions by the end the day, in terms of all the tweets, interviews and whatnot. We can debate over whether or not this is purposeful marketing/branding, but there will be no real conclusion to that. By lyrical content and musical presentation overall I would agree, they deal with personal topics rather than anything dealing with beliefs and such.
Regarding my point of objectivity vs. subjectivity: to exclude a prominent feature of a band--in this case their politics, which they have stated clearly in multiple instances--means a reviewer is not necessarily being truthful. As I've mentioned, we're mostly on the same page, where I judge this almost entirely from a musical perspective. But after all that's been said thus far, for me not say a peep about the background of the band and release as a whole would be a lack of honesty. The disposition of the artist can be related to their work. In my case, aforementioned somewhere, their loud social media presence and passionate singing contradicts the dull songwriting and instrumental contributions.
I believe that the band has messages they want to deliver to the listener--personal, political, or otherwise. Yet their ultimate output seems oddly subdued to me. Once again, we can try and dissect motivations and whatnot, but it will eventually be left to how a general listener approaches the album. Perhaps, to your argument, media outlets themselves have perpetuated an image of the group that falsely represents them, which is entirely possible. Either way, and I know I'm repeating .myself at this point, they are a very emotionally strong band at their core, but this is not displayed in their output.
| | |
No reason to wipe a civilized discussion I think.
except that political discussion of any kind possibly welcomes controversial opinions containing "offensive" remarks, so it should all be wiped to avoid eliciting such remarks. also i unno "this isnt the place for political discussion" maybe?
Regarding my point of objectivity vs. subjectivity: to exclude a prominent feature of a band--in this case their politics, which they have stated clearly in multiple instances--means a reviewer is not necessarily being truthful.
i did notice that you said avoiding political discussion is not necessarily dishonest, so this response is just affirming the validity of those exceptional cases.
imo its not "dishonest" to avoid discussing the politics if the reviewer doesnt rlly connect the politics with the music in their experience of the work; thats an honest representation of how they subjectively experience the work. i personally dont put much stock into lyrical content of any kind when i listen to music; even with political music, i rlly just hear sounds; i dont rlly care about whatever issues bob dylan is singing about or what themes are on ok computer or kid a, its still beautiful af. all that stuff mighta fueled the music but without knowledge or particular interest in the background, it just sounds like music. no dishonesty here, just ignorance and a limited view of the work but i think its sometimes advantageous to focus on and assess the music in a secular manner because ultimately most of us are just here for tha beaut sounds.
with respect to this record in particular, this band may talk a lot of politics but i think its clear that most of their songs arent rlly political, so a view of their music that isnt rlly concerned with their politics is a legitimate one imo. from a moral/social point of view, i absolutely think that consciousness and understanding of their politics is necessary, but in the interests of music criticism, i dont.
media outlets themselves have perpetuated an image of the group that falsely represents them, which is entirely possible.
i would say this is beyond mere possibility, but regardless, i dont think it matters much (see big post).
we can try and dissect motivations and whatnot, but it will eventually be left to how a general listener approaches the album.
true, but i was arguing partly that my view of the band's motivations is more reasonable and less unnecessarily hostile than others'. ;)
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
This debate has pummelled me into submission
AOTY
| | |
georgia is a fucking lunatic
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
Oh hey, this thread again
| | | Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off
nah it's just matthew d. french shouting randomly into the dark because muh feminism
nothing to see here
| | |
I love this band but it’s clear this site (the whole damn thing, not singling anybody out) genuinely can NOT deal with their existence and I wish they were nuked from the site
| | | Album Rating: 2.5
Honestly I thought this discussion was respectful for the most part. They don't bother me at all.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Enjoy the music, appreciate the message but just hate the way they go about it, there always seems to be drama of sorts.
| | | |
|
|
