S/FJ on JT

Sasha Frere-Jones in Slate, on Justin Timberlake, the joys of pop, and the fatuities of kneejerk critical rockism. None of this will be new to people who read (for example) NYLPM or Skykicking (by the way, Tim, are you still looking for ideas? Here's a challenge: write something interesting about Australian Idol) or for that matter me, but it's kind of fun to see Sasha acting as a pop missionary among the rockist heathens. I do kind of agree, though, with the poster on ILM who said that Sasha was using rockist criteria against rockism--surely, although it's interesting to know that Justin writes his own melodies, it doesn't and can't affect the value of the music from a pop perspective, otherwise you are giving rockists permission to despise Britney and tATu and all the other good pop performers who don't write their own material.

Anyway, isn't Justified now officially the pop album that it's OK for indie/rock people to like? As Sasha himself points out, it's received almost unanimously good reviews, so he's forced to hang his vituperations on one piece in the New Yorker. (I know some people think that what the New Yorker has to say about pop music is worth taking notice of and giving a fuck about, but I'm yet to be convinced.) Baby steps, I suppose, but what I wouldn't give to see an article in Slate making a case for, say, Justin's ex (as something more than a "guilty pleasure" too).

Oh, one more thing Sasha, maybe I'm missing the point, but..."Quick—think of a single solo disc by a famous producer … that's any good. We'll wait"...er, virtually every dance record ever made, surely?

Comments

[Sasha Frere-Jones]

Dear Angus:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll say first what I always say: word count. I simply couldn't unpack all of rockist think in the Slate footprint. I wanted to table the main issues and get to the people, missionary-style, as you suggest. I also don't think the popist take is as common as you suggest, no disrespect to FT/NYLPM. The big bad world still needs mersh versions of ideas that are last year for us. Or so I foolishly think.

You're right to point out the rockism fighting rockism problem in my rhetoric. If I had to do it again, I'd put back a few sentences that got cut. (Man cuts down trees, forgets forest, has nap.) That section ("Justin *does* write his songs! So there!") was designed to address Ross' own reading first, and then correct sloppy journalism. From there, it was a gentle slide into embracing the pop mindstate, but at a pace that wouldn't put everyone off. Or so I thought. A piece like this is a guaranteed fight-starter, so it never feels "right," you know? But that's how it should be.

Yours,
Sasha

[Angus]

Sasha--thanks for the very gracious comment! I now wish I'd stressed more how much I liked the article and was cheering through 90% of it, especially since I've now been thoroughly convinced that your point about Justin writing his own songs was a perfectly legitimate and necessary bit of rhetoric. Oh well.

By the way, when I said "none of this will be new" etc, I really only meant that it would be familiar to many of the people who read this blog; I'm not under any illusion that the public at large is familiar with the FT/NYLPM worldview, and as far as I'm concerned anybody who confronts rockism in a place like Slate is very definitely doing the work of the angels, especially if they do so via a paean to Justin Timberlake!