May 21, 2004

Making the Music Better, One Critic at a Time

So, Nick Hornby thinks modern rock is either chasing the "Britney dollar" (read, "commercially successful and brainless") or choosing "the high-minded cult-rock route that leads to great reviews and commercial oblivion" that doesn't "want to engage with the mainstream, or no longer thinks that it's possible to do so, and as a consequence cult status is preordained rather than accidental." (read, "really well done, but only sells a few hundred copies mostly to trendy music-mag editors"). And he's pontificating on this in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times.

Well.

After I finished saying Fuck You Very Much to Mr. Hornby, I thought it would be worthwhile to consider he might be right. His basic point is that rock music today, if critically acclaimed, is not heard by many, and that the music that is heard by many basically, well, sucks. He longs for the days when musicians were both popular and good (Springsteen is lauded, again), and music had "roots" (defined by Mr. Hornby as music that has "recognizable influences — influences that are not only embedded in pop history, but that have been properly digested." Oh, silly me, did I forget to mention that Mr. Hornby turned 47 recently?). At one point he calls for the Ford or Dickens of music to step forward and write songs that are both commerically successful and critically engaging.

(This brought me visions of some band in a garage somewhere, with a copy of the New York Times, all standing around smacking themselves in the heads, saying, "Oh, THAT'S what we forgot, people are supposed to LIKE our music. Luke, put away the chainsaw and the goat and tune up yer guitar." Hey, I have visions sometime. Sue me).

Let's ignore the obvious rejoinder to Mr. Hornby (that commercially successful music doesn't suck to the millions who buy/steal it, or that most people are morons who don't see the value in "quality" music). Let's also ignore the whole freedom thing (it's a marketplace - maybe people don't buy Hornby's "Dickens" music because they don't like it, not because it doesn't exist). Let's actually look at what is being sold, and be music critics and decide if it sucks or not. I found Soundscan's 2002 and 2003 list of best selling albums. 2004 is not (of course) available yet, and I couldn't find 2001 or 2000.

There is a whole lotta crap in the charts. The number one album of 2002 is Eminem (not wholly reviled by critics, but not rejected either). Number 4 is a Dixie Chicks album (again, not the greatest music ever, but not awful either - is this Hornby's "Dickens" thing?). Number 10 is music from O Brother, Where Art Though, which has to count as critically acclaimed, and generally good. 2003 manages to be much better. Outkast at number 5 and Coldplay at number 10, both very critically acclaimed and clearly well liked (and bought). Nora Jones (at number 2) isn't exactly rock, but neither were some of the folk acts in the sixties that charted well. So, four and half of the best selling twenty albums of the past two full years are somewhat respectable (in a rock critic sense). Other than that, a bunch of shit. (Or, at least, Hornby and I agree that it is a bunch of shit. Others may differ.) That doesn't seem too bad a ratio. And I'll bet that if I could find 2001 or 2000 I'd get Radiohead on there, and maybe a White Stripes album, along with a bunch more shit. But is the "shit percentage" more or less than it used to be? I'll bet that if we check whatever charts exist for whatever time period Mr. Hornby wants, we'd also find a bunch of shit on the charts. Disco? 80s big hair pop? Duran Duran? N'Synch? Dramarama? Every era has shit, and I don't think now is any worse than 10 years ago, 20, or 30. (And it may even be better)

What the hell does Hornby want? I'll bet I know. He wants what every two-bit, aging, intellectual critic wants. He wants the world to acknowledge that his tastes are the people's tastes, and it is good taste. How does the world acknowledge Mr. Hornby's exquisitely good musical choices? They buy a lot of them. How do we know the world isn't acknowledging these munificent pearls of wisdom from on high? They are not, presently, buying them. Hornby is distressed. Hornby writes the New York Times, and inflicts his distress on us. As I mentioned earlier, Fuck You Very Much, Mr. Hornby.

Look, good literature doesn't sell well (Hey, "South Beach Diet" beat out Dickens - tell Hornby!), good art doesn't until the artist is insane, dead, or both, poetry never sells well, Better Homes and Gardens outsells Time about two to one (and TV Guide is also two to one, while Readers Digest is about three to one) in a democracy. Why should music be any different? Shit, Hornby's best seller on Amazon (High Fidelity) only has a sales rank of 2,760. And it was good. But didn't sell well. Just like good music. Hey, Hornby: Go listen to the music you like, and thank some benign higher being that at least it got made and you could listen to it. That's worthwhile, not your criticism.

Posted by baltar at May 21, 2004 03:25 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Music


Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?