Nationalize pop music!

[Trigger warning]

So a ‘cultural theorist’ walks into Trader Joe’s:

As I was standing in line, I heard the jaunty marimba of the Rolling Stones’ 1966 smash hit, “Under My Thumb.” We’ve all heard the song 1,000 times — it’s a very catchy tune, from a talented, superstar band. But it also features lyrics that are not exactly friendly toward women. As I listened, I thought about how the song plays in the wake of Elliot Rodger’s killing spree, fueled, as the killer explained in a lengthy manifesto, by his rage against women and desire to control them.

The author is a senior editor at Alternet — a site most famous for listicles about how the right-wing wants to starve your children — and holds a PhD from NYU in English and cultural studies.

One imagines a moment in this kind of doctoral program, somewhere near the end of your coursework, in which you’re brought into a room and given the OT III (you know, the level in Scientology where you find out about Xenu and the volcano) of cultural studies, the powerful hex-like phrase “in the wake of,” which is used twice in this piece to connect two totally unrelated events; an allegedly misogynistic song, and a spree killer with four male victims and two female ones.

She continues:

What kinds of messages do we think are OK today in 2014? Why should I have to hear about a guy comparing his girlfriend to a dog while I’m buying vegetables?

I decided to ask Trader Joe’s this question. Just so they would know I wasn’t making things up, I printed out the lyrics to “Under My Thumb” and brought them into the store with me. I was directed to a young man named Kyle Morrison at the manager’s station, to whom I explained in friendly terms that I was a frequent shopper and that I had heard a song playing over the sound system which, in the wake of the Elliot Rodger killing spree, made me feel uncomfortable. I told him the name of the song, and offered him the paper with the lyrics.

The story is amusing on so many levels, from the befuddled staff, to Dr. Parramore explaining the feminist conceit that her disliking a song makes it “offensive to women,” to the young employee referring her to the company that actually put together the playlist, because what chain grocer of sound management would trust its workers not to offend cultural studies doctorates?

It’s tempting to write off this story as the clickbait it undoubtedly is, and Dr. Parramore as a censorious mucketymuck harassing low-wage grocery store employees. But I’m sorry to say that Parramore’s style of criticism is by no means limited to left-wing click machines and cultural studies departments — though they have played a significant role in popularizing it.

In fact, given her boots-on-the-ground dedication to getting to the bottom of this injustice, one might even call Dr. Parramore this decade’s dean of pop music critics. A poo-bah of the new critical regime, one led by those without any particular musical expertise, holding identity politics as the primary (and often the only) measure of a song’s worth.

Last year we were bombarded with this shit. At the release of Lorde’s “Royals,” suddenly every keyboard social justice warrior became a Christgau of cultural appropriation, and we were treated to a month-long fit of handwringing from the punditocracy about whether Miley Cyrus was allowed to twerk. In what I can only assume was a warm-up for banning the Neitzsche Club this year, University College London’s student union banned Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” from campus.

My former colleague Ben Pearson wrote one of the best pieces about what this bodes for music last year:

While not all offense-based criticism called for censorship of artistic expression, the trend did shackle art’s range of expression. The meaning of “Blurred Lines” is vague at worst, and its critics’ claim that the line “you know you want it” is rapey is bizarre. But debating the lyrics of “Blurred Lines” or the visual semiotics of “We Can’t Stop” is beside the point. Regardless of its textual meaning or lack thereof, by turning the song into a vehicle to support a cause, offense criticism has forever associated “Blurred Lines” with rape for audiences worldwide.

This pattern was replicated everywhere in our discussion of popular art this year. Even if you thought, as I did, that Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance was gloriously weird and refreshingly opaque, our discursive space only allowed two interpretations: it was racist/it wasn’t. As we reduced our discourse about music, TV shows, film, and music videos to lowest-common-denominator ideological critiques about their representations (or lack thereof) of race, gender, and sexuality, we constricted both the communicative and transformative possibilities of art in general. Including its ability to promote social change.

This year trigger warnings have spread to college classrooms, so the tide hasn’t even begun to ebb yet.

*****

Now, what really scares the good doctor is not the Rolling Stones driving a shopper from his tahini and well-priced generic beer into a violent sexual rage — which is also, for the record, what critics used to insinuate Jazz would do. No, what scares Dr. Parramore is male sexuality as such, which makes rock and roll especially threatening, since it’s white men taking cues from those irrepressibly sexual blacks. Notice the young ladies in the live video above. Do they look like they feel degraded? Of course not, they’re turned on. Power is sexy, which is what the song is all about.

Listening to the music that immediately preceded rock and roll, one observes similar themes:

In white artists too:

I could go on but I don’t want to belabor the point. Suffice it to say it would have been much more shocking to hear “Caleb Meyer” or “He Hit Me (And It Felt Like A Kiss),” or a random cut from Bessie Smith’s back catalog at Trader Joe’s, and not just because they’re too old for most people to know. Unfortunately, the mentality of Dr. Parramore and the “Blurred Lines”-banners doesn’t allow for any ambiguity in the interpretation; whether or not Louis Jordan is inhabiting the role of feckless husband doesn’t matter, the content can be seen as sexist, therefore it must be removed from the airwaves.

Since the American pop tradition is so inextricably linked to misogynist themes, allow me to propose a solution that Dr. Parramore, having founded a blog now hosted by the Roosevelt Institute, should be able to get behind: Nationalize it. Artists with politics to the right of Sting should be deemed suspect and their funding strictly limited, and Riot Grrrl should be subsidized until its zombie corpse is walking around again. Nobody should be allowed to pick up a stratocaster without a license; we’re talking about a potential tool of sexual violence here, and it should be treated with due seriousness.

In addition, all cultural appropriations should have to be approved by the relevant authorities. Since we’re already living in an age where a trademark can be revoked if a few congressmen decide it’s offensive, this isn’t much of a step — unapproved art can simply be denied copyright protection. Never again should a scourge like Paul Simon’s Graceland be imposed on an unsuspecting public. Far better for Western art to stay Western — perhaps in the mode of Riefenstahl, who Susan Sontag wrote fairly admiringly about and enjoys something of a reputation as a feminist pioneer.

Safe spaces, at any cost.

9 comments

  1. We were against this Redskins patent revocation thing until we realized that this is a fantastic tool for to use against things we find offensive. Clearly, the low-hanging fruit is obscene hip-hop and pornography, both of which objectify and dehumanize people, especially women, and often depict violent and illegal behavior.

    The great thing about this is that we wouldn’t need to institute an outright ban these things. The U.S. Copyright Office could simply refuse to recognize intellectual property rights of offensive material, and suddenly the economic incentive to produce them would be massively diminished!

    Like

    1. Stuff it; Hip hop is amazing. Hip hop is spoken word poetry accompanying music. If you are going to say hip hop is offensive, say that it is pop rap. Lil Wayne, Pitbull, and Tyga are bastard children of crunk, 90s gangster rap, and pop. Listen to or read the lyrics on albums like Childish Gambino’s Camp, Mos Def’s Black On Both Sides, Soul Square’s Millesime serie vol.1 and 2. There may be “objectifying” language but each one is much more than objectifying language, an introspective story, a political story, a discussion of political and moral principles, respectively. Hip hop says something, the hip hop that I assume you are talking about is most likely pop rap shit.

      Like

  2. Blurred Lines isn’t about rape whatsoever, it’s about a guy getting a girl to cheat on her BF/husband. It essentially say:

    “OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
    But you’re an animal, baby, it’s in your nature
    Just let me liberate you
    Hey, hey, hey
    You don’t need no papers
    Hey, hey, hey
    That man is not your maker”

    Obviously, this is Thicke telling a girl that her BF tried to domesticate her, marry, but she’s an animal and it’s in her nature, to have casual sex, and that this mere act of uncontrolled lust is “liberating”, femnazi’s should praise Thicke for promoting the idea a woman is liberated by having tons of sex and lastly, her not needing paper’s referring to a marriage certificate.

    The referring to “I know you want it” refers to the “good girl” wanting to sleep with Thicke, but holding back because she’s not liberated, it has nothing to do with rape, but rather Thicke playing on the “Liberated” feminist ideal that having lots of casual sex is sticking it to the patriarchy.

    “You wanna hug me
    Hey, hey, hey
    What rhymes with hug me?
    Hey, hey, hey”

    Self explanatory.

    “Nothing like your last guy, he too square for you
    He don’t smack that ass and pull your hair like that”

    Her last guy was too square, the poor sap even thought about marrying the girl what a maroon! He didn’t smack her ass or pull her hair, for being anti-submission I’ve noticed femnazi’s enjoy the idea of submissive sex play, of course with a guy singing it they hate it but just look at the femnazi’s love for 50 shades of grey and articles discussing how “liberating” masochism is.

    Like

  3. Wow, your proposal sounds a lot like the society in the anime Psycho-Pass, where all art is made only with government approval for fear of it every making the citizens have bad thoughts or manifest violent tendencies (clouding their hue as it’s put in the show).

    Like

Sound off

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s