In Defense Of Abstraction/More On Criticism

That new Foals record has drawn some of the strangest reviews I've seen recently - and we all know I overdose on music criticism. One reviewer calls Antidotes an "intensely claustrophobic experience" after going into a bizarre complaint about the absence of the "liberating spirit of great jazz" on the album. The Pitchfork review might take the cake, though. Written by up-with-pop fanatic Tom Ewing (he calls his column Poptimist - seriously), the review accuses the band of "aggressive abstraction." Now, I've ridiculed rockist backlash against everything from Britney's latest to pop-rap artists like Fabolous, and I buy the standard line about the problematic aspects of 'authenticity.' It's widely acknowledged in critical circles that the rockist perspective on music only works up to a certain point. Have we gone so far in the other direction, though, that we're willing to reject anything without (Ewing's fundamental problem with Foals) "discernible emotional content"?

More fundamentally, though, I think Ewing gets it wrong when he lumps Foals in with Bloc Party, Maximo Park, and the like. I'm not even sure I agree that Foals don't have some discernible emotional content, it's just more sophisticated than "I Predict a Riot." As far as being part of the so-called post-punk revival, well, that aggressive abstraction and rejection of simple emotional content hews a lot closer to the originals than most of Foals' peers. The Futureheads got better on their last record because they did more of that, not less. Bloc Party and Maximo Park are pop bands, pure and simple. That's where the comparison falls short of the mark - they dress pop songs up in the trappings of post-punk, whereas Foals actually recall bands like Wire for reasons other than superficial aesthetic similarities.

There's a genuine ideological kinship there, and it's why, as Ewing puts it about Foals, "good hooks [get] lost in a murky coagulate." Post-Pink Flag, poppy Wire hooks grew fewer and farther between - if 154 has any good hooks, they're certainly buried deep in the sonic mud. More broadly, if punk set out to destroy rock, post-punk set out to transcend it - to destroy the humanity in music. Part of that exercise was stripping the obvious, standard emotions of pop from music, rejecting conventional/pleasing musical ideas, and even assaulting language itself. Ultimately misguided or impossible, maybe, but some brilliant music came out of it - even if some just turned out to be unusually compelling pop.

Presumably the response is: 'right, but it's been done to death now.' I'm not convinced that the project of the post-punk formalists/modernists doesn't still have some relevance/appeal/necessity. I listen to plenty of overtly pop-oriented music, and especially in the case of the Madonna/Timbaland/Britney/JT end, it's hard to argue that newness isn't important to both the artists and the public. At the same time, I take artists/bands as varied as Belong, the Black Angels, and Foals as evidence that the rockist end of the spectrum still has contributions to make. The new Black Angels record is filled with droning desert blues, pushed out beyond the realm of recognizable human experience. I imagine Tom Ewing also would have difficulty pinpointing the emotional content of songs like "Mission District" or "18 Years" - the latter deliberately out of phase musically and experientially. Belong, as Simon Reynolds tells it, think of their latest - nominally a covers EP, but don't let that fool you into thinking it isn't an incredibly creative, imaginative work - as "'an apparition from the past...somehow distorted and not correct.'" Taking another's work and transforming it into ghostly transmissions submerged in sheets of guitar - the effect is a dehumanizing one, and maybe more specifically a disembodying one. That's certainly in the spirit of post-punk, although far from its superficial aesthetic.

Let me just add that I don't think Foals are a great band, but they're deserving of a listen, and they have something interesting to communicate - "claustrophobia" and "abstraction" are still unusual enough in music to be worthwhile. Too often music criticism in this age lacks measured responses to records - too quick to hate or love. Much of that stems from a failure to contextualize, I think. Granted, it's sometimes difficult to provide context for acts, and tracing lines of influence and evolution is risky for critics, since it raises the possibility of being more objectively wrong. At the same time, it becomes harder to think that Times New Viking and Be Your Own Pet are saving punk music with some additional information. The fact that Harvell goes on at length about those two bands (of all the bands to pick) is particularly tragic, since he wrote a thoughtful piece about the hype phenomenon, taking the Black Kids as a case study. Be Your Own Pet are at least competent, not that competency is any requirement for making great music - the most salient fact is that all three bands produce utterly unspectacular, uninteresting material. If I'd never heard punk before, I might be blown away...but I have, and so has Harvell (I hope).

Too often critics and serious bloggers overcompensate for their training and intellect, and underestimate the rest of us, expecting the listening public to just want "fun" music - along with the need to scream about THE BEST NEW BAND EVER that sounds like 90% of other indie hype bands. Granted, there's a substantial demographic out there just looking for something to dance to, or sing along to, but good criticism should tell people what to listen for, not just what to listen to. Sure, Foals share plenty in common with the shallower post-punk revivalists, but rather than playing the "sounds like Bloc Party!" game, listen for the influence of the intervening 30 years of experimental guitar music (particularly post-rock in the tones and playing style). Then throw on the new Rick Ross or Cut Copy or M83 - equally worthy artists, and more listenable, since you'll probably need a break. I did.