Music and the Masscult

WARNING: This post may appear extremely pretentious to some. It’s intent is to open up a two-way conversation, not to preach one opinion.

Today marked the last day of Pop Culture class. I’ll miss the class…but here’s one last post to make it all tie together neatly. One of the first reading we had for the class was Dwight MacDonald’s Masscult and Midcult. In the reading, MacDonald argues that anything that is consumed by the masses is essentially not artistic. I remember in class we debated as to whether a Coca-Cola bottle would be considered art, seeing as it is mass-produced and consumed. According to MacDonald the answer would most likely be no, yet I sympathize with his outlook. Here’s a few quotes from M&M:

To some extent, Masscult is a continuation of Folk Art, but the differences are more striking than the similarities. Folk Art grew mainly from below, an autochthonous product shaped by the people to fit their needs, even though it often took its cue from High Culture. Masscult comes from above. It is fabricated by technicians hired by businessmen. They try this and try that and if something clicks at the box office, they try to cash in with similar products (MacDonald 14).

In regards to music, this basically translates to, “The more popular and consumable a piece of music it is, the less artistic and enjoyable it is.” To be more specific, some will argue that Folk Music (in the sense of music of a specific culture, not that of a rural setting specifically) is more authentic and has a deeper meaning than that of the mainstream. I am not trying to say “Indie rawk is sooo much better than the Hot 100“. Not by any means. It has been shown with other mediums that the broader the audience the more accessible the product will be. As for the Top 100, I looked at the top ten and did not recognize one song. That being said, I honestly haven’t willingly listened to the radio or watched MTV in years. On the other hand, I also don’t walk around claiming Led Zeppelin is god, or that Pink Floyd is the best band of all time.

Another noteworthy observation that I’ve noticed over the years are those who do claim Led Zeppelin is god and/or that Pink Floyd is the best band of all time really only know half the story. Fans who only know Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall have good reason to come to their conclusion. These are Pink Floyd’s two most popular albums. But what about the band’s flops? Do they know about Ummagumma or The Piper at the Gates of Dawn? Probably not. Many argue that the music of today is nowhere near the quality of what it was 30 or 40 years ago. To this I argue that the music of that quality is still around, you just have to search harder to find it. The Rihanna’s and the Britney Spears’ of the world will always be around selling millions of albums, but will they be any good? Obviously this is based on your own opinion. I could say flat-out no, but that would make me sound even more pretentious then I probably already am coming across. You see, the format of an “album” is not of main concern in regards to most Hot 100 acts. Singles are what the market wants and they know it. Therefore, acts of today are coming out with the most catchy, repetitive music with the fans (and money) in mind. Grab a random kid’s iPod and he won’t have albums, he’ll have singles he found off of Limewire.

When Coca-Cola manufactured those bottles, were they claiming to be art? No, clearly not. They just needed a logo that caught a consumers attention. When Owl City released Fireflies (a song and band I’ve never heard of until I saw the Top 100 a few minutes ago, mind you. Currently it’s #1.) did they claim to be art? Well, when your primary sales comes from the iTunes Music Stores and CD’s filed under the Alternative/Rock section at Target….if the boot fits!! I will admit the song is catchy, I could see why it’s popular. On the other I hear nothing new. I’ve heard that beat before, the synthesizer intro, everything. There’s little to no creativity in the song. But why bother complaining about this? Is it because I’m bitter about other bands who aren’t anywhere near the Hot 100 but have much better songs than those making millions? No…I have my music and you have yours. Whether they are similar or not makes no difference. The key point here is that the music is indeed popular and I am in the minority. It’s #1 on the charts for a reason. I believe a reasonable conclusion is the dropping of musical standards. Kids nowadays (I use this sparingly, seeing as I am also a kid of today.), or the masscult as MacDonald would see it, want to have fun. They want to go to dances, drink, and they want an upbeat soundtrack to go along, regardless of quality. I’m not trying to bash mainstream music, but what’s popular today usually follows a very simple familiar formula. Music is supposed to express the feelings of the songwriter, but with record companies in full control of an artist’s catalog, it makes the self-expression a bit harder. Music for the masscult is designed for the masscult. In the 1960′s and the 1970′s, the standards appeared to be much higher. Music that was popular may have been catchy but it also was revolutionary at the same time.

Next year will anyone remember Owl City? Probably not, unless they have another chart-topping single. If you are looking for music that was not interfered with attempts at pleasing the masscult, it is not just indie rock. Believe me, some indie music can be just as awful as the worst of the Hot 100. More and more people are looking for authentic music; Music that is not tampered with an ideology to sell. By embracing any good music that is not popular, you are throwing off the plans for the masscult. The keyword there is good. People who embrace music that is not popular for the sake of music that is not popular are the ones who give indie rock a bad reputation. A friend of mine has a blog post about one band in particular that has seemed to have been effected by their stardom for the worst. It’s a Sign O’ The Times, if you will. Things will be better for everyone if the masscult set higher standards for their definition of “good music”. MacDonald’s argument may be flawed when applied to some forms of consumption, but when applied to music, he is spot on.

-Dave

(Note the unintentional irony of what I am listening to when I post this.)

Sources:

MacDonald, Dwight. “Masscult and Midcult.” Against the American Grain.

Advertisement

1 Comment(s)

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI