"Louise, people in this country aren't interested in details. They don't even trust details. The only thing they trust is headlines." -- Senator Kevin Keeley, The Birdcage
Lately I have been seeing a lot of reactions that are missing the point spectacularly. That's actually something I am going to be exploring more in the Sunday blog.
For this blog, it makes more sense to start the mission stuff Monday. Since I discovered a not particularly well-written but still interesting article that seems pertinent, today just might be a great day to practice some critical thinking.
Critical thinking often involves reading beyond headlines.
"How Mumford & Sons became the most annoying band in rock, by Ed Power, through Yahoo! Life but from The Telegraph:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mumford-sons-became-most-annoying-115922410.html
The first thing to consider is how much we want to take from the byline, and honestly that should be limited. I can think of some wonderful, concise, erudite pieces that I have read through multiple papers and sites, and there is not one of those sources that has not also published some crap that was overly biased or poorly researched or both.
Paying attention to author names can be more helpful over time. Certainly, various writers have patterns, but it is also really common for them to have regular beats. As new topics of interest come up, you will need to expand your pool.
Do pay attention when you are reading to who is writing and for whom, but don't get too hung up on it.
My skepticism with this article started in the first sentence, when he says that the band's most recent album "choked out at Number 2". While hitting Number 1 is obviously preferred, lots of albums never get as far as 2. That makes "choked out" seems prejudicial. To be fair, calling them the "most annoying" is prejudicial too.
A desire to be colorful comes through the entire article. Some flair and style is wanted, especially for a lifestyle/entertainment piece, but I feel like it gets over done here, with too much insertion of the author. Therefore, I will now be kind of skeptical of things written by Ed Power (though not just for style), but also, I have been pretty skeptical of Yahoo! for a while.
(I am afraid I get various English papers mixed up, but I am thinking that The Telegraph is probably not the best one.)
What I will say about this writing style is that the article length could probably be reduced by 35% without any loss of clarity, and that the extra does not significantly add to the entertainment value.
(Regular readers may have their own thoughts about my tangents, I know.)
At the end of the third paragraph we finally get some context, that banjo player Winston Marshall has created some controversy by praising Andy Ngo's recent book.
This is where context is really helpful. If you already know who Andy Ngo is, it makes more sense. Ngo has built his career on lying about Antifa (and milkshake ingredients), inflating injuries, and being the token person of color for fascist groups that technically focus more on sexism, but you know you don't have to scratch down very far to find the racism. I mean, white nationalism doesn't automatically have to be racist, right? (That was sarcasm.)
Ngo has some history with Portland, so he is going to stick out a little more for me, but why would a banjo player in a twee pub-sounding band care about Ngo or his "brave" book?
The context given and the link to Jordan Peterson is probably the strongest part of the writing for this article, and yet it misses the landing when there is a chance to stick it.
Yes, Power tells you that three of the band members were photographed with Jordan Peterson three years ago, and tells you that Peterson has controversial views. He then moves on to pointing out how hatred of Mumford & Sons is similar to hatred of Ed Sheeran and Coldplay, then adds more colorful similes about how the annoyance caused by this band is deeper.
It would have been more to the point to note that the specific controversy with Peterson relates to his decrying of political correctness, especially with its threat to masculinity. Peterson believes that single men tend to become violent, therefore a society that doesn't push monogamy on women (thus giving women too much choice and freedom) is attempting to feminize men. The backlash to that is how you get Donald Trump!
(Yes, I am paraphrasing, but not as much as you'd hope.)
That someone who likes Jordan Peterson would also praise the writer who sympathizes with the Proud Boys is super logical, and might be a thread worth following.
Instead, there are several lines of text about other bands that also got popular, and how interviewing two of the "Sons" was a bad experience for Power, and disrespectful to him. The most important thing that he points out is that the band members are "posh", but it takes him a while to get back to that.
That was actually the most interesting part. I had read that they came from money; I had not realized how much money. Two things with that:
1. The reason I knew was a Twitter conversation that mentioned how when the band was first starting out they kept not taking off, where you would have expected them to go away; then things worked out and they hit it big. They could do that because of deep pockets. There is a whole conversation to be had on whether we want all of our art and entertainment to come from the children of wealthy parents.
2. It makes a lot of sense when wealthy British people sympathize with patriarchy. I bet you can think of some examples.
The other part that gets interesting is a quote from Marshall on whether he would perform for Trump. Marshall gave a long-winded, twisting non-answer about being irritated with everything being political. (So he'd want to, but political correctness would get in his way is the only reasonable conclusion.)
That does correlate with point 2, but it seems to be part of the same conversation where Marshall defends Peterson, saying he is perceived as right-wing, but it's not true, and Marshall doesn't care about the politics; it's the psychology.
That is partly true; Peterson himself says he is not right-wing, but a classic British liberal. It is also true that you can be mostly liberal but also still classically sexist and misogynist (also racist), however, using psychology to justify that is inherently political.
Some more fluff follows about observing a concert, which I think tells us that Power feels the Mumford spell, though does not want to admit it. Finally, we have this conclusion:
"So yes, by all means, criticise Mumford & Sons for their politics and their outfits. But perhaps we should stop short of telling people what sort of music they are or are not allowed to like."
It did not take all of that to get there. I am not sure that was ever the problem.
Also, Power objects to the use of "Irish" in one criticism, but not to the use of the R-word. I assume the objection is that Mumford & Sons is not Irish (though they are kind of trying to sound Irish, I think), and maybe Brits don't care about that word, but it felt like an additional missed point.
My take:
Most importantly, quoting that British spelling of "criticize" is really bugging me.
About the band, a while ago there was this chart of "old-timey" bands, rating groups like The Lumineers and Punch Brothers on their old-timeyness. I found it very amusing and am disappointed that it is no longer up.
I had previously only heard one song of the band. Having listened to them for this post, I now know it was "Little Lion Man". I would have thought of them as old-timey, but I see now that the others were all based in the US. This is a different flavor; maybe our retro outfits didn't make a dent over there. I have no idea.
Regardless, I think there is a sense of the old fashioned instruments and waistcoats being a little precious. If they get moderately famous maybe people think it's charming, but perhaps getting super-famous does bring on hate, when it feels like you have stepped outside of your station. The British hate that.
Are they the most annoying? I would have to be more plugged in to know. However, if their wealthy backgrounds make it easy for them to ignore social issues and think they are better than they are, would that make them insufferable? Indeed.
But all I have to do is not listen to them, which is easy. If I were a paid music writer, I might not be able to escape it, and I might even have annoying interactions with band members (that would be so much more annoying if I then started tapping my feet at a show).
So some sympathy for Ed Power, but I think you should do better as a writer, even if Yahoo! and The Telegraph are fine with you as is.
ETA: Check out https://preparedspork.blogspot.com as we address "cancel culture"!
No comments:
Post a Comment