"Contemporary Music Lacks Zeitgeist"

Well, I got my paper finished this morning, finally. This was despite the world's best efforts to prevent it from being completed, which included having me act like an empty-headed moron and forgetting the most recent version of the paper on Sunday and having my car hit in the damn parking garage while I was at work last night (car is still drivable, I'm just pissed about it is all). Anyway, in light of not having much energy or much to talk about, I'll instead give you the opinion article I wrote which appeared in today's school paper. The one thing that annoyed me about the article was that they changed my title, so I present to you the original title of the piece: "Contemporary Music Lacks Zeitgeist" (I'm guessing they probably had to look up Zeitgeist, and that's what annoyed them).

Contemporary music is in a deplorable state.

Look at the evidence—the top pop albums on the charts are by the likes of Britney Spears, who wouldn’t know a decent song if it smacked her in the face and made lewd remarks about her mother. Or it’s some rap album with lyrics that you can’t understand because they are muttered too fast, though when you can hear them, you wish you couldn’t. Why? Because nine times out of ten, the lyrics are about hate, rage, greed, or subjugating women.

When did this happen to music? When did we sacrifice substance and depth for a shiny, glossy finish? Most contemporary music is about as substantial as cotton candy. Where are the meat and potatoes of our mothers and fathers?

We have nu-metal, we have bubblegum pop, we have rap-rock and post-grunge and God knows what else available, and 99.9% of it is all crap. When Britney cranks out a new single called “Me Against the Music,” she really means it. Her “songs” are like sonic fingernails across the blackboard of my inner ear. I think Britney is in a vanguard of “artists” who are attempting to actually destroy music, one empty song at a time.

I’d like to be able to say that it’s the RIAA’s fault. And, in part, it is—they keep cranking out cookie-cutter artists who all sound alike, all make the same meaningless music, and all have the same no-talent, all physical appearance appeal as the one before them.

But it’s also the consumer’s fault for continuing to buy the crap they put out. When was the last time you bought a CD and actually liked more than one or two songs on it? Can you remember what songs were popular two or three months ago? A year ago? I can remember what songs were popular in 1965, but not what the top song was last week. Why is this? Because the songs in those decades before I was born were actually good.

Not only is the dearth of good music the fault of the record industry and the consumer, but it’s also the fault of the artists themselves. Few artists are willing to take risks, to break the formulae they establish when they hit it big. They plod along with the same sound, virtually the same song, for album after album. Why? Because the record companies tell them to, and because they don’t want to lose record sales. It’s all for the nookie, or for the bling-bling, but never for the music or for the fans.

All told, there’s not much to be happy about with contemporary popular music. It’s devoid of intelligence or substance, with few redeeming qualities or bands. I weep, for we lack latter-day Dylans, Van Morrisons, and Lennon & McCartneys.

Now if you’ll pardon me, I’m going to go listen to my Sgt. Pepper’s LP and remember when music was worth listening to.

~chaos cricket

Song of the Moment: Led Zeppelin, "Rock and Roll"