« One political note | Main | abadee abaddee again »
May 27, 2004
2-4-6-8
Note: We would like to acknowledge up front that this is one of those posts inspired by an actual previous conversation, noted so that the person with whom the conversation was had won't be like "dude, freaking bloggers and their freaking recycling."
* * * * * * * *
So you remember how a few months ago we made some comment about "All I Need is a Miracle" by Mike and the Mechanics being the best song ever? And you all were like "Omigod you are so LAME!"?...
...yeah, we know this is the first sentence of three posts ago. It applies, and we're nothing if not conservationists...
Anyway, the point is that there is a healthy number of shitty 80s songs, and shitty 70s songs... and a few shitty 90s songs (but none of the shit this millenium, not even) which, in all honesty, hep us up. Because there are songwriters out there who have made their livings churning out catchy pop that is called catchy for a reason-- it is biologically impossible to hear these songs and not bounce around and sing along. And this, it must be said, is an enjoyable way to spend time.
However, do we appreciate these songs? Are they indicators of how we would define our musical appreciation? Hell no. They are based on utterly formulaic chord progressions*, they are devoid of melodic innovation, and there is a fairly good chance that their instrumentation includes a keytar. Anyone who knows boo about music cannot possibly appreciate them for anything other than the bouncing around and singing along factor (though possibly also the radness of the lead singer's hair and/or pants). That said, we will circle back to the question of whether we enjoy listening to these songs. Hell yes.
There are a good number of people in this world who do not distinguish between "enjoy" and "appreciate". For some of them, if they like listening to a song they like listening to it, musicianship is a non-issue. For others, musicianship is the only issue-- to admit that you enjoy listening to "La Isla Bonita" is like saying you don't like black and white movies. These people will note the Best and Worst of Culture Club CD on your shelf and decide categorically that you have crappy taste in music. But then there are those of us who have both the Best and Worst of Culture club and John Coltrane's Giant Steps. Thompson Twins and the Curtis Mayfield anthology. Can we be accused of having crappy taste in music? Well, ok, fine. But can we also be acknowledged for appreciating groundbreaking musicianship? Most definitely. In our opinion.
The point is, you may appreciate the flaw in serving corndogs to the Prime Minister**, but go ahead and enjoy the hell out of them at the hockey game. We will not think less of you.
* The blues are wholly exempted from this criticism, by the way
** Note we did not say "the President"
Posted by The Twins at May 27, 2004 01:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/301
Comments
my question is not about the enjoyment of music -- like you said, it's sort of elemental -- my question is about the appreciation of music. what does it mean to "appreciate" a song beyond the enjoyment of it? do you listen to coltrane and dutifully note his unusual chord progression and then put it back on the shelf? or do you enjoy it and appreciate it?
i guess i'm asking if the set of "appreciated" songs is a subset of "enjoyed" songs or if they're uncorrelated. and if they are uncorrelated, what does appreciation mean, anyway?
ps: freakin' bloggers ...
Posted by: bryan at May 27, 2004 02:06 PM
Why Bryan, I'm glad you asked... sorry not to clarify that. Appreciation as I am definining it is, in fact, a subset of enjoyment. I'm talking about "appreciation" as enjoyment based on more than feeling like bouncing when you hear it-- it's based on the visceral response to the art and science of music. When I listen to jazz, I feel something altogether different than when I listen to pop. The jazz may not make me dance around my living room and scream into a hairbrush(but it is usually impossible not to move with jazz), but I love listening to it because it was created by someone with a complex understanding of the natural properties of music (and it is from nature-- harmonics as they relate to the human ear are based on laws of physics, as I'm sure you know-- but I digress). Or if they don't academically know the theory, they understand it in a physical way. So not only can I appreciate their knowledge, I can appreciate how the application of that knowledge affects me in a profound and sort of inexplicable way. The blues itself, formulaic as it may be, taps into those physical properties which is why many people can listen to hundreds of songs with 1-4-5-1 and very similar phrasing all day every day.
Now of course I'm not saying that incredible musicians always produce music that's enjoyable for everyone. Taste is definitely not simply a matter of musical sophistication. Hence the fact that pop music sometimes makes me giddy and bouncy. There's just a difference in the depth of feeling inspired by "good" music I like and "crappy" music I like. And of course having a good dance beat is not a trivial thing either.
Now I have a feeling that someone is going to slam me on the subject of subjectivity, and so I will just preempt that by saying that all of this is subjective. Except for the thing about the blues. Damn they're good.
Posted by: EV at May 27, 2004 03:10 PM
p.s. I have a similar treatise on the difference between having soul and not having soul, but I'll save that for a later date.
Posted by: EV at May 27, 2004 03:13 PM
FEH! don't worry about what other people think of your musical taste. just shake your booty and enjoy your favorite music.
Posted by: snowy at May 27, 2004 05:42 PM