Yes, I do in fact get it, even if I don't exactly agree. His influence is phenomenally wide-reaching to the point that there isn't a singer-songwriter today who hasn't felt it. But I also see Dylan-worship as fanboy shorthand: yes, I studied the "classics" and I have taste. My opinion has weight. About the whole "rock snobbery/superiority" thing, Village Voiced editor, Maura Johnston, had this to say on her Tumblr:
[...]if you’re liking music because you feel that it’s the right thing to like, maybe it’s time to step back and figure out your aesthetic pleasures and how they fit into those ideals. They might match exactly! They might not! But the point is, saying “I listen to Bob Marley and Led Zeppelin and therefore I am better than people who like Ke$ha because I just am” is a complete fallacy.To be completely honest, I don't have a problem with artists being labeled canonical as much as I have a problem with who gets to decide what gets accepted into the canon. I actually really like quite a few bands dudes have been known to salivate over (watch me prattle on about the Replacements), but I fail to see how it's impossible to notice the lack of diversity here, and here.
Those are just two ready examples. I think it's interesting to note that Paste's reader's list was less "white guy-acoustic guitar" than their critics' list. And to be fair, I don't think this is an overt case of sexism that says "Well you with the pair of ovaries, put down that guitar," as much as it is the kind of covert, deeply ingrained sexism that is part and parcel of rock critic society. If Dylan (qua sincere white boy with an acoustic guitar) is the prototype, then not-Dylan is shut out.
No comments:
Post a Comment