Your fave bands suck, and mine don't (not)

Above: "Freebird," the standard shibboleth for every indie-hipster elitist.

A post below on the fast-rising popularity of Jack Johnson started a dust-up over who's good and who isn't -- the kind of back-and-forth rivalry-smack that drives sports talk-radio and Mizzou/KU chatrooms.

There's plenty of music out there that I don't like, but I figured out a long time ago that a lot of stuff I don't like is more substantive -- influential -- than a lot of stuff I do. I respect the hell out of Sonic Youth, especially after seeing them at the Uptown a few years ago. But I never listen to their music, unless I'm boning up on it because they're coming to town. For recreational purposes, I'd rather listen to the Cars.

In the thread to the Jack Johnson post, someone mentioned something I'd written about music and bands after Kirk Rundstrom of Split Lip Rayfield died. I'd forgotten about it, so I dug it up: 

Our favorite bands mean much more to us than just the songs they sing and put on records. The more we see them, the deeper those bands and their music insinuate themselves into our lives. A band is live and organic, a collective of human beings, but it's also intangible.

If a band's music were only about the songs, it wouldn't matter who sang them; if a band were only about the people in it, we wouldn't care what they sang. When the bands we love sing the songs we love, they provide refuge and reward. They bring us to a happy place filled with familiar faces. They stop time. They defer reality. They take us on a joy ride, to new heights and to places we've seen a hundred times.

All that still feels true. But even before we reach the point where a band's live shows become some kind of spiritual ritual we must indulge in regularly, we have to connect with the band and its music. The reasons we do that include dozens of variables, including our life experiences: how we grew up, where we grew up, what our parents listened to, what our siblings listened to, the friendships we make, what tragedies or successes we suffer or enjoy.

So there aren't any right or wrong answers here. Pop music isn't an empirical science. I won't say "Springsteen is better than Jack Johnson" because I can't say my reasons for responding deeply to his music are more valid than the reasons someone else responds to Johnson. It's all subjective. Several years ago, I had to write an essay/bio for our Sunday Arts section. Part of it addressed just that:

* You may insist appropriately that some popular music is superior to another (say, the Beatles vs. matchbox twenty), but it's pompous to assert that what you extract from your favorite music (Metallica) is superior to what someone else extracts from theirs (Britney Spears).

* Music is like religion or spirituality: It doesn't matter what you tap into as long as you find something that transports you (physically or emotionally) to another place, makes you confront something revelatory or just compels you to dance like a fool.

* A lot of my favorite records are mediocre. (A lot of yours are, too.)

I'm not above making fun of someone's music, whether it's Jack Johnson or Dan Fogelberg (RIP). But when I do, I keep in mind that someone else could just as easily rip some of my favorite artists, whether its Springsteen, Neil Young or the Beatles. Or the Cars. And if a Jack Johnson song has, for some reason, acquired importance in someone's life, who am I to say that importance is cheap or invalid?

If you're in music to make yourself feel superior to others by dismissing their tastes -- if you're one of the witless ones who still yells "Freebird!" at a Sigur Ros concert to declare your elitism -- then you're in it for reasons I don't want to understand.

| Timothy Finn, The Star

Comments

[Glow]

Amen.

[James]

Well said. As funny as Jack Black was in High Fidelity, we don't really need more music snobs..

[Casey]

*Applause* Five star post. My favorite quote - "Music is like religion or spirituality: It doesn't matter what you tap into as long as you find something that transports you (physically or emotionally) to another place, makes you confront something revelatory or just compels you to dance like a fool." I am adding this to my facebook haha.

[Jeff]

"Pop music isn't an empirical science. I won't say "Springsteen is better than Jack Johnson" because I can't say my reasons for responding deeply to his music are more valid than the reasons someone else responds to Johnson. It's all subjective."

Cannot argue with that statement.

Although, I would argue that certain forms of music are more "important", "influential", "enduring" (The Doors, Waylon Jennings, Allman Brothers, Prince)than others (Britney Spears, Creed, Everclear). It doesn't necessarily mean that I prefer one over the other.

For example, I love listening to the B-52's, but understand that that music carries very little depth, meaning or substance. Conversely, The Talking Heads are cited as being very ground-breaking, but I never could really get into much of their music.

[bob]

Does this apply to Nickleback?

[Joe]

Nothing wrong with guilty pleasures. Everyone probably has artists they like that are not cool or critic's darlings.

[Right on Joe]

Good point Joe. In fact, I would take that a step further. I dislike the classification of "guilty pleasure" music. I don't feel like I should be ashamed because I like the "flavor of the moment" music that really has no long term influence. Sure the lyrics may be ridiculous, but it you like it, enjoy it - there's no right or wrong music. Sure, there's a lot of crap out there that I really don't understand, or even comprehend why people like it, but I won't criticize them for enjoying it. If I like Abba, I'll tell you I like Abba and not feel ashamed of it. If I like a New Kids on the Block song, I'll admit it. Enjoying music, regardless of what you think of that group or artists politics or personal agenda is, is everyone's right. No need to feel guilty about it or label it a "guilty pleasure".

[TK]

Great post!

[MrBrown]

Nice posts...

Tim, I am curious though about what role you think the snobs play in steering the introduction of new music? For all the attitude and snobbery (and there was plenty) I grew up in a time where college radio and raves by critics broke Nirvana and turned REM into an arena sized act.

Which isn't to suggest that some music is inherently better then others. But do the snobs/critics have an influence in discovering music that deserves to be heard and introducing it to the masses?

and my guilty pleasure...Cyndi Lauper's "She's so unusual"..

[Tim Finn]

Snobs come in all colors. There are Skynyrd snobs who wouldn't recognize that the Backstreet Boys made some great pop songs in their heyday. Take away the gaudy visual stuff and the whole boy-band / teen-idol shtick and just listen to the pop craft and production and some of those songs are as good as some Motown classics.

I think too many serious music fans turn away from music like that because they don't like the scene around it -- they would not be caught dead in the middle of that crowd -- and I get that. The funny thing about the indie scene (and I'm generalizing here) is that they tend to abandon their bands when they get so big that they start attracting mainstream fans. I know some trendsetters in this town, for example, who turn their noses up at Wilco and it's only because they're too big and mainstream for a place like RecordBar or the Granada.

As for Nickelback: If they didn't write airtight pop-rock songs they wouldn't sell so many records. There are lots of things about that band that don't suit my tastes, but I get why so many people like them.

[Jeff]

"if you're one of the witless ones who still yells "Freebird!" at a Sigur Ros concert to declare your elitism -- "

I would call that person not an elitist, but an idiot.

As for the indie fan base that abandon their bands when they get so big that they start attracting mainstream fans, that is exactly what happened to U2, REM, and Coldplay, etc. Did U2 start making music any more "mainstream" after the Out of Time ablum, than what preceded it?

We are planning on going to the Metallica concert in October, and I know people who used to be rabid fans, but still haven't forgiven them for "selling out" with the Load/Unload releases, and the whole Napster fiasco, and have sworn off anything "present day" Metallica.

[Jeff]

"Did U2 start making music any more "mainstream" after the Out of Time ablum, than what preceded it?"

I meant to say REM, NOT U2. Although, I would say U2's Jump the Shark ablum was probably Achtung Baby - people really started hating on them after that release.

[Tim Finn]

I think people hate Bono -- especially some diehard Springsteen fans -- more than U2 (and I get that, too).

[Laurie]

I was already "borrowing" the other quote on my facebook. Now I am going to "borrow" this one as well.

"Our favorite bands mean much more to us than just the songs they sing and put on records. The more we see them, the deeper those bands and their music insinuate themselves into our lives. A band is live and organic, a collective of human beings, but it's also intangible.

If a band's music were only about the songs, it wouldn't matter who sang them; if a band were only about the people in it, we wouldn't care what they sang. When the bands we love sing the songs we love, they provide refuge and reward. They bring us to a happy place filled with familiar faces. They stop time. They defer reality. They take us on a joy ride, to new heights and to places we've seen a hundred times."

They both sum up how I feel about music and the bands that I love!

[Gary]

I don't think U2 "jumped the shark" on "Achtung Baby." For me that was the last great album of theirs. I remember when "Rattle and Hum" came out: blech! Talk about an ego fest. How many people have the Edge's song on their I-Pod?
And I don't think alternative radio made REM arena: MTV and VH1 made them that way. Once they got away from IRS they got bigger and bigger. I just read that they're not selling out shows any more. No wonder; "Accelerate" is bad and they aren't playing much from the hallowed IRS days.

[Tim Finn]

The video to "Losing My Religion" made them really big. They were never really an arena band, though. My favorite REM shows were in smaller venues: Hoch Auditorium, Memorial Hall, Starlight.

[Sho Nuff!]

Why sugar-coat or censor your opinions? Everyone is so afraid of offending everybody else these days. If someone thinks Jack Johnson is boring, Metallica are sellouts, or Nickelback are tools (a little truth in ALL of that), then proceed to argue the case for these artists if you like them. Or just let it go. Does it really matter all that much in the whole scheme of things??

Lester Bangs, best Rock Critic EVER, wrote with a vengeance that is sorely lacking today and if he thought an artist was soiling the good name of Popular music, he would make it known. In the same light, If he truly loved an artist, he would write about them like they were somehow going to save or transform Pop/Rock/R&B/etc. A little passion in an opinion in NOT a bad thing in my book. Hope THAT doesn't offend anyone.

[Sho Nuff! Part Deux]

er, "IS" not a bad thing....sorry that I don't proof-read!

[doug]

Did anyone see the Todd show in KC? There is a man not given the credit for his affect on music spanning more than 30 years? Tell me what you think of Todd and the show if you were lucky enough to see it.

[Penny]

The first time I fed REM was at Hoch Auditorium. They were just a bunch of nice young guys doing some very interesting music. The college crowd loved them. Over the years as they played bigger venues, like Kemper, they still remained good guys and remained unaffected. I think they were even more comfortable with smaller venues and more intimate crowds.

[mankvill]

But what do you yell at a Skynyrd concert?!

Click my name for my KC-based Heavy Metal blog!

[smartman]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder but beauty is only skin deep. Substance is always more important than style and the truth is always going to be better than a lie. Comparing Britney Spears to Metallica is like comparing Dane Cook to George Carlin or The Audacity of Hope to the Bible. We all have guilty pleasures but that doesn't change the fact that if you are are a true student of anything not exploring the "path less travelled" makes the journey less interesting. While Britney may still have time to reconstruct herself I doubt that she'll ever hold a candle to Joni Mitchell or Emmy Lou Harris.

[sleepy]

how many of the people in that freebird video were actually in the studio when that track was recorded? the beatles and led zeppelin are the only bands who ever ended it properly.

[Tim Finn]

Re: Lester Bangs. There's nothing wrong with saying why you don't like a band -- and saying it with a savage (sometimes cruel) wit. I'm talking about criticism that gets personal, either regarding the band or its fans. It's OK to say: I think Jack Johnson is a crushing bore. But when it goes beyond that to "You're a lightweight idiot if you like Jack Johnson," or "You're a d-bag if you don't like Radiohead" it's gone beyond criticism to ridicule.

[Derek Donovan]

Tim and others, all great points. I have another phenomenon that goes to the quasi-spiritual relationship we have with our favorite musicians: When someone you love puts out an album (or three) of substandard work, but you listen and end up falling in love with it anyhow. My guilt: Debbie Harry's truly not good "Debravation." In my defense, I don't like it any more. But after it came out, woo.

I've endured several of my favorites' getting abandoned by their core for "selling out." I don't get that at all. If you want them to sound like their first record forever, just play that one.

[Tim Finn]

... or want them to be broke-ass forever and traveling in a van and sleeping on strangers' living room floors. No band starts out hoping to remain obscure and working for less than a minimum wage.