vocab quiz

Eppy posts a rather interesting discussion about pop music criticism over at ClapClap. Most of the points made are some I've also thought for awhile---basically, the idea of music criticism of any sort existing without actual analysis of the music involved seems rather useless.

At the same time, I don't think that people who mainly stick to analysis of lyrical content are automatically making themselves into literary critics. (Although, of course, there are some that do---I just don't think it's really an all-or-nothing proposition.) Literary criticism of pop lyrics is really rarely good at all (I'll be a fence-sitter and say "rarely" simply because I believe it's possible that someone somewhere has written just such an analysis and said something brilliant. Just because I've not read it yet doesn't mean it can't exist.)---this is a point I've argued (in somewhat less-than-cohesive form, I'll admit) many times before.

It's difficult ground to cover, too---of course, it's undeniable that if a song has got lyrics, and if those lyrics are intelligible, one will take some sort of analysis of them (however cursory) to heart upon listening to them---provided they're in a language the listener understands. That's an issue, though, in this sort of criticism---if one isn't able to criticise the lyrics because one doesn't understand them, then is that person unable to criticise the music altogether?

Relatedly, the issue of the sort of elitism and alienation that come with any sort of intense specialisation (and the jargon inherent) are undeniable if one speaks only in terms of music theory as regards these songs. Putting aside for a moment the notion that many people so equipped to disect music in this fashion would sneer down their noses at using such tools to analyse something so base as pop music, the fact that the theory courses are usually electives rather than requisites automatically limits and possibly cripples the audience. It's incredibly frustrating to have no way to describe something and say something that feels (well, to yourself, if no one else) somewhat intelligent---so why would people who aren't feeling a particular degree of masochism willingly subject themselves to it?

The main reason, then, that people are content to criticise pop music based mostly upon lyrical content (as well as to read such criticism by others) is that, of course, it's a matter of comfort and familiarity. It's a matter of course that the culture of literary criticism is virtually beaten into a good deal of people who would like to consider themselves "educated." This irks me on a very basic level, because I'd like to think that my education hasn't been just about reading and regurgitating---or, worse yet, reading and responding in exactly the ways in which I've been coached, thereby tricking myself into thinking I'm doing something original when really, I'm following the path beaten through my skull directly from point A to point B. I don't think I'm overstating my case in saying that there are few ideas that make me angrier, actually, than the notion that I'm not thinking for myself---in any aspect.

Eppy's right---both a new vocabulary and a new way of criticising pop music need to be forged, and I do believe it's possible as well. I don't believe it's likely to happen without a lot of other people (and particularly those of the sort who write about pop music with anything approaching regularity) building it, of course. Eppy also makes the point that the easy-to-identify-with nature of current pop music and movie criticism is why both are fairly widely read. Cinematic criticism has incredibly varied levels to it, and pop music (in some form) has existed far longer than cinema. I'd really say this idea is highly overdue.