Motown continues to churn out musical talent. We've made significant contributions in just about every popular music genre. The latest proof of Detroit's musical gravitas came when the inaugural New Pantheon Music Award went to Detroit-born indie rocker Sufjan Stephens for his second album-length ode to an American state, Illinois.
Personally, I've only heard "Chicago," the biggest cut off this album, and I am very underwhelmed. It's a mix of sardonic choral hooks and nasal Radiohead-esque verses over a lilting guitar line with some light strings. Not partiuclarly creative, from what I've heard. But, I won't be one of those people who reviews an album without listening to it. I can see why all the cool hipster kids love this stuff, and based on Sufjan's Detroit heritage, I'm sure this album is more than deserving of the award. So congrats to you, Sufjan. Way to represent the D.
Here's the thing, though. M.I.A.'s stunning debut, Arular, was also up for this award. My suspicion is that the judges for this New Pantheon award shied away from M.I.A. because her amazing, independently produced music has become quite popular and almost mainstream. Oh, and it's hip hop, which is the dominant genre right now. This popularity will make most too-cool-for-school hipsters shy away from M.I.A, even though she put out the best album of 2005.
But, who am I to judge. These are the guardians of New Pantheon Music Award. I'm only the host of the Most Important Radio Show... Ever.
Erik, I'd LOVE to agree with you on this, since I'm something of a Detroiter myself. I must be honest though, Detroit has as many musical failures as successes. People forget that Motown records, pre-Barrett Strong's "Money," was complete garbage... FOR YEARS.
Also, it's interesting to note that we're not as forgiving of failure as we used to be. The Temptations flopped for a long time before they put together a solid line-up.
Punk and heavy metal can both be traced back to MC5 and The Stooges, but if you listen to them now, they're really just noise. The sound had to go elsewhere to actually develop style and quality.
Oh yeah... techno was invented here, too. Our failure to stop its birth and spread is tragic and unforgivable.
One other note on Motown. It's formulaic nature and lack of lyrical depth has been credited with ruining music for a generation... inspiring artists like Babyface to write for artists like Boyz II Men. Blame Motown.
"It's a mix of sardonic choral hooks and nasal Radiohead-esque verses over a lilting guitar line with some light strings."
oh my god, you are a gigantic douchebag.
Yes, I am a giant Dbag, but listen to "Chicago" and tell me that description isn't sublime. There, I did it again.
Ian, I totally reject the "it destroyed music" critique of Motown. First of all, Motown brought singing back into music after the Stones and Beatles told us to just listen to the guitars. And Motown brought rhythm and dancing into popular music.
And let's not forget the political necessity of Motown. During the 1960's, a production company for, by, and of black Americans was an integral part of the civil rights movement.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with Babyface or Boyz II Men, and you know it.
Erik, I said it has been "credited with ruining music for a generation" not "it destroyed music" period. Whatever. Semantics.
The obvious flaw in your defense is that the Beatles and Stones debuted in the U.S. in February and May of 1964 respectively. Motown had its first number-one hit in 1960.
You could credit Motown with bringing rhythm and dancing to music. But then you'd look like a MORON because Elvis - undeniably a master of borh rhythm and dancing - had already been popular for FIVE YEARS before Motown produced its first number one.
I agree with the premise that Motown was culturally important. And I don't want to undermine it. But Simon Cowell has nothing on Berry Gordy and Phil Spector when it comes to churning out formulaic, bubblegum drivel. Record a song with a catchy hook, let EVERYONE IN THE COMPANY try to sing it, and assign it to the person who performs it best. Marketing genius... but they rarely wrote songs catering to the talents of individual singers.
Name for me one female Motown singer that was an incredible vocal talent BESIDES Tammi Terrell (who was stuck singing with Marvin Gaye until she died). Martha Reeves was dirt. Diana Ross was NEVER anything special.
My friend Brian and I joked that Gordy once had a vocalist who sucked so much that he pulled Martha Reeves in from her desk (she was the secretary) and said "You suck so much, I'll be my SECRETARY can sing better than you!".
Speaking of Marvin Gaye, he never had a great song until he creatively split from Motown and started writing his own stuff. Stevie Wonder wrote the bulk of his own hits as well.
Catchy songs? Yes. But there's a reason Rolling Stone Magazine practically ignored Motown when naming the top singles and albums of all time. No depth.
And I'm not saying that I don't love the music. I'm not saying that I don't have great times of my life associated with Motown songs. But comparing Smokey Robinson to Bob Dylan as a songwriter is like comparing Dr. Seuss to Ayn Rand.