Tgirsch’s Theory of Music Appreciation
I have a confession: I don’t “get” Elvis Costello. Kevin, our gracious host, is a huge Elvis Costello fan. This is far from our only difference of opinion when it comes to music. We have almost nothing in common in terms of musical taste. And I think I know why.
I submit that you can divide pretty much all of the music fans in the country into two distinct groups. The first group (of which I am a member) listens first and foremost to the music, while the second group (of which Kevin is a member) listens first and foremost to what the song has to say. Within either group, of course, musical tastes will vary widely, and two people within the same group may still have virtually nothing in common — after all, there’s no accounting for taste, as the old expression goes. But the two groups still hold, I believe. And this is an important distinction. For ease of distinction, I’ll refer to my group as the Bubblegum Pop Team (BPT), and Kevin’s group as the Important Music Team (IMT).
For the Bubblegum Pop Team, music is entertainment, first and foremost. There may or may not be a message to the song, but it doesn’t much matter, because members of the BPT generally have no idea what most of the songs they like are even about, if they’re about anything at all. This is true, by the way, even if they know all the words to the song. Listening to music is a passive activity for them, and as such, they’re not really paying attention to what they’re hearing. This is why BPTs often like music which, if they paid any attention to the message, they’d find abhorrent (which explains Eminem). It’s a simple function of, “Do I like the music? Do I like the singer’s voice? Does this entertain me?” Or, to dust of repressed memories of American Bandstand, “Can I dance to it?” For BPTs, this is what’s important. BPTs are the people who like manufactured pop like Britney Spears, or who (like me) got into the 80’s hair metal thing, or stuff like Outkast, Fergie, or just about any other popular music.
For the Important Music Team, on the other hand, music is a form of expression. As such, the message of a song is important. IMTs are acutely aware of what a song has to say, and that message — coupled with whether or not they agree with that message — will have a profound effect on whether or not they like a particular song. Listening to music is active for IMTs; they’re the type of people who would discard a Van Halen album, because “they have nothing to say” (a phrase I actually once read in a review of a Van Halen album, by the way). IMTs like stuff like Elvis Costello, Rites of Spring, and Tom Waits. IMTs look at BPTs happily bopping around to Semi-Charmed Life and wonder how people can be cheered by a song about a downward spiral into drug addiction. (They’re also likely to take great pleasure in ruining a BPTs mood by telling them that’s what the song is about…)
As a general rule, IMTs and BPTs look at each other with confusion. IMTs look at BPT music and wonder what the redeeming social value is. BPTs look at IMT music and wonder what all the fuss is about, complaining that “the guy can’t sing,” or “it doesn’t have a good beat,” or “why do all the songs have to be so damn depressing?” The truth of the matter is, because of the completely incompatible ways in which the two groups do something as fundamental as listening to music, they’re likely to never understand one another.
That said, the groups are not completely mutually exclusive. From time to time, there are artists that manage to have appeal across both groups. some of which can do so without being accused of “selling out.” Bruce Springsteen and Green Day spring to mind as artists that write “important” music, but which have a broad following even among BPTs. I’m sure if EMTs thought about it for a while, they could come up with some artists or songs they like, despite the fact that they have no coherent message or redeeming social value. But these crossovers are uncommon, and the exception to the rule.
With all that groundwork laid, there’s one more important thing to point out: BPTs far outnumber IMTs, probably by at least one order of magnitude. Don’t believe me? I can give you a single anecdotal example which, for me anyway, is compelling proof: Reagan’s use of Springsteen’s Born In The USA as a campaign song. If even a third of the population consisted of IMTs, there’s no way Reagan gets away with this: the message of the song had nothing at all to do with the message or the mood that Reagan was trying to convey, and IMTs recognized this immediately. They even complained about it at the time. This fell on deaf ears, because most Americans are BPTs, who heard the words “Born In The USA” and an uptempo tune, scratched their guts, held up their PBR beers, and screamed “Whooooo! USA #1!!”
Need another example? How about the cruise line commercials that play Iggy Pop’s Lust For Life? I’m pretty sure heroin addiction isn’t what the cruise line is trying to sell (or, subliminally, maybe it is). Most people (BPTs) hear it, hear the words “Lust For Life” sung to an upbeat tune, and think, “Fun! Adventure!”
Well, that’s my theory. Have fun tearing it to shreds. 
(I should note that there are two other groups, who do not fit neatly into this dichotomy. The first is the Musician Group. Musicians are an odd bird, and they tend to like things that are musically challenging or complex, whether or not they’re any good. This explains why they’re so enamored of the Dave Matthews Band. The other group is the Psychoactive Drug Group. This group is the only way I can explain Pink Floyd, The Doors, and Bob Dylan.)
There is no excuse for Bob Dylan.
I tend to think more along the line of neural reactions : the BPTs sync up with the sounds of music, while the IMTs are more interesting in the flash of revelation when they figure everything out. It tends to explain why BPTs can take more repetition before eventually going insane.
You might be underestimating the number of groups, though. My current playlist consists of Modest Mouse, Voltaire, Machinae Supremacy, Queens of the Stoneage, the Pillows, Aqua, and a bit of orchestral music, and that doesn’t really fit under any given setup. I know a few coworkers who listen to music just to have something to listen to, and don’t really care about complexity, feel, style, or LCD-esque nature.
TG, I like the theory, except in as much as I think it’s crap.
I have a very low tolerance for listening to the same song more than once a month. I like techno, Britney Spears, and Shakira.
I listen to Metallica for the mental images they draw. I love The Offspring for their social commentary. I enjoy The Alan Parsons project.
On the other hand, you’re right about Dave Matthews, and I think half of Mozart’s stuff goes in the same bucket. On the other hand, I listen to Blue Oyster Cult, and Mahler.
Really, I think the overriding theme for me is music that would accompany a reenactment of Lizzy Borden’s little incident.
I’m not sure where I’d sit on that spectrum (even less if it’s a divide).
I can happily listen to lots of songs which contain no “message” of any sort. On the other hand, one of the things that affects how much I like a particular song is how well the lyrics and the performance match. A lighthearted, upbeat version of a dirge just won’t do it for me. (Yes, I know that a conflict between lyric and melody or performance sometimes is done on purpose, e.g., “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.” Deliberate doesn’t count here.)
But then again, that doesn’t have to do with what the song says but with how it’s said.
Then again again, a song doesn’t have to have a message for me to like it – but it can’t have a message of which I disapprove.
So I guess on points I’d have to be with the IMTs but I still like my message-free songs.
[...] Tom has a theory on music appreciation. If he is correct, I am definitely part of the same group he’s in. [...]
Okay, I’m probably the only regular commenter here who has a startlingly extensive collection of hip hop records.
I have to say that you are way off the mark with Eminem. One of the main reasons for his success, well not just his success, but the respect he got with the industry and hip hop loyalists, was his undeniable merit in the IMT circuit.
When it comes to hip hop, my personal favorite form of music, there are two ways you can achieve the IMT – what you talk about it, and your overall skill at rapping and writing lyrics. See, hip hop is genre of music least constrained by meter, etc. You have the most theoretical leeway for expression – there are just simply more words spoken on a hip hop record than any other genre of mainstream music. Ironically, and unfortunately, it is often the genre in which the least is said.
Eminem did a couple of things really well. First of all, his technical rhyme writing is as good as anybody who’s ever picked up a pen. I look at a classic Eminem verse as an incredible display manipulation of language. Ask Bob Dylan to write his songs with a A-B-B-A rhyme pattern while rhyming 5 or more syllables per line.
The novelty of a white Midwestern rapper opened up all kinds of linguistic twists that hadn’t been used before. Basically, he could get words to rhyme, via his pronunciation, that your average Brooklyn-born black dude couldn’t. His talent and novel enunciation alone makes him unique and heavy on the IMT bentm especially when you consider his place within the music as an entity and culture.
Similarly, he explored topics not really covered by hip-hop through a perspective previously silent in the genre. We’ve established what it’s like to be a poor young black dude in Brooklyn or Compton, that’s been expressed this way before. Okay, now what is it like to be a poor Midwestern white dude from a dysfunctional family? Have we ever heard that expressed in hip-hop form before? No. Instant IMT credibility.
The homophobia and all that shit is only really as abhorrent as violence is in movies when it’s discussed devoid of greater context. You can bash it in a vacuum, but it doesn’t really define whether the movie is good or important. Ditto glorification of drug use, womanizing, violence, etc. in any form of music.
I’m not some sort of Eminem fanboy, though I think his early stuff is great (lots of which most people, even self-described hip hop fans have never heard). Eminem is one of the few IMT rappers that broke through – partially because of connections, and partially because of his potential for BPT appeal as well. For a rapper to be both commercially successful and respected within the community he/she has to be both.
Hip hop may be the only genre of music in which the most ardent fans don’t represent a sizable proportion of the purchasers of the product. Think about it, rappers think they are rapping to a group of dudes chillin on the corner in Queensbridge, but it’s really a bunch of blond, blue-eyed middle-American junior high schoolers who are buying the records. It’s a fucking bizarre dynamic. You’ll only really succeed over a long period of time if both groups accept your music and image.
Eminem is not Public Enemy or Boogie Down Productions, he’s not even a modern equivalent. He’s not Dead Prez or Immortal Technique, but he is absolutely more IMT than BPT, even if his visible fanbase doesn’t represent that.
Couple of things. First, a member of the IMT would never use the phrase “not completely mutually exclusive”.
Second, I have always harbored a mild distrust for Gatt. Never knew why, but that sentiment has been validated by his statement “there is no excuse for Bob Dylan”. The man only pioneered the electronification of folk music and as such was responsible for the popularization of music with a message. You could say he was the founding father of the IMT. Not to mention he authored some of the greatest songs of the 20th century. But don’t take my word for it. Review what Rolling Stone (back when it was the definitive word on current music) had to say about him.
Third, while bubblegum music certainly existed in the 60’s (that’s when the term was first popularized to describe bands like The Archies), Important Music was a dominant cultural force at that time. Many of the most popular bands were heavily political, and a signature feature of the counter-culture was the music. The influence of Important Music has significantly retreated from its zenith 40 years ago.
Finally, I guess classical music aficionados must fall into the bubble gum pop category, but that just doesn’t feel right.
I submit that you can divide pretty much all of the music fans in the country into two distinct groups. The first group (of which I am a member) listens first and foremost to the music, while the second group (of which Kevin is a member) listens first and foremost to what the song has to say.
i can break it down for you three ways.
1. people who care about the music – 8%
2. people who care about what the song has to say – 2%
3. people who care about what the musicians are wearing, or who else likes them (boyfriend, girlfriend, school friends, etc.) – 90%
your theory does not in any way clarify or elucidate for me your “not getting” elvis costello.
if you are unable to listen to the entirety of “this year’s model” and find any musical value, or lyrical value, then i have no idea what you are listening for in music.
i had a conversation about this not to long ago on a youtube thread about a glenn branca video from the 70’s. there were all these people commenting about how it was “just noise” and “he can’t play for shit”, etc. my stance is, different measuring sticks for musical or any other artistic value may or may not apply to any particular form of music. it’s senseless to criticize gavin bryars, for example, for composing music that “nobody can dance to”, because dance music is not something he purveys. similarly, i do not enjoy van halen for the metal stimulation any more than i read skin mags for the articles. [a lot of those magazines, or so i'm told, don't even HAVE articles. but i digress.]
what might be your interest in elvis costello? over his career he has explored nearly every genre of american, irish and british popular music, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. is it because you can’t stand the sound of his voice? that is of course valid as a matter of personal taste, but i can’t see how it’s contained in your argument.
Digg:
I don’t disagree with what you write about Eminem, although I think you downplay the homophobia a bit too much. What I meant in mentioning him was that his popularity can be explained in large part because lots of listeners (most, I’d argue) aren’t paying any attention to what he’s saying. Which isn’t to say he wouldn’t be popular, just nowhere near as popular, especially with BPTs.
Ted:
a member of the IMT would never use the phrase “not completely mutually exclusive”.
*blush* Wow, that’s embarrassing. Fixed.
Finally, I guess classical music aficionados must fall into the bubble gum pop category, but that just doesn’t feel right.
Only if you believe words are the only valid method of expression. In any case, though, I was talking about contemporary/popular music.
ha ha – ‘metal stimulation’, that’s a nice freudian slip. MENTAL stimulation. thank you.
r@d@r:
Re: Elvis Costello, the only time a singer is allowed to sound like he has gargled with razor blades, and then washed down the blood with hydrochloric acid, is when they’re performing heavy metal.
But to be totally honest, I haven’t listened to EC in years, because every time I tried years ago, it just didn’t grab me. Maybe I’ll have to try again.
Re: Eminem’s homophobia (as expressed in his music)
This is no insult to you, TG, but the level to which one considers homophobia a defining theme of Eminem as an artist is probably inversely proportionate with the extent to which that individual “gets” hip hop music.
It’s kinda akin to the extent to which somebody thinks that Bob Marley is represented by a big fat spliff.
The homophobia is what sheltered middle-American soccer mom’s latched on to. Eminmen took that and embraced the idea of teenage rebellion, continuing to feed the outrage. It was a calculated (artistic? political?) direction. By putting himself at the forefront of all this backlash, he sold a shitload of records, and in a weird sense exposed how ridiculous the whole thing was. It culminated with his joint Grammy performance with Elton John, something, ironically, many non-alleged homophobic rappers would not be willing to do.
Hip-hop has always had a sort of homophobic undertone, generally speaking. It’s a pretty alpha-male genre – even the women often embrace alpha-male traits expressed as over the top manifestations of pro-sex feminism. Prior to the hoopla, Eminem’s music was not uniquely homophobic.
Personally, I think the whole fiasco derailed his career. I think he was creatively restrained by a need he felt to respond to his critics via his music. So, he has x number of songs saying, “fuck you, you’re a parent, I’m some guy whose voice comes out of a box, if I have a greater influence on your kid than you, that’s your inadequacy.” Then he has x number of songs slated to be his more BPT friendly singles. Then he’s got x number of songs for his featured guests. How much is left for interesting conceptual ideas and creative exploration – the stuff that made him what he was? Not much, most of that space was spent defending himself…
Question, TG:
Did Ronny R. actually use Born in the USA as a campaign song? I was under the impression that he wanted to, and tried to, but was unable to actually use it. I was but a wee lad the time, so I don’t remember hearing (or not)it first hand, but I’ve read about it, and I thought “The Boss” or his record label or whatever nixed it.
Might as well throw Nike’s use of “Revolution” onto the anecdotal pile as well. Rights purchased from Michael Jackson of course.
I must admit that I don’t pretend to “get” hip-hop — I haven’t listened since the NWA days — but if “getting” it means making excuses for hate speech, then I’m glad I don’t “get” it.
That said, I never said homophobia was a “defining theme” of Eminem’s music. As a matter of fact, I didn’t even bring it up — YOU did. My problem with rap in general is the pervasive misogyny much more than the homophobia (which also bothers me).
And, for what it’s worth, most of the NWA stuff was pretty awful in those regards, too — the misogyny in particular is stark, although the fact that I find that distasteful is probably even more proof that I don’t “get” it. And to be fair, rock music has more than its fair share of misogyny, too. (Buckcherry’s “Crazy Bitch,” anybody?)
Well, TG, that’s a little disingenuous (post 14), no?
I mean, in the OP you specifically cited Eminem as part of the BPT crowd. The implied rationale was that the messages were largely abhorrent and therefore the listeners couldn’t have been giving it much attention. Well, what are those abhorrent messages. I presumed the chief offender there was the homosexuality, as it made national headlines and stuff. Did I presume errantly? If so, what messages were you talking about? You drew the outline, colored it in, I thought.
This also completely ignores the wide popularity of all sorts of abhorrent shit, specifically with homophobic under/overtones, to which the consumers are presumably paying attention to.
I also wouldn’t characterize my posts as excusing hate speech. I’m putting Eminem’s use thereof into perspective within his collective body of work. It’s place is a lot less significant than it is made out to be, that’s all. It also doesn’t necessarily represent his true feelings.
N.W.A. certainly was rife with misogyny, I wouldn’t deny it. That’s not the totality of what the music is, and it doesn’t determine whether the music is good or important. To think that something like that precludes the work itself from having any (SLAPS) merit- that would be “not getting it.” Specific discussion about Eminem aside, that’s really the crux of my point.
I’m not trying to play the old fogey (sp?) card here and say you just don’t get the music of today, TG? Though, you probably don’t; but then again, neither do I and I’m only 27!:)
Yeah, excuses for the poor grammar and the substitution of homosexuality for homophobia. My “team leader
” interrupted me while I was replying – the nerve!
Again, Eminem’s commercial success is evidence that his appeal straddles the groups. I’ll leave it to others to determine whether or not his lyrics have enough socially redeeming value to put them squarely in the IMT group. Since I’m not a member of the IMTs, I’m not even qualified to have that discussion! I’m a BPT, remember?
As to “abhorrent” messages, perhaps the word is a little strong, but you have to admit that “My Name Is” has a certain degree of shock value. (Another good example, actually, given that the “family-friendly” NFL used the song in a commercial until somebody pointed out the words of the song.)
Anyway, I’m not sure where I ever argued that having messages that people would find supremely offensive and having merit were mutually exclusive.
Finally, I’ve got you by nearly a decade, so that certainly puts me in the “old fogey” category by your standards. I’m actually in the perfect BPT generation — I came of age in the 80’s, when almost none of the music had any sort of important “message,” other than the constant “it’s okay to be gay” undercurrent of the Brit pop of the time.
Digg, frankly, I just don’t get your take on this. You are the guy who brings up how subtleties of language influence common perception. But now you seem to jump the fence wrt hip-hop. No big deal, I just would have expected you to have a different take on the subject.
You are off, I think. I have nothing agaisnt bubble-gum music and I don’t like Costello becasue he has something to say but because the music and lyrics combine in interesting ways. It is not that Costello has something important to say — tough he often does — its that he says things in an interesting way. Modest Mouse is no more profound than the Bangles, but they combine music and lyrics in a really interesting fashion and are thus one of my favorite bands. Flogging Molly aren’t great because they are political, they are great because they do a good job of fusing punk music and Irish folk tradition. The Pogues are great because you are amazed that McGowan can stand up, let along sing, that drunk.
And there was plenty of good socially conscious music in the 80s. And don’t discount the effect of the “its all right to be gay” of the brit pop. Freddy Mercury and Frankie Goes to Hollywood had a lot to do with gays becoming more acceptable.
Freddy -> flashy rock god
Frankie -> flash in pan
Relax, they can’t all be champions.
Kevin:
I don’t think I ever, in 1,000 years, would have pegged you as a Modest Mouse fan.
In any case, I don’t think I’m that far off. If it’s not a dichotomy between Entertainment First and Important Message, then would you buy it if the latter was replaced with Artistic Expression?
Also, I didn’t mean to demean the “it’s okay to be gay” message; just that it’s the only pervasive social message that managed to get into the mainstream and not be wholly ignored (again, I direct your attention to Born In The USA, which flew right over 95% of people’s heads).
Tom
I think artistic merit works better than important message. The message can sometimes enhance the artistic merit — Liz Phair’s first album is a song by song response to a Rolling Stone album and that helps elevate it over her other albums — but the most important thing is the artistic merit. As much as I love Lennon, a lot of the messages in his later music was simplistic, pretentious crap — but its really well crafted pretentious crap. Good music forgives a lot.
Oh, and Elvis Costello has a great, blusey voice you philistine
Hmm, I think I must be an exception? I listen to mostly electronic music, particularly psychedelic downtempo stuff, much of which has no overt message. I like it because of it’s compositional value, so in that sense I’m akin to the classical music listener, yet I find most classical music boring… The underlying message to a lot of the electronic music I listen to is one of psychedelic drug use, which I am against, but I like the music. So in that sense I’m on the BPT, but when it comes to rock/pop music, or music with lyrics, then I’m IMT as I generally dislike music with a negative message. However I also like some music that I completely disagree with for nostalgic reasons, like early NIN that I listened to as a teenager, I will occasionally listen to and enjoy, even though I now completely disagree with the message. However there’s a lot of music who’s message I agree with but I dislike their style or their abilities aren’t that great so I don’t like their music.
I think r@d@r got it right in number 7. I think more people either like or dislike music because of it’s popularity. I find myself doing this as well. I recently found a J-Pop artist that I like, but at the same time while listening to her music and enjoying it, I can’t help thinking this is just the japanese version of Brittney Spears music. However, this girl is a much more talented singer.
This is kind of a long ramble, the main point probably being, I’m a weirdo when it comes to music I enjoy…
Fair point, Ted.
I never claim to free of any sort of self-contradiction though. I have explanations for my contradictions (love of hip-hop vs. implicit associations/metalinguistics, identification with the Marxist proletariat vs. obscene collection of Nikes). The explanations make sense to me, as to why I develop certain behaviors that don’t mesh with the surface view of my politics – but I don’t expect them to work as a justification to a third party, per se. And, as I said, I’m open about them.
Though I don’t deny hip-hop’s relationship with metalinguistics, social and racial archetyping and so forth, what I appreciate different aspects of the music.
First, suffice to say that when I hear somebody whose intellect I respect (like you guys) claim they like, say, rock, I don’t assume they are referring to Linkin Park or some shit. Chances are I’m pretty familiar, and a fan of, a lot of their historically great musical heavy hitters, and a fair amount of their favorite bands I have little to zero familiarity with. I hope, in the spirit of reciprocity, people don’t read that I like hip hop and associate my musical taste with whatever crap happens to flood the mainstream airwaves.
My appreciation for hip hop revolves around a few things. One, is the impressive “technical” feat of creating intricate rhyme schemes and polysyllabic rhymes. I’m also a sucker for puns and metaphors. The close relationship with rap and sports makes a lot of those figurative devices really enjoyable for me. When I hear, Boston-based rapper, Esoteric say, “The only right-winger I support is Cam Neely,” there’s no way I can’t fall in love with that!
I also like the music in the same way that I appreciate Ginsberg and folk. The golden era of the music, generously ‘86-’96, is reminiscent of a New York that had character and grit. The rise of hip hop was proof that, in the 80’s, NYC could still create a beat-like generation. Today, until proven otherwise, I’m skeptical it can happen and I find it very depressing. They say New York is cleaned up, to me that’s a euphemism for neutered, or sanitized. Today, Conde Nast occupies 42nd street – there’s not a single drug dealer, pimp, or hooker who could do the damage to the self-esteem, priorities, etc. of young people on the scale that the promotion of hypercapitalist values and anorexic, white-only beauty standards by enormous media conglomerates can and do.
When done properly, hip hop can be a beautiful expression of struggle, triumph, or any other emotion, just like any other form of music. Sometimes, I can just sit back and listen to Canibus rap: “Slippery saliva keeps my delivery tighter, enabling me to outmaneuver Russian MIG fighters.” and simply appreciate the craft of rhyme-writing.
I’m a junkie, I own over a thousand hip-hop albums (at least 3/4 of which were obtained thanks to Napster, AudioGalaxy, Soulseek, bittorrent, etc.), when I listen to the music I’m appreciating what’s below the surface.
At the same time, I’m completely aware of the negative influence the music and language thereof can and does have. More than anything though, it’s not the language or imagery itself that is most damaging, it is that language and imagery disconnected from context that is most damaging.
I’m older than many of the popular current rap acts, some of my favorite albums were made before they were even born. I hear kids in the street talking about how fresh some new beat is, and it’s just a fucking loop of some old Otis Redding or Syl Johnson joint. Studying the history of hip hop got me into a lot of that music as well.
At the end of the day, I’m speaking for me, and for the hip hop that I love and not speaking any more for the genre as a whole than anybody else is for the preferred genre as a whole, or as represented by Soundscan numbers.
I feel it is rare that hip hop of any kind gets a fair shake among truly intelligent people. So, my sincere thanks to anybody who took the time to read this long post.
digg:
Well it is tricky to rock a rhyme, I’ll give you that much.
I’m also a sucker for puns and metaphors.
Wouldn’t that be a “sucka?”
“The only right-winger I support is Cam Neely,”
That’s awesome!
I think I figured it out, I’m more BPT when it comes to genres of music that I like, like psychedelic ethnotronic dub, downtempo lounge music, high quality trance, soulful funky house, etc. But when it comes to genres I don’t like as much, like rock, rap, country, pop, etc., than I’m more IMT, as it’s no longer the music necessarily that appeals to me as much as the message being delivered.