Music: Why We Like What We Do

From: Rebecca Ferraro

To: Matt Kasznel

Re: Music

So, I just walked 3.5 miles to Starbucks so I could get an internet connection and write this email to you. I was left with two realizations when I arrived. 

1) It is absurd that my household is still without internet in mid-late 2014. 

2) There are A LOT of hills in Pittsburgh. A fair portion of my journey was uphill, and these hills are steep. Like, it took me between 10 and 12 minutes to crest the top of one. 

Thank goodness for Coheed singing me through my journey. 

Anyway. So we talked about music, and our need to compare everything we hear to other bands. You mentioned the new Gaslight album only being a comparison in your mind to other artists-- I can empathize with this, as every time I hear them I think of Bruce Springsteen. 

Your question to me was then "Is this the fault of the artist for only putting out derivative stuff, or the limitations of people who listen, since we can only compare it to stuff we already know?" 

I have a question to throw back at you: Why do we bother compare music to anything at all? Why can't we just listen to it and appreciate it as is? 

But honestly, when was the last time you heard anything NEW and truly original-sounding? 

We discussed the Madden Brothers tune "We Are Done" being an oldies, "Age of Aquarius"-esque bit of music, you mentioned the potential originality of the latest Arctic Monkeys album, and how Enter Shikari is original to some degree only in that the band combines two distinct genres that have been done but meshes them together. 

The Beatles = revolutionary. 

You said Van Halen's lead guitar was amazing but not groundbreaking. Paul Simon and Nirvana were tossed around-- Nirvana definitely world-shattering for the time (see the book "Love is a Mix Tape") and that Foo Fighters essentially rode the wave of emo-tending modern rock (although good Lord, does anyone do this better than Dave Grohl?). 

In response to my offering of Lana del Rey, you determined that she owes Florence Welsh an apology. I brought up Green Day, who potentially did the punk-pop-rock thing before anyone else, but you determined that it had a lot to do with the Sex Pistols and the Ramones. And even dear Florence isn't alone because she brings in the orchestral sound that bands of the '90s already did ("Bittersweet Symphony", anyone?), although after hearing "Heavy in Your Arms" when it first came out, before Flo was even a big deal, I thought "This chick has one hell of a voice" and I stand by that opinion.

I said I had relevant things to contribute to this discussion. I was sitting at the table reading "The New Yorker" this morning and eating my Raisin Bran (how OLD am I?!?!) and I stumbled across an article called "Cross Country: Nashville expands its range" with a caricature of Luke Bryan and Eric Church. I was JUST in Nashville a week ago and I enjoy the musical talents of both of these artists, so I perused the article.

It at least reassured me that the "our" in "our need to compare music" is a general one and not limited to us and our group. The article was discussing how general and relatable country music is and how it has these overarching themes, such as "finger-picked guitar arpeggios that sound more like Dire Straits'" and that Church's song "Outsiders" off of the album of the same name "feels more like 'We Will Rock You' than like Johnny Cash." There are references to instrumental breaks sounding like Yes, and a crescendo/bridge adhering to a style Metallica would gladly claim (although isn't the idea of Metallica doing anything gladly kind of amusing? I got a chuckle out of this mental image).

The entire album is likened to Pink Floyd. Meanwhile, Luke Bryan is compared to the beachy feel of Kenny Chesney and one of his newer tunes, "Roller Coaster", is apparently diverse enough to be a pop hit for the likes of One Direction, Pink!, or Bruno Mars. 

The moral of the story is that it seems to be the norm for us to compare our musical tastes against one another and try to find the common ground, the reason that we are so drawn to it. The music you listen to is essentially an audible definition of who we are as individuals-- it represents us and what we like to listen to at varying phases of our lives. Finding the thread among them that ties them all together is a way of discovering ourselves.

From: Matt Kasznel

To: Rebecca Ferraro

First off, I think I had to have been drunk if I said Van Halen wasn’t groundbreaking. I mean, Christ.

Second, to answer your question: the comparisons are less for us than for other people.

I know, for example, that the Hold Steady is an awesome band. Musical preferences are generally opinions, but I can say unequivocally, and without fear of contradiction, that they are a fantastic band, and your tastes are clearly warped and unreliable if you disagree. (He says tongue planted firmly in cheek)

It may be a challenge to explain to you exactly why they are awesome, though, without finding, as you said, that common thread. I could say, for example, that they play classic rock, but my God, that opens up a silo full of cans of worms. Blues rock, like Aerosmith or the Stones? Theatrical prog rock like Styx or Zeppelin? Arena rock? Punk rock? And if it’s blues rock, then what kind? Boogie? Garage rock? Southern garage rock with a touch of the psychedelic? THE COLORS DUKE, THE COLORS

So just saying “classic rock” is not a goo representation of the band, nor does it let you know what you’re getting into if you pick up their CD, as your definition of “classic rock” could be miles from mine. Or, I could say, “Oh, they’re a lot heavier on licks than groove, but still reliant on the 12 bar boogie with a hint of…” and watch your eyes roll into the back of your head. Nobody knows what any of that means, nor do they give a shit. It’s nonsense.

But if I tell you, “They’re like George Thorogood and Bruce Springsteen with a super literary singer,” that’s a pretty clear picture right there. “Hey, I like Bruce. I’m okay with George Thorogood. This could be interesting.” Or, “Hey, I hate Bruce and I’m terrified by George Thorogood’s teeth. ABANDON SHIP.” Either way, you know what to expect now.

I think that’s why Pandora Radio is so popular. “Based on your previous selections…” is the music genome version of “Hey, I saw you had the new Big D and the Kids Table CD in your car. You should check out…”

So I guess my answer is, it definitely says more about us than the artists. Sure, every time a band or singer wants to re-brand themselves, they start pumping out names of famous “influences” in press releases and interviews. (Remember when Brandon Flowers suddenly become a HUGE Bruce fan just a year or so after the Killers were still trying to be Duran Duran?) But it’s only because they know we’ll respond to it.

From: Rebecca

To: Matt

I completely agree with everything you said. I mean, maybe except the Van Halen part. I don't think the band is untalented or anything, I just don't like them as much as...lots of other bands. 

Anyway. I feel like this is a good time to bring up the fact that we are talking about actual music versus, say, some of the nonsense that's pumped to the masses these days via Top 40 radio. Could I continue this thread by comparing Ke$ha to slaughtered cats? Justin Beiber? "He sounds like your 8 year old niece... with better jewelry" and you could hear that, right?

One question though: You said they start spewing other names because they know we'll respond to it. HOW do they know? And WHY do we respond to it? What is it that makes us go through these radical changes in what types of music we find preferential to others?

From: Matt

To: Rebecca

Don't be so mean to slaughtered cats...or your eight-year-old niece.

Maybe they describe their own music in terms of other bands because that's what they used to do before they became "serious musicians" and starting defining music by modes and time signatures instead of "yo dude, get a load of that SICK breakdown, bro!" It's a populist view.

I think I've also figured out what causes our changes in music over time. You know, besides maturity and trends and the whole "our generation's music was better than this generation's music" thing (South Park did a whole episode on it). I think it's time.

Yesterday, I was listening to the first two episodes of this new radio show Serial, a This American Life spinoff that's taking a deeper dive into a 15-year-old murder case over the course of 10 episodes (at least this season). The case revolves around two high school students who dated for a few months before splitting up. The girl was found dead a few months after the breakup, and the ex-boyfriend, correctly or not, was found guilty of the killing.

While the show's host and retroactive investigative reporter, Sarah Koenig, put together the story of the two young lovers, she came across diary entries reflecting not only how intensely the two felt for each other, but also the dark, angst-ridden side of adolescence. As the school's English teacher said, it was difficult to determine whether the boy, Anand, had a legitimately concerning "dark side" because "all teenagers had that sort of side to them."

I remember that part of it myself - sure, I liked some poppy, joyful tunes, but it was way more satisfying listening to brooding, morose alternative rock. If I was born in the later 60s or early 70s, I guarantee you I'd have grown up with at least three Robert Smith posters in my room.

Is it because teenagers lack perspective of the physical and emotional changes they're experiencing? Sure. But I think it's also related to how much time you have to stew inside your own head. As I've grown older, I've had far less time to toss and turn over "feelings" with the added responsibilities of college, employment, bills, etc. If I have too much time to myself, though, I'll occasionally gravitate back to the real-life simulators that are my subconscious, endocrine, and exocrine systems.

(I differentiate "feelings" from actual feelings. "Feelings" are what happens when an otherwise ordinary individual starts jumping to conclusions the way Pat Soltano does in Silver Linings Playbook)

I think that's why we start to enjoy more straightforward lyrics and tunes as we grow older. We don't have the time to parse a Nirvana song six ways to Sunday anymore. Just let Bruce or Paul Westerberg tell you what you want to hear.

From: Rebecca

To: Matt

SO TRUE.

I was actually thinking of that the other day, apropos of nothing. I know my musical tastes have changed. Not like I listened to garbage before and now I'm listening to the GOOD stuff, man. But I definitely went from really dark grungy stuff and a lot of whining emo to more upbeat, Belle & Sebastian type stuff or more straight-forward Gaslight stuff. 

I am a busy person, as is almost anyone over the age of 18. I have memories of being an OLSHer, wrapping myself up in a hoodie, and lying outside at night either in the grass, on the porch swing, or on the hood of my mum's '98 Sunfire and listening to a new album in my portable CD player. I would focus on nothing else, letting the music wash over me and dissecting the lyrics while I stared at the stars. "Hamburg Song" by Keane was so lonely and broken it made me cry. Seriously. I listened to angry girl music a la Paramore and applied the lyrics to my current situations.

Now I listen to music while studying for the GRE or while I'm running or driving or drying my hair (the only comfortable time to sing along (at least SOME things don't change)). There's not a lot of time to dissect or even learn lyrics when your mind is mostly somewhere else. Very few songs these days do I know every word to. I feel like I'm missing out on something elemental though. The music was made to be listened to, and I feel like now we're kind of just hearing it.

I sort of wonder if Romeo and Juliet would have been so quick to act if 1) they weren't teenagers and 2) they had some grunge to mellow out to. "Un Giorgno per Noi" isn't exactly emo.