Back, once again, to IDLES. Some people would feel sympathy for them for having committed to a punishing promotional schedule for new LP Ultra Mono last month, only to find themselves perpetually reminded of the fact that "loads of people don't fucking like us", shot at from all sides and forced into wearied self-defence. Others, though, would argue that the band have deliberately positioned themselves on a pedestal and so are fair game for target practice.
For pretty much every positive thing said about IDLES, it seems, an alternative and far less charitable interpretation is also voiced. Take the lyrics, for instance. As Kerrang!'s James Hickie put it, "The lean deliciousness of Joe [Talbot]'s words means they stick in the mind" - only to qualify that with "though they've stuck in the craw, too, of those who see them as zeitgeist zingers that oversimplify and sloganeer". Talbot admitted as much in response, but insisted "that's the point". Talking to Vice's Tara Joshi, he described his lyrics as "transparent and naive", but in conversation with NME's Jordan Bassett, he insisted on the need to be "concise and clear in my message". Guitarist Mark Bowen accepted some of the criticism of the band as a whole - "Our instrument is a blunt tool, so unfortunately it can lack a bit of nuance" - but nevertheless echoed Talbot in stating unapologetically "that's the whole fucking point".
This connects to criticisms of their heart-on-sleeve politics. For some (most notably their rabid AF Gang fanbase), the fact that they are unashamedly vocal on issues such as racism and toxic masculinity means they should be championed; for others, such as Fat White Family frontman Lias Saoudi, they peddle "sententious pedantry", coming across as self-appointed "sociopolitical saviours", as Joshi put it, before she wondered aloud "if there's ever a worry that their politics and allyship might seem performative or cynical".
They've certainly been seen that way by the likes of Sleaford Mods' Jason Williamson and various contributors to the Quietus. While Talbot was entirely justified in rebutting Williamson's wide-of-the-mark, methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much jibe about authenticity ("it's like I was being represented as someone pretending to be working-class, which I've never done"), his dismissal of "pseudo-intellectual rags" and his claim that "for intellects, it's quite uncomfortable to admit they like childish art forms" were lame - a classic case of a popular artist shrugging off critical barbs as simply a mark of intellectual snobbery rather than actually engaging with their content.
Of course, spreading a message of "inclusivity and egalitarian politics" also leaves them wide open to being called out for hypocrisy if they're caught not practising what they preach - as the self-declared feminists discovered when they chose three bands with just one woman between them as tour support last year. In the NME interview, Talbot took the criticism on the chin and the band have since put their money where their mouth is, announcing an excellent all-female line-up including Anna Calvi, Shopping, Big Joanie and Jehnny Beth for next year's nationwide jaunt (fingers crossed). Even then, though, Talbot upset Nadine Shah by implying that she was asking for too much cash.
And still the flak continues to come. "I've got no interest in beefing with this group of individuals", wrote Saoudi at the end of a recent article in which - yes, you guessed it - he beefed with that group of individuals. At least he had the decency to admit that when he first waded into the IDLES v Sleaford Mods feud, in February last year, it was an act of "shameless trolling" committed in "a state of frenzied arrogance", "a joyously lurid, deeply pathetic re-assertion of my own group's hegemony over the 'scene'". He also gave grudging respect to Talbot and crew for being "willing to sweat nuts and bolts on stage".
But Saoudi was also quite unequivocal and unapologetic in reiterating his general dislike of the band, declaring that IDLES "represent everything that is wrong with contemporary cultural politics". On this occasion, his charges were more eloquent and nuanced, and the article certainly makes some good points about how deeply rooted inequality is in capitalist/classist society, about the sheer complexity of the contemporary environment and "the lattice work of exploitation" (which means that it can't be boiled down to a simplistic slogan bellowed in a chorus or emblazoned on a T-shirt) and about the mistake of prioritising politics above personality in music.
And yet I couldn't buy his overall argument, largely due to the claim that "[t]he easiest way to gain popularity online, of course, is simply to regurgitate what everybody else already believes". You don't have to look around for long to see that the message that IDLES are preaching is very far from universally accepted. Being an ally and standing up for principles is difficult. IDLES and others have made mistakes, and will no doubt continue to do so. But surely it's important that they're at least trying.
As Bowen told Vice, "I think the internet has led to this thing where everyone's kind of tripping over themselves - and while, on the left, we're all arguing about this, the people who are in solidarity with each other are the fucking fascists taking over the government and the media. It's important to talk about, but I think people need to be a bit more forgiving."
No comments:
Post a Comment