WTF is a "Blipster"

[New York Times Via Brooklyn Vegan]
As anyone who glanced at the free-for-all slug out that took place in our comments section last Friday will tell you, the issue of race in rock music can be a touchy subject. It's a complex issue that touches on a variety of themes including white guilt, racial stereotypes and accusations of novelty. The fact that a number of rock bands with black members have found critical and commercial success recently has begun to change people's perception vis-a-vis race and music though, which makes the article that the New York Times published yesterday all the more incendiary. I realize it's the responsibility of the press to report on changes in our culture, but for my money this article accomplishes little more than pointing out how "different" and "outsider" black rock artists and fans are. It also needlessly draws attention to a blatantly segregational term like "blipster." Read the article and leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Posted in: EDITORIAL

17 Responses

January 29, 2007 at 1:06 p.m.

while i think the article approaches this subject the wrong way, the internets is misinterpreting the message here. i think the most important thing to take from this article is not that there's this fringe group of black people immersed in white culture, but that the black community is beginning to reject the notion that there is a definitive way to "act black" and taking an interest in aspects of "white culture" does not make them less black.ignoring the 800 pound elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.however, i do agree that terms like blipster are totally unnecessary.

January 29, 2007 at 1:33 p.m.

blipster = offensiveback when i was at school ten years ago, the black kid who hung with us indie/punkers got called "coconut" by the other black kids (coconut = brown on the outside, white on the inside)it weren't a big deal at all, but this is the uk i'm talking about, seems like the US is still more segregated in mindset/attitude.I WAS IN OTHER MUSIC, NY WHEN THE FIRST BLOC PARTY ALBUM WAS NEW, AND THE OTHER MUSIC STAFF HAD PUT A LITTLE EXPLAINATORY LABEL ON THE CD DESCRIBING THE MUSIC, AND ALSO MENTIONING UNNECCESSARILY THAT HE WAS BLACK! well done, other music, you prejudiced idiotsseems like any black kid into "white" [indie] music gets shot by both sidesthat said, used to be that any issue of the nme with a black face on the front sold a lot lot less issues, and that's a factsound don't have a colour

January 29, 2007 at 1:38 p.m.

I'm not saying that ignoring the issue is the way to go by any means, but it seems like this article isn't reaffirming that there's not any one way to "act black" so much as it's pointing out how "out of the ordinary" black rock fans are. I would think that the people who already feel a little out of place at rock shows as described in the article are going to feel a hell of a lot more uncomfortable now that there's a big sign hanging over their heads. It'll be like sideshow now, "hey, maybe we'll run into one of those blipsters at the show tonight."

January 29, 2007 at 3:28 p.m.

It's not really about this particular writer at the Times using the word, the only time they reference blipster is by saying it has an entry on urbandictionary.com...as we all know one of the most respected sites on the internet. I think Adrian was on the right path with his comment, but I don't think African-Americans in our country are specifically aiming to not "act black." Black people have always been fans of rock, it's mainly the white stereotypes that make mass audiences that try to believe they only wear Fubu jeans and throwback jerseys.

January 29, 2007 at 3:58 p.m.

when i was being interviewed for an article, what i got on from the questions i was being asked was that it was going to turn out to be an insightful feature on an overlooked subgenre of people. by keeping a correspondence with the interviewer, i found that the article went through nine editors. she even told me she cringed when she read the final version. and if i can quote the essay i did on my band's website about the article, "what could have been a great article got diluted into 'black indie rockers for dummies.' "i, and the interviewer, thought this was going to be a commentary on black stereotypes, but it seems as though the editors made people like me a stereotype.

January 29, 2007 at 4:55 p.m.

that sucks. i guess as a society we're not comfortable talking about race, so we either ignore or spotlight the shit out of it with things like this.

January 29, 2007 at 5:43 p.m.

i wasnt trying to say that black people are trying to not act black. the fact that there is a notion of acting black is a large part of the problem. i was just saying there is an ideology shift where they can like things that arent perceived as black without being considered a race traitor. and the stereotypes of "blackness" have been bred from within the black community as much as they have been from outside.

January 29, 2007 at 8:45 p.m.

"the fact that there is a notion of acting black is a large part of the problem."i'd say that's pretty much exactly what the problem is.

January 30, 2007 at 3:47 a.m.

the entire notion of "acting black" makes no sense at all. one could argue that blackface minstrels were "acting black." ha. i just didn't want to be portrayed as someone whose existence is defined by being a black kid who likes indie rock. it just so happens that it's what i like. i actually wrote a lengthy piece about it on my band's website, which is available through the link where my name is. haha. yeah, yeah; shameless plug, but i really wanted people to get my take on the situation, since my quote was the most generic thing i said during the entire interview. ugh.

January 30, 2007 at 1:57 p.m.

"being a black indie rocker is unique, but it'''s not SPECIAL. it'''s no different from white kids who love hip-hop. no different at all."so true.i grew up listening to hip-hop, and i used to get people asking me "you know you're not black, right?"there's more to enjoying music than simply relating to content or style, or growing up in the same way as the performers did or something. for that to be true, you'd never have music change the way you look at something, which to me is a great deal of the promise music can fulfill as an art form.as a white kid from the suburbs, i obviously had little in common with chuck and cube. but i dug the music, and they had a message that quite literally expanded my worldview from small-town northern california. that perspective still affects the way i view the world to this day, and i'm quite thankful for that.

January 31, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.

it is different from the persective of a white person being into hip-hop music. even the ostracism isn't the same. black people already deal with enough **** as it is. the reaction from the black community in respnose to alternative lifestyles is MUCH stronger and has a larger cannotation. white people might think you're being stupid or doing something unneccessary, even trying to hard. But it is a sense of betrayal with the black community it very literally seen as an affiliation with the enemy, in many senses (and i'm only speaking to some experiences, not all). But regardless of the degree, you likign hip-hop is not at all the same thing.

January 31, 2007 at 1:23 p.m.

[...] So, as we reported on Monday, the New York Times published a poorly thought-out feature piece about blacks in indie culture. Needless to say, it caused quite an uproar. Douglas Martin (pictured here), one of the individuals interviewed for the article (who also weighed in on the comments section of our original story,) has written a response to the article on his website. Basically, he lists all the problems he had with the story and how it seems to have been radically changed from its original intent after going through nine editors. Martin also goes on to clarify his position on being a black indie rock musician and fan, since the article, as he says, made his experience “seem like the plot of an after-school special.” It’s an interesting read, and you can find it here.            [...]

January 31, 2007 at 2:20 p.m.

i'm by no means trying to say that the level of exclusion i felt is the same, society-wise...i'm just saying that it's crazy that terms like "betrayal" and "exclusion" on a societal level even have a place in a conversation about what kinds of music you listen to. that's all.

January 31, 2007 at 4:40 p.m.

Bol's take on things...http://xxlmag.com/online/?p=7279Always an interesting read

January 31, 2007 at 5:24 p.m.

Obvious an opinion as it may be: I'm so sick of hearing about hip hop being "black music" and rock n' roll being "white music."

January 31, 2007 at 6:35 p.m.

that's essentially what we're all saying. prefix for president in '08!

February 14, 2007 at 7:13 p.m.

[...] Seminal punk-funkers (and possible original Blipsters, just to bring up that controversial label one more time) Fishbone will return with the new album Still Stuck in Your Throat on April 24. Production assistance on the album comes courtesy of David Kahne, who was in the studio with Fishbone during their heyday in the ’80s and has more recently worked with The Strokes. U.S tour dates in support of the album are expected to be announced shortly. For now, the band is heading over to Europe and then moving on to Australia. Continue you on after the jump for Still’s track listing, which includes song titles like “Skan ‘N Go Nuttz” and “Party with Saddam.”1) “Jack Ass Brigade” [...]

Add a comment


 

Prefix Logo

  Site Index RSS
Email or Username: Password: Register
Recent Comments
Forum Posts