Steve van Zandt - A Crisis of Craft

This may be a slightly obscure reference, but it's like Nik Cohn working our side of the pond in disguise.

He makes some good points (and is off base on a few), but the guy's passion for the music has been well established for years, and people could do worse than pay attention.

One thing he doesn't really address, but is implicit in a lot of what he says, is that for the majority of listeners, music (like movies, TV, books, etc.) is less about art (or even craft) but fashion. The average music listener/purchaser (i.e., no one reading this) is caught up in the moment of what's popular, and makes their music choices in the same way they want to wear the same crop top they saw someone wearing on Gossip Girl last week. When that zeitgeist coincides with good music, it's the exception rather than the rule.

It's a complicated topic, and he's wrong about as often as he is right. Nearly every point of his, no matter how legitimate it may sound on its face, can be refuted with solid examples.

Yeah, except when it's not at all. Mick Jagger was a middle-class, business school dropout. Janis Joplin was middle-class, as well. John Lennon and Pete Townshend were art school guys. The idea that it's "working class" is kind of nonsense when you consider that neither its fans nor its performers have been specifically working class - it transcends class. I know Van Zandt means it in some sort of general, figurative sense, but it's a romantic notion that doesn't hold up in any meaningful way.

I guess I don't think of Dylan, Hendrix, Zeppelin, and... um... large chunks of Springsteen's catalog as being "downhill" despite how difficult it may be to dance to them.

As with "working class," he's using "dance music" in some sort of general sense, but he's using it to back up what he seems to consider specific problems. I like that he's harping on the idea that bands should be working their asses off to entertain you, but you can't tell me that the Hold Steady aren't busting their asses in exactly this way, regardless of whether it's as easy to dance to them as Martha and the Vandellas.

He seems to acknowledge that there's been a stigma in playing top 40 cover at least as long as he's been around. I'm not exactly sure what's changed, then. There are still artists playing other people's songs. In fact, one of the most popular TV shows in the country, loathsome as it may be, is dedicated to this very concept. From what I can tell, American Idol types are not exactly perfecting their craft in the process, but simply sticking to template.

Otherwise... most bands still start out playing covers. I don't think this has changed much. (Some continue playing covers - heck, I'm in an original band that doubles as a chunk of a glam rock tribute band, and I suspect that this sort of setup isn't all that uncommon.) But he's giving short shrift to bands like the Clash, the Ramones, Joy Division, Television, and other greats that came out of the gates playing their own stuff.

I agree with him about the overemphasis on lyrics (and I say this as a guy who loves good lyrics). But the great "self-contained" artists don't rely exclusively on lyrics, either. None of those bands I mentioned above tried to get by strictly on lyrics, but this has little to do with whether or not they played covers first or tried to make people dance.

And, ultimately, I would agree that DIY has had a detrimental effect on quality control, but the artists most flagrantly in need of editing aren't DIY artists. How many DIY artists regularly release subpar material as often as label artists like Billy Corgan and Ryan Adams? If a robust system of label- or producer-based quality control is all it takes to yield good music, how does Hinder exist?

Maybe the answer to some of that lies in what Jeb wrote about fashion.

I don't know. I like Van Zandt, and I like that he's asking these questions, but I think his conclusions are mostly wrong.