Quantcast
 Scott Creney

Scott Creney reacts to Pitchfork’s reaction to M.I.A.’s Finger

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

This dude should not be commenting on anyone's costume.

By Scott Creney

If I’d known Ryan Schreiber, founder and CEO of Pitchfork, was going to give me more material, I would’ve held off on last week’s Pitchfork piece. I’m not looking to become Collapse Board’s resident media critic, but sometimes someone writes an article that is so odious, that reveals so much about themselves, I feel obligated to respond to it.

By now, everyone knows about M.I.A.’s televised middle finger, and the ensuing lecture she got from the standard bearer for good manners and appropriate behavior, Pitchfork.com.

By the way, here’s their review of Jet’s Shine On from 2006. And yes, that is a chimpanzee holding its cock while it pisses into its own mouth.

This article isn’t about the quality of M.I.A.’s music. It’s about the reaction to her performance, specficially Ryan Schreiber’s.

Instead, in the few bars Madonna was kind enough to grant her during the biggest television event of the year, M.I.A.’s message to America was simply, “Fuck you.”

Well first of all, if America gets to drop shitloads of bombs all over innocent brown-skinned people whenever we feel like it, exploit third-world economies for our own profit and luxury, and inflict the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the world, then I think the US deserves a middle-finger raised in its direction once in a while. And I say this as an American.

Secondly, that “biggest television event of the year” involves a bunch of dudes bashing themselves into traumatic brain injuries that will affect them for the rest of their lives. On the average, they will be dead by the age of 58. Seventeen per cent of the NFL workforce suffered career-ending injuries in 2010. Furthermore, the commercials shown during this big television event tend to be aesthetically and morally repugnant. As Sasha Frere-Jones pointed out in his must-read article about the controversy, “television viewers were submitted to ad after ad that likened women — negatively — to sofas, cars, and candy”. Schreiber sees all of this as being worthy of our respect.

And as for Madonna being “kind enough to grant” M.I.A. a place on that stage, others have already pointed out that you could just as easily argue that M.I.A. was granted that spot in order to make Madonna look cooler, or you could argue that maybe Madonna respects M.I.A. as an artist and there’s something incredibly patronizing in the tone of Schreiber’s writing, to say nothing of the underlying sexism in his assumptions.

But none of that is as noteworthy as Schreiber’s primary criticism of M.I.A.’s stunt, that it’s a bad business decision.

What’s extra annoying about last night’s event is that M.I.A. doesn’t need these cheap ploys to up her visibility, even when the stage design and costuming is best described as “GoldenPalace.com.” After all, she released her first great single in years just last Thursday, and its music video had already racked up more than 3 million YouTube views even before the Super Bowl send-up. Following the rep-shattering press surrounding 2010′s /\/\/\Y/\, it wouldn’t be the worst idea to draw as much focus as possible back to her music.

Everett’s already pointed out that M.I.A.’s last album got all kinds of great press. But what’s weird about that paragraph is Schreiber feeling the need to criticize M.I.A.’s business acumen. In doing so, he reduces a cultural event into a business event, turning the language of art into the language of money. And it reveals shitloads about how Schreiber and Pitchfork make their decisions. The only reason to perform for people is to ‘up your visibility’. You measure your success by the number of views your video gets on YouTube, and you always want good press. Artists should always make their decisions based on what is good for their careers, based on strategy not impulse, through consolidation not risk, always seeking to maximize their earning potential.

Any artist concerned with issues of wealth and exploitation walks a tightrope between art and commerce. According to Schreiber, an artist should ALWAYS come down on the side of commerce. It isn’t even open to debate. Schreiber sees music first and foremost as a commercial product, something to be consumed. I see it as art. M.I.A. sees it as a platform.

And what’s also jarringly odd about that paragraph is the way Schreiber automatically assumes that bad publicity, or controversy, or rudeness is bad for one’s career, to say nothing of one’s art. Lana Del Rey’s debut album entered the charts at #2 last week, in no small part due to the controversy that surrounds her. Or, closer to Ryan’s doorstep, there’s the case of Odd Future. According to Schreiber, that group’s rudeness is an essential part of their art.

It’s fucking nauseating to think that the same guy who has championed and defended Odd Future (Jim DeRogatis did a fascinating interview with Schreiber and P4K President Chris Kaskie about them booking Odd Future for last year’s Pitchfork festival) feels compelled to call M.I.A. an asshole for flipping off a camera. It says shitloads about Ryan Schreiber, and his values, and none of it is good.

(continues overleaf)

Pages: 1 2

9 Responses to Scott Creney reacts to Pitchfork’s reaction to M.I.A.’s Finger

  1. Everett True February 8, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Is Ryan Schreiber this generation’s Bill Grundy?

  2. Joseph Kyle February 8, 2012 at 10:05 am

    And then you hear people saying that the fact she got paid to be there somehow denies her the right to comment on the spectacle. Of course, you could also argue that by hiring an artist, that is someone who expresses themselves for a living, there is always the possibility that they might decide to actually, you know, express themselves.

    You can express yourself all you want and rail against the system all you want, but the fact remains that when you take money willingly from the system you are railing against, you become a part of that system. You can protest all you want to the contrary, but that crow won’t caw.

    And then the question remains: is ‘raging against the machine’ whilst sitting comfortably in the machine’s passenger seat…are you really railing against it? Or are you simply playing a role, the paid rebel, seemingly standing up and making a “statement” that, ultimately, you were originally paid to make?

    Of course, what happens when MIA, a year from now, complains about the reaction to her actions? Wouldn’t that be somewhat hypocritical–if you’re ‘giving them something to talk about’ and they continually talk about it, can you truly, honestly complain about it and not look like a fool?

  3. kicking_k February 8, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Joseph, I dunno about you, but I was born in the system. When I co-operate and when I don’t – all my life has been a series of negotiations, and rather than the single evidential snapshot you’re suggesting – the one point in an individual’s life which apparently captures the ‘true’ them – any genuinely realistic portrait would be way more blurrrrrrrrred.

    In the UK, it’s been claimed Occupy protesters should have their entire program of views negated + rejected ’cause a few of their number used a leading coffee chain to warm themselves in winter. I disagree.

    Anyway, M.I.A. has never been about such Modernist ideas as authenticity (despite the fact she was a literal refugee) or self-consistency. All she’s ever wanted to do is broadcast her own confusion – about her conflicted relationship with a father who rejected family for politics, about admiration + frustration for/with a mother who rejected politics to raise a family, etc etc.

    She’s a saboteur, not a saint – and much more effective that way.

  4. darragh February 9, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Ha Scott, this is awesome!

  5. stew February 9, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    The superbowl controversy & the pitchfork controversy are both instigated by self-righteous dudes getting their anger out, which is ok I think. It’s really really unimportant and uninteresting though.

  6. Ed February 10, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Agree with Joseph Kyle. And I think Pitchfork was absolutely right to call MIA out on her hypocrisy. She accepts money to be part of a huge corporate gig like the Superbowl, she allows herself to be used as a glorified cheerleader for Madonna (waving pom pons and all), and then in a pathetic attempt to regain some shred of “street” credibility, she sticks up her middle finger — as if that meant anything at all.

    I actually felt sorry for MIA watching her dance like a nobody while screaming along “We love Madonna.” Good god.

    And I wonder if Pete Townshend had done the same thing at the Who’s Superbowl gig — sticking up his middle finger at the camera during the performance — you all would have been all over him for accepting the gig and then trying to still pretend he was some kind of outsider.

    MIA doesn’t get a pass just because she’s a woman with brown skin.

  7. Wallace Wylie February 12, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Ed, what article were you reading? Pitchfork weren’t calling M.I.A. out on any kind of hypocrisy, they were straight up calling her an asshole. You seem to have taken your dislike of M.I.A. and projected it onto a piece of shit Pitchfork article and somehow managed to convince yourself that it criticises M.I.A. for the things you want to criticise her for doing. It didn’t. The only hypocrisy being shown, as far as I could see, was Pitchfork itself, for all the reasons Scott pointed out.

  8. Mark Donaldson February 12, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    MIA was gobbled up by the machine a long time ago. The finger was nothing more than a soulless publicity stunt to perk up the waining public interest in her. I’m not sure how it can be read any other way. She didn’t even flip it like she meant it, which says alot about how mindless she thinks the mainstream music consumer is. She was totally unconvincing, yet still got a rise out of millions of people.

    At least when Coca Cola sucks us in they’re clever about it. MIA’s successfully slack effort was an insult to us all. Forget the system, the finger may as well have been directed squarely at us: “you’re all fucking dumb, I’m going to do this and you’re all going to buy it.”

    If she was serious about rebelling she would have told Madonna to stick it. But why do that when you can take your performance fee AND promote your main selling point as an anarchist?

    As any Guevara shirt peddler will tell you – anarchism sells.

  9. Wallace Wylie February 13, 2012 at 2:48 am

    I love how M.I.A.’s critics manage to paint her as both a hapless moron with no real political insight and a Machiavellian villain cynically manipulating her media image (which of course they see right through).

    I don’t personally find her politics to be the most well thought out, but then I think the same thing about Ice Cube, or Paul Weller, or just about every musician who has ever opened their mouth to express a political opinion. Still listen to their music.

Leave a Reply