As I’ve probably explained before, Iceland’s “export music” only comprises a small fraction of the music that is created and performed here.1 A curiousity I’ve picked up on while living here is that what foreigners typically know as “Icelandic music,” Icelanders typically know as “ugh, more cute crap.” (“Cute” being a translation of the word “krútt.”) Whereas in the States I’d typify “cute” music as naive, simplistic, nice, and often lo-fi; here the concept is extended quite a bit to cover music that is often dramatic, energetic, sophisticated, epic, nuanced, virtuoso, and typically both experimental and highly developed.
So for an American underground music fan it can be conceptually difficult to reduce Sigur Rós and Múm to simply being “cute” bands. Indeed, when we first heard these bands we perhaps thought “shoe-gazey post-rock” and “glitchy experimental electronica” respectively. Perhaps the common denominator in Icelandic music as seen from abroad was thick Icelandic accents combined with refreshing inventiveness and stellar musicianship. Though — I’ll admit that with their latest releases, Múm and Amiina have collided into almost same band. Still, as an outsider it has been hard for me to understand the reduction of Sigur Rós et al to cute. Feels like showing somebody paintings by great impressionists and getting the response, “ugh, more paintings with flowers.” Feels like they miss the point.
Recently I saw Amiina perform and was blown away by some of the simple but effective things they were doing with meter in one song and just how harmonically rich and beautiful it all was. Many of my musical friends here invariably scoff with disinterest in response. “Isn’t it just more xylophones and accordions? Ugh, just more cute crap.” Another one of these friends even once put on a Yann Tiersen album (musically and thematically just as cute as, if not cuter than, any krútt band). He also said he likes Watercolor Paintings (who are as cute to an American as Múm are to an Icelander). But of Amiina he complains “they’re such cute cliche: wearing old blue dresses, and all their artwork, it all fits formulaically.”
So perhaps that gets closer to the heart of it. Having not been steeped in it I’m oblivious to the cliche, and therefore see beyond it. Or actually I’ll give in and say perhaps I enjoy it. I like old things. I like bright colors. I always have had a profound appreciation for both. And I am sick of guitars and “rock music.” I don’t see any reasonable grounds to fault a creative scene whose aesthetic is influenced by the unique place from which it originates — the colorful houses, the old simple architecture, instruments that have been with their heritage almost since they crawled out the caves (or actually in our case, rock mud and turf huts, which wasn’t so long ago). Especially when these are the most innovative and interesting of the bands in Iceland..
I think people are too quick to see the cliches outside themselves and their identity, but quite oblivious to the cliches they participate in (or at least not as quick to fault themselves as they would fault others). I guess I grew up surrounded by a completely different set of cliches. When we were growing up cool kids had dyed-black Spock-haircuts and Locust belt buckles.
That was a cliche, It was comon for people to feel either associated or disociated — to like those people or dislike them — based their own internalization of the aesthetic, or lack thereof. Remember Vice magazine, American Apparel, and fixed-gear bicycles? Oh yeah, as far as I know that’s still going on. Oh, you’re into punk or hardcore and tattoos? Same thing. A discounted, package deal on your tastes saves you a whole lot of exploration and thought. You find these things everywhere from the mainstream all the way over to Plan-It-X folk-punk, K-recs indie, or anarchist activism.
We all fall in for external ideas and aesthetics. Nobody is entirely original. That’s just an impossibility. But there are different ways to go about it. Some people borrow bits, analyze, synthesize, repurpose. This is perhaps often on a more conceptual or foundational level, which is then rebuilt or acted upon. But others adopt more directly — often superficially. This is the same difference as between a band that copies another band and a band that identifies with the same principles as another band. It is a question of depth. Is there meaning and thought, or is it vapid?
To my ear there is little-to-no superficial musical copying among the Icelandic krútt bands. Perhaps on the visual aesthetic side of things, but it’s hard to say. Definitely not any more than any other musical scene. Nobody has absolute aesthetic pitch. Whereas we can see a color and identify it’s frequency (blue), aesthetics are more like how most of us (without absolute pitch) hear notes. If we hear just one note we don’t know what it is, but when we hear it in the context of other notes we get a much greater understanding. When we experience two things aesthetically we can compare and contrast them (whereas in a void each is meaningless). And so it seems only natural that aesthetic works are developed in comparison or contrast to others.
Recently I’ve been reading a couple popular science books about the mind. I wonder how much the brain predetermines which type of idea+aesthetic adoption you do, and which you’re even capable of doing. I’ve sometimes been amazed at the ease others have at adopting some new trend. On one hand I’ve scoffed at how there must be nothing inherently “them” if they can apparently change so easily. (But of course the structure of their mind remains unique to them.) But on the other hand, their minds poses an advanced ability to grasp and digest the fullness and nuances of some aesthetic+conceptual movement in a way I never could. And doing so–utilizing such an advanced analtic and emotional mental capability–I assume, brings them fullfillment.2 Perhaps “tools” are not so despicable after all. Perhaps they are only human.
It is unhuman to be driven soley by intellectual persuits — even intellectual ideals in creative persuits (such as one I was advancing just three paragraphs previous). Fullfillment comes in many forms — emotional, physical, mental. From exploration or repetition. Shared and in solitude. We all have different minds, which are in various ways flexible to growth and change and in other ways predetermined. Each mind has its own requirements for fullfillment.
I guess this line of thought leaves us off here. Like what you like — scoff at everything else. Your mind will never grow beyond or transcend its boundaries. Even if you’re sarcastic and cynical (or just ironic), you’re perfectly fine how you are. But if you’re into it, open your mind.
[1] Iceland has a quite dominant pretentious contingent. (Which explains why we are building an Opera House that per capita is many many x bigger than Copenhagen’s at the cost of 2% of our GDP.) As such there is a lot of cultural and governmental support for “high music.” And classy jazz music. But there’s rock and indie, and there’s also metal. For a while there was a bustling hardcore scene. Oh yes, and being basically European, there is of course the electronic dance music! But keep in mind that we are also talking about a smalltown in a small country trying to be cosmopolitan — so more prevailant than a scene or scenes are countless one-off imitators of foreign acts or foreign scenes. What saves the music scene is that the amount of musicians per capita is huge and concentrated. Also, it’s not exclusively relegated to just a youth movement — people of all ages are active in music here (and so there is a future!). These counter-balance the insulating barrier of hundreds miles of ocean that makes Iceland an unfeasable stop for most touring bands.
[2] There are so many ways in which we cannot change the human mind. These include the behaviors that are exploited by P.R. and advertising firms. There is no becoming smarter and overcoming them. The human is not a rational species and to imply that it is is detrimental to understanding our condition. We are evolutionary designed for a different world. And since we can’t change our minds, we must change our world. We must abolish capitalism and its inherent expliotation of [our] consumer minds. Let our mind function the way it does for the right reasons — not for the benefit of corporate entities.