Popularity doesn’t always reflect quality of artists

  Cyrus McNally Cyrus is a fourth-year
neuroscience student who currently believes in nothing, Lebowski.
But he isn’t going to cut off your Johnson. So e-mail him at
[email protected].

What’s really happening? What’s going on here? We
must ask ourselves these questions on a daily basis to remind us
that nothing really is as it seems; and we must constantly question
reality if we want to get anywhere in life.

Also, the official word is in: *NSYNC is more popular than U2
worldwide; Creed is still in the Billboard Top 50, and there was no
brawl between Eminem and Elton John at the Grammy’s.

But the good news is, I found my medication bottle ““ it
was in a jacket pocket ““ and now the voices are gone, so I
can write columns again. I can’t help but feel a bit lonely
though…

I’ve decided it’s about time that a clear-cut,
definitive separation, was made between the terms, “good
music” and “popular music.” My goal is to be as
objective as possible and increase your awareness of a very real
phenomena which has underlying laws and results in the production
of calculable (not just arguably) “good” music.

Yes, I know, you’re going to tell me its all
“subjective,” that it’s really just a matter of
opinion and how would I know cuz I’m not you and I
didn’t ever live your life so I can’t see where
you’re coming from or what you’re all about, even with
a radar machine or X-ray goggles!

All music is understandably produced out of some sort of
inspiration. If musicians weren’t inspired, they
wouldn’t make music. Where does this inspiration come from?
Well, the obvious, analytically-replete, response to this question
would be “things.” These things, in the past, have
included daffodils, croutons, brine shrimp, or a desire to copulate
with the opposite sex. (Incidentally, a current theory in
behavioral psychology claims that ““ even across cultures
““ all efforts made in the name of art are ultimately just
novel attempts to increase one’s probability of getting
some.)

While the lyrical content of a song might very well be
influenced by a particular object, event or feeling, the musical
content of a song is usually based on one thing: other music.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, musicians rely on techniques
established by other musicians to help get them where they want to
go creatively.

An obvious example of this might be a soundtrack composer, who,
while composing for John Carpenter’s “Sea
Abomination” might use music techniques from horror films
““ screeching violins, droning bass lines, atonal barrages of
piano tinkling ““ and incorporate them into their own
soundtrack, in hopes that people will associate “Sea
Abomination” with other horror films.

This brings me to my next point. Why doesn’t the
soundtrack artist use different, non-conventional ideas? Why
doesn’t he sample “Over the Rainbow” when James
Woods is stuffing dynamite into the sea monster’s mouth while
thrashing around in the Arctic? Well, the more familiar somebody is
with something, the more likely they are going to enjoy it ““
and this is because they are more likely to be comfortable with
it.

Most of the time, people like feeling comfortable, so it makes
sense that since people associate screeching violins and atonal
piano riffs with horror movies; they might expect John Carpenter to
hire a competent enough composer to fulfill their expectations
““ but also to do so in a tasteful manner.

This same paired attachment of emotion to sound, exists in
popular music as well. So, if musicians make music out of elements
familiar to a broad population of people, they are more likely to
sell their CDs than those who make music comprised entirely of
Hungarian fight song elements.

The aforementioned category of music (music that sells well) is
what I am going to define as “popular” music.
It’s popular for a reason: it makes a whole bunch of people
feel good, or at least comfortable to the point where they would go
out and plunk down anywhere from $12 to $18 to have it in CD
form.

However, “popular” music is not always the same
thing as “good” music. What constitutes
“good” music you might ask… Well, instead of being
like most rock critics, I’m not going to just tell you what
it is or isn’t, but suggest that “good” music is
that which influences the creation of more music. I say this with
confidence because, going back to my previous explanation, music
needs a source of inspiration and without inspiration there would
be no creation of new music!

As you probably already know, a lot of bands aren’t
influenced by “popular” music at all. Many alternative
artists, from David Bowie to R.E.M. to The Cure to Sonic Youth, all
claim this mysterious band named The Velvet Underground as one of
their prime influences. But who the heck is The Velvet
Underground?

VU was a band that never sold many records, but somehow inspired
several popular musicians through its originality. Although its
songs never really appealed to a mass audience, a band down the
line like R.E.M. managed to incorporate some of VU’s
components into its own stylistic juggernaut, which has itself
influenced many other bands. Thus, components of an unfamiliar
sound can be successfully incorporated into a familiar one to help
propel its success.

While there is no denying that R.E.M. and *NSYNC are both
popular groups, there is still a very clear-cut difference in their
potential to influence other popular bands. Have you ever heard of
a band that claims *NSYNC as one of its primary influences? Would
you ever want to? Do you think that even if such a band did exist
it would want this knowledge public?

Probably not!

If a musician tries to claim popular, yet otherwise widely
“un-influential,” musicians as inspiration, I claim
that they are no longer a musician, but a salesman. They are taking
the psychology behind what is known to work, and putting it to use
for their own profit. Not that there is a law against this. In
fact, many musicians make a comfortable living out of exploiting
the demands of mass-mentality, but I hope that such musicians
don’t expect to go down in the books as
“ground-breaking,” or even “good.”

Most of the time when the sales pitch is too obvious and bland,
the public comes to this realization and doesn’t buy in.
However, sometimes I cannot help but feel that these
“artists” are ultimately ripping off humanity by
claiming their goods to be works of “art,” and the
haplessly less-informed, in this situation as much as in any other,
tend to be the victims of a slick marketing scheme.

For those of you who made it this far, I congratulate you and
hope you feel you have a bit more insight into the music market and
the differences between the terms “popular” and
“good” music.

Or at least what I say they are.

I also hope that some big-wig record label marketing executives
or their cronies are reading this as well, and to them I say, well,
we’re not as dumb as you think.