Rage Against

So Facebook is flooded.

The BBC's online stream had problems getting me connected.

Thousands are ecstatic that Rage Against The Machine have won Christmas #1 2009.

But what does this say? It's a true campaign over the mainstream, something that I'm definitely all for after turning more and more against the commercial average over the last few years - It's great to see people support a band who aren't making music for their own gain - £60,000 raised for Shelter by the mass download - and also great to see a band come in at #1 over Xmas who have been doing what they do so well for almost two decades now.

However, it certainly was a campaign. A one-off fight against the dull, boring world of manufactured, over-televised pop-trash junk music. Looking at the rest of the chart, there isn't much in there which belongs to Rage's school of how to make music - true effort and talent. Lady Gaga, Robbie Williams, Cheryl Cole, Rihanna, Cheryl Cole (yep, she's in the top 20 twice) - it's all manufactured, effortless bullshit. Production staff can do wonders with today's technology and you can hear it as soon as you turn on the radio - every song sounds the same - perfect. The lead vocal never falters. Nothing is ever slightly detuned. Rhythms are always so strict they'd even make Kraftwerk blush. I don't see this brand of music as art - something that can be perceived as emotional or beautiful, etc. etc. - the lack of imperfection means that there's nothing to judge, which in turn makes the listening ritual useless as an interesting process.

Perhaps that's the point however - this is music for the radio, TV, etc. where the "listener" is most probably concerned over different things at that moment of time, for example driving the car or cleaning the house. If a piece of music/song/track comes on the radio which calls for the person's attention, it may get switched off. That's already one less on the viewing/listening figures report, and one less potentially listening to the adverts that'll come on later. So this method of transferring music - via mass media - is effectively ruining music by converting people's tastes into bland zombie-like profiles, where anything slightly more unique is cast out and rejected.

A fairly unusual example of this being counteracted may be the humble vinyl purist. Notice how the "good old LP" will almost never sound "perfect" - frequency response, in comparison to digital media, is awful with rolloff and accentuated frequencies varying from deck to deck; pops and crackles are heard almost always; and one scratch to a record's surface can ruin a track and transform it into a caught loop, which only ends once the listener has moved the stylus on. Therefore, there's more evidence to support abandoning the vinyl format altogether. However, it's still here, alive and kicking, perhaps even growing in popularity. Why? Because vinyl demands attention. The disc needs to be carefully taken out of it's cover, placed on the turntable, and have the needle dropped. This isn't achieved with mp3s - one click and you're away, listening to music in high quality digital sound. Mp3's won't ever skip or get caught - the listener won't ever have to get up and carefully attend to the stylusm, or be careful when transferring files from one place to another in case they get scratched. It's these processes and imperfection of the sound that makes the listening experience from vinyl so much better for so many people.

Back to the original point in hand, I'm not saying that all modern music is tosh. Some brilliant albums have been released this year (which will be summarised later...) but they simply haven't received the attention needed. The Knife's Karin Dreijer Andersson released her first solo effort under "Fever Ray" in various formats across 2009, yet I haven't seen any mention of this superb album in either newspapers or mainstream radio. The closest I've got is BBC Radio 6 - that's 6, yes it does exist and no it isn't broadcast on analogue radio - featuring a mix of Karin's favourite music, and music sites such as Pitchfork going crazy over the album. If the majority of critics who have bothered to review the album like it, then why wouldn't the mass public? Sure, it's a bit different, but everyone can sing along to the tracks - there's a lyrics booklet included with the CD if one gets stuck - thus avoiding the "WTF??? THERE'S NO VOCALIST??? THIS ISN'T MUSIC!!!" issue that I know many people have. Animal Collective's output this year has also been immensely accesible, so has Dirty Projectors, and I could go on. However, it isn't broadcast, reviewed or even mentioned in the mainstream media. This is good, unoffensive, beautiful music. It stands as an art form and reclaims itself from the hellholes of "Simply Bland". It develops upon every listen - one gets to appreciate the work more and more over time. So why don't more people take notice and spread the word?

However, perhaps this would be a bad thing. Perhaps such "obscure" music would thus turn dull, trying to attract all the critics and stations to listen to something that will not surprise, shock or impress the listener, but satisfy their need for "something in the background". Why does Satie's furniture music or Eno's ambient output exist? To serve as a backdrop to an occasion. Pop music doesn't need to do this over again.

Where will Rage be in the popular media next week I wonder? Sure, the papers may be talking about their upcoming free gig in the UK, but will they be so bothered about their musical output? I expect not. Joe Bloggs has been defeated for one week along with Simon Coward (can someone please actually remind me what this talentless bastard wank fucker has done for the music industry?) but RATM's single stands out among the crowd of boring "work" that smothers the rest of the chart. "Killing In The Name" is a piece of music with a purpose to protest against the machine, not only of corrupt political systems, but also of mass media.