Uniformity in Modern Music

This began as a music review for Fiona Apple's new album, the full name of which is "The Idler Wheel is Wiser Than the Driver of the Screw and Whipping Cords Will Serve You More Than Ropes Will Ever Do". Yet, as I wrote it, it grew longer and more involved, until it kid of took on a life of it's own. I did not fight it, and decided to break this up into two posts, since it seemed somehow inappropriate to write a short dissertation on music before actually getting to the review of her album. So, I decided to keep it, and just make two separate posts out of it, which makes more sense, it seems, then to make it one huge, monstrous review that takes several pages worth of words before it really even touches upon her work. So, here are some thoughts on music in general, and tomorrow, I will review her album, specifically (and without allowing myself to get so distracted – I promise!).

Historically, many classical compositions were done in such a way that it makes sense, while also appealing to your emotions. Listen to some of the great composers (Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Wagner, to name just a few), and the layout is smooth and well constructed. It makes sense, and we are often swept away by the mixture of the softness and sweetness of the tune, and/or the grandeur of the music, the power it lends to transport us away).

Of course, this music was the product of a different time, and it was reflective of that time. The world seemed more sure of itself, and civilization seemed more sure of where it stood. It seemed to make sense, seemed to being heading in a definitive direction. It could be soft, sweet, and subtle, or it could be overpowering in it's grandeur and majesty, but it seemed to make sense to one and all who belonged to civilization. It was comfortable, and the music fit the era.

We now live in a very different era, and much of the music, much like those wonderful and beautiful classical compositions, is reflective of our new reality. Much of the music we see out there today is not as easy on the ears or quick to digest. A lot of music is crass and in your face, much like the society that it belongs to. We have something that is referred to as the "music industry", and an industry it has indeed become. Like everything else, a lot of the music of the present day is simply one more consumer product, and thus by definition highly commercialized. In his book, "Freedom", Jonathan Franzen uses his fictional characters to make the argument that rock 'n roll, far from it's image of being some kind of alternative, or even protest, to the commercialized society at large, is in fact very much a product of that, and just another way these days of making money. Indeed, like the Rush lyrics in The Spirit of Radio", popular music nowadays "echoes with the sounds of salemen". Almost everything is prepackaged and formulaic – unless you find the musical genius of boy and girl bands and flavor of the moment musical acts like heartthrob (I don't mean that as a compliment) Justin Bieber to rank as truly great music.

Of course, I am not arguing that all modern music fits into this grinding machine. However, too much of it does. Much of rock 'n roll that seemed shocking and testing the limits yesterday seems tame today. Elvis gyrating his hips on national television, or the screaming throngs of teenage girls as the mop haircut-era Beatles stand in their matching suits performing their popular tunes, all of that seems quaint nowadays, yet they were shocking to many at the time, and seemed to present a young, and even dangerous, image at the time. Rock began as something dangerous and foreign to many, since it was predominately considered "black" music. It gained a more widespread audience, not surprisingly, when there were whites – particularly attractive white males-  who engaged in it, like Elvis, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Then it began to branch off, and their seemed to be a lot of different types of music and musicians. The Hippie-era seemed to be a strong and powerful protest to the society at large, a real alternative. Yet, Alice Cooper, and later the whole punk movement, largely vomited on the hippies, and went a long way towards the demise of flower power. Punk has often persisted in the spirit of protest, and many punk bands to the present day retain and maintain their individuality and independence of thought and action, and it is reflected in their style and in their music.

Yet, even punk was not immune from a "one size fits all" kind of cultural image, as it became all the rage to get a certain look and image that qualified one as punk. Suddenly, a certain hairstyle, and a certain way of dress (or as Johnny Rotten puts it, a uniform – more on that in the next paragraph), solidified you as a bonafide punk.

Johnny Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols and Public Image Limited), says of the formulaic trendiness of the punk look, "It was no different from the punk imitators who grabbed onto the idea of one steady uniform being rigidly adored. If you have any kind of movement at all, you should reject things like that. You're not moving, plus it's sterile."

Jello Biafra, best known for being the frontman of the Dead Kennedys, once sang that

"Punk's not dead it just deserves to die

When it becomes another stale cartoon"

Jello went on to suggest that not only did the image make everyone look the same, which was the complete antithesis of the original thinking behind punk as protest, but it also all started to sound the same. There was starting to be a trademark punk sound, and everyone was grabbing onto it. The arguments that both Lydon and Biafra are making is that punk had lost it's originality, and had lost much of it's meaning.

Yet, much of modern music is indeed a certain sound, and quite formulaic and boring. Originality is out. It is rare, very rare, to get someone who takes an entirely different approach, and stands out on their own. Often times, it serves as an alternative, until people catch on, and there are imitators, and before long, it becomes a new trend, and itself grows sterile. Punk suffered this fate, but was certainly not alone. Just look at heavy metal or what passes as grunge these days.

Whatever happened to intelligence, and why can't it be reflected in music, as well as the lifestyle of musicians? Why is it that music and musicians ultimately seem to get watered down so much that any danger that it once posed has lost all flavor, and becomes just another trademark? When George W. Bush hosts a dinner that Ozzy Osbourne attends and shoots the shit with him, you know that the days of the seemingly dangerous and crazy Ozzy are done and long gone. Like many before him, he has become a businessman, and does nothing that go against his business interests. The same can be said for seemingly protest-era icons The Who. Pete Townsend felt so appalled by Michael Moore's protest film "Fahrenheit 911" that they ultimately refused to grant permission to Moore to use The Who's protest anthem, "Won't Get Fooled Again", to conclude his film. 

Of course, the Who was also the only band that played the legendary Woodstock festival that absolutely insisted on getting paid. The more you hear about that group, the more you wonder just how much they took their anger and their rebellious lyrics to heart. You wonder if, even back then, they were not businessmen, first and foremost, projecting a popular and profitable image where they could rake the money in.  But they are not alone, of course.

In the 1980's, Metallica seemed to be the antithesis of the establishment, perhaps more than any other major band. They seemed to have a cult following, and not so much a mainstream following. Their lyrics seemed intelligent and reflective, well thought out, and received some attention from outside sources (Jello Biafra once complimented their lyrics, back then, for example).

However, they ultimately became the perfect poster child for what music has become. If they were one dangerous and seemingly politically charged, that whole thing went away once they tasted sweet success.

This group was never the same. Suddenly, they had a "look", all black, from head to toe. They portrayed a hyper macho image, and James Hatfield played up his role as the redneck. They won more and more fans, but many of their old fans felt disillusioned, including the author of this piece. They just were not the intense, anti-establishment group they once had been. Their music changed, but that in itself was not so much a big deal (at least not to me). After all, we all change as we grow older, and Metallica should not have felt stuck, or forced into constantly repeating the same genre, the same music and image, forever.

That said, the turn that they did take was a bit shocking, and felt a bit empty, as a fan. They suddenly were a huge group, and as such, they grabbed onto many of the same clichés that the old Metallica would normally have made fun of.

You hear stories about their lawsuit with Napster. Whatever the merits, or the lack thereof, in the case, ultimately it is a bit shocking for us older Metallica fans to think that this is the same group that it was back in the eighties. You hear Metallica members dismissing claims from other bands that they have lost their edge by claiming that they go to their shows in limousines, which presumably we should take as a mark not just of their success, but of their supremacy, evidently. In trying to deflect criticism that they sold out, they laugh it off by saying, why yes, they sell out, every show is sold out. They have grown to become rather arrogant pricks, and considering that they used to be a band that seemed to thrive on not being like that, by holding onto their values or reality or whatever it is that they had, this turn is unfortunate indeed.

The music is different, but that in itself is not too much of a big deal. But the lyrics changed, too, became less dangerous or adventurous, and reflected the conservative turn the American society has taken. Two years after covering the anti-war anthem "One", which still remains one of the staples of Metallica's repertoire, they released "Don't Tread On Me", which is as close to an outright pro-war song that they could have done, at the time of the first Gulf War.

This was not the same Metallica that we older fans had remembered, and their image, while more profane, became much safer in a very real sense, in terms of being accepted into the wider, mainstream audience, when alternative was growing more accepted.

It just seems that a lot of music is more conventional these days, more "safe" like that. It had long been the case, but we seemed to be moving away from that quite a bit in the early nineties. With Nirvana's explosive "Smells Like Teen Spirit", it looked like mainstream music was returning to a more protesting kind of spirit. So it seemed, at the time, as the so-called "Seattle Sound", also known as grunge, exploded onto the national scene. There was a new sound, a new way of dressing, of acting, etc.. A new consciousness overall, and mindless rock anthems seemed to be out.

That did not last too long. The alternative wave lasted a few years, sure. There were grunge groups, and other groups previously on the fringes suddenly became huge – groups such as  Metallica, like I mentioned before, as well as the Red Hot Chili Peppers, among others. Numerous Seattle groups, such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden, also became household names overnight, practically.

Suddenly, the popular music scene  seemed to possess a bit of danger and unpredictability again, as traditional popular acts that presented a safer image, such as Michael Jackson, or Madonna, or even other rock groups like INXS, suddenly yielded the radio waves to a harder, rawer sound.

It lasted some years, but once again, turn on the most popular radio stations, and once again, you will hear safe pop music, dance music, once again dominating the airwaves. Rihanna is constantly in the news. Beyonce is the sexiest woman alive, according to some magazines or other entertainment sources. Both of them dominate the airwaves. Shakira is still heard quite a bit, although she is not as dominant as she was a few years ago. One down the line, what you have is a cleaner, safer, prepackaged music scene. Music without much spontaneity, and that is, predictable, right back on top of the music scene.

Don't even get me started on techno, which I will admit to absolutely loathing. Bill Maher once said that you have to be high on drugs to really get into that, and I agree with that. It really is horrible music.

I do not know what the answer is. There is something perhaps to be said that all forms of music have some value, but the music that really moves usually is the music that lasts. People still listen to Mozart and Beethoven centuries after their lives. Some of the old jazz icons from early in the twentieth century still loom large. Chuck Berry and Little Richard remain well known and influential. Elvis and the Beatles and the Rolling Stones still remain very popular, and influential. People still buy and listen to albums from artists such as Pink Floyd, the Doors, Santana, Jimi Hendrix, Janice Joplin, and numerous other rock icons from the sixties. Led Zeppelin remain legendary and are a huge nfluence for numerous groups even to the present day, as are Black Sabbath. Many listen to the groups that came out of the Seattle scene in the nineties, including yours truly (I have traditionally been a big follower of Pearl Jam, in particular, but I like most of the bands that came out of that whole movement). These groups, and many more too numerous to mention here, will likely live on for many.

As for Shakira and Beyonce and Rihanna, and many other artists enjoying their spot in the sun right now, are not likely to have such staying powr, and remain influential. I do not want to sound like a snob, but again, what happened to those times when music meant something? When it was a protest of sorts, when it was perhaps a cry for help, as well, or perhaps in addition to, being very artistic and challenging, a testament to the musicianship of the band creating and/or performing the music. Listen to Rush, and you will likely know what I mean.

Some music is meant to be timeless, while other music is timed just right for the moment. They will have their moment in the sun, and enjoy dominating the airwaves for this period. But when all is said and done, it will be the groups who showed a bit more creativity and who sought greater meaning with their music that will withstand the test of time, me thinks – even if they do not any longer dominate the airwaves, or perhaps never even did in the first place.