"Rhapsody In Blue" at 100

This post isn't so much about "Rhapsody", which everybody knows is unimpeachably great, but about the NYT's risible semi-takedown of the piece.

The comments section is full of debates about the intentions of the piece.  A small minority of commenters claim that it's a glowing tribute to Gershwin that most of us aren't enlightened enough to understand.  Whatever.  For me, the piece falls between harsh accusations of cultural appropriation (Gershwin stole from other cultures, prevented those more deserving of getting their proper credit for developing this style of music, and the largely white classical music industry has been reaping the concert revenue for the past century) and damning with faint praise (with a few reservations, "Rhapsody" is wonderful and Gershwin was a cultural unifier, but he should have known better and we've all failed artists of colour since).  

I shudder to think what the NYT has in store for the 100th anniversary of "Porgy and Bess".  And it should go without saying that Gershwin was not white, despite that descriptor being used multiple times in the piece.  Because naturally, Jews are not white.  Not in colour or in stature.  To anyone living in the 1920's and 1930's, the idea of applying "white privilege" to any Jewish artist in the performing arts would get you laughed out of any uppercrust supperclub or country club in the US or Canada.  It saddens me to read such shlock about Gershwin, who was both a pioneer and a populist, who lended credibility to genres that many "serious" composers wouldn't dare to touch, getting smeared as a two-bit cultural huckster by revisionist cultural crypto-critics with their own personal socio-political axe to grind.  

 

Catalogue music is king

The Telegraph published an article lamenting on how difficult it is for new artists to generate hit albums.  Note that this refers to hit albums, not singles, as far as I can tell, hit singles for newer artists are booming just fine.  

I find it difficult to sympathize with how new artists supposedly have it so bad.   I think it was inevitable that with streaming becoming the dominant medium for listening, and algorithms shaping personal tastes (as opposed to actually going into a music store, listening, and deciding what you like for yourself) that catalogue music would explode.  It's never been easier or more convenient to seek out older music.  The music industry loves this model -- labels don't have to spend money on A&R and marketing, every lisence agreement and stream is pure profit for them.  Directing listener's tastes toward more profitable music is obviously in their interest, so why wouldn't they embrace streaming and allow algorithms to market their music to listeners for them?  And of course, with this system the consumer never owns anything -- they pay subscription money in perpetuity to continue hearing the songs they want.  

Rick Beato spoke about a topic that I believe is related -- the homogeneity of radio station programming and producer styles.  Uniformity leads to collectively playing it safe.  National radio programming means you can't risk catering to niche elements of your listener base, you need to tailor your programming choices to the broadest possible audience, and that extends to the sounds of the records as well.

The increasing homogenization of music makes catalogue music stand out even more.  "Running Up That Hill" wasn't a massive hit after thirty seven years just because it was featured in a popular Netflix show.  It became a hit because it doesn't sound remotely like anything else produced in the 2020's.  It didn't sound like anything produced in the 1980's either, but the point isn't that listeners today are more cultured or educated and appreciate Kate Bush more than the supposedly less-forward thinking listeners of the 80's.  The point is that homogenization and corporately approved algorithms has numbed the taste of the modern listener to such an extent that a Kate Bush can put 90% of today's music to shame simply by existing and getting even the smallest random marketing boost.  How many other would-be hits from past decades are waiting in the wings, ready to burst onto the charts if they're given the tiniest promotional opening?

Bo! Soon Is Now

I'm sure he's told the story before, but Johnny Marr's description of the creative process that lead to the iconic intro riff to "How Soon Is Now? is nothing short of mesmerizing. 

When you listen to his story, and compare the guitar parts without tremelo (pleasant, but not really happening, as acknowledged by Marr) and with the tremelo, then it couldn't be any more obvious.  Why had I never made this association in my mind even once during the past thirty plus years?  Of course it's a Bo Diddley sound and groove.  What else could it even be? 

Of course musicians try to emulate their heroes.  It's just that their heroes aren't always the people we expect.  The contemporary music press frames a band and their influences according to then current trends.  A band markets itself relative to what its fans want.  British indie rock fans weren't name dropping Bo Diddley in 1985.  He was too bluesy, too American, too older generation.  

The best thing about social media is its proclivity to get these kinds of stories out, irrespective of the commercial apparatus that surrounds the music.  

"How Soon Is Now" is older now than Bo Diddley's earliest hits were when "How Soon Is Now" was recorded.  The best way for a legend like Marr to advertise his current projects is to open the curtain into a long departed world.