Tgirsch’s Theory of Music Appreciation
Posted by
tgirsch
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.)
