Last Friday, the Reykjavik Grapevine published an incredibly thorough double interview with Jonsi Birgisson, the lead singer of Icelandic band Sigur Ros, and Nico Muhly, the young gay wunderkind composer who did arrangements on Birgisson’s astonishly beautiful solo record Go, which was released last week to high praise. If you are a fan of either of their work, you must read the interview, which took place in Reykjavik’s only gay leather bar. Muhly and Birgisson discuss their collaboration process, spontaneity, their admiration for Bjork (of course!) and most interestingly, what it’s like being a ‘gay nerd’ and what affect it has on their music. When the boys are asked directly by interviewer Haukur S. Magnússon whether gay people make different music than straights, the following exchange occurs:
‘Nico: Much, much better music. Because why? Because it’s informed. The gay person does not have an entitlement to life, rather a need to make the world into her image.
Jonsi: The gayness forces you to make stuff. I think it’s so fucked… If you’re going to feel good in this society we live in, you have to make something good. So you can feel good.
Nico: In my experience, straight composers get away with not thinking too hard about things. ‘It is or it is not, yada yada…’ just… blah. Whereas – and there are of course many exceptions – I hold true that gay people have to make their own garden, kind of, their own vocabulary, rocks and trees and plants.’
What do BUTT readers think? Is there something inherently better in the output of gay musicians, something more meaningful and heartfelt? Or does the gay man or woman looking for role models latch on to the visible out figures who perhaps especially of late, as in the case of Jonsi, Nico, and others, are making work that’s got a built in appeal to ‘gay nerds’? Let us know what you think. Below, a special bonus mp3 of Jonsi covering MGMT’s ‘Time To Pretend’ on Radio 1 recently.
Posted by Adam on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 |
icelandfag added on May 15, 2010 :
the leather bar is a shithole
Dan Johnson added on May 10, 2010 :
This is, for sure, a problematic generalization, but okay, there’s a grain of truth to it. I think Marc is actually pointing to the reason why in his dissent: why is Copland, the gay Jewish pinko composer, the one who created the de facto soundtrack of mainstream red-blooded Americana?
I think W.E.B. DuBois pointed to a kind of “double consciousness” that a member of a minority is required to cultivate—an understanding of both the dominant and the suppressed cultures—in order to survive. It even be argued that you don’t know what it means to live in the mainstream unless you’ve also seen it from the outside in. I can’t entirely agree with your dismissal of str8 musical culture, but there again I think you’re gesturing towards the artistic hazards of lacking that second consciousness: complacency, stagnation, a general failure of self-awareness.
Marc, it might also be overstating the case a bit to suggest that John Cage’s music has ever been “popular.”
Lan ge added on April 25, 2010 :
Hey mais c est une evidence ! Citez moi spontanément 10 musiciens Heteros au talent incontesté !
Marc from Halifax, N.S. added on April 15, 2010 :
Okay first: Nico Muhly is my hero, so this is meant with all do respect.
*cough*ahem*cough*
If gay composers present “the outside perspective” -whatever that means- then why were Tchaikovsky, Copland, Cage, Bernstein and (possibly) Ravel (and all the others I’m forgetting) so popular during their own lifetimes?
Why was Copland’s style synonymous with all-around Americanism if gay composers represented an “otherness” in their art? And in Tchaikovsky’s case, his gayness destroyed his creativity and caused him to take his own life. Also, notice that their music has NOTHING IN COMMON.
I’m a gay composer/songwriter/choir boy/clarinet-player/Patrick Wolf wannabe. But for me, music has about as much to do with my queerness as the size of my feet has to do with my near-sightedness. By pigeon-holing gay composers as such, we limit the range of expression they are capable of. If we do write better music than our straight, contemporary counterparts it is because we happen to be a talented bunch of people and our straight, contemporary counterparts are (with PLENTY of exceptions) endorsement-obsessed pop stars writing shitty ring-tune rap and nonsensical songs about “gettin’ some” masked with poorly thought-out metaphors for genitals that may or may not involve muffins.
And I’m not sorry at all to say that my two favourite composers (Bach and Vivaldi) were both heteros.
Well that was a rant and a half… sorry for the (probable) continuity errors.
john t added on April 14, 2010 :
Gay men are less than 5% of the male population, but much more than 5% of the population of talented musicians, composers, and producers. The answer to “do gays make better music” is a matter of taste, though. I’ve got plenty of gay authors on my bookshelves, and most of my favorite visual artists are gay men — but except for John Cage and Cecil Taylor (and in a completely different category, Soft Pink Truth) I can’t think of any gay musicians who really stand out among my favorites. I love Grizzly Bear, but I gotta say the straight guy writes their better songs (sorry, Ed).
Anthony added on April 14, 2010 :
I believe that queer people produce the best art, be it music, fashion, film etc. Simply being queer puts you on the outside; you push the boundaries just by your sheer existence. I think that this feeling of being an outsider removes the fear of rejection or disapproval from doing something original, creative or risky. Hence queers are the fore runners in the creative industries.
Brian Temple added on April 14, 2010 :
I recall being asked this question rather directly by my Music History professor. We had been studying Tchaikovsky and I was working on a recital which included a song cycle composed by Benjamin Britten. At the time it struck me as a strange question. How could being gay inform your compositional output in a meaningful or qualitative way? I think thematically there is no question; homosexual composers have historically fixated on oppressed and marginalized protagonists (Tchaikivsky’s ‘Eugine Onegin’, and Britten’s ‘Billy Budd’ come to mind).
If I understand what Jonsi and Muhly are actually saying, this marginalized existence may force homosexual composers (or artists generally) to create a world for themselves in which they feel safe or protected. I could see how this would inform one’s artistic output, but I would be wary of making qualitative judgments based solely on sexuality.
Nicholas added on April 14, 2010 :
Gay men don’t have both genders. Such a stereotype, and biologically not true. I’m a masculine man.
Jason added on April 13, 2010 :
I don’t know how much inquiry has been done into this…but I kind of think it might make sense biologically. Gay men perhaps have the best of both genders – empathetic insight of women combined with the logical dedication of men. I know that might sound sexist to some people, which I can totally see. Just my two cents.
PS I am a gay composer.
Prince Marolo added on April 13, 2010 :
I do not agree at all. I think a good artist looks beyond his sexuality… to define your music by your gayness is extremely limiting. Their arguments make no sense, so homosexuals make better music because they have been victims? Sorry, I don’t buy it. I enjoyed the interview nonetheless and hope these two girls make more music together.
ben added on April 13, 2010 :
i think if you are gay you may feel things that straight people may never feel in there life and so it informs your creative output in a very diffrent way to straight people
Muck added on April 13, 2010 :
I think the keyword here is ‘entitlement’, not necessarily gay. For example, there are plenty of entitled homos that turn out crappy work.