Beyond 11: What the Public Knows about Music that Musicians Don't

Why Their Taste in Music Doesn't Suck

By Chris Loeffler

A few years ago I attended a concert headlined by a blues guitar player who made a name for himself at the tender age of 15 as something of a child prodigy with his SRV-styled soloing and the voice of a 40-year-old singer with a pack-a-day habit. By the year of this tour, he had recorded five Top 50 albums and had a Grammy on his shelf. Opening for him was a guy a few of you may have heard of by the name of Robben Ford.

Robben opened and spent his limited time on stage showcasing what distilling 45 years of studying music theory and the mechanics of what guitar playing can sound like in the hands of a master. His performance was met with the level of enthusiasm and response you would expect from an audience comprised primarily of “music consumers” (as opposed to “music creators”)… they were impressed and applauded at more or less the appropriate moments.

As the headliner took the stage the crowd went wild and the band enjoyed almost two hours of unquestioning support. People sang along with the hits and guitar solos were met with consistent roars of approval from the audience. The performance and production was spot on and people spilled into the aisles dancing.

When the lights came on after the encore, I obediently joined the crowd filing past the already-closed pop-up concession stands and spilling into the poorly lit gravel parking area. Nearby groups could be heard engaged in various discussions, from “I don’t know how I’m going to drive home” to “That was so great! He’s so cute.” On one side was a group that was clearly made up of musicians (identifiable even without their Fender/Ampeg swag by their haircuts and general attitude, which leaned more towards critical than elated) who were discussing the show.

“Man, Robben put that guy to shame.”

“Right? That was embarrassing.”

“He didn’t even let Robben come up and join him during the encore. He was probably afraid because he knew Robben would make him look like a hack!”

“Robben has more taste and talent in his pinky than that guy does his entire body.”

That snippet of conversation, overheard in the post-concert shuffle, gave me pause and inspired me to think back on past conversations I’ve had with friends regarding live shows and albums. Discussing what’s “cool,” or “insane,” or even why something “sucked.”

Musicians, as practitioners and worshipers at the altar of music, come into and pursue our instruments and songwriting for very different reasons, much like Pollack and Rembrandt using the same medium and materials to achieve diverse goals. For some, it is the perfect pop song, where the payoff is that verse-chorus-verse with “the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall and then the major lift,” for others it might be achieving technical expertise over the scales and theory that dictate what notes “should” be played within the context of the chords. Some might invest themselves in the mastery of the instrument and coaxing as many colors as possible out of it, while some want nothing more than a bunch of stompbox effects to warp their instrument and create sonic meditations that are more about soundscapes than they are about creating a lyrical or musical narrative.

Whatever aspect of music it is that creates an emotional reaction in us is what draws us to it, and it’s what we seek out in the music we play and listen. It’s what “gets us off.”

The disconnect happens, and “music sucks,” when what’s being performed or played back doesn’t serve what we consider the point of music.

There is indeed intention behind the creation of every piece of music, and successful artists can convey their intention and engage their audience in a specific way. This is where things get contentious. A person can enjoy King Crimson for their psychedelic assaults of lyrics and music that require multiple listens and careful scrutiny to finally “get” the same way someone listening to Miranda Lambert for her scrappy stories of Southern belles gone wrong laid to a danceable beat can. One isn’t better; they’re serving different wants and needs.

The concept of the tortured, starving artist transformed at some point from a description of the state most artists in history have found themselves in pursing their art to the new perceived goal of art. It is a sacrifice to put the time in to master and instrument or songwriting, but the sacrifice isn’t the point, it's the mastery. One can only assume this is why musicians find themselves so offended or turned off by “pop”…it seems too easy.

“Pop” didn’t come without heartache and pain (it didn’t?). Pop “artists” didn’t put the time in to even learn an instrument (they didn’t?). You might think a pop-fluff song from Katy Perry has lyrics that don’t stand for anything, is hyper-produced, and is inanely simple...but it’s catchy and appeals to enough listeners that tens of millions of people have a reaction to that song, even if it's just to dance. If all a song or performer accomplishes is to make people want to dance, does that make it any less valid? Are the people it resonates with less intelligent or accomplished than a fan of Phillip Glass because they just want the music to supplement their good time? Does being less than an aficionado at anything make you uninformed or wrong?

Returning to the comments overhead after the concert, I think about the implications of their statements-

Did the headliner suck for not having Robben Ford not join him for the encore? Did Robben Ford even want to join him onstage? Why did the expectation this would happen exist in the minds of that group? How did Robben put the headliner to shame? Did he want to put the headliner to shame? Did the headliner feel ashamed of his performance?

Maybe both artists achieved exactly what they wanted that night, and that was enough for them. The audience’s enjoyment of their performance was no doubt important, but the crowd also came to see artists perform what the artists wanted to perform. Unless the artist so clearly fails to accomplish their goal, through sub-par performance or unforgiveable flawed technical production, attempting to delegitimize the performance or recording of a musician because of expectations set by anybody but said artist is counterproductive and will only lead to disappointment.

Music, like all art, is a highly personal experience… even at a live show with 20,000 attendees, there will be 20,000 unique experiences. Everyone will walk away with their own connection to that moment, and all are valid. Go to a Justin Timberlake show expecting a spectacle and catchy songs and be prepared to be pleased. Go there with a desire to hear a guitar-player shredding Hungarian scales and the drummer playing hyper-syncopated multi-rhythms, and you'll be disappointed - with no one to blame but yourself.

Respect music and the people who write and perform it.

_____________________________________________

 Chris Loeffler is a multi-instrumentalist and the Content Strategist of Harmony Central. In addition to his ten years experience as an online guitar merchandiser, marketing strategist, and community director he has worked as an international exporter, website consultant and brand manager. When he’s not working he can be found playing music, geeking out on guitar pedals and amps, and brewing tasty beer.