Missing presumed male

M.I.A. was interviewed by Pitchfork and had this to say:

And I just find it a bit upsetting and kind of insulting that I can't have any ideas on my own because I'm a female or that people from undeveloped countries can't have ideas of their own unless it's backed up by someone who's blond-haired and blue-eyed.

First off I should say that I'm not really a big fan of hers, or more accurately I've not really heard anything by her. I've heard one song, and it was pretty cool, but I wouldn't like to voice an opinion based on hearing one song. Obviously I'm posting this story because it bears such a resemblance to the whole Avril Lavigne songwriting business that was popular a few weeks back.

The first thing that actually occurred to me when I was reading this story was that I had no idea about the 'identity' of Diplo. I've got a Diplo album, a couple of mixes and a few remixes, all of which I think are superb. I love Diplo. And yet I have no idea 'who' he is. It became apparent to me that until reading this interview with M.I.A. that I had just defaulted to the position of Diplo's maleness. I guess when reading stuff about him they were probably using the male pronoun but I had given it no thought. Ditto his ethnicity. I'm now assuming Diplo is blond and blue-eyed. Though by this point of the interview I think she's talking more generally but it seems like a fair assumption. Here of course it could be well be of interest that in my mental defaulting I had never thought of him this way - white. What does that say? That I have a hard time with the idea of white males making decent music? Possibly.

So is M.I.A. right? The female question we'll come onto but just a few words on the 'people from undeveloped countries' thing first. It's the ghetto of 'world music' isn't it? We can give people the right to make 'world music' and stroke our chins at the 'exotic' but it takes a Damon Albarn or (looking further back because i'm too lazy to give this section any major thought/research) a Paul Simon to bring this into mainstream consideration. (The phrase 'give people the right to make 'world music'', which I realise might be misconstrued, is accurate in the sense that we lump everyone's music outside of the established US/UK tradition into the barrel marked 'world music', in a sense saying this is your music and this is ours, thus marking off the other, separation) Thus M.I.A.'s point is that the crossover can only happen when their is a figure from the US/Uk tradition acting as chaperone, as guarantor if you like. We can only allow such music out of the ghetto if there is someone to accompany it (back, being implied, like a visa which expires after a month or so). Thus we see that whereas postmodernism is meant to be about diversity, the picking and choosing of absolutely equal cultural elements to create something new, it is a myth and that certain cultural elements still have dominance - that while other elements can be included, they can only be included on our terms - in a similar way that we continuously stress the need for free trade, but that free trade always means free trade on our terms.

As for the other thing, the question must be: are we still in the grip of the myth of the (male) solitary genius creating art? I think there's an interesting comparison to made with the career of Justin Timberlake, whose part in the creation of his music is (I presume) in as much doubt as Avril Lavigne's/M.I.A.'s and yet who is now (seemingly) considered a genius, so that when the story of Timbaland working with Duran Duran began circulating it became the story of Justin Timberlake producing the new Duran Duran record. The only exception allowed being the figure of the mystical female artist a la Joanna Newsom. Why the difference if all things are equal?

And yet isn't the bigger point that, for whatever reason, we are not yet prepared to leave this myth behind? It is not so much that x bloke takes the credit for y's record, it is more that when y is making a record she has to employ one already recognisable male creator to work on the record (in fact it can be argued that this applies to males as much as females, cf. %0 cent's new single featuring Timberlake). It is as if this creator becomes some entry into the world of serious art, whereas before I was just making music, now I am making Music, now you'll see how serious I am.

And isn't this why Avril Lavigne becomes some sort of subversive figure? In that she (so far) refuses this x, this one figure (father figure?), this artist - and at the same time refuses the responsibility of her own creativity, keeping the process of the creation of her music in the ether (and I accept I exaggerate), always open to speculation because it refuses the authority that comes with either x (the male creator) or y(the mystical female artist)?