One Size Doesn't Fit All

My problem with politics is the same as my problem with music. It's the same; whether we're talking about government agendas or industry standards, hipster pretention or neocon moral pretention, it doesn't matter. Everyone is always so certain that if something works for them, it must in fact work for everyone. It's this "one size fits all" mentality that has destroyed both the economy and image of pop music.

Let me break it down. I'm not an objectivist libertarian. I firmly believe in the power of the individual, and I think everyone has his or her own idea of what society should be, of what ideal music is, of what's moral and immoral. To me, the only things that are decidedly moral are what is private to oneself and what is consensual between persons. The rest is up for debate. Abortion? Good luck finding any universals there. I think it's an individual issue. Others think it's murder. The death penalty? I think the justice system leaves too much room for error and the government needn't make life or death decisions regarding citizens. Others (oddly the same group that feels that abortion is murder) think it's justified. Violence? I think it's only justified in self-defense. Others (usually the same group that feels that abortion is murder and the death penalty is not) think it can be used to promote a greater good.

Okay, those are the landmark left vs. right issues. On these issues, I side with the left. What about the trickier issues? What about things like welfare, health care, the War On Drugs? Many will argue (on either side of the aisle) that these issues are too touchy, too impersonal, too widespread to be left to the individual.  Penn Jillette, magician of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! fame says it nicely.

Penn might come off as a dick, and he's obviously biased and relying on a few ad hominems, but he's right. I'm not talking about fringe safety net welfare here to help the select few that are on the streets (partially because of the government, but that's another thing). But saying health care is a right means taking away a different right from a laborer. Health care isn't free, and doctors go to school, work long hours, and take a lot of risks. Saying health care is a right implies obligations on the part of others to provide it. And if health care, something extremely expensive, is a right, then why not food and water? Where do you draw the line? A government that intervenes so far as to say "food and water is a universal right and we can provide it" is preposterous and the result would be disastrous (and Soviet-esque). The truth is, you can't know everything about everyone. You can't assume what works for you will work for everyone, and you can't assume what should work will work. Systems are more complicated than anyone can understand from their own personal standpoint, as Penn points out. The problem with health care is that there is no one universal set problem-and-answer. We can't know what everyone needs, what will work for 350,000,000 people simultaneously. Laws can't and will never make everyone happy. So don't make them. Fair doesn't exist, because everything is completely subjective and open-ended. Affirmative action becomes just as one-sided as the racism it fights. Feminism becomes so extreme that it too is sexist. We understand what works for ourselves and sometimes what works for our closest friends and family. But no one is better at spending my money than me, and no one is seemingly worse at spending my money than the government. Look at the government. They're in mountains of debt. When they've clearly mismanaged public money to this extent, why would anyone want to give them more? Universal health care sounds so nice and benevolent. But leave it to the individual. And those willing to work for others who cannot support themselves do exist, and they will help.

One might wonder, how does this even apply to music? Easily. Turn on pop radio and 90% of it sounds the same. You can align certain songs on the Top 40 and they will progress simultaneously. Not only that, but their tones and timbres are the same too! And yet I meet very few people who love Top 40. Most people love pop, whether it's indie pop or pop punk or baroque pop or noise pop. But try and compare those 4 subgenres and you'll find some overlap in structure but monumental differences in tone, timbre, character, substance, instrumentation, etc. Some people like angsty pop. Some people like experimental instrumental pop. Some people like ambient pop. The problem with the music industry is it sets itself up on something that is, in their eyes, seemingly universal. It's not, and they were doomed to fail! The Internet opens up individualism and democratization in music and now whole new genres are popping up all the time. It's stupid to be pretentious about music taste; everyone likes something different. Your taste is not better than my taste, and vice versa. And I certainly don't want to hear music that's manufactured to try to satisfy as many peoples' tastes as possible. You end up alienating everyone. But hey, if you do like Top 40, that's cool too.

JUST LEAVE IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

My Personal Struggle With Protest Music

First off, I want to state that I am both a political person and a musical person. My interest in music stretches back to age 5, and my interest in politics goes back to age 14. Musically, I started with piano, then moved onto writing songs, and finally singing - all within a span of about 3 years. Politically, I began as a socialist, both socially liberal and anti-capitalist, before taking up in interest in the art of business as well as discovering the evils of government and the failures of communism. Thus at age 17 I began to transition to libertarianism, and I have since inched closer and closer to what is called anarcho-capitalism. It is, I believe, the only fair and natural system, both liberal and logical - no corporations, no taxes, no privileges, and equal rights for all. Currently, however, I am a minarchist, as I think local governments can properly protect life, liberty, and property of citizens through public courts, defense, and security.

So, considering all of this, why have I only written one or two political songs? I have a lot of personal frustration with the government and related to politics, and my songs are almost always personal. One would think that I would write political songs often. And yet every time I sit down to write one, nothing comes out.

Throughout this semester, I've thought long and hard about this. I've noticed that I don't own too much political music; rather, I tend to listen to music that is either about love or is some sort of storytelling, perhaps fantastical or surreal. Finally, in realizing this, I've begun to understand why I don't write much protest music myself.

I consider myself a rationalist, hence my political beliefs, as I don't think socialism can be attained without a large authoritarian government. I don't think it complies with human nature. Music, on the other hand, has a history in the romantic. It's art. It has a life of its own. Why do you think box office revenues go up during recessions? People need an escape. I need an escape sometimes. I don't write music for social commentary. I write music because I get lost in it. Everything else fades away, and I don't have to consider the evils of the world for a little while. It's as if Hollywood has trained us to ignore the real world and live in fantasy. I realize now just how much a slave to the system I am.

The Power Struggle

Lately, I've been venting more and more about my frustration with the government, and with these frustrations I find myself becoming increasingly at odds with our fasco-socialist authority. I am becoming increasingly anti-government. It seems like everyday I find myself dumbfounded yet again by something coming out of our administration, whether it's the bail out of a big business, an unapproved war against Gadhafi in Libya, the federal shutdown of a medical marijuana plant in Montana (didn't Holder say he wasn't going to do that anymore), Hillary Clinton talking about how there's too much money in legalizing drugs (compared to leaving them illegal, with which factors of risk send prices through the roof, only increasing incentive for drug lords to sell them or acquire them in any (violent) way?), the president meeting with top CEOs of major corporations, the torture of Bradley Manning for spreading truth, or the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

My point is, these are not the designated powers of the elected government. The government shouldn't be up on this throne; the government is supposed to be comprised of the people. And yet, we know very little compared to what they know, and they can do anything they want regardless of the law. If we protest it, there are two possible outcomes: nothingness, and imprisonment. We are hardly free. And the more power government creates for itself, the less free we are. The Constitution was written and the nation was founded on very basic classical liberal principles. That is, the protection of life, liberty, and property. These were fleshed out to prevent authoritarianism, and the Bill of Rights was written. And yet, even the original amendments are argued, such as gun rights, freedom of speech, religion, and association, rights to fair trial, rights against search and seizure, etc.

What makes me angrier than anything, however, is that Obama promised change. Were we naive? Was he just so damn likable? Did we expect more of him because he wasn't a fat, old, rich, white guy? Obama has continued Bush's policies of wiretapping, unapproved wars, torture, and bailing out big business. These are typical qualities of milito-fascism. Fascism, of course, is what resulted in corporate monopolies in the medical industry. Fascism and its regulations killed competition in ways that heightened the costs of drugs, insurance, and basic care. And it was this fascism, initiated by Nixon and Ford in the 70s, which allowed Obama to justify government meddling in the health care industry. To take care of rising prices, he said. This, though opposite of fascism on the spectrum, is socialism. The idea that if we all pay more taxes, we can all have health care. Well, the people who don't have it anyway. How about we get rid of the HMO Act of 1973, and repeal the ERISA law of 1974 that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals? Why don't we open up interstate competition? Universal health care is a real nice idea, but government is not the answer. They are the reason health care is so expensive! I certainly don't trust the government to do a job people go to school for 15 years to do. Watch the health care industry turn into something like our public education system, where teachers go to college only to get paid very little and then get sacked, or where they are paid by experience regardless of quality. Who's going to want to be a doctor then? (NOTE: I realize fascism and socialism are extreme words, but I mean them not as slurs; I am abiding rather by their textbook definitions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).)

The worst part is, the two party system is uber-powerful thanks to lobbyists and corporate interests. The government has their hand around everyone's neck, trusting no one. Wasn't this a nation built on freedom and individuality? How can I protest if I don't believe in the possibility of results? Will it ever change?

Okay, whew. Rant is over.

The Evolution Of Genre

Like most of our industrial achievements, the last hundred years have been the bed for almost every major development in pop music. Think about it. In 1911, there was no jazz, no rock, no hip hop, no New Wave, no punk rock, no baroque pop, no noise rock, no country, no R&B! Blues did appear at the end of 1800s as a fusion of negro spirituals and work songs and other shouts and chants. Indeed, slavery was an abomination, but if there was one huge bright side to the experience, it was the birth of the blues.

A lot of early blues was similar in structure and pattern. If one were to try and compare the house music of MSTRKRFT to Delta blues, one would find very little in common. Nevertheless, like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, non-classical music can always be traced back to the simplicity and soul of the blues.

Okay, pick a genre. Let's start off with something relatively simple. In the 1970s, the black populace gave rise to another huge music movement spurred by a larger social movement. Hip hop was born. Hip hop began with spoken word poets verbalizing in rhythm over vinyl samples of funk, disco, R&B, reggae, and soul music. Next, focus in on disco, which was influenced by funk, swing, soul, and psychedelic rock. Soul music was derived from R&B and jazz, which are both direct descendants of - you guessed it - the blues.

That's an easy one. Let's try something more abstract, such as the recent chillwave trend. Chillwave is a synthesizer-based fusion of New Wave and shoegaze. Both New Wave and shoegaze were post-punk genres, the former being more upbeat and melodic and latter being downtempo and ambient. Post-punk music was derived from punk as a more experimental version of the original movement, mixing in progressive rock and baroque pop influences. Punk rock was in essence a heavier version of rock 'n' roll, with glam, garage, and surf influences - all of which were regional variations of the original rock 'n' roll of Elvis who, as we all know, began in the blues.

Whew! That wasn't so bad. But really, why does everything stem from the blues anyway? Well, likewise nowadays everything popular is some sort of derivative of punk, whether that be indie rock or grunge or New Wave or rapcore. And the core mentality of punk rock can be carried back to the original blues movement, which was simply a means of expression for its participants. Blues is the foundation for pop music because it embodies what art is all about - expression! And like fashion, technology, or language, niches pop up in different places in different times, and every little microevolution of genre cumulates to create monumental change over time. So, nowadays, there's something for everyone. Thank god for the blues!

The Politics Of The Grammys

While watching the Grammys the other weekend, I found myself expecting the more commercial artists to win. Most of the time, I was correct. Lady Antebellum, Usher, Eminem, etc. I watched acclaimed but lower-sale acts like The Roots, Big Boi, and Janelle Monae get snubbed. Even looking at the nominees, I found it laughable that albums such as Katy Perry's Teenage Dream or Justin Bieber's My World 2.0 could even be considered award-winner material.

By the end of the show, I had, like most years, all but given up on the Academy. That was, at least, until Arcade Fire took Album Of The Year for their latest LP, The Suburbs. I had been positive that Eminem would win. After all, he had had a comeback year, had been previously snubbed for his acclaimed early releases, and had sold millions of records. It seemed that, despite this album being weaker than his early stuff, he would finally have his year. Instead, the Academy surprised me by honoring a truly noteworthy album. The Suburbs is significant for being the first independent record to win, which is appropriate considering the growing influence of the indie scene in the Internet Age. The album received universal acclaim and even hit number one on the Billboard 200.

But despite their win, the week following the ceremony was admittedly embarrassing with the Internet exploding in anger as Bieber and Eminem fans expressed in utter disbelief the results of the Grammys. "Who is Arcade Fire?" many asked, even leading to a blog (http://whoisarcadefire.tumblr.com) attempting to compile every grammar-lacking tweet criticizing the ceremony's results.

What does all of this say about pop culture in the US, in which the trend-followers and money-seekers are rewarded over those who truly have something to say? Arcade Fire's album is both an homage to and a critique of the suburbs, an essential ingredient in the formation of pop culture as it is today, in all its commercialization. The album flows with sentiment and a mix of good and bad emotions as it tells a story and challenges its listener. The same can't be said about Justin Bieber or Katy Perry, whom in contrast feed that commercialization by singing the same cliched manufactured pop that's been around for as long as the suburbs have.

I'm glad Arcade Fire won, and not just because I adore their music. It's not often that the establishment rewards the counter-culture, and despite what preteens and Hot 100 slaves will say, art should not be recognized for how much it sells but rather for the expression it presents. Take that, Thomas Kinkade.

Autotune: Creative Tool, Overdone Trend, Or Both?

I was watching the Super Bowl Halftime Show the other night, and as I stared in belief at what the Black Eyed Peas had become (knowing what they used to be: an intellectual and fast-rapping underground hip hop troupe minus Fergie). It was a very solid example of a pop group sucking the mainstream mega-teet. Aside from their performance being poorly mixed and musically mediocre, I thought about what people might think of the Black Eyed Peas had they always been this way. Will.i.am is indeed a solid studio producer, and the Autotune the Peas now utilize can be seen in all circles of music, whether it be the freak folk of Bon Iver or Sufjan Stevens, the electro hop of Kanye West, the house music of Daft Punk, or the nintendocore of Attack Attack! I'm not condoning or condemning it, as I think it can be certainly used artistically, as can any computer-based music tool whether it be a drum machine or a vocoder. But when the Peas or Ke$ha use it, it's criticized for being a far-overdone trend, as well as a crutch. Nevertheless, what is it exactly that separates the Black Eyed Peas' repetitive electronica from that of Daft Punk (who is critically embraced)?

The reason the Black Eyed Peas are repeatedly bashed for their increasingly unintelligent dance music stretches back to their history as a group. Indeed, they were originally an indie hip hop trio. As they've pursued and then achieved success, they've become increasingly trendy and poppy in terms of style. Daft Punk on the other hand set out to be a house band from the get go, regardless of whatever success they might achieve. I can't speak for the Black Eyed Peas, but artists like Sufjan Stevens and Kanye West tend to do whatever they want musically without much regard to whether mainstream audiences are going to eat it up and even if it means pissing off some fans. Black Eyed Peas on the other hand, regardless of how much talent they actually have, seem to want to do whatever it is that's popular at the time.

And that is in itself the problem with Autotune. It's not Autotune that's bad; it just depends on how it's used. Sufjan and Kanye weren't using Autotune because other people were, they were using it to advance their own creative projects for their own artistic satisfaction. But regardless of how talented the members of Nickelback are as musicians (and believe it or not, they are talented), they're still sellouts, and they still suck.

One & The Same: "Punk," "Indie," & "Pop"

Nowadays, everything trendy seems to be labeled as "indie," regardless of whether it be the enormously huge Modest Mouse and Death Cab For Cutie, the recent rise of "hipster hop" artists like Kid Cudi, Wiz Khalifa, and The Cool Kids, or experimental electronic from Flying Lotus, M.I.A., and Sufjan Stevens. Many of these artists have nothing to do with each other in terms of style, and many of them have top 10 hits, millions of fans, and major record deals. So in what way are they indie? Many of them are part of the same machine that created pop as performed by Britney Spears and Akon and contribute to the same mainstream ideology that punk rock originally sought to identify against.

Punk music originated from the D.I.Y. ethic in the early 1970s with artists you and I have never heard of, if only for the fact that these artists played music simply for the sake of playing music and not to get famous. Like everything else, generational outcasts and Bohemians identified with this counter-culture and it became popular. Bands like Sex Pistols and The Ramones took off, with records distributed by major labels and sold out concerts. Over the next few years, punk started to evolve in New Wave, post-punk, and hardcore. New Wave became known for big shot one-hit wonders, post-punk fused with heavy metal and hardcore punk to create grunge, and hardcore evolved into post-hardcore, emo (post-punk + hardcore), and metalcore (metal + hardcore). Grunge went on to spawn Britpop and post-grunge (see Nickelback), and New Wave and post-punk were both revived in the early 21st century - all to great success. Summarily, all these subgenres became popular, and punk derivatives can be seen absolutely everywhere regardless of where you look, whether you listen to Avenged Sevenfold, System Of A Down, Arcade Fire, Oasis, The Strokes, or Lady Gaga. And consequentially, if one were to go to last.fm and look at the tags on any of these mega-huge acts, "indie" can be quickly spotted.

The Sex Pistols would probably disagree, but they were "pop" music, too. It's all pop. Maybe it's punk, too, or post-punk, or maybe it's on an "indie" label. But anything that seems original is probably just a new derivative of things that have already been done. And anyone who likes something solely because it's indie should realize that someone else likes it, too.

Listen to music because it's artistic and well-made, and fuck genres.