The Neverending Story
There are times when it’s great having a 9-5 again. Like when I read this blog post and the subsequent comments. I thought about replying there but then decided if I go to bed now I’ll be in work tomorrow and then when I get home I won’t care anymore. Still, the debate did make me think.
It’s one of those arguments where even the people who are on the same side probably don’t agree with each other. Everyone posting there should ask themselves why they bothered, not that I wouldn’t be doing it too plenty of the time.
Anyway I read the Mike Banks interview and I found it interesting. Afterwards it was clear to me that he is a guy with a real passion for music and the legacy he has helped to build, who has not profited majorly from his efforts. As for his work with young people in his community, for that he deserves whatever level of respect you grant to anyone who gives up their time to work with young people and try to set a positive example. No more, no less.
Some things didn’t make me respect him more. Some elements of the interview had no effect on my opinion of Mike Banks. For example, I don’t like him more or less because he has not made money from his music. This has no effect on my opinion of Mike Banks. In fact, why should I have an opinion about Mike Banks at all, unless it’s about his music? Why should anyone?
That’s my problem. I don’t really connect the personality to the music in this, or any other instance. Perhaps an artist I like is an asshole. Perhaps he is the nicest guy you’ll ever meet. Perhaps he thinks about sleeping with grandmas, or never puts the toilet seat down, or once thought “Anne Landers is a boring old biddy”. Perhaps he has problems with his Dad. Perhaps he’d hit on your girlfriend. Perhaps he hogs the stereo at parties. Perhaps he sends letters to imprisoned activists.
At that moment when you stick his latest record on the stereo, and it comes to life or sinks like a stone, then who gives a shit?
I don’t mean, who gives a shit about charity work, or helping the community, or being a good person. I mean, who gives a shit about musicians being good people or not. I am interested in them for their music. Westlife probably visit sick kids in hospital every year but it doesn’t make me like their records more.
I should add that I don’t give a shit if an artist is an asshole either, or if he is a hedonist, or if he is tee-total. I don’t give a shit if he doesn’t give a shit. Music is about the sounds coming out of the speakers. It’s a simple notion, but it seems to bear endless repetition!
And choosing not to be political or send political messages in music is not apathetic or hedonistic by default. Art itself is a major contribution to society. Purely by creating art, the artist gives something to the world around him. Art gives young people (from all kinds of backgrounds) a window into another world. It makes them believe that life is more than just the four walls around them. This is the real power of art, the power to move you emotionally. This is vastly more powerful than any political power art has, or ever will have.
If someone doesn’t believe that music, just the raw essence of music itself, the sounds, the tones, the rhythms, that they all have this power, then they need to turn up the stereo. If you don’t believe that all art has this huge power, then that’s quite sad. This is why a great artist doesn’t need to be political, nor should he ever feel coerced into doing so. Art is powerful before politics ever comes into it. Music has been powerful long before politics even existed.
Artists should be free to do whatever they want, without anyone making rules for them. If people like their work, great. If nobody likes it, so be it.
On this note I can’t but feel that Hawtin has been unfairly singled out here, not least because the only time I seem to read his name these days is when someone is using him as a strawman for the sort of “minimal” that only people who dislike “minimal” are discussing now.
Sure, there’s the stereotype of the rich white artist who has nothing to do all day except dream up his money spinning conceptual projects. But what about impoverished artists who aren’t political with the music they make? Don’t they have that right too? It’s not just rich artists who are apolitical in their work, far from it. In fact, a lot of artists probably are delighted to earn enough money from their work to give them the choice of whether to be political or make art purely for the sake of art.
And that’s the point for me. The point of charity work, the point of wanting a better world, the point of helping young people in the community. The point of every cause is its eventual resolution. You fight for things because you want to stop fighting, not because the fight itself is enjoyable (or leads to better records).
Ideally, Mike Banks helps these kids to get to a position where they can CHOOSE whether they want to make self indulgent conceptual art projects, or coach baseball, or do whatever the hell they want. That’s a better world, that’s a better society: one where as many people as possible have the ability to CHOOSE what they want to do. Not one where there’s enough community work to go around for everyone.
For me, there’s no point praising someone for working in the community if you simultaneously fetishize the output of impoverished artists.Similarly, an artist like Richie Hawtin doesn’t have to do community work to contribute to society, nor should he. It is so completely wrong to rank peoples activities in terms of their moral contribution to society.
Firstly, we can never agree on which actions are of more worth. For example, is a social worker doing more “good” than a teacher? Is a negligent doctor doing more “good” than a brilliant guidance counsellor? Should a vegetarian who believes in animal’s rights go off and end Third World hunger before taking up that cause? What “good” does music do? What “good” do movies do? If I feel happy after watching an advertisement, what “good” has that done? What “good” does a comedian do? They’re all unanswerable questions. Morality is murky.
Secondly, working for a better world, and being one human being in six billion, is ideally a matter of hundreds and thousands of goals and plans and missions in harmony with each other, not some ordered list of “good” tasks that we tick off whilst slamming anyone who isn’t working away on task #1.
Mind you, if you did ask me to rank daily activities in terms of moral value, I reckon blogging or flaming would be somewhere near the bottom.
Kenny wrote:
Good post. The problem I think you’ll find is that Hawtin just doesn’t seem to be about music anymore, compared with his toys, business etc, well according to some people anyways. Though they don’t mind when Banks talks about non-music subjects (though these are non-profit subjects too or summit)
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 2:30 am ¶
tom/pipecock wrote:
“Art itself is a major contribution to society. Purely by creating art, the artist gives something to the world around him.”
now that is the best argument i’ve heard against my little piece there, but it’s also the most wrong because we agree. my point was that richie doesn’t really make “art” anymore, he makes technical demos for the products he is pushing. and it’s not unfairly singling him out as a straw man, he has been the leader of this movement since Decks, EFX, and 909 if not earlier. it got really silly with the “closer to the edit” and the whole time period around the beginning of final scratch, and now it just seems like he is pushing product and nothing more. there isn’t really art to it anymore than the guy making background music for commercials is a great artist.
the basic idea is when mike banks is making a record, you can feel where his mind and feelings are! and it doesnt even have to be about being “charitable” though i dont think that is what mike is about anyway, i certainly don’t think he came across that way in the interview. it just has to do with the purity of expression, and i think the purity of what UR does is rather evident in every single way. with richie and his little empire, i feel like the same thing is evident: his music sounds forced and overly technical. it might not be so easy to say that if he hadn’t once come from at least a slightly different place artistically (though he has always been very calculating and business like from the beginning).
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 3:30 am ¶
Sotek wrote:
With all due respect, I think you’re kinda missing the point of that ISM article. Pipecock writes in his post that “for some, techno is all about capitalistic hedonism gone wild: consumption of new gadgets, music, style, fashion, etc etc. For others, techno is soul music whose power is great enough to change lives in a positive fashion.” You may just care about the music - not that there’s anything wrong with that - but others could be looking for something more than that. So there you have it: different strokes for different folks.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 6:26 am ¶
Cahony wrote:
Many good points well made Ronan.
In particular when breezing through the comments on that post I was struck by one point you touch on above; “…for the sort of “minimal” that only people who dislike “minimal” are discussing now.”
The minimal backlash seems to be so self-perpetuating and blind now that it disregards any development or evolution in the sounds put out by ‘minimal’ labels in the past year.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 8:34 am ¶
Daragh wrote:
I broadly agree but I suspect there are limits, for me anyway - personality isn’t a massively important thing but I can imagine situations where it could have an impact. For instance, even if R Kelly made excellent records I doubt I’d buy them or actively seek to listen to them on account of the things he has been convicted of. Or, a more contrived example - if someone came around and shot my mother for example, then I stumbled across a painting by that person that I really, really liked - but then found out it was by that person, I don’t think I’d be rushing to buy it - in fact I can see my opinion of it changing pretty rapidly.
I largely agree about the Hawtin hating though. I saw him in Glasgow at the end of September and it was one of the best sets I have ever heard in my many years of clubbing.
Also, I’m not sure that I agree entirely that “Music is about the sounds coming out of the speakers” - perhaps this is true for techno/dance music that for other forms (and I say this as someone who listens almost exclusively to techno at the moment). For me an appreciation of the skill of the individual who produced or created that music is a minimum addition to this. Also, in the case of live music the performance is a huge factor (again linked with the skill) - especially in something like an orchestral recital where it’s massively about the interaction of skilled individuals.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 9:10 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
Yeah Daragh that was fairly hardline, I guess I’d climb down to something like “artists should be criticised solely on the basis of their music” because of course music can be tied into other issues.
@Tom and As regards Richie Hawtin, I definitely see where you’re coming from Tom, his music does nothing for me and I own about two M_nus records.
I’ve yet to see him DJ but by all accounts and by the sets I’ve heard he seems pretty good, and it certainly seems like he has to make a real effort with that, to buy and edit old and new records.
But for me an artist is anyone people deem to make art, what I think of them is not really important. Though I do consider Hawtin an artist. I think it should be a democratic term. Even if I didn’t though, my opinion is not enough to deny anyone that status.
@Sotek:
Myentire point, the entire reason I wrote the post was that I don’t believe it’s as simple a split as Pipecock’s definition. So I think it’s you missing the point.
You say “you may care about the music, but others could be looking for something more than that”. Why is what they seek something “more”? I just wrote this entire post trying to explain why I don’t think it’s something “more”, why one positive activity can not be rated as higher than another. Did you even read those parts? If you really do believe that it’s “different strokes for different folks” then surely each side of this approach to art is just as valid? Both because of the eternal truth of “different strokes for different strokes” (was it Shakespeare who first used this in in an argument? Or Oscar Wilde?) and the reasons cited in the post.
@Cahony: Happy Birthday! Plus I agree with you, though I am starting to think pretty much everyone complaining about “mnml” etc just means M_nus and their imitators.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 10:29 am ¶
Sotek wrote:
@Ronan: “If you really do believe that it’s “different strokes for different folks” then surely each side of this approach to art is just as valid?”
Yes and no, however, when it comes to dance music I’m gonna have to say yes. Both Banks and Hawtin represent two completely different types: Banks with his community-oriented spirit and Hawtin with his more capitalistic approach. But I think they’re both doing something right for the scene: Banks standing firmy behind the UR ideology, focusing more on quality rather than quantity (plus taking care of his “peeps”) while Hawtin’s pushing technology forward. We can argue for days who’s right or wrong and why. Like I said - they’re both doing something right. So that’s why “different strokes for different folks”.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 11:29 am ¶
clom wrote:
The Mike Banks article raised my hackles initially because of the apparent linkage of Banks credentials as an artist with the fact that he teaches baseball to High school kids.
I work with vulnerable young people, I don’t expect praise or respect for doing it from anyone except my colleagues and the young people I work with and initially I found Banks’ harping on about it superficially egotistical. Some of that was just the fact that I was supremely grumpy when I was reading the article. Some of it may be the editing of the article and how Banks comes across. When you’ve achieved what he’s achieved you’re entitled to a bit of slack when it comes to self-aggrandisement.
The later part of the interview about how UR operates as an alternative outlet for young people in communities in the thrall of drugs and crime was the most inspiring. His words on travel and the way travelling with UR has broadened the horizons of young people demonstrates exactly how electronic, or any other type of music can operate as an agent of social change. The way he talks about kids respecting him for travelling to Norway. The fact that UR subscribes to a no-bullshit meritocratic PR philosophy only sweetens it but it will always be the music that makes Banks a hero to me.
Although I’ve just re-read the article and have to say I have no idea why I was so down on Banks on the first reading. He’s a geniune and passionate advocate for his community in the broadest terms and an inspiration to anyone interested in music and how it operates as a social force (as Richard Brophy mentioned on his blog this week)
I must have been having a stinker of a day!
As to Hawtin, I’ve seen him DJ a load of times and he’s worth the (occasionally extortionate) entry price- I wouldn’t be a mixmag reader so I’m not really all that bothered about what company he owns/invests in etc. That wee handheld yoke looked nifty enough but personally i’ll stick to the technics and the shitey two channel mixer thanks.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 11:37 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
“Both Banks and Hawtin represent two completely different types: Banks with his community-oriented spirit and Hawtin with his more capitalistic approach.”
Hey…whatever handy narrative works for you.
Posted 28 Nov 2007 at 10:12 pm ¶
Sotek wrote:
@Ronan: “Hey…whatever handy narrative works for you.”
Let’s just forget it.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 6:10 am ¶