The Roots
things fall apart
(hear it)

As I sat enthralled by this album - on headphones I heard details I was unprepared for - I couldn't help thinking about my Dad. He would not listen to one minute of this album. Why is that? He loves jazz, so he's not unprepared for complexity. By the same token, I perceive that he isn't fundamentally racist in music choices. Lyrical acrobatics entertain him in the work of Cole Porter. So what is it?

From a musical perspective, the primary point on which this music differentiates from jazz is in it's extreme rythmic expression. Secondarily, the music also replaces the melodic improvisation of that music with lyrical improvisation, albeit I suspect improvisation which has been recorded and recomposed. A consequence of these points is that the music may not be clearly expressed at low volumes, and that at higher volumes the music grabs the attention with persistent low-register transients and lyrics which are spoken in a clear, direct manner difficult to ignore. Something like opera, which my father listens to at extremely loud volumes, is still relatively unimposing, with its long consanant bass tones and melismatic singing in a foreign language.

So am I suggesting that he just doesn't want to have to pay attention? In reality, of course, people don't actually listen to music, but to their culture. My dad is, shall we say, unfamiliar with the music of the Roots. But when does the unfamiliar start to annoy rather than to intrigue?

bb, 9 Mar 08