Question 3 had an extra bit about Detroit:

3. Or political in so much as it is an attempt to reaffirm the music’s black roots? Kenny Dixon Jnr. has quite a militant stance on people sampling black music. Do you share them? If so, are they a reflection of Detroit’s troubled racial history do you think?

And the interviewer then wrote a response which was published, and Theo wrote a response to him which was also published:

INTERVIEW PAUL CLARKE TO THEO

Mr. Parrish,

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. As requested we have used your answers unedited on the site. We do this partly to address your obvious grievances with music journalism as expressed in your reply. Contrary to your obvious beliefs not all of us are out to entrap artists or devalue what they do – some of us do feel we have a genuine passion for good music and see it as our role, not to mention privilege, to communicate this to other people. Yes, the process is far from perfect and whilst we respect your right to regard music journalists as a whole as ‘lazy, weak, uninspired and uninformed’ to attack me personally as ignorant – and by extension racist – is something I feel moved to defend.

Firstly, the very format of this interview was far from ideal for either of us. An e-mail interview inevitably does not allow for nuanced debate or deeper explanation of questions and answers – it is essentially two monologues rather than a dialogue. As a result, save for asking a series of questions that require simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers – something I would not insult your intelligence by doing – it is inevitably going to involve raising points for debate. You criticise me for making a blanket statement but you either accidentally or intentionally misconstrued what I was saying. I was asking whether you thought the preconception that house had less meaning than jazz actually existed – not whether you agreed that it did. And the operative word was ‘often’ – not a definite statement. Also, your later assertion that ‘all music is black music’ is a blanket statement in itself.

Which leads us to your points about politics and race – emotive issues which are far from easy to discuss via e-mail. I accept that you do not have a responsibility to explain another man’s opinions – and indeed the question could have been phrased better for which I apologise – but I did not assume that you either agreed or disagreed with Dixon purely because of your race, as you claim. In fact, the very question was a chance for you to express your own personal opinion. You claim that to label you ‘political’ is ‘disrespectful’ but the statement ‘all music is black music’ is unavoidably political because, unfortunately, race remains a political issue. And, whether it is true or not, to state that without any qualification or explanation could be interpreted as ‘militant’. If a white or Asian musician had made claims about the racial roots of their music (as you do in the Sound Signature statement ‘the medicine in the dance….is originally ! African’) we would ask them to explain themselves too.

In summary, I would have loved to have discussed these points with you in person but I thank you for an interesting response nevertheless. Some of us hacks do seek to engage with the issues around music on a deeper level and stimulate intellectual debate rather than simply buffing up our own egos however, and I feel that it is a shame that you have tarred us all with the same brush for whatever reason. However, this has in no way marred my enjoyment and appreciation of your music – of which I remain an avid admirer.

Paul Clarke

THEO REPLIES:

Paul, Thank you for responding, I find it thoroughly amusing that your response to my responses demonstrates more journalistic prowess than your original questions. Yes I attack weak journalism-because I believe in what I do and your writing has the power to add more than just the recorded notes. That’s my point – engage those you feel interested enough to try to expose on a specific level – ask me about the snare on my fourth release for example- you should feel moved to defend yourself the way I responded. Anyone with a deeper commitment to what they occupy their time with should.

Ok, it is the want to elaborate that makes any discourse possible, or even interesting- not the method of discourse- yes the phone is more direct-in person is even better- but e-mails allow for thinking , word choice, and the ability to convey, in my opinion, in a more mirrored fashion to ones thoughts and emotions. Its the closest to sitting down and hand writing a letter that we have these days, but that’s just my opinion.

The fact that you asked’ why I thought….’ and then injected your perception/statement is a lazy way of generating chatter from a person, and keep them limited to your point of view all at once. I never told you I thought anything until now. You have no idea what I believe, used to believe, could believe etc, until I answer that first question. Basics must be established, then we can discuss my creative motivations. First I must agree with you about the terminology used in describing what I do and what others have done. That’s where it starts – semantics. And yes that is a blanket statement, (albeit a true one). We overlook our foundations too often with western/ eurocentric points of view, and forget the place where all of our dna traces back to as a species on this planet.(this is elementary.)These roots are not racial roots they are human roots first. Humanity needs no qualification. They are not political because a person of color points out something he takes issue with. hey, but whenever someone says anything against a group of white men they run the risk of being labeled militant.

Also if you want to know about my politics then ask me directly- don’t infer responses by my potential responses to questions about another man’s views. This is done repeatedly in all media when a person of color has views that don’t sit well with the status quo it is a political device used by media to quickly know whether to like or dislike that second person of color’s stance, by proxy. It never really gets into the complexities of either individual-thus painting us to most of the world as highly creative, intuitive, emotional people that happen to be intellectually simple -It gets old, you hope for someone to address and portray you as is, but its usually in reference to what some other guy said or did.

Also you ask very loosely of Detroit’s ‘troubled’ racial history, as if this is the reason for the ‘militant’ stance you sense from Mr. Dixon. That history is very real and effects the lives of everyone in Detroit today. The racial history of Detroit is predicated on issues of equality in America- issues of equality in America have to do with issues of equality world wide. To know little by way of experience and offer an adjective so flimsy is what is disrespectful. Its like calling colonization, the middle passage, slavery, servitude, segregation, and the multitude of events that historically led up to the racial events that took and take place today in Detroit ‘troubled’. Ask someone you know about the Hansworth riots, and if troubled as an adjective trivializes what went on there. See? all that from ‘Troubled’ -I’m just illustrating its better to stick to asking strictly about the music-not the surrounding conditions.

Its easy from your point of view to offend someone with your manner of questioning, then get offended, and defensive because of his responses, call your detached questioning and its lack of clarity an attempt at intellectual discourse, and write him off as an egotist, all the while saying how you still enjoy his music…. Then why were there no questions in your inquiry about ‘his music’? My point is its obvious you like to write about music- keep it that way. The personalities behind the note patterns rarely match up- that’s because people generate those personalities, and people cannot be understood in a page of questions. People also know when the journalist really listens, because the questions they have denote a certain specificity akin to the obsessed, if you care about that persons output, let it show. Its the assignation of personal goals and preconceptions to another persons existing concepts made audible that initiates a dangerous misunderstanding. You run the risk of misrepresenting those you seek to understand. Sometimes artists jump in for proper representation when an interview begins with ‘Why do you think….etc.’ Maybe ‘What do you think…..’ might make for a more open discourse. That is of course if your intention truly is to create better music journalism. If its not, then leave it to those who have a passion for it. Also, as a suggestion, bringing up historical events w Anyway, feel free to print this as well , but only if you print your first response to me. P.S. -Go See ‘Bamboozled’ by Spike lee, if you saw it see it again.

Best

Theo Parrish
Sound Signature

Cheers,
Angie

On the d/l

http://www.phonicarecords.com/product/view/67908

Resi Claart coming up on a http://www.frijsfo.com/ 12″ v. soon…..