Messages from the Ether

I love reading people who overanalyze pop music. It seems like there are so many critics that try to figure out a definition for somthing, as opposed to figuring out why it was said. I will be compleltly honest in saying I don't understand what 50% of what Coldplay is saying on X&Y but I love it more than 90% of the crap out there, that I do understand. Is that the reason for pop music?

Either pop music is art and can be criticized as art (on some level) or it's not. Should we just consider the lyrics to be scat singing and enjoy the sounds but not the words? I think a lot of the artists feel they put considerable personal expression into those words (i.e. "why it was said") and would want them listened to. Yet good intentions or heartfelt emotions don't necessarily make good art. So, what's it gonna be? The artists want us to listen to the lyrics but we must refrain from criticizing those lyrics?

And at what arbitrary point is analysis "over-analysis"? If a critic points out a reference or inconsistency I didn't notice, is that over-analysis? Roger Ebert has a particularly incisive eye for criticizing cinema, pointing out stuff that is surprising and, generally, true. His praise and analysis as a critic can help me more fully understand and appreciate a film by exposing its underlying structure and then allowing me to get more out of the film. Criticism and analysis can, simply, make good art better. Art is not and should not be considered an untouchable religion.

I don't think I need to ramble on the use and usefulness of criticism, but what's with all of this hands-off approach that people have with pop music?

Why to people tap their feet? Why do people sway? Why do people escape?

You have the song but then you have a particular point (or at least a collection of points) in the song that people latch on to. Perhaps people need to explain their connection to that reduction without mistakenly feeling the need to explain the entire body of work. (i.e the entire song which implies structure, lyrics, musical arrangement, instrumentation, ad naseum).

So when someone says, "I like that song" when they really mean to say, "That particular lyric is emotive to me" that's the point of analysis that should occur rather than being rejected completely because someone else's array of points of analysis conclude the piece of work is crap.

Criticism is essential and I agree that dissonance leads to more appreciation or warranted disagreement but I think so many discussions fail to satisfy because the context wasn't properly set from the get go.

Mason, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your comments.

If you're arguing for a just-enjoy-it approach, then I'd say that's perfectly OK as long as you accept that others will be out there a-analyzin'. And just because people are doing that it shouldn't take away your enjoyment--even if they disagree with you. Negative criticism of your newfavoriteband isn't an attack on you. If you disagree with it, then counter the critical points instead of trying to take down criticism as a whole. Or just ignore it.

If you're arguing for relativism, then I'd say that can only go so far. Bach's music *is* better than a Teletubby song--and if necessary I'll compare the two--but that isn't to say that there's no need for Teletubby songs. The interesting question is whether Sesame Street songs are better than Teletubby songs. Well, not that interesting, but the point is that art can be compared within the same domain.

Criticism, as it implements artistic analysis, exists in part to pinpoint art that can stand up to repeated visits. You can listen and just enjoy and not care about the critics, but you would have a difficult time arguing to dismiss the history of art as a whole. Clumsy paintings are of lesser value. Clumsy music is destined to be forgotten.