Pavlov and Rock 'n Roll

The New Year seems to always present itself in the most innocuous fashion for most of us, the predictably forced New Year's Eve party that sees a desperate attempt to celebrate the passing of time, the exhaustion of the festive period and the sheer disappointment at once again returning to the office. I am not a cyncial and jaded office worker. 

I was reading an unusually trite article recently, entitled "Is Rock'n Roll Finally Dead?", which is enough to say that I immediately could not explain why I found myself reading it. It is quite astonishing the items that are considered newsworthy in this modern day and age - how fascinating is it that David and Posh Beckham are having another child? - but in this particular piece, there were two comments that piqued my interest, and I think they are worth quoting:

From redletterday99:

"Most rock music fans nowadays either stick to what they know or search for newer bands on smaller labels, which are less likely to hit the charts because their singles aren't commercially marketed. Heck, some of the bands I know even give away their songs for free just to spark some interest.

It's not that rock is dying, it's just going back to the hands of the die-hards, not teenagers who change their music taste every month once someone in the media they idolise decides The Killers aren't cool anymore and that some rapper who has too many clothes so that he keeps some at his aunt's house is.

Most modern day music is incredibly vapid anyway, including most mainstream rock. Lyrics such as those to songs like the aural syphilis of 'Sex On Fire', for example, just make the genre seem even more irrelevant as time goes on."

And MdaSilva:

"Rock music is definitely not dead. It's just that mainstream media (Radio 1, Local radio, etc) are not playlisting it as much. They prefer the commercial pap that gets churned out by acts like JLS and such like.

This is where internet radio can make a difference..."

The article itself was a predictably tired attempt at copy, in fact, it struck as someone simply meeting a deadline, words spilling out from the first thing that came to mind. It its hardly as if this is unusual, and I suppose I am at least to blame for reading it in the first place. But I found myself thinking recently on whether it is true to say that for many of us that find redemption in music, that we become mired in sounds of our past. To begin, I am not saying that we are unable to break free from some early folly or obsession, but rather that for each of us, there is a time when some form of music imprints upon us, and we are forever then enduring waves in nostalgia the moment we hear that artist or sound. As Keith Richards notes in his biography, one of his early icons was Chuck Berry, and although he proved to be a disappointment to meet, for Keith, he writes that Chuck Berry's remains special. For me, it was the moment that I heard Weezer's Buddy Holly, as although I grew up on a steady diet of Beatles, who I still adore, I have this obsession with 90's music, even though, at the time, I didn't particularly like much of it or the angst that accompanied. In fact, I retain this idea of slacker cool, even though, at the time, this was hardly something I understood, or embodied, and I certainly could not have pretended to be the unambitious layabout, who exuded cool from an exterior of angry, pseudo-intellectual demotivation.

I am thinking of my friend ASylum, whose early days were marked by Nirvana idolization, and yet who now presents himself as a rap-loving Radiohead fan. Is this to say that the 90's albums are forgotten, replaced, or extinguished from his psyche? I sure it is to the contrary, much as I find myself listening haphazardly to old 90's albums, and enjoying them as much as I ever did. One has to wonder though about whether it is simply a matter of circumstance (leaving aside musical interest as being a prerequisite) that music lovers find themselves imprinting on certain genres simply by the age that they find themselves in. Is it a question of purely nurture?

I suppose much is dependent upon the family environment, in that if one is exposed only to classical music from the outset, although one may move on to popular music, the early education will retain some force. To digress briefly, isn't it curious that we still seem to retain this notion of high music- classical - going into jazz before speaking of those lesser forms of popular music, finally arriving at this loathsome concept of pop which is reserved only for those who have little more than a passing interest or is reserved for the realm of impressionable teenagers? It is useful, I think to consider this question, as easily as I have categorized genres, I suppose we also tend to index our musical history - those artists that our parents listened to and on whom we grew up; then the first "wow" sound that really got us into music; and then everything that we have heard since then. Vast record collections that have a unique story. I was always somewhat in awe of the idea of the music fan that is portrayed in High Fidelity who is able to recall exactly where and when he bought an album. But it is not, in truth that far fetched, as I can usually tell at which phase I was in when I bought an album, even if these "phases" have lengthened and crystallised over the years. I cannot, however, tell you in what order my albums were purchased, and I recall with some amusement the complaints people had when my collection was ordered chronologically (and no, my record collection is not that big by even modest standards).

To some extent, I perhaps need to admit that I may have subsequently intellectualized my specific obsession to 90's music, by which I mean that I have become far more immersed in the music of that time long after it ceased to be popular. In the 90's, I knew nothing of Sebadoh, Pavement, Archers of Loaf (though I had watched Mallrats) or any of the other seminal "indie" acts of that period. My knowledge was limited to Nirvana, Silverchair, Rage Against the Machine and Stone Temple Pilots. The geek rock grunge of Weezer was so different to my ears, which had resisted the temptations of Nirvana, and initially preferred the pop-punk of Green Day. In other words, I merely picked up the college chic so prevalent to those indie artists, and that which propelled them to the cult heights they now occupy. I adore Superchunk, and yet, for many friends I have played them to, they remain a mere curiousity.

I suppose, as I keep saying, music is unique, fun, and highly subjective. Each person has their own particular lexicon, and at the end of the day, most people are not going to like much of your tastes. You can try and be discerning, but ultimately, short of resorting to radio fodder which everyone knows, you're likely to experience the embarrassment of music which is contrary to the groups'. Best just to play it soft, so that no-one is listening anyway. And to bring it all full circle, at the New Years Eve party that I found myself in attendance at, people ended up playing a game where each person had to put a song on to a playlist, with the worst pick being voted by the group, and punishment being meted out with a wooden spoon. A cruel game, especially as one could see people desperately trying not to pick something that would attract attention, whilst also displaying some credibility for the choice. A cruel game indeed.