Aesthetics as it Pertains to Contemporary Music
 

Admittedly, I've a general tendency to scoff at pop music and "low" culture, and at times I've said pretentious and disparaging things about pop performers.

In 2014 I drafted an article which asked how we might quantify musical value, but I confess that I wrote it as a layman with regard to philosophical constructs like the nature of beauty and artistic value. Perhaps that's why I so quickly write off spheres of music like rock and pop as unsophisticated and droll.

I've since grown discontent with this circumstance and with the effect my words have on my fellow music lovers. So this week I've begun a research project to develop a cohesive understanding of aesthetics as it relates to music and the arts. I hope that through wiser eyes (and ears) I might learn to appreciate non-academic music for the value it holds to its respective audience and to learn to be more respectful of my friends and loved ones' tastes.

Critically, I'd like to be a little less Lester Bangs and a little more John Peel.

A quick Google search uncovers numerous resources for a foundation in aesthetics.

Wikipedia has a summary of music aesthetics.

For a background in general aesthetics, I'll explore Stanford.edu.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a wealth of information on the aesthetics of popular music as well as texts on the fundamentals of general aesthetics.

Britannica offers similar resources for both aesthetics and for the philosophy of art.

I should also explore What is Beauty? Stanford.edu also offer some foundational texts examining objectivity and subjectivity of beauty.

I see that Roger Scruton published a critically-acclaimed book titled The Aesthetics of Music in 1997. But there is a far more intriguing book I'm after.

Simon Frith authored a university text titled, Taking Popular Music Seriously: Selected Essays (Ashgate Contemporary Thinkers on Critical Musicology) which includes Towards an Aesthetic on Popular Music. Sample pages are on Google Books but sadly the book itself commands between $192 - $430. I'll have to put a beacon out for an affordable print copy.

He also printed a non-university title - Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music which also sounds promising.

Outside of the titles mentioned above, the vast majority of these seem to concern themselves with Ancient, Classical, Baroque, and Renaissance musics. While these texts would provide a contextual perspective on musical aesthetics, I've a far greater interest in studying aesthetics as it applies to the later half of the 20th century and the present – paying particular attention to the influence and impact of late capitalism and the music industry's manufacturing of music as a product to be purchased and consumed.

One promising title is Listening to Popular Music, Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Led Zeppelin by Theodore Gracyk. The book examines:

- Separating Aesthetics from Art
- Taste and Musical Identity
- Aesthetic Principles and Aesthetic Properties
- Appreciating Valuing and Evaluating Music

The only strike against the book is that I can't stand Led Zeppelin.

I sincerely welcome any additional resource suggestions which you think might be of value.

Thank you!

You can approach things however you see fit but if you can't intrinsically enjoy a good popular melody or solid guitar hook that's a deficiency so profound it might as well be called aesthetic autism. I don't care how well you know and appreciate Beethoven's late string quartets or the complexity of atonal 20th C music or whatever. You don't need to read a book about it. You need a case of Budweiser and a copy of Back in Black. Play it loud, keep drinking until you get it, then go have a no condom one night stand. Snort some coke if you have to. You can't learn how to have a good time by reading about it.

I completely understand the point you're making, however my aim is not to learn how to like the music itself. I have a deep psychological rejection of pop and most rock music, likely stemming from the fact that I associate those genres with the simpleton classmates from my formative years who made my life a living hell. All that aside, my aim is to learn to understand, despite my distaste for it, that commercial music still has value for its intended audience.

If I can develop that sort of contextual appreciation, I might be a little less pretentious about my own preferred music.

OK

Here's a sentence that should help you.

People enjoy catchy melodies and guitar hooks because they elevate their moods. I think you knew that already. I hope you don't continue to pretend you're asking anything more.

You don't understand why people would rather here Applebottom Jeans over Bach when they are bumping and grinding at a club? There is a time and place for all music. To understand it's value I'd try putting your sheltered-self (no offense) in a position where the two align.

Looking at your "top archives" link in your signature I see quite a bit of music with a strong pop sensibility so it seems like you already have an understanding of that kind of aesthetic.

He's got great taste in music according to that. Shout out to William Basinski! And yeah, on the pop end you got Peter Gabriel for at least one. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

Good Lord. Going through your blogs and resources I am humbled. Just dig what you dig and please keep sharing.

I was pretty snobby and anal about music for a long time. I set conditions that music had to reach. Applied philosophical and intellectual scrutiny to it. Dissected it. Analysed it. And, in hindsight, took all the fun out of it.

Now I just hear something and if I like it I like it. If I don't I don't. No not liking a song because it's pop, or not liking a song because it's by an artist who it's fashionable to dislike. No conditions. No analysis. No nonsense.

And I gotta say, I now enjoy music much more. And enjoy much more music.

In some cases, overthinking can be a deterrent, especially when it's something as intangible as music. I can understand the struggle, but I prefer to put music in simple terms, like color and visual art, with the exception that music uses a larger foundation. In art you have the primary colors, RYB, and you have the different hues they can be made into. In music, there are the root notes ABCDEFG, and then there are flats and minors that are derived from those. As an example, it's a fair point to be made that an artist such as Andy Warhol used visual medium to conceptualize the 'Pop' form of visual art with minimal complexity, and as such was well respected for his vision by his peers and the masses. Rembrandt took a much different approach, and created complex, life-like, stunning images that capture the subject matter intimately. He was also respected by his peers and everyone else. Certainly two different approaches, but they can both be appreciated equally.