Allow me to introduce myself, as well as my column, by way of a discussion about an artistic medium very close to my heart: music.
I'm a huge fan of modern rock in an age when it is incredibly un-cool to be a fan of modern rock. That said, yeah, I like Zep, Floyd and Stevie Ray Vaughn as much as the next guy — in fact, probably more than him. What people tend to ignore these days is that these bands we heap praises upon made a bunch of really crappy albums too.
"Blasphemer!" you say, "The Rolling Stones are infallible and to deny it is sheer lunacy man — get thee to a nunnery!" Also, for some reason in this situation you have a handlebar moustache and smoke a pipe. But I digress.
If anyone out there actually owns The Rolling Stones album "Emotional Rescue" (1980), you know exactly what I'm talking about. This album was terrible — truly, undeniably awful. Let's have some fun, shall we? Name a Rolling Stones album after 1982 that is better than mediocre. Scratch that, name a Stones album that came out after 1982. See what I mean?
But the point of this introduction is not to beat up on the Rolling Stones; I love them. I (as well as many others) just happen to think that they've stayed around for long beyond their allotted time.
I'm a pretty average college-aged guy, I do college-aged-guy things and I like music aimed at said crowd. I like Dave Matthews Band, up to "Before These Crowded Streets" (1998), and in 10 years I guarantee you Dave will be hailed as a musical genius equal to McCartney.
"So what's your point, Mr. Columnist Man?" Well, if I had to pretend that I had one, it would be that in the current rock world, things must be old — or sound old — to be deemed "good," which is simply stupid. The Rolling Stones are the establishment, people! We should be raging against them by this point!
Remember those years when it was the least cool thing ever to say you liked pop-punk? Blink-182 forever changed the landscape of popular (oh, what a snafu, I said popular) rock, and be sure to delete "What's My Age Again?" from your iTunes library before you ridicule me for saying so.
This brings me to the part where I make some grand statement about what I'm out to do. But honestly, I just want people to be accepting to popular, as well as unpopular, music and art and to understand that whichever scene you may adhere to is no better than any other. I'm going to annoy myself by quoting the dictionary as uppity people do and state that Webster's defines the word ‘popular' as, "liked, admired or enjoyed by many people." This is inherently bad because…? Exactly.
The popular art scene, in this case, music, is a social construct, I fully admit. However, it contains a feedback loop that, surprisingly enough, puts the consumer in control. Major labels can pay out the wazoo for repeated plays of Mariah Carey's new single, but if no one likes the songs, the album's going to tank regardless.
To sum this rant up in one sentence: When it comes to the popular (meaning widespread) arts, like what you like because you like it, not because you're afraid someone will dislike you because of your tastes.
If you take offense at anything said in this column, you've missed the point entirely. Now go kick your skinny-jeans wearing roommate and tell him/her it's OK that you like Fall Out Boy.
--
Grant Beighley is a senior majoring in English. He can be reached at Grant.Beighley@tufts.edu.
