The Sippican Cottage Musical Test dell’Acidità
Everyone likes what they like. They don’t know why they like it. They assemble reasons to explain their affection after the fact. It’s a weird form of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because things happened in sequence, the first caused the second. With pop music, it’s a sequence of one thing. I like it. Fire up the confirmation bias furnace. Unroll your cart-building plans after the horse steps on your foot. He couldn’t do that if he had a cart in front of him.
I mentioned pop music, but music is no different than any other topic in this regard. Everyone works backwards. It goes something like this:
- I like it
- If I like it, it’s good. No way I could like something bad
- If I like it, there must be a good reason
- I am wise, so the entity that produced the thing I like must be important
- Liking important things makes me more important
- If you do not like what I like, it’s because you’re a philistine
I have never successfully convinced another human that it’s perfectly OK to like dreck. I have pointed out many things that are dreck to persons who liked them, but did not think they were dreck. This always led to one of two reactions, either of which resulted in enmity towards me, not the thing itself:
- You’re right, it is dreck. I can’t like dreck, so I can’t like it any more. I hate you for ruining my fun
- It’s not dreck. [Insert name of person with no talent here] is a genius, and [insert name of magazine here] says so.
The whole mindset leads to 50 year old men telling you that Motorhead is Mozart, and Camille Paglia telling you that Madonna is Moliere.
So, to make things easier, I’ve invented the Sippican Cottage Musical Acid Test:
If you’re from Liverpool, and your composition is played Santuario-di-Madonna-di-San-Luca-skiffle style by five Bolognese men a half a century after you wrote it, you’re on to something with your approach to songwriting. That’s as far as I’ll go.
Recent Comments