RA Related
I assume most of you read the Omar S interview over at Resident Advisor recently, and the chat that followed.
I guess it’s surprising that “I don’t know who Ricardo Willalobos is” has become such a big flashpoint after the piece. I’m hoping I’m amongst many when I wonder why anyone would give a shit whether Omar S knows who Ricardo Villalobos is, either way. It should be neither impressive nor disappointing.
It also surprises me that so many people flagged up Omar’s swearing. I didn’t know people were offended by swearing. Though I actually suspect they aren’t in this case, at least not really, if I can rudely second guess their motivation. I mean everyone I know swears pretty regularly. (Randomly this reminds me of one time on Irish radio when some idiot chatshow host discussed a “swearing ban”, and one Dubliner who was interviewed on the street ragingly said “that’s a load of rubbish, you go out, you have a drink, you have a smoke, and you have a swear”. You have a swear! Good man yourself!)
What I do think people objected to from Omar S was a perceived arrogance, eg saying “Psychotic Photosynthesis” was the best record of the last ten years. People will always react to that sort of attitude, no matter who it comes from. The swearing seems part of this attitude. To be honest though I’m starting to feel quite cynical about public reaction online.
In any given situation, regardless of what somebody says, a stock set of responses seems likely. It’s almost like some known physical reaction in a lab. In the case of Omar S, a share of people instantly brand the interview as “telling it like it is”. This well worn brand of interview then provokes quite a few answers that are almost guaranteed.
Some people will back the interviewee, perhaps by praising them for their courageousness, or contrasting them with some unnamed boring “other” of the genre. If this was a rock interview it’d be “bedwetters like Coldplay”. In 2009 ’s house and techno discourse it’s “boring faceless minimal producers”.
It’s sad in a way that even if some two bit producer came out tomorrow and did a really arrogant critical interview on RA, you feel almost certain that half the comments would be as I’ve outlined above.
Perhaps this does an injustice to the actual content of an interview. Is Omar S a stereotype? I don’t think so, necessarily. Did large numbers of people, if not everyone, respond to his interview as if he was? I do think so.
What I disagreed with mainly, on ILM and briefly on RA, was the kneejerk tendency to back a producer for arrogance or aggression.
When I saw the press release for Omar’s Fabric mix, with that quote “I could make 100 fucking Fabric CDs”, I knew that’d be the soundbyte people quoted with smiley faces all across the net. Didn’t you? Bluster is easy and worthless, but it’s hard not to get caught up in it, as any Irish readers who saw a certain Eamon Dunphy on TV last week will attest.
But these narrow narratives we have for artists don’t really help anyone. Omar S is more than swearing and “telling it like it is”, but this is what a lot of people seem to like about him. Maybe it becomes a vicious circle.
Personally, as someone who read the NME during the late 90s, I don’t think I’ll ever be impressed by “telling it like it is”. The fact I feel compelled to put the phrase in inverted commas says it all about how hackneyed I think it is. But then I’m not interested in a track being “the best single of the last 10 years” either. When music chat becomes like a sports programme I switch off.
So sure, there are boring interviews with house and techno artists. But “boring” is not a blanket, one dimensional term which always means the same thing, eg a German minimal producer! Neither is “exciting”.
Nuance and depth make interviews and people interesting to me. Thomas Melchior for instance, was perfectly polite and didn’t attack anyone, but his interview gave away a huge amount of information.
That’s not to say Omar S is a boring person, far from it. Or that it was a boring interview. It is true that a lot of the Detroit artists have interesting stories to tell, and just by dint of being Americans making electronic music they tend to differ from a lot of the Europeans, many of whom live in the same city. At the same time there’s a tendency to glamourise this.
For example when people say “There’s no bullshit from Omar S” or something, it kind of makes me wonder what constitutes “bullshit” in an interview. I mean, I can’t help but fear that for some people, “bullshit” is any kind of deeper discussion. That may sound harsh but when you read some of the comments on RA, it’s not so harsh.
In any case I can’t really think of a definable agreeable definition for “bullshit” in dance music interviews, or an example of the sort of talk Omar S omits. The real fallacy here is that an artist swearing and blinding is somehow damaging their career, not generating huge column inches.
Musicians are not politicians, the more they swear or do destructive shit the more people talk about them. I can think of a few techno artists who have profiles way above and beyond the average music they make, based on the size of their mouths. Similarly plenty of soft spoken quieter musicians could be a lot more popular if they wanted to be brash.
There’s something very American about the outspoken interview really, the competiveness of it, the aggression. That’ll interest some people, but not me.
The Thomas Melchior interview is my favourite one on RA to date. I like this piece because it just seems to invite multi-dimensional thought. I’ve been watching a lot of David Lynch films recently, and I enjoy them for a similar reason, because they boldly set out to provoke responses that aren’t clichéd.
If people can do this (as far as possible!) with their writing about techno and house, and artists can do it with their answers then I think the entire critical scene would be a lot better for it. There are always one on one (dimensional) arguments going on but the more we complicate them the more people might enjoy reading stuff.
(Also very much enjoyed this piece by Finn Johannsen with Till Von Sein.)
(PS: I did a slight lengthening of this post at 15.15 today, after having a few more ideas, hope that’s not too confusing.)
mehlt wrote:
Well articulated.
If I may, to kind of elaborate on the “telling it like it is” phenomenon as I talked about it on ILM: It’s worth noting that this sort of journalism has been cultivated for some time by RA (the “controversial” jay haze interview of 07 — http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature-read.aspx?id=803 — being a sort of forebearer). These interviews get a response, and as RA knows its readers, it knows how to get them to respond.
I think the difference between the Melchior interview and these ones is that in the former you actually learn something new (I know I did) in the latter you have your (i.e. the archetypical RA reader’s) beliefs enforced (which were generally instated by these sorts of interviews in the first place).
More than just this self-reinforcing feedback loop where the interviewee says something, the readers internalize it, interviewer gives them more of it, theres a lot of uncritical (under the guise of being actually critical, of course) journalism that’s behind it, as for this to work, you have to evacuate them of all meaning, reduce them to rhetoric, to empty, tautological statements. It’s what’s in demand, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of more interviews like the Melchior one were cut by RA. Well that’s my take on the mechanics of this sort of thing, at least.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 1:27 am ¶
Matos W.K. wrote:
Let’s also not forget: interviews, at least the kind that aren’t just thrown out there verbatim, are almost always edited. If an artist gives a cliched answer and it’s left in, that’s the interviewer’s fault, not just the artist’s. (The editor’s too, obv.) I’m biased here because I’m friends with Andy Battaglia, but I’m guessing that a good amount of the reason that interview is your favorite (one of mine as well) is that Andy is a sharp editor and knows what’s worth keeping, as well as caring about the wider picture enough to ask interesting questions.
Posted 12 Feb 2009 at 6:29 pm ¶
mehlt wrote:
Oh totally.
One of the bones I have to pick with RA (although it’s not totally fair to single them out, of cuorse) is the way they present their interviews, which I imagine they are conscientious to pick out the saucy parts.
Take the first highlighted quote here (http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature-read.aspx?id=957) for instance, which not only is just a simple, controversial yet ordinary statement, but it’s also largely de-contextualized. And this isn’t the only instance something like that has happened, of course.
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 1:00 am ¶
b0b wrote:
After the many Jean-Claude Vandamme sentence generators, someone has to do one for Omar S. Fuck it, who’s that Homard S guy anyway ? Any family link with Robin S ? Ahhh this shit is fucking annoying…
Posted 13 Feb 2009 at 8:21 pm ¶
mehlt wrote:
All this by which I really just meant to say about those paragraphs regarding “telling it like it is”: Gee, that looks familiar!
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶
karl wrote:
IMO you should focus solely on the RA writers and hold them responsible for contextualizing artist’s comments, and basically being the shapers of the discourse.
Lines like this really undermine your claim that you, unlike those who were excited by his interview and his attitude, do not stereotype him and are in fact only concerned with people’s reactions to him:
“There’s something very American about the outspoken interview really, the competitiveness of it, the aggression. That’ll interest some people, but not me.”
Are you really critiquing the RA writer here or are you critiquing Omar-S? I may be wrong, but it really sounds like the latter to me.
I feel it shouldn’t bother you that an artist like Omar-S does not take the critical discourse seriously, in fact it is almost certainly healthy for his productivity that he doesn’t. So why shouldn’t people be amused by his indifference to critical discourse? It very well may be a quality that makes him more effective as an artist.
Sometimes reading all this humorless critical discourse stuff its easy to forget that language is an art, too, and its going to be used and interpreted very differently by various people. I would think being a fan of David Lynch would remind you to appreciate the subjectivity of perception. There is just no reason to expect Omar-S’ point of view on techno to be objective like a critic’s. Your desire to see artists thinking more like critics (i.e. you) actually comes across as a little arrogant itself.
“If people can [provoke responses that aren’t cliched] (as far as possible!) with their writing about techno and house, and artists can do it with their answers then I think the entire critical scene would be a lot better for it.”
Again you’re blaming Omar-S for how writers and readers respond to him, which to me is just wrongheaded. A writer should be able to take anyone’s behavior and use it to provoke multi-dimensional thought. If you find the interview one-dimensional blame the person who wrote the piece, and perhaps the reader for lack of imagination to contextualize and extrapolate upon their impression of the artist.
“Is Omar S a stereotype? I don’t think so, necessarily.”
Of course not, not if you choose not to dehumanize him and see him as one.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 2:28 am ¶
Will Lynch wrote:
“There’s something very American about the outspoken interview really, the competiveness of it, the aggression.”
this is pretty immature. I can’t imagine making such an arrogant claim and then letting it sit their as if it’s self evidently true. just sayin’.
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 1:15 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
It’s an opinion, I don’t see how it’s immature. Of course it can never be proven but I am sure some people reading this site will agree with that feeling…
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 2:52 am ¶
Paul wrote:
“Of course it can never be proven but I am sure some people reading this site will agree with that feeling…”
What a great argument technique! “I can’t prove my point, but I have a website, so I can say that whoever reads this may agree with me, so my point stands!”
Calling an outspoken interview “American” is such a cheap hack trick. So are subdued interviews “Japanese”? Interviews where the producers talks really fast “Spanish”? If he’s drunk was it an “Irish” interview?
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 11:08 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
If you’re going to quote then you could do so less selectively.
Like any other opinion I can’t scientifically prove that the outspoken aggressive interview is inherently American but I can point out that the last big interview like this on RA was with Jay Haze.
If we’re talking about techno, and I was, I think European producers are definitely more placid in interviews, for better or worse.
Maybe I could have been more specific and said Omar’s attitude was more common amongst American techno artists than Euro ones…or even more common with Detroit artists.
I mean, reading the Omar S interview, could the guy be from anywhere else except America?
As for “so are subdued interviews ‘Japanese’? Interviews where the producers talks really fast ‘Spanish’? If he’s drunk was it an ‘Irish’ interview?”
I think you’ve painted some iffy stereotypes there that I wasn’t familiar with, which is kind of weird and I don’t want to comment further on those.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 12:38 pm ¶
J wrote:
“Maybe I could have been more specific and said Omar’s attitude was more common amongst American techno artists than Euro ones…or even more common with Detroit artists.”
Not sure about this….I’ve always thought that the older Detroit techno artists (I’m thinking specifically Mills, Shake, Hood, Mad Mike) have come across as very humble and modest (and, ultimately, very likable) in the interviews I’ve read and heard.
Posted 21 Feb 2009 at 3:27 pm ¶
fantastic wrote:
“Maybe I could have been more specific and said Omar’s attitude was more common amongst American techno artists than Euro ones…or even more common with Detroit artists.”
this is 100% arbitrary nonsense that you just plucked out of thin air. which I mean, whatever, but then;
“I mean, reading the Omar S interview, could the guy be from anywhere else except America?”
enough euphemisms, for crissakes just say what you mean - “could this guy be anything but black?” thankfully there’s tasteful white Europeans like Thomas Melchior & Till Von Sein & middlebrow avant twiddlers like Lynch to counterbalance all those “arrogant” (uppity) “Detroit” (black) guys.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 3:51 am ¶
kuri wrote:
Have to agree with J on that point about some older Detroit artists (the ones mentioned) coming across modest and occasionally profound in their interviews. while other times they have sounded pontifical (May) or just uninteresting (Craig).
As for it being an American approach, hardly. What about Dave Clarke? Plenty of his interviews over the years have been littered with outrageously opinionated quotes.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 5:19 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
Fantastic that post is unfair in my opinion. You’re just putting words in my mouth, and anyhow I talked about Jay Haze giving a similar interview.
Where did I imply any of the stereotypical attitudes which you decided to bring into this thread?
For the most part in the above post I’ve not criticised Omar S at all, apart from saying that personally I preferred the result of other interviews.
Kuri I think that’s a good point that J made which I ignored in responding to other stuff, I’ve not read an interview with Mills/May for a while though.
Mad Mike imo though is pretty confrontational in his interview style.
Dave Clarke definitely was similar I agree, I never liked his interviews either, but I’d have to read an old one to properly compare…
All I’m really saying is that there’s a particularly American form of brashness which switches me off.
But yeah I do accept that actually every nation has its own twist on “telling it like it is”, and probably my low level anti-American prejudice has come out here…I’ll hold my hands up.
Perhaps the thing in techno is that the American and Detroit artists aren’t part of the same ultra tight knit scene as the Europeans and are more likely to lash out as a result.
As I said in the piece, some people trust an artist more when they criticise other artists, personally I don’t.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 11:37 am ¶
fantastic wrote:
“Where did I imply any of the stereotypical attitudes which you decided to bring into this thread?”
You claimed that American producers (& Americans generally) & esp. those from Detroit (which is overwhelmingly black as are most if not all of the producers who come out of the city) are louder/more aggro than Euro (overwhelmingly if not all white) producers. Black men are often stereotyped as being loud/brash/aggro & black artists are often depicted as having talent that is somehow primal/instinctual as opposed to intellectual (which is where the bit about tastefulness & all that comes in).
TBF perhaps you’re not aware how some of your comments come off? I’ve found this is sometimes the case with Euros (esp. the Irish - god love ‘em, my family on both sides is from Galway, but there ain’t exactly a lot of diversity outside Dublin is there) who don’t live in close proximity to large #s of black ppl (urban France & southern UK being perhaps exceptions). Americans tend to be, depending on their intent, cagier and/or more attuned to this stuff.
& it’s not even your anti-American bent that irks. I generally agree with the aforementioned reservations about stereotypes. it’s that you put forward this staid “thoughtful” blah as somehow superior.
also Jay Haze perhaps isn’t the best example to prop up your point is he - a white dude who’s been living in Berlin since forever & regularly collaborates w/Villalobos (or “Willalobos” innit).
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 1:19 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
This is very silly. I claimed that American producers are more aggressive than European ones.
You then pointed out that most American producers are black and most Europeans white, which is true.
But skin colour was nothing to do with my point. I also spoke about white American producers. And I didn’t say American producers were aggressive because they are black, nor would I ever. That’s a ridiculous leap on your part.
This is proven by the fact I talked about Jay Haze also. It’s not an issue of skin colour to me and it’s very unfair to assume otherwise and put (archaic and pretty vile racist) words in my mouth.
If your follow up point is that the piece was staid and trying to be superior then by all means let me know what you disagreed with.
I don’t claim my point of view is superior in the slightest, it’s only as good as one opposing it…but I think you’re guilty of a pretty seedy low blow here.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
Karl, just saw your post, somehow missed it when you put it up.
“Again you’re blaming Omar-S for how writers and readers respond to him, which to me is just wrongheaded. A writer should be able to take anyone’s behavior and use it to provoke multi-dimensional thought. If you find the interview one-dimensional blame the person who wrote the piece, and perhaps the reader for lack of imagination to contextualize and extrapolate upon their impression of the artist.”
You’re right to some extent but in a lot of cases in techno the artist doesn’t give you much room to work with, eg one line answers etc, as anyone who has done interviews will tell you.
That was what I meant by suggesting interviewees could be to blame sometimes, for what is a problem in house/techno, dull interview features.
Not in every case though, sure. Not in this case perhaps, but I was talking more generally by that point about interviews.
BTW I don’t necessarily want artists to be objective (and christ I’m hardly objective just cos I’m a critic), just to be expansive.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 2:02 pm ¶
fantastic wrote:
“But skin colour was nothing to do with my point.”
You really don’t realize how that piece reads do you? Look I’m willing to concede that your intentions were 100% to the good, but can you really not see what I’m talking about?
Anyway, whatever.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 2:50 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
How the piece reads, or how you say it reads?
If it’s your opinion that it reads as if I believe the things you said then I can’t deny you your right to an opinion.
I think that you’d be in the minority tho.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 2:59 pm ¶
fantastic wrote:
alright one last thing, to clarify.
I don’t think it reads you’re a strident racist or anything. I think it reads like you’re unconsciously reinforcing ugly stereotypes.
Posted 23 Feb 2009 at 5:53 pm ¶
ballyhoo wrote:
For Ronan and anyone who rationalizes one dude’s chauvinistic interview as “very American,” on what basis are your opinions formed? For every example you provide, I could provide several to counter this specious claim. Frankly, it’s an embarrassing thought to consider.
Ronan, you might want to heed your readers’ comments, considering none of them up to this point are seeing it your way. This lazily written opinion takes away from an otherwise solid critique of bland journalism.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:58 am ¶
Ronan wrote:
To be fair I did accept above that I could have been clearer…
I completely refute some of the other suggestions here though…
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 11:08 am ¶
petepete wrote:
fantastic, you just have the typical racial paranoia thing going on, seeing things that aren’t there. if to you it reads like ronan’s ‘reinforcing ugly stereotypes’ (which he’s blatantly not) then that’s how you read it, but it’s not the way it’s written. you’re interpreting it incorrectly. and it does seem to be this american thing where people somehow find the most normal comments racist. just look at the comments section for this article about morgan geist in ny mag.
http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/54307/
granted, everyone else seems to disagree with the first poster, but the comment was still made, when there was no racism in sight.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 11:31 am ¶
ballyhoo wrote:
all we are saying is if ronan is writing to a global audience, about an american producer, and makes a claim that characterizes an entire nation of people, he needs to be a bit more sensitive and /or be prepared to flesh out his reasoning to give it any sense of validity.
regarding “and it does seem to be this american thing where people somehow find the most normal comments racist”,
sullivan hits the nail on the head here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article5779850.ece
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
that may be what you’re saying ballyhoo, but others here have said far far more than that, I think it’s them that petepete is disagreeing with and that I also disagree with.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 8:16 pm ¶
petepete wrote:
‘he needs to be a bit more sensitive and /or be prepared to flesh out his reasoning to give it any sense of validity.’
sorry, but if omar s doesn’t have to, why should ronan?
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:14 pm ¶
petepete wrote:
since everyone else is championing omar s’ ‘telling it like it is’ approach, i don’t think there’s any problem with ronan doing the same. it’s his opinion (which i agree with completely), and it’s his blog, so all these pseudo politically correct comments from some of you make no sense to me. i’m all for discussion, but don’t tell him how to write on his own site. disagree all you like, but don’t nitpick and accuse ronan of being racist, insensitive, unobjective, etc.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:20 pm ¶
ballyhoo wrote:
ronan, i agree fantastic’s argument is a reach, and i’d be resentful too if someone suggested i was being racist if i wrote what you did. notwithstanding these comments, you still wrote what you did, and if you don’t recognize what a bold statement it was, then now might be a good time to start thinking why. i’d be curious to know.
@petepete: “sorry, but if omar s doesn’t have to, why should ronan?”
this is a blog, a medium designed for interaction between writer and reader. when you put something on the table, you should be willing to debate it. a can of worms has been obviously opened up here, initially by omar-s, who i don’t expect to elaborate on what he’s said considering he’s not a blogger, and then by ronan, who should elaborate, precisely because a good blogger isn’t afraid to address his readers.
petepete, i’m not nitpicking. ronan made a blanket statement about americans, which apparently you and ronan feel is a “normal” sentiment. i disagreed, and now you call my sentiment pseudo politically correct. this suggest just as much of your cultural norms as it does mine. i’m seeking clarification here, and you’re being outright dismissive. who’s being aggressive now?
“… and it’s his blog, so all these pseudo politically correct comments from some of you make no sense to me.”
then you don’t know what the merits of a blog or a comment section are. the interaction blogs enable between writer and reader are essential. if a writer isn’t comfortable with the fact that a blog can get visceral and brutal, then switch your medium.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:44 pm ¶
Ronan wrote:
To be fair I did actually clarify and admit it was slightly lazy and prejudiced in the comments above…
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:46 pm ¶
fantastic wrote:
“fantastic, you just have the typical racial paranoia thing going on, seeing things that aren’t there…you’re interpreting it incorrectly. and it does seem to be this american thing where people somehow find the most normal comments racist.”
aside from the absuridty of “typical racial paranoia” (who decides what’s paranoia & what’s valid - you I guess?), that about about “american thing” I could flip into it’s a “Euro thing” to make racially insensitive comments & be oblivious of it, though neither are true, just like Ronan’s original characterizations were lazy generalizations (if stereotypes is too sticky a term). pseudo pc, yeah whatever buddy.
once something is published (or posted) a reader’s interpretation is just as valid as the writer’s.
also when did I say I was defending Omar-S “telling it like it is”? arrogance isn’t exactly an attractive attribute but comparing it to racial stereotypes is laughable.
look I wouldn’t even bring this up if I didn’t think Ronan’s site was worth reading & if his writing wasn’t usually much better than this. of course he can say anything he wants, including in his own defense, but I can also call him on something. perhaps I came off a little harshly cos it pissed me off & I did then I apologize but it’s meant to be constructive criticism.
Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 9:57 pm ¶
petepete wrote:
‘arrogance isn’t exactly an attractive attribute but comparing it to racial stereotypes is laughable.’
i wasn’t trying to make that connection. i suppose i just feel that people are putting words into ronan’s mouth and being a bit uptight. as for the american brashness thing, i don’t like to generalize but from my experience a lot of americans are quite loud and brash. i went to an american school for 10 years and an american university for 4 so i’m not making a comment like that out of thin air. i would never claim that all americans are brash, and i’m not a fan of blanket statements either, but when ronan says omar s’ attitude is ‘very american’ i don’t read it as a blanket statement. it may be a generalization, but that doesn’t mean it has to be offensive. when people say dutch people are tall, the irish drink a lot, spanish are loud, etc. it doesn’t mean they’re referring to an entire population, but let’s face it, most of these generalizations have some basis behind them. a lot of dutch people are tall, a lot of spanish people are loud. everyone generalizes to some extent, and yes, sometimes people may take offense, but i think some of ronan’s statements are being overly scrutinized.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 11:05 am ¶
karl wrote:
@Ronan: trust me, I don’t think you’re objective (i don’t think anyone really can be objective.) all i meant was critics aim at being more objective than someone like omar-s who may say something like “other producers? fuck that shit man, i only listen to my own shit now.” and as long as he keeps releasing good shit, that’s a fine position for him to take. writers aim at writing interesting, thought-provoking articles, so it makes sense to be expansive, but imo there’s no point in asking a music producer to be anything other than what s/he is. its like a novelist being like, “yeah, my book is shitty and boring, but that’s real life’s problem.” which would actually be pretty funny.
Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 4:32 pm ¶
Buddy wrote:
From my perspective Omar S just came across as a pretty down to earth guy, he’s just a normal bloke who works in factory at the end of the day.
Posted 12 Apr 2009 at 9:30 pm ¶