So. As you may know, I'm not a fan of Ben Myers, based on the fact that his writing is not to my taste/I think it's dreadful, if we're going to be bluntly opinionated about things, which I am. So, I found Richard: A Novel a literary offence not simply because when you think about it it's basically overblown, overpaid fanfic about something I care about, but also because it's badly written, if you ask me. Which you aren't, but I'll pretend you are. (Also, I hold the opinion that he's perfectly entitled to write the thing, but the hype and controversy he fuelled just felt so contrived. It just begged the question 'why?'- if you're going to make up a story and sell it, why do it in that way? It would have stopped a hell of a lot of people feeling offended by it if he'd, I don't know, changed a few names? That way he wouldn't have had to deal with the lack of knowledge about Sean Moore's character in such a dreadfully obvious way.)
Now he's gone and done this and it was after simply seeing the title that I breathed a sigh of nauseated annoyance at the fact that we are once again being delivered this antiquated argument. How many times can this be said about a band? To me it felt like a waste of an article- Here is why.
-This has been said about possibly every single band I've ever liked. This is why it seems so old to me. The big question of 'are they becoming mainstream and losing their integrity?' is something thrown about so ridiculously often it's lost all significance to me. Bands lose integrity if they start out saying they'll never move to a big label and then move to a big label. They lose integrity if they start out writing lyrics that mean something and end up writing lyrics that mean nothing. They lose their integrity if they abandon one set of fans in favour of a more profitable set of fans. This is my personal set of standards- but only in extreme cases. You might read this and say this is what the Manics have done hundreds of times already in their career- I don't think they have, but I wasn't there to find out- and if they did, I'll go on to that later on.
-This has been said about the Manics a million times already. They lose their integrity everytime they make a more pop album or sell out a huge venue, apparently. I think 'losing integrity' often gets confused with 'becoming successful'.
Let's look at their history. Mr Myers, as we might already know, wasn't one of the people there from the beginning. (On that topic, if this article had been written by Simon Price, for example, someone who has been there from the start, I might not be so quick to dismiss it. Ben Myers does not know the band, whatever he writes will always be an outsider's perspective.) If you look at what they said at the beginning- the very beginning, 'selling out' as it were, was one of their main goals. Richey told us they were going to be the biggest band in the world, that they were going to sell millions. They all told us they were huge hypocrites right from the start, that's a big part of why I love them. It was genius foresight, or genius lack of it- a massive disclaimer that could cover every move they'd ever make. If Ben Myers says they're doing this for the money, whether they are or not is irrelevant because they warned us they'd be doing things for the money. They aren't losing integrity here because they are simply keeping promises.
-There appears to be a question of rock 'n' roll credentials here. 'Ideally the Manics would use this as an opportunity for some Situationist mischief-making'. Really? The infamous balaclava is also given a shout-out. That was nearing two decades ago. In the same text, Myers credits the band for having grown up. This does not compute, if I'm being honest. It's great that the Manics have grown up, but can we have them smashing equipment and 'dressing like Tiger Bay tarts' again please? If it hasn't happened for the last, I don't know, decade or so, why on earth would it happen again? My opinion is that the Manics right now are doing what they do best, with what they can. They've just created a brilliant album (My opinion. I think it's genius.) and almost completed an incredible tour met with nothing but positive responses. They look great, they play incredibly, and they've managed to remain relevant, if a little outspoken, in the current political climate. This, in my opinion, is an accomplishment.
-On a similar topic- CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. The issue that this article deals with is that the Manics are going to perform on Strictly Come Dancing and Ben Myers sees this as them selling themselves out, being 'submissive not subversive'. He says they'll join the likes of Robbie Williams and James Blunt. It was at this first sentence that I desperately wanted Myers to take a good look at the current mainstream musical scene. We are surrounded by absolute crap. Abhorrations on auto-tune. Over-produced, badly written, tasteless trash. There is nothing good in the current charts- and when I say good, I mean nothing with any substance to speak of.
There may be good music elsewhere, there's probably some brilliant underground scene I'm yet to hear of, but for the masses, there is nothing. And the masses is what the Manics are about. Their music is political. It has a message. What is the point in this if no one's going to hear it? The music is good, it has substance, even when it's the 'poppiest' side of the Manics, it's a rare example of good songs that are written by the people who perform that. That is generally extinct from music television these days, it's not even considered a problem anymore. It's the norm. It is dreadful. The Manic Street Preachers singing anything they've ever written, anything, will be at the very least a tiny bit educational. There will be people watching who'll want to turn it off, at least they're hearing that there was once a time when songs were written properly. There will be people watching who'll be too young to know that there is life outside of 4Music, at least they're hearing that there is something else. There will be people like me, who will just be so happy to hear something that isn't auto-tuned to death or best served with scantily-clad backing dancers. This is why this is a good thing, be it submissive or subversive.
-Audience and Institution. The Manics are BBC friends. It makes sense. The audience are BBC people. It makes sense. If it's fine and wonderful for Nicky to sit on Jools Holland's piano stool in his pastel pink miniskirt with whatever other strange players he has on that particular show, why is it not fine and wonderful for Nicky to prance around for the benefit of the right and honourable dance judges?
In conclusion, this is an important thing, to me at least. No matter how you look at it, if you're not a fan of the Katy Perrys and the JLSs (no offence to them or their fans, their music is still perfectly valid and decent, it's just not my thing) you'll admit that the Manic Street Preachers on primetime BBC is slightly refreshing.
My key point here is context. A few years ago, bringing 'the alternative' to 'the mainstream' was kind of pointless, and it was easy to see why people thought bands were 'selling out'. In around 2007, pretty much everyone was doing it. Now, though, there is a drought. A cultural drought of variation. In a contemporary context, the Manics trying to bring themselves to the mainstream is important and valuable. It's a call to be seen and heard, it's an attempt to bring back some kind of balance. In my opinion, it's also a very rock n roll thing to do. Remember, context.
So that is my essay of a post against Ben Myers' misrepresentation of the Manics' intentions, in my opinion. If you read it, I'm impressed, and if you agree, you're super. If you don't, just think - at least it's not the X Factor.
No comments:
Post a Comment