Animal Collective, Flight of the Conchords--Racist?

[giraffo]

here is a series of links:

http://dustedmagazine.com/reviews/4276

http://animalcollectin.6.forumer.com/viewt...asc&start=0

http://gorillavsbear.blogspot.com/2008/05/...e-vs-money.html

 

link 1) dusted magizine review by Andrew Beckerman, awful piece of music criticism.

link 2) collected animals forum response

link 3) gorilla vs. bear, discussion over the issue

 

CONDENSED:

So, writer of Dusted Magizine argues that Animal Collective is another overpriviliged white band not acknowledging their black roots and is "fetishizing" nature. Lots of overblown vernacular is used and the "Water Curses" EP is never even discussed as a piece of music, but rather used as a vehicle to make an argument about, well, white people. Discussion ensues on the Gorilla V Bear website and apparently the majority of people are ignorant for thinking an EP review should include an actual review of the content of the EP.

 

so...I was wondering, how does a band not acknowledging their black roots make them racist? I argued on the gorilla v bear site that it just wasn't a good place for it and all I got was a dumb statement about my "white privilege". is it really so off color of me to say it was just not the smart place for it, or am I somehow perpetuating some kind of racism but saying that a music review is not a place for broad, grandiose statements on racism and culture? the writer does the same shtick on the Flight of the Conchords review (found on that site) and on the Apples in Stereo review he claims the release of their B-Sides as greedy "economic necesity." Not only are his points off (people want to make everything into racism for some reason), but I think his placement of where he decided to write could have been better.

[damo]

all i know is that ep is awesome

[stooka]

complete garbage.......... the review, that is.

[Stefanie]

reminds me of this article in the new yorker where sasha frere-jones bitches about arcade fire's "lack of soul" for 4 pages. it's one of the biggest pieces of crap i've ever read.

[radiokills]

by this logic, every white "rock" musician would need to acknowledge their black roots.

[LouieB]

Are we back to this again???

 

LouieB

[bjorn_skurj]

Oy. When record reviewers start quoting Chomsky, you know you're in for a long day at the ballpark.

[tongue-tied]

Out of all the bands you could say have "black roots"....Animal Collective?

[TheMaker]

Ha!

 

Dollars to donuts, the writer engaging in all that self-flagellation by proxy is white himself. What a truly embarrassing waste of time and energy.

[markosis]

I was wondering, how does a band not acknowledging their black roots make them racist?

 

Someone mentioned this above: The thing is, for a rock band (or whatever you'd call Animal Collective) to ignore the black roots of popular music, they'd pretty much have to be playing European classical music. I'm not a musical historian or anything, but I'm going to say that just about anything in popular music going back to the Dixieland Jass Band in the 1910s came directly or indirectly from black music. So its pretty impossible for Animal Collective or Arcade Fire to be easily shrugging off the influence of African Americans.

 

 

Edit: I couldn't even follow that article much past the halfway mark. I guess as a musician who is influenced by white people I should feel guilty? Whatever...with all the bullshit I'm supposed to feel guilty about (drinking bottled water, driving a car, not devoting all my time to saving starving children in Senegal) I think naming my musical influences shouldn't be one of them.

[giraffo]

well, all I'm saying is, is that even if you're not naming or acknowledging your musical influences, how does that make it racist? I don't understand what about it is racism, is all.

[markosis]

I was agreeing with you. I don't understand it either.

[augurus]

Dear Andrew Beckerman,...