Monkey on a typewriter
TNR’s David Hadju has written a critique of the White Stripes, focusing quite a bit on the duo’s musicianship (or lack thereof). I’d say the review was unfair if the White Stripes, like The Ramones (or The Clash, and Sex Pistols) were combining their lack of technology and discordant sound with innovational musicality. But they aren’t. It’s just discordance for the sake of discordance, best described as crappy drums and amateurish guitar strumming. Not only did Jack White find a way to sell records that make Green Day’s Billy Joe Armstrong seem like Jimi Hendrix–and Def Leppard’s post-accident Rick Allen a gold standard–he also found a way to make it seem like the elements that characterized Jimi Hendrix’s genius are overrated.
However, inuring to the benefit of a lot of musically challenged music stars is the fact that today’s standards for musicianship are about as rigorous as spending four months on MTV’s The Real World. Jack White can eschew whatever he wants, but there is a reason The Beatles and Pink Floyd are, well, The Beatles and Pink Floyd. Despite their use of technology and studio benefits they, uh, realized that harmony and music were related. Similarly, the reason it was a hit for Pink Floyd to reunite at Live8 is the same reason that the White Stripes will find themselves next to Chumbawumba and Blind Melon in the discount rack, at the garage sale, within a decade. In any event, Hadju:
eg White plays so sparingly that on some songs, such as “Sugar Never Tasted So Good” (from the first album) and “As Ugly As I Seem,” Jack White feels compelled to add percussion fills by tapping patterns on his guitar. One way to think of her playing is economical. As such, it has an economy comparable to that of Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, the dark-purple properties in Monopoly: it’s the closest thing to bankruptcy, but only a game. Her ex-husband uses her as a found musical object, because her naive, repetitive tapping in 4/4 time counterbalances his flailing and screeching, and also, I suppose, because she is incapable of getting in his way.
Jack White’s various explanations of his partner’s function are endearingly fanciful. “She brings a child-like quality to the music, an innocence, which is perfect for what we do,” he said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times recently. Last year, he told the London Observer, “I love the fact that it’s hard for people to understand. We’ve said before that it’s always been a great thing to get certain people to go away thinking, ‘Oh dear, she can’t play the drums!’ ‘Fine, if you think it’s all a gimmick, go away!’ It weeds out people who wouldn’t care anyway.”
Care about what? He didn’t say. I would think that evidence of incompetence and gimmickry would weed out people who care a great deal about aesthetic integrity and creative authenticity . . . . Jack White may think of his work as a protest against the proliferation of digital technology, but his music is its leitmotif.
Of course, the fact that I agree with Hadju will bind me to a minority of people who think the White Stripes are famous not because of their musicianship, but because lack of musicianship is more popular than ever–and they lack musicianship better than everyone else. You’d find more music listening to John Ashcroft sing to a background of tin cans and jars clanging against one another. But, what does music have to do with anything anyway–that whole timing and harmonic structure thing is too commercial.
17 Responses to “Monkey on a typewriter”
Personally, I love ‘em. And their live show is amazing.
However, I’ve heard this meme lately that TWS lack any real musicianship. Today in fact, a friend of mine was showing me some very basic guitar chords today and joked that I could be the next Jack White with those.
I guess I find their simplicity, sound and songwriting pretty damn genuine. Especially songs like “Little Room” and “We’re Going To Be Friends” in particular because they’re quirky. I think people bag on their stripped down sound simply because it’s so stripped down.
Honestly, I don’t really like their newest offering as much as their last three albums. I think they’re trying too hard. I wish they would just get back to the power chords.
In any event, I think the fact that Meg is seen as a bit of a cipher is unwarranted. She’s just as rudimentary as Jack, and considering that they started off advocating the Dutch design movement “de Stijl” means that they should actually be more dedicated to their simplistic, Mondrian roots.
Thanks for the post and the time to think.
best,
-jpg
that whole timing and harmonic structure thing is too commercial
Seriously, music doesn’t have to have these things to be MUSIC. Tons of modern classical music foregoes anything I recognize as structure, and while I don’t care for it (or most rap or most new country), I’m not going to openly mock the people who make such music as incompetent.
I am not a big White Stripes guy, but I think I disagree with Jonathan and Hadju on principle.
I’m not going to slam a lo-fi band just because they’re lo-fi or appear to have no talent; I’ll slam them if they are cheesy or fake, but music has gone so far to the digital age that bands like TWS are necessary to keep us from being reliant on computers and perfect production. It’s the essence of punk. You rebel against what other people say is good by doing the opposite and proving that the opposite can make you dance too.
The problem isn’t lo-fi or punk–notice I pay respect to The Clash, Ramones, and Sex Pistols. My problem is generally with TWS, whose albums I don’t perceive as having much substance in comparison to some of the genuinely talented bands that have previously served as a checking mechanism for rock music.
As somebody who played a lot of piano (and xylophone and drums) while growing up, I have to agree with Jonathan and Hadju. While I can appreciate the occasional Ramones or Coldplay song (and the latter’s rhythm section barely qualifies as average) musicianship is what differentiates the great songs from crap. And the White Stripes produce a lot of crap. Compare them to, say, to the Beatles of White Album/Abbey Road era or Modest Mouse or R. Kelly of today and the Stripes come up short. One could go further and say the musicianship of the Stripes is even worse than any hip-hop act, which despite using almost no instruments, often got such elements are harmonies and calls-and-reponses down pat.
Being alternative doesn’t mean being a rudimentary drummer. Alt-country groups are alternative, but they are often still good at the basics. So are even groups such as the now-defunct Canadian act Reverie Sound Revue, which produced more interesting and harmonically pleasing music in its short life (two years) than the White Stripes have done in the last four.
One could play “Here Comes the Sun” decades into the future and still find it enjoyable. Same for Gorillaz’ Feel Good Inc., the Stones’ “Street Fighting Man” or anything from off Dr. Dre’s “The Chronic.” I’m not sure we’ll be saying the same about “Seventh Nation Army” — and that’s the only Stripes song I like.
As far as music going into the digital age: What’s wrong with that? Anything that contributes to a more enjoyable musical experience is a good thing. Being a digital music luddite is just being, umm, Hoosier (in this case, as in being ridiculously stubborn and unwilling to embrace change.)
My only criticism of this is the mention of Blind Melon in an article criticizing lack of musicianship in modern rock. Blind Melon is relegated to the discount bins because the lead singer died and they couldn’t follow up on what was a great debut. And that band included Rogers Stevens, an absolutely incredible guitarist who is inexplicably ignored today. Sit down and listen to the brilliantly subtle guitar work on Tones of Home and there’s no way you could put them in the same category with the White Stripes or similar bands.
Good point Ed.
The problem isn’t lo-fi or punk–notice I pay respect to The Clash, Ramones, and Sex Pistols. My problem is generally with TWS, whose albums I don’t perceive as having much substance in comparison to some of the genuinely talented bands that have previously served as a checking mechanism for rock music.
Of course, when The Clash, The Ramones, and The Sex Pistols were all new, they were criticized because they just didn’t measure up to the Beatles or the Stones. And of course, the Beatles and the Stones were criticized because they were just pale rip-off imitations of American R&B (half the Beatles’ first singles were covers) and American blues. And of course, those musical styles were just adaptations of earlier music styles, which were just adaptations of still yet earlier musical styles… etc, etc, etc ad infinitum.
It sounds to me like you’re just liking something old and complaining about something new because such taste in music has been in vogue since Plato’s day.
Brian Eno is an example of talented minimalism. The White Stripes are an example of successful commercialism.
Besides, everyone knows that good music ended with Loverboy’s “Workin’ for the Weekend”. Everything else is just noise.
Didn’t read like that to me. It sounds more like there are legitimate criticisms of the Stripes and well-deserved at that. The Stripes do have a good stage presence. But they’re not good musicians nor do they come up with songs that are all that good.
This is proven by the fact that it took Joss Stone, who is all of 16, “Fell in Love with a Girl” or in her case, a boy, seem like a really interesting song. Stone’s great voice, along with those talented session musicians, made this song — whose lyrics are about as profound as the slogans on a box of Girl Scout Cookies (and that’s an insult to Girl Scout Cookies) — work. The original Stripes version isn’t worth the time.
Sometimes criticisms of new interpretations or styles of music are due to the fact that the new clashes with the old and familiar. The Stripes, on the other hand, are just not very good.
Apologies for the repeat post:
Nick Blesch wrote:
“It sounds to me like you’re just liking something old and complaining about something new because such taste in music has been in vogue since Plato’s day.”
Didn’t read like that to me. It sounds more like there are legitimate criticisms of the Stripes and well-deserved at that. The Stripes do have a good stage presence. But they’re not good musicians nor do they come up with songs that are all that interesting.
This is proven by the fact that it took Joss Stone, who is all of 16, “Fell in Love with a Girl” or in her case, a boy, seem like a really interesting song. Stone’s great voice, along with those talented session musicians, made this song — whose lyrics are about as profound as the slogans on a box of Girl Scout Cookies (and that’s an insult to Girl Scout Cookies) — work. The original Stripes version isn’t worth the time.
Criticisms of the new are often due to the fact that they clash with the old and familiar. This isn’t the case with the Stripes. Jack and Meg, on the other hand, are just not very good.
ITA discussed Joss Stone here. Her live shows (if her concert in Montreal is any indication) are even better than her studio performances.
This is all just a matter of opinion – there’s no way to objectively prove that the White Stripes suck. Meg certainly isn’t as talented as (or at least, has never demonstrated that she is as talented as) an untrained ferret, and yes, Jack relies on power chords.
However, none of that even given as true means that they suck, that their success is unwarrented or undeserved, or that people who like them do not “care a great deal about aesthetic integrity and creative authenticity”. It’s as pointless as the John Lennon / Paul McCartney debate – you can like either, both, or neither and that’s perfectly okay because it’s your opinion.
My issue with the post (and why I think the criticisms are invalid) is not that you can’t criticize the White Stipes – you can. I take issue with the idea that it clearly follows from the criticisms that there’s anything objectively wrong with the White Stripes and moreso with the idea that there is something wrong with me because I happen to like them. The listenability of TWS is a matter of taste, not fact.
From where I sit, Nick, no one said you can’t enjoy the Stripes. Nor is anyone saying the group, like a broken clock, chimes out two good songs every now and then. But one can be a fan of a group — say Coldplay — and still admit that as musicians, they’re not very good. On the other hand, I still like “Clocks” and “Speed of Sound” and Chris Martin is a good songwriter. Michael Jackson wasn’t the best singer, but I still enjoyed his music and his talent as a performer. In both cases, their flaws are going to be legitimate sources of criticism for those who don’t like their music. And why shouldn’t it? More importantly, why be bothered by the criticism if you’re at least being candid with yourself about the flaws in the first place?
It’s not the criticism that bothers me, it’s how the criticism is presented that bothers me. (i.e., it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it)
I feel like the post is unnecessarily critical, in that it’s one thing to try and objectively talk about a band’s musicianship (or lack thereof) and quite another to make tons of ridiculous analogies while openly mocking the band. I also feel like it’s quite clear from both Jonathan and David that they feel that only morons who don’t appreciate anything approximating what they deem to be “real” music listen to TWS, when my point above is simply that in matters of opinion, the only thing that matters is one’s opinion.
I don’t trash anybody for not liking the Old 97’s or for not having a crush on Neko Case, nor do I think that just because someone likes a Kelly Clarkson song they must have no taste in music whatsoever. They have taste – it’s just different from mine.
Oddly, this thread has so far overlooked the fact that the Beatles (who have been cited several times as characterizing good musicianship) simply weren’t great performers. Ringo was certainly no better than Meg White, and it’s not like any of the band members would ever erupt into a virtuosic guitar solo. Rock/pop music often revolves around catchy songwriting more than flashy performances, which is why the Beatles were a better band than the Who, despite clearly being worse musicians.
Who said you need musicianship to make good music? is a book with a lot of pages instantly good? its not about musicianship or things like that, its about making good music. good music comes in many forms, and there have always been classical musicians, and there have always been jug bands.
its just music…jeez.