Steely Dan explain why their music is “subversive”
During their heyday, Steely Dan were one of the most subversive acts out there, and in a testament to the efforts, they remain so. Taking their cues from 1960s pioneers such as Frank Zappa and The Fugs, their often caustic social commentaries were counterbalanced by hooky pop melodies and cerebral jazz inflexions. Whilst their songs were popular with millions, there was a great irony to their sound, as most people were blissfully unaware of what they were actually singing.
Such was their creative power and mass appeal. Walter Becker and Donald Fagen toed the line with their band and carved out a place in history because of it. They were once even kind enough to explain how their “subversive” attitude came into being.
During an extensive interview with Chris Willman for the LA Times in August 1993, Becker and Fagen discussed their first reunion tour in 19 years and looked back on their impact. At one point in the discussion, it was put to the pair that various acts, ranging from Randy Newman to Was (Not Was), emulated their dualism.
However, Willman said that “historically” musicians with jazz sensibilities drifted towards unchallenging lyrics, whereas those with explicitly subversive intentions opt for “unsophisticated styles of music”. He then asserted that Steely Dan had both sides locked down and were so excellent in the musical and intellectual aspects that they created an unimitable status.
“Why is that?” Becker replied. “Well, in that respect the situation hasn’t changed in 20 years. It’s the dichotomy that you mentioned a moment ago: The ‘anarchists,’ or people who are interested in more interesting lyrics, are generally speaking not interested in jazz harmonies. They want something more raw and what they perceive to be subversive-sounding, which usually means clanging guitars.”
Continuing: “And it was just a quirk of Donald’s and my natures that we thought superimposing jazz harmonies on pop songs was subversive in a much subtler way. But I guess most people who are writing music and songs don’t really look at it that way . . . luckily for us!”
Fagen added, “I think people who are sophisticated in the sense that they want to hear some substance in the lyrics are musically going to tend to be primitivists…” Becker appended this point, saying, “Or some sort of socialists.”
It was then that Fagen looked back on the era the pair grew up in and pointed to this as the main reason for them delving so heavily into jazz and using it to subvert. He said: “Yeah. They have that kind of nostalgia de la boue, they’re into this purity thing of rock ‘n’ roll — they see it as once being the sort of revolutionary teenage thing and they want to maintain that.”
“It has to do with when we were born and how we grew up,” he continued. “Even though we were really too young to experience a lot of the golden age of jazz in the ’50s, nevertheless that’s what we were into, through recordings, although we saw live jazz as well at the tail end of that era. And we also had literary aspirations, I suppose.”
