M
|
iley Cyrus just announced that she will soon release new music,
something her many millions of fans have been itching to have for several
years. In my judgment, she is the most gifted young pop-rock artist of the
modern era, and I have already said why I believe that this is the case at some
length, here.
Now, there is no universal, objective standard of reference for judging
music. Conceptions of aesthetic quality are intrinsically subjective, and at
best they are measurable only within a particular musical-inertial frame of
reference, primarily a cultural one, often writ large. But unlike a matter of
physics or mathematics, that cannot be judged against an objective standard to
assess its quality. With that said, Miley is my personal favorite among the
current pop-rock artists for the reasons I have adduced elsewhere (Some purist
wags have said, "oh, she's not really rock." Nonsense, they haven't
listened to all she's done if they say that ... and I've seen
nearly every great rock band and artist since the Beatles.).
I should like to address and
focus on the recent contretemps regarding her interview with Billboard, here,
wherein she distanced herself from elements of hip-hop, specifically, the more
misogynistic and sexually gratuitous parts. This created a minor firestorm in
cyberspace and twitterdom. It was obviously not possible for her to deliver a
complete disquisition in a brief interview for a magazine, and it is impossible
to capture the entire context of what was being asked and said, and to capture
the complete intention behind what is said in such a piece. Miley is an artist,
anyway, and not auditioning for the State Department.
Not long ago, when she
incorporated elements of hip-hop (and electronica and much else, I’d should
add) in her Bangerz album, she was unfairly criticized by some
for trying to be black and for exploiting black culture in order to shed her
Disneyfied image. All manner of outrage was evinced by moral scolds who clung
to her erstwhile Disney image, and then there were the other moral scolds who
saw her as a poseur qua
inauthentic interloper in black culture. And it usually involved a great deal
of slut and woman shaming by both sides (oh yes, some of her would-be
"informed" hip-hop critics were saying some pretty nasty things about
her twerking abilities not being up to par, and even worse). Plus she was
said to be using African Americans as mere props in her staging, as though they
were there unwillingly and without pay, in effect shaming them as mere tools as
opposed to knowing artists in their own right. And now, she is being criticized
for abandoning hip-hop and blackness, only when it is convenient, and only now
that Disney is well behind her. This is all nonsense. And to no small degree,
there are hints of racism and sexism implicit in much of the criticism that is
thrown her way.
First, let’s get one thing
straight. No one person or culture “owns” music. And there is no form of
popular music, including its various iterations, marching band, ragtime, blues,
jazz, rhythm and blues, pop, rockabilly, rock, folk, soul, funk, hip-hop,
country, bluegrass, electronica, variations thereof, etc. … or classical music,
for that matter, which does not borrow from other genres as it moves through
time. None of it can be said to be pure, standing alone in a bubble, as though
it sprung fully-formed from the head of Zeus. It is preposterous to suggest
that music has been invented by any culture extant out of whole cloth. Many
cultures, sub-cultures, and ethnic groups from diverse parts of the world have
participated in the formation of major musical movements. It would be absurd to
suggest that Mahalia Jackson’s magnificent rendition of “Amazing Grace,”
written by an English clergyman (and penitent former slave trader) in the 18th
century, was co-opting Anglo-Saxon culture, or to suggest that late in life
when she sang some pop and rock tunes it amounted to a betrayal of the African
American gospel tradition. The former added luster to the latter, in fact.
Similarly, the brilliant Wynton Marsalis did not betray black culture by
playing Bach … or forsake Bach by playing Duke Ellington. He does both, and he
does them very well. But when Miley sheds her fifteen-year old self (and
a very talented one, at that), adopts some modern popular forms (first
pop-rock, then incorporating hip-hop and electronica), and then moves again
into some older territory (psychedelic) in a new way, then yet again into some
new form (she’s telegraphing that it is, at least) that we are told subtly
evokes her roots, she is criticized by multiple audiences (a minority in
numbers, grant you, but a disproportionately vocal one) for not sticking
to what they like … this, when some of the very same people
criticized her for entering into those musical arenas in the first place.
Speaking of hypocrisy. I'm sorry, but culture and attendant musical forms are
not sacrosanct possessions of a chosen few, and they do not themselves stand
alone without other influences.
Second, yes, I know there have
been and there will be more cries of her not understanding hip-hop culture. As
though all successful hip-hop artists grew up in the hood in places like
Compton. I’ve read many tweets suggesting “she never really was hip-hop, we
told you so,” etc., or that she was merely using it as a crass utilitarian, and
then all along planning to abandon it when convenient. Well, none other than
Drake, a fan of hers, supported Miley in her efforts to incorporate aspects of
hip-hop in her music and stage act. It is simply not true that she is
abandoning hip-hop in the sense that its influence on her has been lost or
unappreciated. Moreover, it is rank hypocrisy to suggest, as some have, that
she "exploited" black culture for her own gain. Precisely what are
other commercial hip hop artists doing, including African American ones? When
they pick up a trumpet or use sampling of a white boy band, are they exploiting
white culture? It is all quite ridiculous. Art is to be shown, displayed,
imitated, adapted, and improved upon. And cultures move along similar paths.
And I seriously doubt Miley at 20 had a master plan in mind on the
trajectory of her musical style for the purpose of commerce. This is the woman
who gave her last album away for free, after all ... which she could have made
millions from ... so she is hardly as commercially driven as some. What is
more, she did not suggest she was forsaking hip-hop, and she amplified her
position further, here,
in her rejoinder to some of the outcry. That will not satisfy the
sanctimonious, of course; but thoughtful people can see she is attempting to do
some good. Fact is, she has done a lot of good, and not simply in music.
Would that her critics give as much in time and money to those suffering
privation as Miley has done. The evidence is abundantly clear that she is
hardly single-minded and driven by commercial success.
I don’t think a musical artist
“owes” to any particular musical form hidebound allegiance, any more than a
painter ought never adopt new ways of expression. But a shift in style often
results in criticism. Picasso, for example, experienced many such complaints, for
he changed his style substantially at least nine times in his lifetime. It is
unlikely that any change completely walls off prior artistic influences. The
early Rolling Stones started out as a blues band, primarily; and the blues
remains evident in much of their later rock repertoire. Should we criticize the
Stones for exploiting blues only to turn to Rock? (Side note: some of the blues
greats, such as Johnny Lee Hooker, were grateful to the Stones, among others,
for bringing more widespread awareness to the blues musical form via rock. Art
takes from other art naturally, and it continues to morph into something
new.)
Third, Miley is being accused
of hypocrisy because she used overt sexuality in some of her music and in her
stagecraft, and is now distancing herself from it. Some critics are unable to
forgive her for no longer being virginal, perpetually pubescent Hannah Montana,
while others are saying that she basically shouldn’t change from the aforesaid
period of hyper-sexuality, for to do so is to abandon hip-hop or black culture
and thereby to make a mockery of it. There is an apparent lack of
self-awareness on the part of these critics, for that defines hip-hop and black
culture very narrowly and, I should add, in a manner that is very much a
mockery and also inaccurate. Look, a whole lot of music is about sex, whether
done so subtly or more blatantly and in one’s face. Miley was 20-22 years old
in this period, for Heaven’s sake! Do you remember being 20-22 years old? What
is more, hip-hop is not all about misogyny, and she never
averred that it was. That is an utter misrepresentation. She said she was going
to do some new things and distance herself from an aspect of her music that she
came to believe was inappropriate, and that she has become aware of her power
as a role model for young girls.
One of the things overlooked in
the criticism of Miley's earlier sexual antics on stage is the degree to which
she and many very young women (in her case as a young teenager) are sexualized
with adult dress, hair, and makeup. There is an entire culture and industry
that facilitates the objectification of women. Miley Cyrus as a very young
adult did some acting out on stage. But one must remember that there is a large
segment of society that approves of it in more subtle forms, and then gets all
hot and bothered when it materializes in modalities that they don't like. There
is a great deal of hypocrisy in all of this.
Hip-hop's admirers (and I am
one) must own the simple unadulterated fact that parts of hip-hop/rap are
indeed quite misogynistic. The same also could be said of many songs of the
sixties through the eighties by white-boy guitar bands, where women were very
much objectified, or in country music. It’s hardly a black or white thing, or
confined to one genre of music. The point is, it does not define hip-hop, and I
must also point out, hip hop does not define the rich and diverse African
American culture, and Miley did not suggest either of these things.
Notwithstanding all of this,
Miley is maturing, evolving, and understanding that the things that she does
artistically--because of her large international fan base and her influence
over young people--can have untoward or positive and salubrious effects on
others. She is choosing to do the latter. She wants to distance herself from
those things that might have negative repercussions, particularly, at least as
I understand her, those things that might feed into making girls into sex
objects, which is to say, objects of pleasure wholly divorced of their
personhood (nothing wrong with sex, to be sure … but not when
it becomes the defining characteristic of another person's purpose), whether in
the minds of young men or young women. She is not denying or abdicating
responsibility for her own peripheral participation (though I think to the
extent it is negative and present in her work, its impact is nominal and
exaggerated by her critics); she is saying she is going to do something
different in the future. That strikes me as a responsible, adult attitude, one
that is to be lauded, not condemned. Yes, Miley has changed. Who among us can
say they haven't? She’s 24! One would hope so, much as one might hope
that we all do, and for the better---and one also would hope her brilliant
artistry will continue to evolve, notwithstanding the critiques of haters, the
misinformed, the envious, and the assorted mediocrities that are always nipping
at the heels of artistic genius. They will be forgotten. One can be very
certain that Miley Cyrus will not.
MB 5-6-17
Posts
