Sometimes I have this thought about music that I can't defend and I think sounds crazy. I'd actually like your opinion/take on it. I am sure it will come across as preachy, but that's mostly because it is preachy.
When we consume and enjoy music, are we encouraging an individual's destruction? Specifically, the destruction of the individuals creating the music?
Popular music today is so firmly entrenched in heartache, drugs, sex and debauchery. I am convinced that the music today is worse than it was when I was a kid, because I can still listen to the music from the early 90's when I started riding the bus and getting my first listen to popular music. There is much less overt, glorified talk about sex and drugs in the musical "stylings" of my childhood than there is today. Listening to the radio makes me feel ill if I stop and listen to what they are saying.
But it's no secret that drugs, heartache and sex are what make good music in a world post-Elvis. Sometimes I find myself wishing that my favorite artists would get their heart broken or would relapse so they'd put out a good album again. It's an entirely selfish thought on my part. It's also what I have been more-or-less conditioned to think.
Here's an example: The Smashing Pumpkins were creating their first album in like a decade a few years ago. (If you don't know, they are essentially the third best grunge band of the 90's, meaning they get mentioned in every "best band ever" list, but never before Nirvana or Pearl Jam.) I didn't really experience grunge, being born in 1985 (meaning I can't appreciate music until I am like twelve, which was 97, which was boy bands and Britney), but I have come to appreciate the hits of the above mentioned bands.
When the pumpkins were creating that first album in like a decade, there was a lot of chatter that it could never be as good as their original works. That's not new or surprising. What I found interesting is that the band came out, mid-production, with a statement that those doubts were pissing them off. It went something like this:
"To hear people say that we can never produce music, or be as creative, as we once were when we were fried out of our minds on drugs is insulting and demeaning." It was both well articulated and profound, in my opinion. I don't know if their subsequent albums were any good (but I also don't really know for myself if their first ones were), but that quote stayed with me. People who loved this band were essentially rooting for more disaster in their lives, so they could suck some pleasure out of it.
Do I do that? I must. Probably not actively, (at least not often, but I have at least once lamented that I wish Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind would start doing Crystal Meth and screwing Charlize Theron again), but does that matter?
This is the age-old issue with rock and roll. It comes from a place of hate, loss, pain and anger. Those emotions and experiences fuel truly gripping and fantastic music that speaks to generations, but either leads to binges of sex, drugs and alcohol, or the fame and success takes away the situations of hate, loss, pain and anger. Either way, us fans are left thinking either a) it's too bad that Rocker X is killing himself with drugs, but he keeps spitting out fantastic music, or b) it's too bad that Rocker X got wealthy and comfortable, I would have liked to have a few more good albums out of him.
Of course there are exceptions to this. James Taylor has effectively kicked his cocaine addictions, at least as far as I can tell, and still makes great music. But he was never singing true rock-and-roll, where he fights the man and sings from a place of anger. Maybe this issue only applies to music that is fueled by personal disaster. Bands that sing for causes or in defense of something might last longer (like Incubus, which has consistently turned out quality music for a while now), or that just sing about life and experiences (like, I don't know, Taylor Swift? Maybe all country music?), or bands that just make no sense half the time like The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
But the top music makers of today are people like Adele, Katy Perry, Kanye West and Lady Gaga. I am sure I am missing some big ones (sure, throw in Jay-Z, and I guess the Biebs and Taylor Swift). Those names fall under two groups: certifiably crazy and talented (Kanye and Gaga), and tons of heartache and/or debauchery (Adele, Perry, Gaga, Kanye). Adele and Kanye are two of the only new musicians I have really enjoyed in the last, I don't know, five years?
Here's where I really start to talk about stuff that I don't understand. Reality Music Shows and interviews with musicians have taught me that true music comes from within. It comes from either the pain and suffering of loss or the joy of love. Isn't the first of those two options, well, awful? It's one thing if writing and performing music based on loss and pain is therapeutic, but at what point does it become exploitative? At what point am I contributing to someone's poor choices and harmful dependencies, when I buy and appreciate their heartache and then don't enjoy the following, less compelling music.
So, what about gospel music? Isn't that the only music that can come from a true, sustained well of joy? Why do I hate it?
In all fairness, I don't listen to it. Hardly ever. But I have tried it. I grew up with it, and have gone back to test it a few times, and am continually amazed at how bland, boring, and unoriginal it can be. It's as if someone heard a real rock band and said "let's Christianize that," which apparently means "let's copy the sound and hope for the best."
Christian music can't really have the edge of rock music, because of the lack of sexdrugsalcoholdebaucheryetc. Can playing music that comes from a place of peace, joy and forgiveness be, I don't know, good?
This leads me to wonder if rock music is fundamentally flawed, from a Christian perspective. Is it in fact the devil's music, like Nat King Cole's dad yelled at him that one time in that one movie I saw on OPB or something when I was young? If that's the case, then, wow, we're screwed up. If it's not the case, then, okay, maybe Christians can make some good stuff?
(Also, don't come to me with a million links and a hundred band names saying "have you heard my band Tattooed Crusaders" or send me a youtube of you singing "better is one day," because I would rather listen to Outkast.)
If you ever wonder how I get such great pictures, I google things like "rock and roll" and pretty much take the first thing that pops up. |
When we consume and enjoy music, are we encouraging an individual's destruction? Specifically, the destruction of the individuals creating the music?
Popular music today is so firmly entrenched in heartache, drugs, sex and debauchery. I am convinced that the music today is worse than it was when I was a kid, because I can still listen to the music from the early 90's when I started riding the bus and getting my first listen to popular music. There is much less overt, glorified talk about sex and drugs in the musical "stylings" of my childhood than there is today. Listening to the radio makes me feel ill if I stop and listen to what they are saying.
But it's no secret that drugs, heartache and sex are what make good music in a world post-Elvis. Sometimes I find myself wishing that my favorite artists would get their heart broken or would relapse so they'd put out a good album again. It's an entirely selfish thought on my part. It's also what I have been more-or-less conditioned to think.
Here's an example: The Smashing Pumpkins were creating their first album in like a decade a few years ago. (If you don't know, they are essentially the third best grunge band of the 90's, meaning they get mentioned in every "best band ever" list, but never before Nirvana or Pearl Jam.) I didn't really experience grunge, being born in 1985 (meaning I can't appreciate music until I am like twelve, which was 97, which was boy bands and Britney), but I have come to appreciate the hits of the above mentioned bands.
When the pumpkins were creating that first album in like a decade, there was a lot of chatter that it could never be as good as their original works. That's not new or surprising. What I found interesting is that the band came out, mid-production, with a statement that those doubts were pissing them off. It went something like this:
"To hear people say that we can never produce music, or be as creative, as we once were when we were fried out of our minds on drugs is insulting and demeaning." It was both well articulated and profound, in my opinion. I don't know if their subsequent albums were any good (but I also don't really know for myself if their first ones were), but that quote stayed with me. People who loved this band were essentially rooting for more disaster in their lives, so they could suck some pleasure out of it.
Do I do that? I must. Probably not actively, (at least not often, but I have at least once lamented that I wish Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind would start doing Crystal Meth and screwing Charlize Theron again), but does that matter?
I like their music but don't really care about their well being, I suppose. |
This is the age-old issue with rock and roll. It comes from a place of hate, loss, pain and anger. Those emotions and experiences fuel truly gripping and fantastic music that speaks to generations, but either leads to binges of sex, drugs and alcohol, or the fame and success takes away the situations of hate, loss, pain and anger. Either way, us fans are left thinking either a) it's too bad that Rocker X is killing himself with drugs, but he keeps spitting out fantastic music, or b) it's too bad that Rocker X got wealthy and comfortable, I would have liked to have a few more good albums out of him.
Of course there are exceptions to this. James Taylor has effectively kicked his cocaine addictions, at least as far as I can tell, and still makes great music. But he was never singing true rock-and-roll, where he fights the man and sings from a place of anger. Maybe this issue only applies to music that is fueled by personal disaster. Bands that sing for causes or in defense of something might last longer (like Incubus, which has consistently turned out quality music for a while now), or that just sing about life and experiences (like, I don't know, Taylor Swift? Maybe all country music?), or bands that just make no sense half the time like The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
But the top music makers of today are people like Adele, Katy Perry, Kanye West and Lady Gaga. I am sure I am missing some big ones (sure, throw in Jay-Z, and I guess the Biebs and Taylor Swift). Those names fall under two groups: certifiably crazy and talented (Kanye and Gaga), and tons of heartache and/or debauchery (Adele, Perry, Gaga, Kanye). Adele and Kanye are two of the only new musicians I have really enjoyed in the last, I don't know, five years?
Here's where I really start to talk about stuff that I don't understand. Reality Music Shows and interviews with musicians have taught me that true music comes from within. It comes from either the pain and suffering of loss or the joy of love. Isn't the first of those two options, well, awful? It's one thing if writing and performing music based on loss and pain is therapeutic, but at what point does it become exploitative? At what point am I contributing to someone's poor choices and harmful dependencies, when I buy and appreciate their heartache and then don't enjoy the following, less compelling music.
So, what about gospel music? Isn't that the only music that can come from a true, sustained well of joy? Why do I hate it?
Seriously the best Christian music not called "Jars of Clay." But seriously go listen to this song. |
In all fairness, I don't listen to it. Hardly ever. But I have tried it. I grew up with it, and have gone back to test it a few times, and am continually amazed at how bland, boring, and unoriginal it can be. It's as if someone heard a real rock band and said "let's Christianize that," which apparently means "let's copy the sound and hope for the best."
Christian music can't really have the edge of rock music, because of the lack of sexdrugsalcoholdebaucheryetc. Can playing music that comes from a place of peace, joy and forgiveness be, I don't know, good?
This leads me to wonder if rock music is fundamentally flawed, from a Christian perspective. Is it in fact the devil's music, like Nat King Cole's dad yelled at him that one time in that one movie I saw on OPB or something when I was young? If that's the case, then, wow, we're screwed up. If it's not the case, then, okay, maybe Christians can make some good stuff?
(Also, don't come to me with a million links and a hundred band names saying "have you heard my band Tattooed Crusaders" or send me a youtube of you singing "better is one day," because I would rather listen to Outkast.)