looking the part
Beatles producer George Martin once lamented, "Songs aren't as interesting these days because most young people listen with their eyes and not their ears."
Of the countless reviews of both our live shows and CDs/records, most are very good. The negative ones invariably focus on how we look. Blah blah overly casual blah blah shorts on stage (it was like 100+ degrees, you prick) blah blah preppy lead singer blah blah plain and ordinary blah well-behaved blah blah too clean cut. If the Hat has any one "problem" that recurs, it's our image. We don't have one. We don't look like a band. We don't look like anything. We rock (arguably), but we aren't rock stars. At the same time, we're not quite dorky enough to pull off the rock god/rock geek image a la Cheap Trick and Weezer. We're simply not visually memorable (especially since we ditched that tired matching bowling shirt schtick). We just play our songs.
An excellent example of how this confuses people can be seen in a review of our CMW appearance here. With predetermined categories for analysis like "haircut", "nods to disposable fashion", and "indie rock footwear", it's no wonder Hannah was perplexed. Her comments are somewhat amusing and more or less accurate/fair - we don't look particularly badass. She was clearly more concerned with image than any other aspect of the band. She spent more time talking about Mike's puka-shell necklace (which is admittedly pretty lame) and our need to be "dirtied up" than about the music itself. We even scored pitifully low in "cool equipment", which is just dumb, since most bands at CMW aren't even playing their own gear. However, one key observation she makes - and what has always confused our detractors - is that our songs say "Let's rock and fucking roll!", but our look (as well as my self-referential lyrical schtick) says something more like, "We're Ruth's Hat and we're not going to hurt you."
People like to make big sweeping statements like, "it's all about the music", but it isn't, and everyone fucking knows it. Rock and roll is about style. And I don't just mean the mainstream bullshit that everyone with a modicum of taste hates categorically. Everyone KNOWS that Britney Spears is a ridiculous, manufactured entity, that her off-key caterwauling is just the soundtrack to her T & A. No, I'm talking about specific scenes, plenty of which ooze street cred. Do you really think any self-respecting neo-Ramones wannabe band would be seen in public without leather jackets and Chucks? To play dirty rock n' roll, you don't have to be dirty at all. You do, however, have to look dirty. Never mind that this sneering, faux atittude often borders on self-parody; it will almost always win you more fans than good songs.
Like Mr. Martin, I like the sound of rock n' roll. The Beatles certainly didn't look all that dangerous when they came to the States in the early 60s, but if you can't see past the silly shirt-and-tie merseybeat outfits and hear the rebellious, primal energy in John Lennon's voice, then you're not listening very hard. Early Beatles albums are often written off as silly pop and take a back seat to their trippier late 60s material. This is not to disparage the latter ("Abbey Road" is a fantastic album), but the Beatles in Hamburg circa 1961, playing sweaty rock n' roll all night, are the Beatles that I like best. They weren't yet big enough to have an overblown calculated image; they just happened to be the best goddamn band in Liverpool.
Early Beatles are an exception to an unfortunate rule: a band simply must look the part to be taken seriously. Hell, it's not as if I'm impervious to these things; image affects our opinion of everything. I guess I resent it...for obvious reasons. Typically, my only consideration in terms of fashion is deciding which plain black t-shirt to wear onstage.
Right about now, someone is probably noting that I myself am full of shit, that not having a style is, in fact, my style. And he/she wouldn't be entirely wrong. It's all about me, one way or another. People use music to create and understand their identities, and my identity is basically rooted in my refusal to assume and embrace an identity. As such, my rants are more about me than the "issues" they deconstruct or attack. In the words of Chuck Klosterman, "All criticism is really just veiled autobiography."
Of the countless reviews of both our live shows and CDs/records, most are very good. The negative ones invariably focus on how we look. Blah blah overly casual blah blah shorts on stage (it was like 100+ degrees, you prick) blah blah preppy lead singer blah blah plain and ordinary blah well-behaved blah blah too clean cut. If the Hat has any one "problem" that recurs, it's our image. We don't have one. We don't look like a band. We don't look like anything. We rock (arguably), but we aren't rock stars. At the same time, we're not quite dorky enough to pull off the rock god/rock geek image a la Cheap Trick and Weezer. We're simply not visually memorable (especially since we ditched that tired matching bowling shirt schtick). We just play our songs.
An excellent example of how this confuses people can be seen in a review of our CMW appearance here. With predetermined categories for analysis like "haircut", "nods to disposable fashion", and "indie rock footwear", it's no wonder Hannah was perplexed. Her comments are somewhat amusing and more or less accurate/fair - we don't look particularly badass. She was clearly more concerned with image than any other aspect of the band. She spent more time talking about Mike's puka-shell necklace (which is admittedly pretty lame) and our need to be "dirtied up" than about the music itself. We even scored pitifully low in "cool equipment", which is just dumb, since most bands at CMW aren't even playing their own gear. However, one key observation she makes - and what has always confused our detractors - is that our songs say "Let's rock and fucking roll!", but our look (as well as my self-referential lyrical schtick) says something more like, "We're Ruth's Hat and we're not going to hurt you."
People like to make big sweeping statements like, "it's all about the music", but it isn't, and everyone fucking knows it. Rock and roll is about style. And I don't just mean the mainstream bullshit that everyone with a modicum of taste hates categorically. Everyone KNOWS that Britney Spears is a ridiculous, manufactured entity, that her off-key caterwauling is just the soundtrack to her T & A. No, I'm talking about specific scenes, plenty of which ooze street cred. Do you really think any self-respecting neo-Ramones wannabe band would be seen in public without leather jackets and Chucks? To play dirty rock n' roll, you don't have to be dirty at all. You do, however, have to look dirty. Never mind that this sneering, faux atittude often borders on self-parody; it will almost always win you more fans than good songs.
Like Mr. Martin, I like the sound of rock n' roll. The Beatles certainly didn't look all that dangerous when they came to the States in the early 60s, but if you can't see past the silly shirt-and-tie merseybeat outfits and hear the rebellious, primal energy in John Lennon's voice, then you're not listening very hard. Early Beatles albums are often written off as silly pop and take a back seat to their trippier late 60s material. This is not to disparage the latter ("Abbey Road" is a fantastic album), but the Beatles in Hamburg circa 1961, playing sweaty rock n' roll all night, are the Beatles that I like best. They weren't yet big enough to have an overblown calculated image; they just happened to be the best goddamn band in Liverpool.
Early Beatles are an exception to an unfortunate rule: a band simply must look the part to be taken seriously. Hell, it's not as if I'm impervious to these things; image affects our opinion of everything. I guess I resent it...for obvious reasons. Typically, my only consideration in terms of fashion is deciding which plain black t-shirt to wear onstage.
Right about now, someone is probably noting that I myself am full of shit, that not having a style is, in fact, my style. And he/she wouldn't be entirely wrong. It's all about me, one way or another. People use music to create and understand their identities, and my identity is basically rooted in my refusal to assume and embrace an identity. As such, my rants are more about me than the "issues" they deconstruct or attack. In the words of Chuck Klosterman, "All criticism is really just veiled autobiography."
posted by Pj at 6:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home