The saying goes "music soothes the savage beast." That presumes that without music we are "savage beasts." Perhaps an exaggeration, but not by much. We also say "music is food for the soul." Apparently there is something in music that is nutrition for the soul that elevates us from beast to human.
David Brooks, drawing from rocker Steve Van Zandt, caused a bit of a stir last week when he suggested that in the 1970s popular music, like much of the culture, fragmented to the extent there is no longer a common cultural experience to tie Americans together.
This is a familiar lament, familiar because it is largely true. But Brooks has been taken to task for his 
analysis. NROs The Corner offers a nice back and forth between Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg on this matter. Steyn argues that Brooks has his dates all wrong. The fragmentation of our musical culture happened long before the 1970s. Indeed, the 60s music that Brooks seems to long for defined itself as "counter-cultural." It only looks like consensus in the rear view mirror. Steyn argues that the last time "popular music" was actually popular, in the sense of appealing to broad sections of the population, was perhaps in the 1940s. As he puts it, Bing Crosby had more claim to mass appeal than the Rolling Stones ever did.
Steyn is largely correct. The fragmentation of the culture begins when there is enough money in America to support a genuine youth culture. This is roughly the 1950s, when in the swell of the post-war boom teenagers had enough of their own money and enough free time that they became targets for their own marketing. And thus they got their own music: rock and roll.
But haven't parents always complained about "that damn kid's music"? Goldberg dissents. The fact that there is always some music that people complain about doesn't mean that we give up the capacity for judgment. He writes:
While I am the first to admit that I am not a huge music lover, I feel perfectly comfortable saying that Jazz is a more serious art form than gangster rap or hip hop. But even if [Steyn disagrees], which I doubt but someone surely does, it simply doesn't follow that the rebellion music of every generation is equally worthwhile simply because it's rebellion music.
The fact that parents always seem to hate their kid's music is often just an excuse not to render sober and needed judgment about the food we feed our souls. And the point Steyn is making is that parents haven't always hated "kids' music." I would argue that this is almost purely a phenomenon of the recorded music era, which is only 100 years old. But even in the first, say, 30-40 years of that era most music marketed to the whole family. Since mom and dad owned the only phonograph in the house and the only radio, they decided on the music. Thus it must be music that dad and mom like first, and secondarily it should appeal to kids. To really sell a lot of music it should appeal to the whole family. But now that everyone in the family has his or her own cd player, ipod, radio, television, etc., kids can select their own music without any interference from their parents. For more from Steyn on this subject, see here and here. The latter includes this gem:
As for the urgent need to teach rock'n'roll in public schools, has Brooks been in any recently? Pupils are far more likely to encounter "All You Need Is Love" than Bach or Mozart. Which is a sad thing to do to any child.
Which leads us to the subject of the quality of music. If music is indeed food for the soul that turns us from beasts to virtuous humans, then we should be careful what we feed our souls, just like we take care as to what we feed our bodies. Commenter Kate over at NLT says this in response to the Brooks piece:
The music that Van Zandt wants to teach kids plays in elevators now. Who doesn't know it? I am sick of hearing it. If this is our canon, mores the pity. It's like demanding that slang be the standard for the language. Who says this is good?
A must read is the prolific Mark Steyn writing on Allan Bloom's take on rock music in Closing of the American Mind. Just a snippet:
Allan Bloom quotes Gotthold Lessing on Greek sculpture: “Beautiful men made beautiful statues, and the city had beautiful statues in part to thank for beautiful citizens.” “This formula,” writes Bloom, “encapsulates the fundamental principle of the esthetic education of man. Young men and women were attracted by the beauty of heroes whose very bodies expressed their nobility. The deeper understanding of the meaning of nobility comes later, but is prepared for by the sensuous experience and is actually contained in it.”
Music is part of that sensuous experience. I'd be the first to admit that my musical training and tastes are deficient. But admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, correct? Perhaps it is time to think about the music that forms our souls. Not just the lyrics (which I contend are secondary, as it is called "music" not "poetry"), but the melody and rhythm. The fact that we play marches at military occasions or laments at funerals tells us that music affects the disposition of our souls. If all we put into our souls is junk food, what do we expect will result? Sickness or health?
Recent Comments