Mike Bennett: February, 2001

Rock Critics and the Dogma of Innovation

Do you find yourself rolling your eyes at the pronouncements of critics, hoping to learn about good music and instead finding yourself treated to a treatise on some 'artiste' who hates rock/dismisses rock/feels the need to reinvent the entire form? I'm tired of what has become a dogmatic insistence on so-called innovation in rock music. It is a large part of what has become a governing rock aesthetic that has become extremely unhealthy for music in general.

Don't get me wrong - the only way any musical form can grow is to have a certain segment of its creators pushing the envelope. This helps revitalize the form and allows us to see it in new and different ways. But newness (or novelty) is not the key to an enjoyable listening experience. Powerpop falls victim to this aesthetic - while many powerpop records get nice reviews, they are the equivalent of a pat on the head before being sent to your room. Y'see, powerpop, even when expressive and invigorating, represents an old way of thinking, and thus, isn't worthy of extreme praise.

Instead, writers tout partially clothed emperors like Radiohead and Moby. I actually enjoy their respective recent efforts, but find myself at a loss for why their laudable, but hit-and-miss, discs should send The Shazam or The Embrooks to the back of the bus. Radiohead took cues from Aphex Twin and the avant garde to create an interesting, but not entirely unique soundscape. Although there are some great tracks, I was left with no clue what exactly they were trying to express. If I want to put on some weird sounds that will move me, I'd probably hit Throbbing Gristle or The Residents first.

As for Moby, he did a nice job blending electronic music with old blues and gospel tunes. Has anyone taken the time to listen to the originals and see if he made them more moving or rewarding? Thought so. Moreover, half of Play is comprised of generic instrumentals that could have formed the soundtrack of a movie I wouldn't want to see.

I single out these two albums not merely as an excuse for potshots, but because they are keen representations of the phenomenon that I'm talking about, works that are celebrated as much, if not more, for their risktaking than for their overall execution. I can assure you that XTC's Wasp Star, which was their least groundbreaking effort, still trumps both those discs on a pure quality level.

And this is why the constant demand for innovation is ultimately harmful. When a critic puts down a pop act for not creating the next Pet Sounds or Revolver, remember, that those innovations have already been made. Anything that follows will have to make more subtle contributions, which often spring from the personal wrinkles an artist can add to an established form. Being different, by itself, just isn't enough, unless it allows the artist to make me respond at a new or greater level. What is most critical is the ability of the song to hit my brainpan or heart at some level that tickles it, tugs it, makes me smile, laugh or cry (or fully appreciate the depth of my ennui). However, this is generally disregarded by many scribes, leading to a rock culture based on perceived hipness that only insures that this year's trendsetters are next year's poseurs. In my opinion, if rock is dead, it's because rock critics are trying to kill it.

___________________________________

To reach any other page contained in this month's update on Fufkin.com, read the home page for the appropriate link and click on it. You can also search the site from any page using the search box located at the top of each page. Merely type in the word, phrase, name of the band, recording, name of the Fufkin writer that you are looking for or Whatever in the search box, and then click on "Search". If you would like to e-mail us, go to the About Us page for a list of e-mail addresses.

Go back to the home page by clicking here

____________________________________