Is Music Really So Bad? Another Music Snob’s Dissent

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Daughtry is America

Yesterday, my Riff cohort Gary posted a diatribe against Americans’ terrible taste in music. The commoners like their trash, for sure, and it’s not restricted to music by any means: “Everybody Loves Raymond” lasted nine seasons, and I believe George W. Bush actually got a majority of the popular vote in 2004. It’s tempting to curl up into the fetal position and whimper, “why, why, why,” and it happens to the best of us: Idolator recently mocked a College Times writer for, ahem, “waking up to discover people have lousy taste,” and he covered some of the same territory:

…we all might not always agree on what’s great or even good, but shouldn’t we be able to come to some kind of consensus on what sucks beyond all compare? When an “American Idol” castoff who sounds like a watered-down version of Nickelback (No. 6 on the Billboard chart, for the record) sells more albums in a year than any other artist in any genre, I can’t help feeling like I’m fighting an unwinnable battle. When a song like “My Humps” that literally sounds like it was written by a 12-year-old becomes a breakaway hit, my disdain for the song is overshadowed only by my confusion as to what everyone else finds so appealing about it.

Idolator’s snark-meisters went for the jugular:

I know, dude, why do we even bother? Did people even read your Coheed & Cambria piece in October? How is that not the biggest selling disc of the year? Slightly more seriously, is there a music journo gambit more exhausted than calling the public out for having bad taste?

Ouch. I won’t give such a severe beat-down to my fellow Riffer since I too feel a little sick just looking at Daughtry’s album cover. But Idolator correctly points out that dippy pop trifles have always been popular (John Fred & His Playboy Band had the biggest-selling single of 1968), and remember, the differences between critically-acclaimed underground tunes and trillion-selling singles fade significantly with time. I won’t defend Daughtry here, but allow me to mount a defense of “My Humps.” …Perhaps “mount” isn’t the best word there. Anyway, I’ve always hated the Black Eyed Peas’ cartoony pop, but the first time I heard “My Humps” on the radio, it wasn’t back-announced, and I was 100% sure it was a classic ’80s freestyle tune that I’d somehow never heard before. Its bare-bones production values were straight out of Miami circa ’85, and the nursery-rhyme melody fit right in with classics like “When I Hear Music” or “Don’t Stop the Rock.” Moreover, the lyrics are so nonsensical they’re almost stream-of-consciousness, repeating words over and over (“get get get you drunk”) to fill the rhythms as if they’re making it all up on the spot, which for all I know they did. Plus, the word “humps” itself is such an unattractive way to refer to any body parts, it has a kind of child-like prurient giddiness. I like to think that its popularity meant everyone was in on the joke of its winking tribute to silly freestyle jams. Of course I got pretty sick of the humpy humps myself, but don’t tell me the Surfaris “Wipe Out” is any smarter.

Perhaps more importantly, let’s look at the charts this week: Radiohead’s awesome In Rainbows fell from #1 to #2 (knocked off by the tolerable Alicia Keys), and the “Juno” soundtrack‘s intriguing mix of The Kinks, Sonic Youth, Bell & Sebastian, Cat Power and the Velvet Underground is in at #3. Even wordy MySpace starlet Kate Nash managed to debut at #36 this week. I’m just saying: there’s signs of life.

So, I hear you. Rage against the dying of the light, for sure, and if you ever want me and my religious cult to surrender our compound, playing Garth Brooks or Hannah Montana at a deafening volume would be a pretty smart tactic. But don’t despair: this country may be full of North American scum, but sometimes we get it right.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate