CW Stoneking at Lanfranchi’s
Emmy Hennings skewered CW Stoneking in a review of his recent Lanfranchi’s gig.
“Taking on a voice the very timbre of which denotes isolated, rural, African-American poverty – everything that Stoneking is so patently not – does not make for ‘authenticity’ any more than would painting your face with boot polish. His shtick is within half a centimetre of a Black & White Minstrel Show.”
It’s brutal. But on point.
I’ve listened to the record a few times. Collecting my thoughts for a review that seems almost unnecessary now. It’s a weird and outdated kitsch that’s been lapped up in unexpected corners of the music world. When I interviewed Alex Jarvis on my radio show the other day he raved about the singer, although Jarvis is compromised by the fact he’s worked with CW doing music workshops in outback communities. But he’s not the only one. The first time I heard CW’s name was when Tim Ritchie highly recommended the record on Radio National.
In any case, it’s a killer review.
I dunno, the interesting thing is that he’s in character all the way - as far as anyone who knows him knows, even in bed with his wife. He’s a very strange individual, no doubt, but it’s hard to fault his love of the music, and I’m not sure whether Emmy’s being a bit more politically correct than necessary in (seemingly) not wanting a white Australian guy to do the blues too authentically. What’s up with that? Seems a bit of a strange objection to me.
Peter
15 Feb 07 at 11:09 am
If CW’s doing the blues as a kind of ‘life’ cabaret, then that’s kinda interesting.
But if it’s a “white Australian guy” trying “to do the blues authentically” then that’s a whole other thing. How authentic can a person be who fakes their accent to sing about a completely foreign existence? It’s not “authentic”; it’s imitation, which is quite different.
I’m intrigued, but it’s more sociological than musical.
The Stooges’s blues came filtered through a prism of industrialised Detroit factories - that was a really authentic interpretation. Ed Kuepper’s Electrical Storm was blues, but totally local and Queensland - that was real in a fundamental way too.
True, by the time these bands happened, they weren’t really blues anymore. They were an authentic interpretation of the sound. But even lower down the chain you can get some realness. CW doesn’t strike me as very real… Never met him or seen him live though.
matt
19 Feb 07 at 6:32 am
“Isolated, rural, African-American poverty” is Emmy’s own interpretation of what the timbre of my voice denotes, and she should keep her fantasies to herself, it’s actually the natural tone of my voice. As far as being labelled a racist for singing in an American accent, that is plain old ridiculous. To the guy who pronounced me not very real though admits never having met me or seen me play - I will strike you as very real when I punch you in the face, you fucking jerk. That’s all for now. I wouldn’t like to go round Emmy Henning’s joint for dinner, she probably would cook a curry with nothing but salt and pepper to remain authentic to her heritage or some crap like that.
C.W. Stoneking
2 Mar 07 at 9:16 am
C.W.,
I thought Emmy’s review was well-written and an interesting counterpoint to the many flattering reviews you’ve received. I’d be really interested to hear a longer reply from you, though. Surely you’ve thought about some of the issues it raised before, given how much effort you put into your music. Perhaps Mess+Noise would publish your response?
Probably better than threatening bloggers with violence!
Andy
Andrew Ramadge
5 Mar 07 at 8:12 am
Harsh reviews hurt, so I can understand CW’s response. But I’d like to second Andrew’s call for an actual reply to Emmy’s review.
matt
7 Mar 07 at 4:36 am
I’ve seen C.W. play at Woodford and here in Brisbane and the way I see it is that authenticity develops when someone loves what they do, regardless of time, place or cultural context. Stoneking is, in a way a, reincarnate of many of the blues musicians of the 20’s and 30’s. He may not be American and sure that may not be his real accent (but I think it is), but when he sings you can feel the presence of something greater in the room. A memory that no-one knows they have. I have thought about this topic previous to reading this thread, and the conclusion I came to was that this man lives, sings and breathes the blues and that to me makes him as authentic as you’re likely to find in today’s world of tripe and mass production.
Dave
p.s. In response to C.W’s “threat” I think that we should not force the man to justify his words or music and only encourage that he make more. If you’re reading this C.W., you don’t have to threaten anybody mate, just do your thing and ignore those who don’t follow.
Dave
18 Mar 07 at 4:37 pm
I think the comment “although Jarvis is compromised by the fact he’s worked with CW doing music workshops in outback communities” is bullshit.
That sounds even more “racist” to me than the original imputation.
Chris
12 Apr 07 at 10:37 am
Chris, you misinterpreted me. I meant he’s giving love to CW as a friend, rather than as an objective observer. What’s racist about that?
matt
12 Apr 07 at 10:52 am
the thing that everybody seems to not be aware of is that this guy - as an artist - is simply doing what all authentic artists do : become a channel through which the art (whatever it is) is expressed. In short, he is a medium - a person through whom a “tribe” is speaking - a tribe that he is not unrelated to given the fact that he was born in the N.T. and spent time in Katherine and Snake Bay (Melville Island) as well as four years (between the ages of three and eight) living among tribal people at Papunya Settlement where his closest mates were Aboriginal kids his age and older.
His lineage is also peculiar. His grandparents and great-grandparents hail from the backwoods of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Indeed, many of them were coal miners and railroad people. His father’s grandfather - Charles Sylvester Marshall - was also quarter Native American (Susquehanah Iroquois) and had a long association living and working with black American people in America in the 60s and 70s.
All the kefuffle of this blog reminds me of the old saying - “you can spot a bad critic when a discussion of the musician is more important that a discussion of the music.
Will
4 May 07 at 10:22 am
thanks will, that’s the kind of background/context i could have done with before writing my original post. pretty amazing story he/you’ve got. you’re CW’s dad, Billy Marshall Stoneking, right?
on the other hand, although it’s true that this is just a blog, i don’t agree with your ‘old saying’ - there are two parts to critically responding to a piece of music (or any kind of art): the work itself and the context in which they made it. both are vitally important to understanding what’s going on. if the music isn’t good or at least interesting in some way you’re not going to write about it - most people agree CW’s music meets that criteria. but once you’ve covered the music, it’s the story behind the music that fascinates.
matt
4 May 07 at 1:32 pm
I was already aware of CW Stoneking’s background when I wrote my original review, and it didn’t change my discomfort for what he was doing.
And I have a big, big problem with the idea that ‘authentic’ artists simply ‘channel’ ideas. For a start, this conception of ‘authenticity’ has historically been applied to black artists as a way - whether consciously or not - of keeping them within the spectrum of ‘primitive’. Artists who are perceived as being *not in control* of their own artistic output (”It simply pours out of them!”) are generally regarded as pre-cultural (what they do is ‘natural’) and sometimes, pre-verbal (their voices are babble, grunts, moans, etc). Black artists are more likely to be perceived this way than white ones.
What this does is deny a great deal of agency to artists regarded in this way - as shamans, to use an umbrella term. The musical advances made by such artists are often regarded as unconscious or arrived at accidentally; one of the running subtexts in popular music is that black artists make the breakthroughs but white artists ‘act’ upon them. So black artists, while seen as innovators, are often not seen as consciously being so. Particularly with regards to the blues, I think, where the rhetoric of the uncanny/otherwordly/primitive is so strong.
And I really *don’t* see how a white man can speak for, or on behalf of, an indigenous Australian community, no matter his personal connections to them.
emmy hennings
4 May 07 at 2:20 pm
Seems I’ve stumbled across this a bit late. It does strike me as curious that people feel the need to scramble around finding justifications for the notion of authenticity, or (as in this case) justifying why something CAN’T Be authentic.
It has happened to Gillian Welch (apparently she’s not ‘real’ because she writes songs about miners and so on in Southern America, but she herself is from (gasp) California and has parents who are film-makers or something), and now CW Stoneking comes under this sort of dubious fire.
I have met the man. That is how he talks, hence how he sings. If you find it uncomfortable to listen to, consider it might be your problem, not some fault with his craft.
His ability to sing, play and especially to write songs in this style is extraordinary, especially in todays world. And to me it rings true - it feels geniune to me as I experience it. That’s what counts in my book, not pulling it apart afterwards.
His music moves me, what can I say? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it…
Jeff
4 Oct 07 at 8:49 am
Thanks for your input Jeff, but I think your arguments are a bit reductive. Singing about southerners when you’re from California is a bit different to singing with a contrived American accent when you’re from northern Australia. One is telling other peoples’ stories, the other is grafting yourself onto those stories - which is fine, but it’s unreasonable not to expect questions around authenticity.
Music makers like CW are happy to accept critical plaudits, but you’ve gotta be prepared to take the critical “pulling it apart afterwards” too.
There is something interesting about CW - that’s why all these people have engaged in the debate - but I think there’s something disappointing about the defensive and ultimately nonconstructive approach from CW’s camp. Cyclic Defrost tried to set up an interview between Emmy and CW - Emmy was even going to cook him some home cooked goodness. Mess + Noise put out an invitation too.
It’s fantastic that his music moves you, but musical criticism isn’t just about an immediate response to music; the context is just as important - that’s why the Beatles are more important than Oasis even though at times they both sound the same.
matt
8 Oct 07 at 11:31 am
Matt, you insist that his singing accent is ‘contrived’, even though I pointed out that this is the way he talks also in the experience I have from meeting him. I don’t think he sings in an affected accent at all. He also points that out in his amusingly blunt response above: ‘…it’s actually the natural tone of my voice’. I also find it an odd assetion that he is ‘grafting’ himself onto other people’s stories. Do you know for a fact that the stuff he sings about ISN’T from his own life? And even if it is not autobiographical, are they stories not as real as those of any other songwriter who draws on experiences outside of their own lives for their art?
Well, at least I found his response amusing. Just as you point out that artists have to take the knocks with the plaudits, people who dash off remarks implying that an artist is racist and inauthentic have to expect an authentic response if the artist in question happens across their insulting opinions. Are they not allowed a right of reply? I wonder what kind of response you or Emmy would have recieved from any other artists with a healthy (or otherwise) sense of self respect? Wouldn’t guarentee the exact same response of course, but I certainly don’t doubt CW’s sincerity ;-) Not saying you DESERVE violence or the threat thereof you understand.
As far as your disappointment at his response and lack of taking you up on the home-cooking + interview offer - he doesn’t owe her that after her hostile review, so don’t be sad. I found it interesting incidentally that Emmy felt the need to defend the quality of her cooking…
Look, jokes and jibes aside, I understand that people like to pull things apart after listening to them, but I’d dispute that it’s just as important as experiencing it - sounds like a music blogger’s conceit to me. No offense. All the best from one music fan to another.
Jeff
2 Nov 07 at 8:12 am
i have to say that cw stoneking’s heritage is west virginia hill billy on his father’s side - and pennsylvania hill billy on his mother’s side. both sets of grandparents were raised in the boosh (as they pronounce it over there) and during the earliest years of cw’s life - from the age of 3 to 8 he lived on an Aboriginal settlement, 275 ks west of the Alice. His influences are many and being a mutable sign he channels them with marvellous and spontaneous ease.
Billy
21 Oct 08 at 6:32 am
The quote taken from Emmy Henning in your post raises some interesting issues both about the nature of cultural criticism and the position of musical critics as well as the question of what counts as authentic in music.
I think there are two ways to read this: first a straightforward reading, dealing with the arguments put forward by Emmy and second a skeptical reading which takes into account the motivations of Emmy in her initial comments.
The first reading may be made around the term “authentic” that Emmy uses as a loaded signifier for the music and performance of CW Stoneking. It should be noted in advance that in none of CW Stoneking’s own thoughts or promotional material (that I have seen) does he make any claim that he is authentic in the way that Emmy implies. He just says that he feels drawn to the kind of music that he plays. If he sings with an American accent, and we don’t like the accent, we can just stop listening.
If CW Stoneking is touted as an “authentic” blues artist by other reviewers, and Emmy objects to this representation, then Emmy should take aim at those reviewers rather than the artist. If authenticity was the sole cornerstone of an artist’s intellectual property, and one measure of this was considered a kind of “truthfulness” to ones muscial or artistic heritage, then many musicians and other artists should also be called inauthentic (which also seems a rather essentialist line to take: the Beastie Boys were confronted with the same kinds of arguments when they became popular). It would also effectively halt a great deal that is innovative and interesting in music and art today.
But musicians and artists draw on a variety of sources for inspiration: their dispositions and experiences help to shape what works for them. See, for example, the Australian artist Gordon Bennett’s painting “Notes to Basquiat”, which draws inspiration from the life and experiences of another artist. For Emmy would this also be inauthentic?
The skeptical reading to Emmy’s initial thoughts is much simpler, and calls into question the timing of her comments and her strategy to be distinctive within a field of cultural criticism, rather than a direct attack on the artist. To explain, if a range of critics rave about an artist’s work, there is nothing distinctive about adding another platitude, and recognition is much more difficult to attain from such a move. But taking an opposing position to all the other cultural critics makes Emmy’s contribution distinctive. And, given the response and media coverage her comments have produced, she has been successful in this strategy. But this success as a cultural critic comes at a cost to the artist, who, by being directly attacked, and with few venues to respond, is denied “answerability”.
Shaun
29 Nov 08 at 10:06 am