I was considering writing an essay similar to this for an undergrad symposium calling for papers analyzing or interpreting a literary work, film, or culture, but the deadline has approached too soon so I have decided to flesh out my ideas here.
I guess if I were to have an introduction and informal thesis for this formal blog entry, it would read something like this: different music is consumed and interpreted differently by different people -- that is, of course, why music is so "universal."-- But is it fair to assume how one specific genre is interpreted by one specific group of people? Say, college students ages 18-25? I argue that it is. Further, if the aforementioned assumption is accurate, can the observer then compose other assumptions and compare them based on common ethics, deducing which genre of music is morally and intellectually better than others? I also argue that this can be done.
QUASI ABSTRACT
There are two contrasting geneses of music: popular and serious. Just as popular and serious music sound different, they are consumed equally different. That is, the music is aurally experienced and is then mentally processed. In this mental process, the listener attempts to relate the music's content, with or without text, to one's own experiences. Both kinds of music attempt to entertain and fulfill its listeners' sense of musical curiosity, taste, and whatever subsequent actions or ends it may produce. Those ends, grounded by common ethical principal, can be considered unsound in one case and intellectual in the other.
The engaging of popular music is frequently and ethically shallow and material while the consuming of serious music allows its listener to entertain thoughts not grounded by trend-driven fashion. So, in more than one sense, this serious music is challenging and equally rewarding to listen to.
What I'm really interested in here is figuring out why popular music has been accepted to the degree that we have witnessed and what goes through the college student's mind when it is listened to. I don't mean that flippantly, but really, what is going through their minds?
And like any other sort of formal essay, the material discussed in the thesis and body of the work is likely to change.
Before you read any further, a small word on this large entry. All of the assumptions mentioned above are all, of course, grounded by my taste. This is not an expository piece of work; rather a largely opinionated piece discussing how people consume music differently and how some genres of Western music can be branded "better" than others. I will, for lack of a better term, "prove" these conclusions to be true through widely-accepted cultural fact and historical pattern.
Another quick word: the content in "No. 4" may possibly be misconstrued by underlying thoughts of elitism and ignorance. None of that here. I believe these opinions to be well-informed by years of observation and CSI-grade brain picking. If "No. 4" is considered to be an elite mini-case study by anyone, I argue that the supposed superior thoughts and opinions presented here are well researched and defended, accounting for more than enough evidence to support the following conclusions.
On the PRT one morning, I inescapably listened to another student's iPod. It was a popular "rap" single. Why was he listening to it? Yes, he enjoyed it. But which part of the music did he enjoy? The harmony, melody, maybe the percussion? Or did his satisfaction with the music stem from a product of the former elements paired with lyrical content? I argue that he was mentally conditioning himself for the day. Through the music, he was allowing it to say to him, "This is the behavior you are to realize. This is the language you are to use. This is the way you are to treat women. Consider money this way. Consider fame this way. Consider yourself this way."
In a larger sense, why does he wish to answer those questions with a response that would uniformly match what he sees in his peers? A response his peers also attempt to realize. A response that conforms to the popular image conveyed through television and other means of media.
2 comments:
I see a pretty big challenge in what you are trying to do here. There are so many terms that need to be defined such as "shallow," "intellectual," "ethical," "serious," etc. What makes a song shallow? Although we can both probably detect it when a song possesses a shallow quality, what makes it so? Also, can something serious also be popular? Take Beethoven's Fur Elise, 5th Symphony, and Moonlight Sonata as examples. Most people have heard these works. Are they not popular? Are they not also serious, intellectual works?
But anyway, I dig it! I would love an objective argument to assert the superiority of my musical tastes. Please continue! :-)
Hi Robert, (or is it Aaron?)
I agree with Joe Q- your comparison between "popular" and "serious" music with the intention to prove that "serious" music is "better" than "popular" is quite a challenge and in desperate need of clarification. What exactly falls under the genre of "popular" and "serious"? To me, those are incredibly broad name-tags under which I could easily list music of contrasting style, genre, and accessibility.
As a composer of music that has been coined both popular and serious, been associated with immoral behavior (the very word "jazz" like "rock n' roll" was at one time slang for the word "sex"), has been used an icon for sophistication and intellectualism, and is involved still today to controversies including race, gender, and academia, I have come to value music not for it's stigmas, titles or trends, but for its core values as they relate directly to myself as a listener.
It is true that much of the music on that radio and Billboards top 40 is less complicated compositionally than a Schoenberg row. In fact when reviewing the recent Grammy nominations for best song, etc. I realized I had done arrangements of about half the nominated songs that would probably be considered by scholars to be more "sophisticated" than the original compositions. And they were arrangements for cabaret singers and marching bands. But I wouldn't dare say that my arrangements were "better" than the original recordings.
I believe the opinion of "better" is exclusive to the listener. I don't believe any one music can be considered as fact to be "better" than another.
The function of music lies within the intention. Why do people listen? And is that music satisfying that need? For instance, when I run on the treadmill, I find Justin Timberlake to be "better" music to listen to than Duke Ellington. My reasons for listening are to be pumped up and inspired to get my body to a high fitness level. Does that make me shallow? It doesn't matter because the music is performing it's function.
I could go on, but I think my point is clear. If to you Schoenberg trumps Pink, that's fine. I would find it interesting to read why you feel that way. But I would disagree that unrelated to its listener, any music can be rated on a simple scale of "better" or "worse."
Post a Comment