[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: good music bad music
> . Why is it that we are supposed to buy this idea that for music to be
> ligitimately good it must be angry, edgy, provocotive, or even ugly? Why
> can't good music be nice? Why is it that if I say that I appreciate the
> Backstreet Boys because they are like the last bastions of melody/harmony/song
> structure in top 40 music, I all of a sudden lose my credibility as a music
> lover? I just don't get.
First off, I would say not to listen too much to the critics, but
to trust that good music will generally endure, and bad music will
not. Maybe the critics panned Toto at first, but classic rock
stations don't seem to mind playing their songs. Spin and Rolling
Stone especially are caught up in a certain concept of what is and
is not cool, which has nothing to do with the quality of the music.
Rock has its roots in music that is very visceral - blues, African
music, early Americana - and Rolling Stone seems to view itself as
defenders of that tradition. They want the raw, rebellious, angry
stuff, because that's what they think rock is all about. Pop groups
like the Backstreet Boys borrow things from Tin Pan Alley and other
outside traditions, and R.S. is not down with that.
On the other hand, the Backstreet Boys are about twice too sweet
for my tastes. The harmonies are too bright and always seem the
same. And listening to a pre-teen like Brittney Spears sing about
the wonders of true love just about makes me gag.
One other thought, Spin and R.S. also place a lot of faith in the
singer-songwriter tradition - the (usually anguished) poet who
pours out his/her soul on stage. Blame it on Dylan I guess. Pop
groups are not only committing the sin of singing someone else's
songs, but the production tends to be layered on thickly. Maybe
rock critics should just not write about pop music.
Mike.
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/