/!\This article is an archive from my last blog, it was originally released the 2017 april 4th.
There is a video I've done in french reading this article with videos illustrations here :
Hello, it’s Rose. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but when, with friends or unknown people, come the question of music, it ends sometimes with a « You listen to this ? It’s definitively shit music ». It could also end like « There is nothing better than weird rythmic, atonal saxophone’s soli, try, it will be more interesting than the commercial music you listen ». In those same conversations, it arrives that we hide our true taste in music because of the fear of being judged.
When we hear those words to describe music like commercial music, it involves that there is an other music that is not commercial, also for the music called shitty music which involve that there is a music that is not. So is there a music better than an other music ? Is there a « good musical taste » ?
Today we gonna talk about snobbery.
So what is snobbery ?
The snobbery is an attitude looking to reproduce the behaviour of a social class perceived as an upper class. This behaviour act mostly in a look down and a judgement to those considered like inferior and those who don’t want to follow the same behaviour.
A snob person is someone who want to make believe by their manners that they know the upper taste.
Misdeeds of snobbery
If there is something rude when you interact with people, it’s the judgement which can be thrown by people that not share the same musical interest. Some people don’t care at all but some can exercise a particularly violent snobbery. Music has, for a lot of people, an important link to the identity and the group of people they belong to, so to come and criticize those taste is sometimes equal to a critic to themself, their way to interact with the music they listen to and their belonging.
This snobbery, when it’s applied by a big group of people, can have strong repercussions because it carries a message of domination. To say to someone that the genre of music they love is shit is telling to them:The music you like and identify to is inferior, the music I listen to is better, I’m upper than you by my erudition.
There is a supposed musical superiority in snobbery, often link to the more underground way of diffusion of the music, the price to pay to access it, written with some musical concepts from art music. The snob pretends to be expert of a more legitimite music that could fit in the great culture. This kind of behaviour can be found in all class of the musical society, the snobbery can be applied by artists, listeners, critics, people who teach music, schools, institutions…
There is also some words to classify music which brings a judgement. For example, the « art music » genre has a particular violence with what it can be distinguish : popular and folk music. Those names are arguable consensus. The terms « art music » cover mostly the occidental classical music, as the french term « Musique savante » (knowledged music), because there is hypothetically in those musical genre something higher than the rest of the music everywhere in the world. This form of self-proclaimed nobility justify itself by the use of advanced occidental musical theory and structure and come often with a written sheet music. Even if the art music term is now open to worldwide classical music, those terms are still judge to the supposed intellectual quality of art music compared to popular and folk music.
However, there is beauty, daring, musical research and cultural linking in popular musical and music called commercial.
Musical minimalism isn’t cultural poverty
Let’s see a music genre no so often talked about, most of the time booed by non users of the genre, mostly criticize by is lack of consistancy, let’s talk about soccer’s supporters songs.
I don’t talk about it like I’m a connoisseur. I’ve seen one play in my life, between two cities from France. When Maxime Poisson scored, everybody in the stadium began to sing « Maxime Poisson ! Maxime Poisson ! Maxime Maxime Maxime Poisson ! ». Me, a kid, I was all confused, and in this total chaos, I’ve surprised myself shiver and sing too.
This sensation, I’ve felt it again with my friends singing « Tout le monde déteste la police ! » (Everybody hate the cops), it was not a clever melody but in a crowd off 200 people which scream it, it does something.
And it’s this lack of musical search that would make soccer supporters’s song dumb. But, come on and go make an entire stadium full with people with no singer formation sing, it should be easy songs. Making sing a 10 people crowd sing is difficult, so I let yo imagine for 200 000 persons.
Let’s see an example with the song of the Liverpool team covering You’ll never walk alone, a song from the Broadway musical Carousel.
So how a 1945’s song with a complex lead sing is sung in football stadium ? For the story, it’s by the Gerry & The Pacemakers cover which was a big hit at his release in 1963. The ten best songs of the hit parade were broadcasted before football play, the song was played, played and played until it disappeared of the charts but the broadcaster continue to diffuse it because football fans continue to sing it. The song became the Liverpool’s hymn, which will be sung by the Milan team with emotion during the minute of silence dedicated to the 96 supporters of Liverpool dead during a stampede in the Hillsboroug stadium in 1989. The song became the hymn of the Dortmund team in 2008/2009 when a music band from Dortmund made a cover of the You’ll never walk alone. According to the website sofoot.com, it would not be so random that this song became popular in Germany, the appearance of this song in stadium fit with period where Liverpool and Dortmund are overloaded with a high unemployement.
So yes, sometimes, popular songs are covered by football supporters, like the White Stripes’s Seven Nation Army song. According to Slate, supporters from belgium may have sung it first ad, consecutively, became the italian footbal team’s hymn. Jack White, the guitarist/singer from White Stripes, will tell that he is honoured that the song has been covered and used in stadium.
By his characteristic, a stadium sing simple songs, with few harmonies. This lack of complexity doesn’t make them idiots.
Bernard Lahire, sociologist, in La culture des individus, does a comparison with the public who appreciate classical music, which fit in the dominant culture, and the public who appreciate football. The public liking to show that they appreciate classical music is fortunate, with hogh studies, this same public will rarely show an attraction with football, judged as a popular class activity. Instead, an investigation has been led with football amateur. It has been asked to them in group and, after, individually, if they liked classical music. In group, the majority told that didn’t like classical music but individually they shared that they listen to it sometimes.
Music is a real caracteristic of the social and cultural belonging. If we want to maintain an erudition image in the occidental society, we like classical music publicly and we hide the hypothetic love of hip hop or metal. It’s called by Bourdieu the legitimate culture, a type of knowledge which appear legitimate to the eyes of all the people of a same society.
At worse, we can tell we have a guilty pleasure, it’s always good to have one or two guilty pleasures. This term « guilty pleasure » (péché mignon in French) is a problem. Most of the time it hides and gives a false image of big part of a culture judged shameful by the society, culture that doesn’t hurt anyone.
What is the wrong to appreciate artist from the top 50 if this artist is not oppressive and seems to not hurt anyone ?
It is more conventional to appreciate and support the music of an oppressive person judged non commercial instead of liking a non oppressive artist of the top 50 ?
So there are few ways to critic this kind of question and two ways have affirmed themself. The first which will dissociate the art of the artist, the second that will not dissociate the art of the artist. One orientated art critic before all, the other one critic the art but also the ethic and moral of the artist. Those two ways to approach the art are interesting and have qualities and flaws. We just have to keep in mind to be critic of our own critic because choosing to include the artist or not in the critic of the art is a political choice.
Criticize the message and not the music in itself
Personaly, there some music I do not listen or listen no more. What could be snobbery is actually a boycott mostly linked with messages I can’t or won’t listen or promote. This political choice is not directed to the music itself but to the artists, broadcasters and critics. I boycott artists that the message, inside the music or outside the music, seem oppressive to me and other people and I boycott broadcasters that prevent musical diversity but also some critics that promote oppresive artists.
I disagree with the argument that, says, a fascist person who tour with their band represent just theit art and not their political ideas. If a politic, like Robert Menard (famous french right of the right politic), create a band that rocks and just talk about dancing in his song, would you go to his gig saying « oh, it’s just a rock band that rocks a lot who invite me to move my ass and dance » ? Will you make him play at a festival ? Even if this band has the best groove and make the most awesome guitar solo, if it’s a fascist band, I’m sorry, this is dead, I will recognize that they are technically good but I’d never listen to the band or promote it without taking there political opinion in the equation. It wouldn’t bother you to pay a ticket that would pay them and with that money they’ll invest in campain for ideas that you are fully opposed to ?
I will not criticize the person who like those kind of band if they don’t know about the band background, and I will not criticize the person who will talk about those band to understand their music and message. However, I find it kind of irresponsable from the musical critics to promote those fascist artists pretexting that they do good music so it vanish their violence. For me, promoting a band without taking or excusing the message and behaviour of an artist, it’s cautioning the message vehiculated by the artist. I think it’s a manner to legitimate culture that should be condemn.
It’s the same for broadcasters. The artists can make the music they want, in a way to make money or not, this is not the question. The problem here come mostly from what the broadcasts share as artists and music. If there weren’t just three musical genres to be programmed mostly in national radios, maybe artists wanting to make a career wouldn’t do the same music and would be allowed to share a different music. It’s the same for big musical event, if those groups which determinate the nominated artists were more eclectic, the results would be different.
But, who is to blame ? The music promoted by those event or the decisive groups and broadcasters themself ?
For me, the right musical taste doesn’t exist, there is no good and bad music, there is just messages shared by artists and musical structures that we like or not.
The snobbery and the thought of a cultural superiority has already provoked numerous actions of hate. For example, 40 years ago with the event called Demolition Disco Night.
Disco is a musical genre which appers in late 60 in New York and Philadelphia. It’s a dancing music, inspired by funk groove, soul, salsa and pop which will be really famous during the 70 decade. At first a genre mostly underground with queer, afro american and latino amerisan influences, the genre spread and begin to be listen by white heterosexual people after the release of hits from the Bee Gees and the movie Saturday Night Fever. The genre is broadcasted en masse and become a phenomenon. Rock radios converte themself to disco and the host Steve Dahl, rock dj, is fired from hi radio station in Chicago after the radio convertion to disco. He joins an other rock radio and becomes popular for his hate toward disco. He does parody of catch sentence, of disco songs and create an anti disco league called « Insane Coho Lips », with the slogan « Disco Sucks » and will lead a war against disco. Dahl creates events, like a protest of thousand people against a conversion of a rock club to a disco club in Indiana, and the rock dj will celebrate the death of the disco musician Van Mccoy by destroying his disco single on live radio. Those events bring other anti disco actions which will culminate the july 12 1979. Few days before the event, the manager of the White Sox, a baseball team, used to do promotional events to bring new people to baseball game, decide to associate with Steve Dahl to create a sport and anti disco event called Demolition Disco Night. The deal is to offer a ticket to the game at 98 cents of dollar for those who will bring a disco LP that could be exploded in the middle of the game. With the radio promotion and discount tickets, the Cosmikey Park is full, more than 20000 people are outside, and the bow containing the vinyles is quickly full. The game begins to be really chaotic because of the over excited crowd which throw LP, beers, lighter on the field and the beginning of the game is reported few times.
Dahl arrives on the field at the mid game and fires the explosives. The box full of LP explode but also a part of the field. After the explosion, a part of the crowd comes on the field and brings chaos until the arrival of the police. If the disco was in lose of popularity at mid 1979, this event will contribute to erase it from the radios.
It’s interesting to note that the snobbery and questions about musical critics are not from yesterday. Marie Gaboriaud, Ph.D in literature, in « La critique musicale au début du 20ème siècle : discours spécialisé ou « littérature » ? » notes that in early 1900 were already numerous ways to criticize the music. First, there is a scholar approch, knowledged often called snob. In opposition is an amateur way to criticize, more naive with the insight proper of the amateur which doesn’t have a strong knowledge of the musical theory. It will be reproach by the scholar critic, in the journal « Le mercure musicale » in 1906 in an article called « Du snobisme en musique », the refusal of the amateur to learn and his vanity that the amateur can have for a work of art.
Of course, every extra musical message brought by the artist put aside, the music can be analyzed in every way possible, with the more scholar or the more subjective way. There is no best method, every critic will find something unique. But here is snobbery too, when you think there is a better way to analyze and feel the music.
This elitism is bad for the dialogue,the share of knowledge and self affirmation.
Do we have to put back in question the truth of our feeling when we listen to a music, in the fear to feel the wrong feeling according to the critics ? Is the fear to express the love of a music considered as bad music doesn’t censor ourself and does it prevent ourself to open ourself fully to art and ourself ?
The question here is : Is there truth in music and art ? And if there is a truth, is it so important ? Do we have to raise it up in an objective thing ?
There is no absolute quality to music, no good or bad. However, the rythme, the structure, the harmony, the lyrics carry messages. A song composed like verse/chorus/bridge carry an other message than a song with no understandable structure. A melody doesn’t carry the same message if it evolves in equal temperament or if it evolves in raga tamoul. A sweet and soft music will not carry the same message than a heavy ambiant son. The choice of the pitch is important too. Everything carry a message.
Those choices are not good or bad, this is just message that we agree or not as artist or listener. Also, those messages are relative to the context the music is produced and experimented.
If the hype is on noise music without structure that shred the ears so the actual popular music will not be considered as commercial music, and we will find the same arguments to lose the credibility of the music called commercial to noise music. Easy to produce, not intelligent, supermarket music…
We can like a music without understand the message that the artist want to share and find something more personal in it. And it’s not necessary to peel the music to appreciate it. Also, every person see the music as they want, some people like to analyze it deeply, others listen without thinking about it. There is no best we to appreciate and consume the music.
In a nice world, not impossible to reach, it would be cool to not give judgement totally subjective to the non interested person to the music you love. It’s not by forcing the person to listen to the music you will make them like it. Musics, sounds, in general are things hard to escape, we don’t have lids for our ears. So, be cool.
Also, it doesn’t help anything to spit on activities that hurt no one by calling those activities as low culture because there are assimilated to dumb culture or commercial culture. Here I’m thinking about tuning, football, mainstream music, erotic, porno, love stories…
If you want to be mad at something, scream to broadcaster that doesn’t offer cultural diversity, be mad to the people that makes big money on those culture, scream against those who make those culture sad and creepy by bringing unhealthy messages. There is other cultures, system, attitude, much more unhealthy, insidious which deserve to be pointed than the popular classes cultures who try to unite themself around something good. Problems are discrimination that corrupt those things, racism, sexism, transphobia, classism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, virilism, and what those discriminations create as culture and myths.
I would like to finish and tell you to be proud of what you like to listen. If you listen and love something oftenly called commercial or shitty music, and if you have the possibility to do so, don’t associate it to shitty music, because it will make the snobbery even tougher to fight.