Why I'd Rather Listen To The New R. Kelly Album Than The New Shins Album
»
 |
- Fan of Pet Sounds, The Village Green Preservation Society, and Meat Puppets II? Check.
- Regular reader of Pitchfork? Check.
- Ever worn a tight-fitting thrift store t-shirt with faded jeans and Pumas? Check.
- Socially awkward in high school? Check.
But somehow, I've moved farther away from the center than even I initially realized. When Oh, Inverted World was released a few years ago, it spent considerable time in my CD player and car stereo. I haven't even listened to The Shins' current release, Chutes Too Narrow, all the way through yet, and I probably wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't found it in the used bin at my local record store. I don't think this has anything to do with the relative quality of Chutes Too Narrow, which, by most accounts, equals or surpasses Oh, Inverted World. It has more to do with a changed understanding of what I think music should be, and how most indie music is dreadfully failing to keep up with that understanding.
(Lest anyone get the impression that this piece is an attempt to either lambast the Shins or extol R. Kelly specifically, I would like to emphasize that both the Shins and R. Kelly are merely signifiers, rallying points stemming from several drunken, late night conversations regarding the jukebox at Boat.)
"The Shins are the saviors of indie rock!" a writer for Magnet screamed as he introduced the band before a show in Philadelphia last September. I'm not sure if the band agrees with this dubious title, but what I want to know is, should indie rock be saved? Is it worth saving a genre that has become the most conservative and inflexible of the 21st century? Why not just let it die quickly and painlessly? (I should clarify that when I say indie in this article, I am referring to this, not the more general definition of independent labels and artists).
While most of the current field of pop, hip-hop, dance, and electronic artists are continually testing the borders of music (Have you heard the new Brandy single?), indie has managed to make itself wildly irrelevant through its perplexing insularity and maddening idol worship. Like the employees of Colonial Williamsburg and most current jazz musicians, indie rockers function as curators and revivalists rather than innovators. Practically everything about the music and the "scene" has been codified -- the influences, the clothing, the attitude, the drug use (please visit Makeoutclub if you need any further confirmation of this).
Sure, the results are often pleasant enough to listen to, but why settle for pleasant? If you're listening to the Shins on RealPlayer, a description pops up in the header that says something like: The Shins are a '60s influenced indie pop group. Now, let's pretend there was RealPlayer back in the '60s and you put on "You Really Got Me." Which of the following header descriptions would be more likely?
- "In the future this band will probably be cited when future bands are described as '60's influenced.'"
- "That guitar sound, man, that's so wild, I mean, where did that come from?"
My guess would be the latter.
I'm not saying that musicians have to be altogether devoid of references and influences, but I am saying that they do need more vitality, more relevance to today's listeners, and more of that intangible "where did that come from?" element. Certainly, there are plenty of current indie artists trying to push things forward -- Comets On Fire, Lightning Bolt, Sunburned Hand of the Man, among others. But it's the bands everyone listens to (i.e., the ones on the Boat jukebox) that should take the lead in stretching musical boundaries. Sort of like what Missy, Timbaland, Kelis, the Neptunes, Outkast, and, yes, R. Kelly are doing with hip-hop right now.
And the most frustrating thing is that it wasn't always like this (think In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, Bee Thousand, or Painful, not to mention Minor Threat, Sonic Youth, The Minutemen, and Dinosaur Jr. in the '80s. Wow, I sound old.) How exhilarating was it when New Order shed their post-punk skin and discovered electro? Or when the Beatles flirted with musique concrete in "A Day In The Life"? Or the first time you heard "Fuck Tha Police"? Can you think of anything from the current crop of indie royalty that comes anywhere close to engendering that sort of exhilaration in listeners?
The Shins do write catchy songs, and I have to give them credit for mastery of their craft. But listening to them, I feel like I'm listening to a term paper. All the "right" influences are effectively appropriated (including the Shins themselves), yet it seems a bit too studied, a bit too mannered, and a bit too stunted. Like most current indie bands, the Shins are too busy playing it safe, and completely unwilling to take chances. Similarly, Interpol does a great job of making us wish we lived in New York in the late 70's and early 80's, but I want a soundtrack to my life today, and it definitely would not consist solely of reheated interpretations of post-punk (when I walk around New York, I hear bhangra, house, dancehall, and hip-hop, not Joy Division). It's easy to copy what was good before -- why can't we have our own generation of world-beating risk-takers? Can you even see Interpol (or the Shins, or the Rapture, or the Polyphonic Spree, or, or, or…) lasting for more than three albums and steering themselves out of their self-imposed creative cul-de-sac? Will we even care?
For me, the answer is, not really. Since most current indie musicians are merely treading water, I plan to hold my breath until the next wave comes to send us hurtling towards shore (Are those rumors of the DFA producing Britney's next album true?). But as long as I've got quarters in my pocket, it's going to be "Saint Simon" over "Kissing The Lipless" on the Boat jukebox.
HAROLD LIU | In addition to his undergraduate degree in complaining, Harold also received his advanced certificate in curmudgeon-ese last fall. He's planning on dressing up as Audrey Hepburn for Hallloween.