My musical tastes are better than yours
Sound elitist, boastful, just plain stupid? It happens to be true, but on the other hand, your musical tastes are better than mine, as far as you are concerned. At least I hope you feel that way. Why wouldn’t you?
Remember, you like what you like, whether music, art, food, sex, or just about anything else, because it appeals to you somehow. On some level. You respond from within in ways that cannot be explained or expressed, at least not very easily. This is the visceral reaction, and the essence of Visceraudio. It is not right or wrong or black or white or loud or soft or anything other than your feelings surrounding it, and feelings are valid no matter what.
Avoiding elitism and snobbery here is simple: read the subject title of this post again, and merely add this phrase to it: “…but that doesn’t mean I am better than you.”
Analogy: I think chicken liver is awful, it tastes terrible and I can’t imagine why anyone would want to eat it. But I don’t give a shit if you want to eat it, and my disdain for it is no judgement about you. We have different taste buds and brain receptors and biochemical makeups and memories about chicken liver etc etc. You will never be able to explain to me why I should like chicken liver. Might be fun for both of us though if you tried to…
Now substitute “Michael Jackson” for chicken liver…
Next time: why commercial music sucks, and why it’s ok to stop liking a band after they become famous…
visceraudio 
Do independent record labels and artists have more value than corporate labels and commercial artists? Are independent record labels and artists the same as corporate and commercial ones because at the end of the day, they both want to make money? Is it okay to say that Michael Jackson’s music has utterly no value, just because we don’t like it?
These were some of the questions being thrown around after an evening of listening to music at this month’s Visceraudio and I thought it was pretty rad. Kudos to Evan for diving in head first and stirring up the muck. My head was swirling with the conversation all through the weekend and given the fact that I currently live in a baby cave, this has considerable value in and of itself.
I finally came to the conclusion that if we are going to try to answer any of these questions, we need to figure out what we mean by the concept of value. How can we determine whether we agree or disagree with the statement that the MJ’s music has utterly no value, if we do not have a working definition or concept of value.
One person might interpret value by coolness. The Replacements are better, or have more value, than Michael Jackson because there can be absolutely no doubt that they are way more cool. I’m fairly sure that we can all agree that The Nats are way more cool than MJ, otherwise we might find ourselves having a discussion of what the meaning of is is. Please dear gawd no!
I personally have always looked at the concept coolness with what I can only describe as utter disdain. What is cool pretty much appears to be defined by a fickle mob rules mentality. When I was a kid riding around Berkeley in a shopping cart blasting Black Flag’s “Damaged” on my boom box, it was fairly common for people to hurl bottles at me from their cars while screaming fuck you at the top of their lungs. These days, when I post an old Target Video clip of Black Flag on Facebook, I’ve had people comment that they were not cool enough to listen to Black Flag when they were a kid. If only they knew how decidedly uncool it was to listen to the mighty Flag when they were actually around. Back when those bottles were being hurled towards me, my general reaction was to think “fuck you too, I couldn’t care less what you fucking think about me.” I’ve always thought that the two best things about punk rock were 1) not giving a shit about what other people think, and 2) when being told that something can’t be done responding with a fuck you and just doing it yourself. Nobody will put out your record, fuck you I’ll just start my own record label. No place to play, fuck you we’ll just put on our own shows. Cops turn up busting heads at the shows, fuck you we’ll just go on the road and play every small town vet’s hall across the entire country paving the way for every other obnoxious punk rock band to follow in perpetuity . Bless you Black Flag.
The idea of defining value by coolness, at least in this context, is definitely not for me.
Others might define the concept of value with personal taste which is what I believe Jon is doing in this post. I like it therefore it has value. We like and value different things and neither of us are better than the other because of it. While I can’t help but agree with this concept in principle, I’m left wondering if there might be something more to the concept of value that could transcend the somewhat limited definition of personal taste. I’m curious if it’s possible for all of us to find a meaning in concept of value that would allow us to find value in someone like Michael Jackson’s work even though we might hate his music.
Let me say right off the bat that I’ve never been a big Michael Jackson fan. I’m definitely more of a Prince guy, but let’s not go there. One of things that Michael Jackson did through his music that I believe has considerable value is utterly shatter the superstar glass ceiling for African Americans in pop music. While the general idea of giving props to anybody for achieving superstar status is pretty much against everything I believe in, I think a major exception is when a glass ceiling is broken for people of color, gender or sexual persuasion. If there ever was a time when the little people benefited from the trickle down from the top dynamic, it’s when a glass ceiling is broken. The fact remains that without the music of Michael Jackson, the pop superstar glass ceiling for African Americans would not have been broken at least at that time. Maybe it would have happened soon enough without MJ, but maybe not. And for me, that has a ton more value than what is cool, or your personal taste in music.
I’m not exactly sure how to put this concept of value into a specific definition. I do know that when I use this spirit of value to answer the questions at the beginning of my rant, it’s pretty easy for me to say a resounding YES.
Though I’m not sure that’s exactly what i said, I am happy to hear Ryan’s analysis makes it okay for me to say MJ’s music has utterly no value. The thing about “value” is that it is by nature a relative, subjective term. Attempts to “define” it are usually rooted in unethical desire to validate one’s own systems and beliefs by proclaiming superior “value” to another. All I know for sure: I value the music of Black Flag more than I value the music of Michael Jackson.
For me there are four kinds of music: 1. music I like (and value). 2. music I do not like (which holds no value for me, at least not the music itself: perhaps an associated phenomenon can have a sort of value distinct from the music itself, such as the idea that Michael Jackson represents a cultural breakthrough for African-Americans in pop music). 3. music I have not heard. 4. music which I have heard but have yet to form an opinion about. I think I need to listen to more of Type 3…got some? please bring it to September Visceraudio
Interesting that you feel an attempt to find commonality in the meaning of a concept like value to be an unethical practice. I personally think that the complete opposite is true. Trying to find commonality, not necessarily definitions, but maybe, in ideas and words is what can help us expand the way we think and bring people together who look at things differently. It’s a fairly common starting point when trying to facilitate a discussion between people who have different ideas. For me, the practice is at its very core an ethical practice. It was certainly not my intention to try to claim superior value over another person’s belief system about the idea of value, but rather to try and facilitate a discussion of what people might think value actually means to them.
It seemed that much of the discussion on Friday ultimately came down to what I heard as a personal struggle around the concept of value and what it actually means. That seemed especially true when we started talking about whether independent record labels, or independent artist, were just the same as everything else in pop culture. The conversation then veered into the terrain of whether it was the same to support a local restaurant or a giant corporate fast food chain like McDonalds. Nothing had any more importance or value, than anything else. This is what got me thinking down this road and trying to offer a different way to look at the conversation and seeing if we could find commonality in the idea of value (used fairly broadly here). If we could find commonality in that, then maybe it would be more clear what Evan was talking about. From what I heard, he had spent a long time thinking about what he was talking about, but I walked away not really understanding it. Maybe if we could find commonality in the term value, I would understand it more. Maybe we could even find agreement in the idea that we don’t like Michael Jackson’s music, but that maybe it is not completely devoid of __________ (insert exactly what it was you said here that I’m calling value for the purpose of this conversation). I’m doing my best here to try and reference the conversation without getting into a who said what because I’m not particularly interested in trying to relive a conversation of the past, but more interested in trying to move it forward.
As for your list of four kids of music, for me I would at least add music that I respect. I don’t necessarily listen to their music, or like it much, but I respect it and the artist. I guess that has some value for me. While Michael Jackson certainly evolved in some kind of super freak and possibly worse, I find that there is much to respect about what he did with and for music. I just don’t listen to it. We obviously have differing views on this and I respect that to.
Just to clarify: I do not think your attempt “to find commonality in the meaning of a concept like value” is in any way unethical. Your thoughtful comments on the subject are indeed what the world needs more of, with the notion of “commonality” at the forefront. I was referring to those who seek to define “value” on their own terms for the sake of furthering their own (usually twisted) agendas. That is obviously not what you are doing here.
My point was more to suggest the idea that perhaps it is not possible (or maybe just not a good idea) at all to define “value” or “worth” or “merit” or whatever you want to call it, because doing so necessarily invokes personal tastes, personal ethics, and personal feelings about one’s “value system”. And where value systems are concerned, way more than with something relatively simple like musical tastes, people really cannot separate the “mine is better than yours” from the “I am better than you”.
I probably said something about “no redeeming qualities whatsoever” when describing that guy’s so-called music…
Music I respect is important but for my classification system it is a sub-category of either music I like or don’t. Could get pretty granular here, “music i love but too bad I cant stand the vocalist (Yes, Rush)”, “music I haven’t heard but which I think I would probably like”, etc etc.
Category for next month’s visceraudio: “Music you don’t like but that you think is somehow important or in some way valuable to popular culture or the world at large or whatnot”
Hilarious. I’m going through my IPod now. CRASS anyone!
P.S. I’m glad that I edited my comment to it’s thoughtful final form and took out the “you judgmental fuck, how dare you….”!!! Oh, that’s right, I’m not supposed to care what other people think. Fuck, punk really is dead.