The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Friday, April 15, 2016 — 5
Ben Harper’s ‘Call It’
is eclectic dad rock
By JOEY SCHUMAN
Daily Arts Writer
Ben Harper & The Innocent
Criminals’s latest studio album,
Call It What It Is, kicks off with
a major dad
quote:
“I
remember
when
sex
was dirty /
and the air
was clean /
and
every-
thing worth
knowing
/ was in a
magazine.”
The whole
dad quote thing makes sense,
considering Harper has been
putting out music for over 20
years and is an actual middle-
aged dad presumably living a
middle-aged dad life. More spe-
cifically, though, this line seems
to be Harper acknowledging and
embracing this senior status —
using his veteran savvy to set the
tone for an album so in line with
who he is, and what his career
has been — and everything feels
right.
“When Sex Was Dirty,” the
aforementioned opening track,
has its aggressive guitar riffs and
prominent cowbell followed up
with a potpourri of style on other
songs that, while not consistent,
is no doubt entertaining. There’s
cause for confusion when Harp-
er, just two tracks after the light-
hearted opener, rolls out a line
like “They shot him in the back /
now it’s a crime to be Black / so
don’t act surprised / when it gets
vandalized” on “Call It What It
Is.” But maybe, just maybe, that’s
Harper’s thing. Maybe making
the title track a bluesy, condemn-
ing political statement for the
masses is Harper’s ultimate “I
Don’t Give a Fuck, I’ll Do What
I Want, I’ve Done My Time In
This Game” moment. This is an
artist who has made cuddly bal-
lads about stealing kisses, reg-
gae jams about making peace on
earth and seemingly everything
in between. And now it’s time
for one of music’s most versatile
renaissance men to do what he
wants.
Ironically enough, one of the
better tracks on the album is one
that perhaps most lacks a defining
identity. “Shine,” the fifth track,
vibes. On it, Harper sings, “We
shine like a new tattoo / scarred
on skin bright as day / across my
heart / there is no other way.”
Set over a fun, percussion-heavy
beat, the production isn’t any-
thing distinct, but there’s bona
fide flavor in Harper’s vocals, and
it makes for an enjoyable listen.
Quite honestly, some of Harp-
er’s stuff sounds destined to be
covered by the local Potbelly
cover musician, which isn’t an
indictment of his sound as much
as an acceptance of it. For those
looking for a departure from this
type of rock, however, Call It
What It Is still has its moments.
“Bones” showcases Harper’s
rangy vocals while also revealing
an appropriate amount of vulner-
ability: “Every now and then I get
so tired / I rest my bones / sitting
alone with my desires / in my
bones.” The song’s general feel
is in line with the agitated tone
Harper conveys in other places
on the album. It fits right in, at
least as much as anything can on
a Ben Harper album.
Cohesiveness has never really
been Harper’s thing, and that
holds true on Call It What It Is.
It’s eclectic — controlled mish-
mash at its finest, a rollercoaster
all the way through. It’s all over
the place, but it should still man-
age to please.
TV NOTEBOOK
The slow, repetitive
decline of TV horror
By MEGAN MITCHELL
Daily Arts Writer
The hook of season one for
MTV’s
reboot
of
“Scream”
built off the suspense of what
a slasher flick could offer to
the small screen. While movies
must reach resolution by their
120-minute time allotment, TV
series carry the ability to drag
out the suspense over multiple
weeks. However, MTV’s revival,
in keeping a story arc similar to
that of its namesake, has ulti-
mately set up its second season
for failure.
The horror genre, though
effective in film, doesn’t trans-
late well into a television show
(with the notable exception of
FX’s “American Horror Story”).
Where MTV’s “Scream” follows
Wes Craven’s original tetralogy,
“Horror Story” begins each sea-
son with specific theme in mind,
such as last season’s “Hotel”
premise. These new approach-
es could be responsible for the
upward trend in ratings that the
season premieres have pulled
in since its first season, “Mur-
der House,” whose average 3.18
million views were succeeded
by 3.85 million from “Asylum,”
5.54 million from “Coven” and
6.13 million from “Freakshow.”
With
the
exception
of
“Hotel”’s slightly lower num-
bers in viewership of 5.81 mil-
lion, the series is ultimately
responsible
for
bringing
in
consistently high ratings for
FX since 2011. These num-
bers sharply juxtapose MTV’s
“Scream,” whose first season
was met with divided critical
response and an opening view-
ership of 1.03 million against
“Murder House” ’s 3.18 mil-
lion. This discrepancy could be
a result of MTV’s lack of origi-
nality in their series because
they’re attempting a revival,
but regardless, what might have
been considered passable in the
first season will certainly not
survive a second season.
Shows of the supernatural
and horror genre are espe-
cially at risk of extinction over
other genres of television, and
the race to remain relevant is
a high-stakes challenge. These
series fight for the audience’s
attention
through
elaborate
and well-established plotlines,
which is why “Horror Story” is
likely so popular. Changing the
theme stirs up audience atten-
tion, oftentimes allowing for
a clean slate if interest is too
easily lost. This theory is not a
relatively new one, as successful
television shows often follow a
different established path dur-
ing each of their seasons. For
example, during its successful
early years, “Supernatural” fol-
lowed the pattern of a punctuat-
ed theme followed by resolution
at the end of the season.
Other shows of this genre fol-
low this same pattern of repeti-
tion without repetition. “Once
Upon a Time” establishes its
new direction during the season
finales; “Orphan Black” deploys
clever plot twists to keep the
viewer engaged. The point is,
they never do the same thing
twice, which is why MTV’s
“Scream” is ultimately headed
towards senseless repetition.
Unoriginal plot and repetition
has not only led horror revivals
such as MTV’s “Scream” to an
early grave, but technology has
ultimately played a hand in their
demises, too. The digital age
has essentially demolished the
foundations of the horror genre,
a fact punctuated by scenes
such as Ariana Grande’s futile
attempts to send a tweet at the
time of her demise in FOX’s sat-
ire series “Scream Queens.” The
original “Scream” is famous for
the deadly phone calls that were
used as a tool to propagate fear
and paranoia for both the char-
acters and audience, a tool that
does not transpose into a decade
where “Find My iPhone” exists.
Intimate landline calls added
into the suspense and thrill of
horror flicks in the ’80s and ’90s
alongside Hitchcockian scores
and well-developed characters.
Unfortunately
for
MTV’s
revival of “Scream,” we live in
a decade of sleek screens, elec-
tronically produced music and
a cast whose flat affect lacks
conviction. With the rise of the
gothic genre that characterizes
shows such as “American Hor-
ror Story” and “Bates Motel,”
the scarce shows of the hor-
ror variety are slowly creep-
ing towards extinction, and
probably for good. As for those
involved in the production of
television horror, I’d recom-
mend keeping a day job.
STAX
That’s a nice Urban Sombrero you got there.
ALBUM REVIEW
B
Call It
What It Is
Ben Harper &
The Innocent
Criminals
Stax
MUSIC NOTEBOOK
The assassination of
Tidal by Apple Music
By HARRY KRINSKY
Daily Arts Writer
A few weeks ago, Samsung
silenced the rumors that it
would be buying the music
streaming service Tidal from
rapper Jay Z. Samsung’s with-
drawal from the deal with Tidal
is likely the nail in the music
streaming service’s coffin. Tid-
al’s resume includes accidental-
ly releasing Rihanna’s ANTI a
few days early, charging people
for The Life of Pablo before it
was available, ousting a set of
top executives, attempting to
sue Tidal’s previous owner for
misrepresenting its subscrip-
tion numbers and accumulat-
ing only a tenth of the amount
of users Spotify has. Plus, if
you are like me and you pur-
chased the 30-day subscription
to Tidal exclusively to stream
Kanye’s TLOP, then you already
experienced the clunky user
interface of a product that was
rolled out too early.
Tidal isn’t terrible. It’s just
not as good as Spotify and Apple
Music — the two other applica-
tions that provide the same ser-
vice. It’s hard to search for the
music you want, it doesn’t seem
to have as good of playlists and
it sometimes quits randomly. It
might just be that I’m used to
Apple Music, but I can confi-
dently say I had no urge to jump
ship from Apple Music to Tidal
(especially with Views From
The 6 right around the corner).
The Tidal saga is somewhere
in between a sad story about a
failing business and a giant,
expensive joke about Jay Z’s
hubris. Soon, Tidal will not
exist. Jay Z will be out some
hefty chunk of money, and the
people at Spotify and Apple
Music will maybe have a little
“our competition just combust-
ed under the weight of itself”
party before returning to duke
it out over T-Swift streaming
deals and OVO Radio drops.
Largely, the music industry will
move on. But Tidal’s death will
come as a serious missed oppor-
tunity for musicians, especially
those who are up and coming in
the new digital music age.
Prior to the digital music
revolution sparked by Napster,
record labels snagged artists
in exploitive record deals and
profited off the backs of their
talent. Digital music technology
shook the music industry to its
core, cutting profits for all par-
ties involved. In spite of plum-
meting profits, there was hope
that after the dust settled, the
artist might be able to gain a bit
more control over their music.
The hope was that as it became
easier and easier for artists
to promote their own sound,
the big, bad labels would have
less leverage. To some extent,
that has happened, and is hap-
pening; artists from Radio-
head to Lil Yachty are finding
Internet-based self-promotion
as more than enough to reach
their fans. But as Apple Music
and Spotify get bigger and big-
ger, it’s possible that artists’
temporarily-seized power will
slip from them. Apple Music
has already offered exclusive
streaming deals with artists,
where a given album is released
on Apple Music before its made
available publicly. While it may
mean labels have less control,
it’s possible the control has just
shifted to a different group of
old people in suits with only
bottom lines on the mind.
Where does Tidal fit into all
this?
Let’s pretend Tidal grows to
command a significant chunk
of the music streaming indus-
try (let’s call it 12 million sub-
scribers and rising with the
industry trend). Jay Z (who,
in this case, is both a busi-
nessman and a business, man)
becomes the owner of one of
the most successful streaming
services in the world. An art-
ist who came up through the
innovation-induced earthquake
that was Napster and the MP3
would now be at the helm of a
service that appears to be the
foreseeable future of music
distribution. Tidal’s claims to
be an “artist owned coalition,”
and its revenue streaming roy-
alty numbers back it up; Tidal
gives a little less than seven
times more money in royalties
per play to its artists than Apple
Music or Spotify. Tidal also
offers a high-fidelity stream-
ing option, which streams the
music as close to the quality
the artists intended when they
recorded it as possible.
In an ideal world, Tidal is the
foil, or at least one ingredient
in the antidote, to profit-driven
labels controlling the distribu-
tion of music. In all likelihood,
Tidal is not going to survive,
because it’s just a really bad
business. But a world where
it did (and where we wouldn’t
need to watch Taylor Swift’s
rendition of Drake’s rendition
of Atlanta rap music on Apple
ads) would be better for the
music industry.
I
f you search for one song
on YouTube, you will find
hundreds of covers for
it. It’s amazing. From solos to
duets to group versions, there
are so many
different
ways people
adapt a song
to create
something
new and dif-
ferent.
One
original
piece of art
creates an
array of
new products — if you search
for a play or musical, you might
discover years of revivals
following its original premiere.
Art is so complex, and so are
people.
There are endless possibilites
to create products that are both
passionate and creative, and
therein lies the versatility of
art.
You can listen to a song and
love different things about it
every time you play. Someone
looks at the score of that song
and plays it his or her own
way. Then someone sings it
his or her own way. Hence the
never-ending and unbelievably
engaging way in which art
proves its versatility.
There is a lot of debate
surrounding this idea of
whether or not an original
song or piece of art should be
changed hundreds or even
thousands of different ways.
Some think these adaptations
take away from the original
song or artist. However, some
of the best talent I’ve ever seen
comes from younger artists
finding inspiration from other
established artists and creating
something original from it.
Shows like “The Voice” or
“American Idol” are prime
examples of these artistic
projects. Singers hear a song,
and they can make it sound like
something new by adding their
own talent and skills.
Versatility, in its simplest
terms, is the ability for
something to be adapted into a
different form or changed. Art
that looks or sounds one way
can be turned into something
different.
Versatility could also be
defined as the ability to serve
many uses. This seems, on one
level, a bit strange considering
most of us mutually appreciate
art for its ability to grant
pleasure and entertainment.
It’s amazing that it can serve
a purpose beyond solely
entertaining an audience. We
have different reasons for
choosing certain art — different
needs, different expectations.
One person might go see
a show on a Saturday night
because they are exhausted
from their week and want to
relax. Others might go because
they adore the lead and have
seen every show that actor has
starred in. Or, one might see the
show because 15 years ago they
saw its opening and they want
to see how it has changed.
Hence the brilliance of it —
layered versatility. Art serves
people differently and it is
constantly evolving.
I find the versatility of art
to be an incredible topic to
explore because it illuminates
what a privilege it is to engage
in so many different types of
art and witness what artists
produce. It is clear to me that
this idea extends far beyond
artists and their craft.
How do we gain versatility
as students, leaders and
influencers? There are ways we
can add more dimension and
knowledge to what we already
invest our time into, we just
need to be willing to find them.
The emerging challenge
while creating and innovating
is fighting the tendencies
that threaten our ability to be
versatile. We often fall into
a rhythm of what we’re good
at. We find ourselves stuck in
a safe niche, allowing us to
encourage our strengths in our
given talent, while avoiding
our weaknesses. All of us fight
versatility by simply remaining
within the confines of what
works best for us. We don’t
always try something new
or explore new possibilities
because it is easier to see
success from what we know we
can do well.
Many activities we are
involved with here on campus
or even in years to come require
collaboration, which drives us
toward creativity, because all
of us have our own strengths
to contribute. Often the best
concepts or ideas come from
people offering what they know
best and allowing others to
support what they lack.
It’s beneficial for others if
we apply our own strengths
towards our work. But by
exploring other things outside
of our realm of comfort, we can
discover aspects of ourselves
that complement our existing
strengths. If you’re a skilled
leader and find yourself in some
sort of leadership position, you
can probably learn the most
about how to serve in that role
better by observing someone
else’s leadership. By putting
yourself in an environment
where you don’t lead, but are
rather being led, you may just
realize you have something
different to offer and find room
for new creativity and growth.
Perhaps the best thing
we could do for ourselves is
further explore the concept of
versatility by acquiring more
skills and passion towards
what we already love. Just like
the covers of popular songs or
revivals of well-known plays,
you’ll probably find there are
hundreds, or even thousands, of
ways to achieve that.
Kadian is exhausted from
studying and needs to relax at
a show. To score tickets, email
her at bkadian@umich.edu
The versatility of
passion and art
COMMUNITY CULTURE COLUMN
BAILEY
KADIAN