Just North of Something Important

The distinction that always seems missing in discussions like this is that there’s a big difference between “not caring” and “disliking.”  Because there is such a thing as “the music,” and while it’s impossible to judge solely on that without taking other considerations into account, it’s possible to go too far with this reaction.  Since music (sounds and noises and tones and melodies and beats) is what we’re here for when we listen to pop music, it inflects our reactions more than any other aspect, it seems to me.  In just the music terms, I don’t care about CocoRosie; they sound like other groups I don’t care for, and that’s fine, since there are lots of groups I don’t care for.  It’s also fine that other people like them, since, again, lots of people like lots of stuff that I don’t care for.  But, as Nitsuh says, they are playing with all this other stuff intentionally (maybe with other groups we could argue about how intentional it is or how much it matters, but I think Team Coco is being pretty up-front about it) as a way of trying to provoke us to think about other things.  And when you do that, intentionally or unintentionally, it’s what drives people from not-caring to disliking.  It’s like how you can disagree with a Republican on policy issues, but when they accuse you of being anti-American, then you start to really dislike them.

But there’s also a difference between “digging” and “loving.”  That same intentional move Cocorosie are making also drives people from merely being into an auditory experience to identifying with the band, and thus being willing to contribute to a Stereogum piece in which a large number of well-regarded musicians talk about how the band is unappreciated.  Lots of bands do this in lots of ways, from being “a real rock band” to releasing unlabeled dubstep records and not giving interviews to filming videos in mansions to posing in a bikini to slouching.  Those are all identification moves, and they’re fine.  But we have to be willing to admit that engaging in a successful identification move is essential to a band achieving any kind of success.  Whether they do it intentionally or not, it makes them what’s called in defamation/slander law a “public figure,” someone for whom taking a particular stance on their merits, whether pro or con, is not a legitimate reason for complaint.  Whatever reason fans identify for liking the band or which detractors identify as reasons for disliking the band, regardless of their relation to reality or intent, become a real force, assuming people are being honest about those reasons - which, yes, is tricky in areas of race.

I certainly don’t see Team Coco’s Stereogum offensive as being an illegitimate move in the debate.  I just have a hard time taking it seriously on any sort of rational level.  It seems to me like nakedness and honesty aren’t exactly positive values in pop music, and frankly, no one’s actually explained to me what compelling points the ladies are making, just that they’re making some sort of point somehow, and that the fact that I’m uncomfortable is somehow the point, a perspective which it seems to me has legitimated more shitty art in the last thirty years than any other (except maybe “it’s authentic” - which they are also arguing!).  It’s not surprising that a guy like Antony, who clearly values naked honesty more than I do (I prefer my emotions highly aestheticized, thanks; I listened to a little too much emotionally naked music as a teenager to not find it cringey now), would like Team Coco.  But it’s also not surprising that I would find the idea that it’s a profound political statement to name an album Grey Oceans kind of ridiculous and, frankly, repulsive.  The one defense I found convincing was JD Samson’s:

I constantly hear the word “haunting” to describe this band, but I think that’s deeply inaccurate. The word is “inspirational.” “Uplifting.” Simplicity building music that feels you. Instead of you feeling it. This is simply songwriting. A genuinely sensitive and organic response to the slow world. Without taking up too much space. Or trying too hard. This is polite musicianship. Respecting themselves. Respecting the space each instrument has surrounding it. With forays into every genre you could ever think of. This is complimentary crossover. Mazes and wide-open spheres getting split in places you never dreamt they could. Put back together again with nothing but easy love. This is unaffectedly opening up your heart and mind and letting music make drip sand castles on every beach i can think of.

This I can get!  I might not hear it in Gray Oceans, but I can understand why you would like the album if you did hear it, and lord knows there are lots of albums that I hear in this way that no one else does, and which I don’t necessarily expect anyone else to.  Music hits us in different ways, and while we can trace the reasons for that, it’s also the one thing you can’t really argue against.

I’m not denying that some of the reactions to the band haven’t been driven by the same sort of casually bigoted dishonesty that drives a lot of music coverage.  (Though, by the same token, it only ever seems to be skinny pretty arty girls that get rewarded for being emotionally naked - I’ve never seen a similar article to the Stereogum one about, say, Beth Ditto, who seems to be way more confrontational and challenging than Cocorosie, if also at least as consistently wrong.)  It’s just that our tendency for debating the controversy rather than the issues being raised (which, to be fair, I am also doing!) seems counterproductive.  I think at a certain point Team Coco needs to admit that the extreme aesthetic similarity of all the band’s backers there isn’t accidental, or because they are the only ones who are enlightened.  This is a taste war, nothing more, nothing less.  If we want to talk about feminism and race, that’s great!  Let’s do that.  But let’s not try and use the fact that some people don’t like a band who are intentionally trying to be off-putting as a bludgeon for making yourselves feel superior.