”
“Eccentric performances are fueled by
contradictory
desires
for recognition and freedom” (8–9).
Francesca
Royster
When
I was twelve or thirteen years old, “Cream” by Prince was continuously played
on Mexican television. It was on channel four, perhaps the most heteroclite and
incoherent channel of national television (some say that channel four is the
worst channel of Mexican television): in the mornings you could watch old
American television shows, almost always portraying white men with cowboy hats
and guns or pioneers attempting to survive somewhere that now I imagine as
Kansas or Oklahoma or Idaho. Channel four also broadcasted old films and modern
American television series such as Step
by Step or Home Improvement. Everyday,
at perhaps two or three p.m., channel four uninterruptedly screened music
videos featuring a wide variety of musicians and styles, including 4 Non
Blondes, Mc Hammer, Inner Circle, The Police, Prince, and others. Thus, after
school, it was common for me to watch Prince and his sensual troupe performing
“Cream” at three p.m. on television. At first glance, Prince looked like a
masculine wonder, a rock star making love to his yellow guitar, constantly
surrounded by lots of hot white girls in negligees.
Something
in “Cream” by Prince suggested a path towards miscegenation or performative
hybridity, apparently only attainable through the enchantments of sound and
dance. That is how I was introduced to Post-Soul music in Mexico City, during
times of political turmoil and constant public assassinations. And it was the
eccentricity of Prince, his undefined and somewhat irreverent self-portrayal,
what allowed me to imagine masculinity¾and gender¾not only in terms of rigid and traditional definitions, but
also as a set of ontological maneuvers directed towards identity redefinition
and social change.
Francesca Royster suggests that soul
music is “the beat of heart and cock,” a gospel based sonic aesthetic that,
Royster suggests, “claims its roots in the shared cultural memory of black
history” (9). Indeed, soul music sounds to me as a call for political action
and trust in the future, whereas post-soul music sounds more like an invitation
to indulgence and individual confinement, either through sensuality or
collaborative pleasure. However, Royster accurately suggests that soul music
embodies a heterosexual sound and performance, while post-soul music breaks¾or at least attempts to break¾ the boundaries of the dominant
heteronormative rhythms and paces constantly shaping the energy of our bodies.
Therefore, Royster invites us to listen to post-soul eccentrics as a
proclamation for gender and sexual black liberation. It is the concept of the “post-soul
eccentric” that I would like to focus on this blog post.
Royster proposes that these eccentrics “have
created a controversial and deeply historically informed response to the
dehumanized black subject and stretched the boundaries of popular forms of
music, ultimately shaping a new public dialogue” (8). Royster proposes
musicians and performers Eartha Kitt, Stevie Wonder, George Clinton, Michael Jackson,
Grace Jones, Meshell Ndegeocello, and Janelle Monáe as the eccentric objects of
her study. But before I continue, I would like to focus for a moment on the
performance soul icon James Brown, specifically 1966’s “Papa’s Got a Brand New
Bag” and “I feel Good” as performed in The Ed Sullivan Show.
At
first, it seems that Brown is electrified, as his body meanders in its own
orbit as the witness of an unprecedented corporeal freedom. James Brown is a dancing
virtuoso and his body and the inner electricity fueling his performance are the
sole witnesses of its virtuosity. Despite the band and chorus playing in the
background, Brown’s body seems to perform in isolation, only propelled by an
inner strength that will find its post-soul parallel in performances such as
Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” or “Bad.”
Both
James Brown and Michael Jackson exhaust themselves in their performances, as
movement is accompanied in both by tension and a explosion of energy. Prince,
however, does not exhaust himself: his body portrays a rhythm at times
lethargic and at times gratuitously sensual. Prince’s performances are complex
and collaborative mise-en-scènes where a multitude of bodies carrousel under
the influence of pleasure. In this regard, Royster suggests that “Moments of
collaboration and contact are especially important for exposing and exploring
the contingency of identity” (27). While James Brown literally sweats alone on
the stage, without having any possible physical contact with other electrified
bodies, both Prince and Michael Jackson ¾and generally the post-soul performers analyzed by Royster¾ articulate a continuous collaborative
embodiment of liberation, whereas collaboration serves as the performative
framework to suggest both difference and the social acceptance of this
difference, at least within the confines of collaborative sonic formations. We
can also look at performative collaboration, as displayed in “Cream” or “Beat
It” or “Tightrope” by Janelle Monáe, as means of disidentification. José
Esteban Muñoz establishes in Disidentifications
that “disidentification is meant to be descriptive of the survival strategies the
minority subject practices in order to negotiate a phobic majoritarian public
sphere that continuously elides of punishes the existence of subjects who do
not conform to the phantasm of normative citizenship” (4). Muñoz draws from
Kimberlé Crenshaw’s notion of intersectionality to propose a process of
production, a mode of performance, and a hermeneutic (25). I identify in the
collaborative mise-en-scène of both “Cream” and “Beat It” performative and
sonic strategies that position the “eccentric” as a community-based subject
that through collaboration acquires her social validation, even if it is in a
marginal way. The eccentric, whereas we want to recognize her as a “radical and
dissonant subject,” thus challenges the normative citizenship suggested by
Muñoz.
For Royster, the “Eccentric
performance includes an initial off-centeredness, the use of not-so-ordinary
means and often seemingly conflicting methods of theatricality: the crossing of
generic boundaries of form or the crossing of gender or racial boundaries
through twice-removed actions… For musical performance, this off-centeredness
is particularly important in terms of sound: falsettos, growls, shifting
accents, gasps, shouts, tones that threaten to veer off-key, improvised lyrics,
breaks in the ‘fourth wall’ ¾ or
silence” (28). This enactment of eccentricity is evident in both Prince and
Michael Jackson, but it acquires a radical theatricality in Grace Jones sonic
and performative projects such as “My Jamaican Guy” & “Slave to the
Rhythm,” where new notions of black sexuality and, furthermore, human identity
are suggested as means of inter-subjective dialogue.
Soul
music sonically materialized the black experience in the United States through
the poietic transformation of gospel
and rhythm and blues into a lyrical and instrumental re-discovery of the black
body. But it is through post-soul sound and performance¾as Grace Jones enacts¾that both black historical memory and
the radicalization of afro-national redemption merges into the global stream of
capital and neoliberalism. As for my questions, I would like to invite you all
to reflect on the role of the State and its dominant axiological systems in the
confection of such post-soul sonic postmodernity. To what extent is the
eccentricity of such post-soul sonic artifacts a medium of political resistance
or mere political neutralization? How does the post-soul aesthetics have shape
your lives as postmodern American normative citizens? After all, we are
confined within the discursive and institutional limits imposed by the
university. Is the fact that we can theorize such relatively recent sonic and
cultural phenomena the evidence of its political failure? I appreciate your
time and attention, and I hope that you have a great day.
Fran, I found your introspection/contextualization in this post moving and (as Treviene put it) provocative. I was most taken by your patient reading of the “electrified bodies’” movements, as well as the link between “human identity … as means of inter-subjective dialogue” and the varying kinds of collaboration your post surfaces: collaborative pleasure, collaborative mise-en-scenes, collaborative embodiments, collaborative sonic formations, and (of course) all performative collaborations. I wonder if it might be possible to create a dialogue between these three highlights and the concerns Treviene outlines above. What might critical collaboration look like, and how might it not default to “making these texts do/say things that are removed from the ways they are experienced by … regular people”?
ReplyDeleteIn trying to answer this question for myself, I returned continually to your opening paragraphs, wherein which you situated yourself (and your initial encounter of these texts) as within the milieu of “regular people.” What’s gained or lost when critics enter the space of dominators, rather than collaborators, seems obvious enough that I won’t go into it too deeply, but I do think you model in this post one way to consider collaborative thinking as practice/praxis. (Rereading this sentence, I’m reminded of our continual class discussions of “solidarity”…) What changes if we think of critical encounters not as excavations/autopsies—wherein something must be “found” or catalogued—but as inherently erotic encounters (as I think you do), through which tensions are realized, accentuated, negotiated, and sometimes even resolved? Would this make us more or less equipped at discussing the tendency to “project” political work upon the texts we discuss?
Lots to think about. Thanks again for this elegant post.
Thanks for this post, Francisco. One of the things I most enjoy thinking about, and that I feel most compelled by, is what I'll call the choreographic dimension of performance. By that I just mean interpreting bodies in spaces and in their movements. So I was really drawn to the choreographic readings of the videos in your post. I felt like it was giving me new ways of seeing, and new ways of making meaning from these performances.
ReplyDeleteThis sentence stands out to me: "I identify in the collaborative mise-en-scène of both “Cream” and “Beat It” performative and sonic strategies that position the “eccentric” as a community-based subject." Although our group was not explicitly assigned to write about Nicki Minaj and nicki-aesthetics, I can't help but try to map this idea of community-based eccentricity in performance over to Minaj's material-- especially her verse in "Monster" and the dual-Nicki interview for Elle. In both, Minaj interacts with another version of Minaj, arguably another character, but of course also interpretable as another facet of Minaj herself. If Nicki is interacting with another version of herself, can we also call this community-based eccentricity? Or, to move over to Munoz briefly, could intersectionality come to bear on what she's doing? It's especially noticeable (to comic effect) how Nicki refuses to answer Nicole's question about how a feminist-inspired form of empowerment "works for her." What accounts for this moment of silence literally hanging between these two versions of the same person?