1. isnt the guardian a rag anyway? I hardly read anything in there that doesn’t reek of pretension. “Come Around” is a big tune, end of story. Reggae artists shouldn’t even bother with mainstream media most times.

  2. I don’t wish to make excuses for what looks like a hatchet job of an article, and dismissive to boot — but perhaps the journo just didn’t like the guy’s music/persona? That’s possible isn’t it? I mean, I love reggae/dub — but there are plenty of rock artists I have great difficulty taking seriously at all. Perhaps that’s the case with this journo? The author’s gripe seems to be that the reggae artist is a kind of “Ice Ice Baby” Vanilla Ice wannabe. Having never heard the artist, I can’t comment.

    Back in the late 70’s to mid 80’s, a lot of mocking humour used to be heaped on what journos often called “cod white reggae acts” — Jamaicans laughed at them too, and there are examples on vinyl from people like Matumbi I think, which mock the fact that white artists just coudln’t get the beat right.

    Of course, that total dismissal of white men playing reggae has been modified, since people like The Disciples showed us all that white guys sure CAN play reggae, in fact, so well that Shaka takes them under his wing, and whatever anyone thinks of their tendency for repetitiviness, the very white Alpha and Omega certainly played their part in reviving dub’s flagging fortunes.

    Anyway, as I say, I don’t want to defend the Guardian journo’s hatchet job — but I do think people are over reacting. My over all gripe would be that reggae in general never gets serious coverage.

    I have to wonder though why the journo even wrote the piece if he hated the artist so.

  3. It’s just a really lazy piss-take which doesn’t engage with the music, or current reggae, or whiteness within reggae. It even has the obligatory Bob Marley mention in there and implies that people won’t remember the latest great weed tunes because they’re either too stoned or there aren’t any. But respect to you as always, greg!

  4. I agree with you on all points John. I have to say, if the journo so disliked the guy — why bother with the article? It’s simply a waste of column space. It’s not even “constructive” in its destructiveness!

Comments are closed.