The inaccurate one time depiction of Cerys Matthews as some kind of fiesty iconic female figure both amused and puzzled me. As much as I've never found Matthews to be worthy of such standing, I am curious as to why this seems to be the only way women are taken seriously in music.
Women in music have every right be as confrontational as their male counterparts, and in many cases they can be quite superior. But I think it is patronising to assume that woman have to be aggressive in order to have relevance. I love the energy, passion and venom of people like Patti Smith, Janis Joplin, Chrissie Hynde and Sinead O'Connor - all standing in positive contrast to the clothes horses of WAG and weekend trashy nightclub culture. Yet I would equally place people like Joni Mitchell, Natalie Merchant and Sandy Denny on that same pedastal. Their music may not be as immediately subversive at the surface, but if we're not going to crack the surface of anything then it's probably better if we pissed off and watched X Factor.
Remember the Riot Grrrl movement of the early 90s? Bands like L7, Bikini Kill and Bratmobile were 'in yer face' and 'making a stand' and doing generally everything to get overly verbose journalists and writers into a frenzy. Riot Grrrl produced some great music but was never the be all and end all - nothing ever is. The Breeders, Luscious Jackson, Kristin Hersh and countless others made some fantastic records in this period also, and not under the banner of being Women in Rock but simply artists. The female identity is imperative, but does it always have to be against the grain of male dominance? It can be whatever it wishes to be, but always keep both eyes open.
No comments:
Post a Comment