Categorically Defining Your Aural Pleasure

11 05 2009


Let me be clear to those of you who can’t spell, I’m talking about the listening variety so you can get your sick dirty minds out of the gutter and take your sexy time elsewhere.

Putting aside the fickleties of genre and accepting that there will inevitably be some crossovers, the civilised world can ultimately be categorised into four types. Well, technically five, but I’m not counting the deaf or hearing impaired. These four types are defined by how they choose to pleasure their ears. For simplicity’s sake, and the fact that I don’t know what music North Koreans listen to, I’m going to focus on defining these categories from a western perspective.

1.
This group of people possess the power of the mob. Some would call them plebs. They are the lazy cretans, ignorant of the diversity and availability of potential ways to indulge their ears. Moreover, they are so single minded that they are sated by the simple and couldn’t be bothered trying something that might taste a little different.

They find meaning in stupid lyrics, claiming them to be witty, deep, or possessing prophetic meaning (see Jordan Sparks ‘No Air’ or anything by The Cranberries). They have a blind loyalty that is based on tabloid opinion that in turn informs their own opinions.

Unfortunately what is stopping these idiots from their own self destruction is that they tend to have a large buying power. When success in the music industry continues to be measured by how many records an artist sells and how much money they can make, it is this group who determines which artists are pushed, pulled, and signed, or not signed, as the next manufactured formula driven pop sensation. Let the public flogging in the commercial markets begin.

2.
This group of people just aren’t interested. Some would call it playing it safe. They have never taken the time to develop their own aural desires because to them music is simply something to listen to. This group is happy to have their ears enslaved by what the idiot market deem to be worthy.

They often lack in loyalty, or purport a superficial loyalty based on what is in at the time. They let go when the time is past or if the case in point falls out of public favour. Molesting children (see Michael Jackson or Garry Glitter), shaving off their hair (see Britney Spears or Sinead O’Connor), and/or various assault charges (see Chris Brown or Akon) are all sure fire ways to become cases in point.

They have the foresight to occasionally listen to the more slightly left of centre because on the surface there is an appearance of substance (see Dido) or the suggestion of some intellectual complexity or social commentary (see U2). However, this group is ultimately content with shallow unimaginative lyrics that come gift wrapped in repetitive cliché hooks with a pretty card that contains a chorus they can sign a long to. And if the Category Ones are writing your letters to Santa, that’s exactly what you’re going to get.

3.
This group of people seek out their own musical satisfaction. Some would call what they listen to “good” music. They actively and consciously engage with music. They have taken the time to develop their own knowledge and opinions about music and have their own ideas about what is aurally pleasurable.

They don’t immediately accept what is pushed by the commercial industry, but don’t reject it outright either. They are willing to listen and assess what is promoted by the Category Ones. They consider the potential merit of this music and more often then not they come back empty handed. But not disheartened.

They don’t reject bands based on principle simply because they find popularity, financial success, or mainstream commercial airplay (see Category Four). They stick with an artist/band as they evolve and have a genuine interest in the past, present, and future of their music as long as the aural pleasure continues. They don’t care if their tastes fall in and out of fashion (see David Bowie or The Rolling Stones) because their loyalty and fandom will continue despite the waxing and waning of point in time popularity.

This group is into inventive and creative music that hasn’t lost its sense of fun and is still composed with the humble intention of pleasing listeners. They look for music with appeal that goes beyond music for the masses or music for the sake of music. They listen to what they want to listen to and yes, this category is the most diverse and subjective.

4.
This group of people have their own niche cliques. Some would say they epitomise music snobbery. They respect no one elses’ opinion but their own and the opinions of their select circle of friends. They revel in pretentious ego-stroking wankery and the back slapping that comes with their marvelling at their own magnificence of their own musical taste.

The music they like are artists/bands you never will have heard of. Well, unless you’re a Category Four. The music they listen to may include The Gin Club, Fleet Foxes, The Drones, Bon Iver, The Necks, Villains of Wilhelm, and/or The Kill Devil Hills. Well, actually that was the music they may have listened to once-upon-a-time ages-and-ages-ago. Now these cases in point have been tipped off to the public and become a little too in-vogue, they have been snubbed unceremoniously by their once so-called fans from Category Four.

They are the ones who go to gigs and stand stoically because bopping along disrupts their ability to “fully appreciate” the music. They’re most likely bored out of their brains but feign enjoyment and join the vain rave at the end of the show at just how absolutely delightfully obscure it all was. They don’t have the backbone to speak up and out about what they really like for fear that their actual opinion will destroy their illusion of cool and they will be rejected by the group.

They take their music “seriously”. By principle the music they listen to, or find it acceptable to listen to, can not be commercial and must never attain financial success. Their loyalty is fickle and artists are frequently dropped at the first signs of minor success, like getting your name on a tour poster or an article in Wikipedia. Oh, and did I mention at least one member of the band must have a beard? Yes, even if it’s an all female band.

Are my ears burning?
Yes. I’m arrogant enough to admit I consider myself as part of Category three. I don’t know any deaf people, but I do have friends in every one of the other categories. You probably do to. I just don’t bother discussing music with anyone outside my own category. Just like the people in Category One or Category Four. As for the Category Twos, I expect they’ve got other more important things than music to talk about. So why categorise? I like making ontological distinctions, discriminating against the hearing impaired, and I always won categories as a kid.


Actions

Information

11 responses

18 05 2009
Will

Hah. This is great. I worked at HMV and was surrounded by number 4’s on a daily basis. Nice people but going to concerts with them was seriously boring.

18 05 2009
mic

Good to see the david bowie mentioned in the category 3. Did you see that nine inch nails have been playing “afraid of americans” live at the moment. Bowie does it live much better, but good to see young trent claiming it for himself as well.

nins live version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWm8DhuH_Ag

bowie’s live version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O43emEpUrRs

Also how much do the gin club suck! The giants of science aren’t bad, but the gin club have are just boring, pretencious bob dylan wannabes.

19 05 2009
Brendan

dam, how do you find time to right stuff like that? lol, i definitely consider myself a category 3.5 (being category 3 with a decent whack of category 4) oh and mega lol at VOW mention in cat 4, noone likes them, not even danny boy :P (I lie seppo loves himself so too much to not love his own band)

19 05 2009
Naomi Klein

You sound like a commie. Are you trying to say that the market place doesn’t decide which bands are the best? Milton friedman says “no”. That’s a very elitist point of view.

As far as i’m concerned there is a lot of truth and depth in Jordan Spark’s classic “no air.” Tell me, how can we live with no air? I’m pretty sure she hit the nail on the head right there in pointing out our own very fragile position in our harsh environment, which is a great metaphor for the fragile environment of a relationship. I think it may also be related to climate change.????

Adorno says “Taste is the ability to keep in balance the contradiction in art between the made and the apparent not-having-become; true works of art, however, never at one with taste, are those which push this contradiction to the extreme, and realize themselves in their resultant downfall.” But what would a marxist know about anything?

20 05 2009
b.

Did you copy this from David Jennings book “Net, Blogs, and Rock and Roll”???? He segmented the fan economy exactly in the same way… well… maybe in a slightly more articulate and sophisticate syntax .. this is his blog
http://www.netblogsrocknroll.com/

21 05 2009
chorazy

Hi b.,
Nope, sorry, I’ve never heard of David Jennings or his book. Well, before now that is.
Glad to know I’m not alone in the world though, and that someone shares my opinion. Or perhaps I should say “this” opinion, as I’m obviously not the only one and thus what right do I have to call it my own?
Also, I would hope that his book is written in a more articulate and sophisticated way – it is a book after all – whereas I am confined to a 1000 something words blog post and my own limited editing skills.

21 05 2009
mic

You mean some guy has taken the time to write a book about this which i imagine required some degree of research and now Chorazy has just written an observational study on a whim which basically sums up his point of view. He must be feeling a bit stupid to have taken the time to write a section of book on something that is plainly obvious. I don’t know whether David Jenning’s works are as widely read as B. would like to think. Also judging by his blog, if you substitute “articulate and sophisticated” for “boring, unimaginative and plain” i think you may more accurately describe his writing style.

21 05 2009
jenny

B. – I doubt David Jennings or Chorazy were the first to come up with this idea. It’s pretty obvious that there are different audience groups with different tastes in music that can be segmented in this (or a similar) way.
To accuse someone of stealing, not to mention your remark about the syntax, is rude. I haven’t read (or heard of) David Jennings, but I imagine he too will have taken the idea from the public sphere and recontextualised it as his own.
I think Chorazy took an eloquent tongue in cheek approach to her post and I enjoyed reading it. Sure the idea may not be original (what ideas are these days) but it was an original way of reflecting on it.

22 05 2009
David Jennings

Jenny is right. I was far from the first person to come up with this idea, and I’ve attributed all the sources and research I drew on (what I tried to do was to synthesise these sources in a way that hadn’t been done before). The main research I used was done in the UK about 4-6 years ago, and is described at http://www.netblogsrocknroll.com/2006/05/groups_and_beha.html. More of my blog posts on the fan economy can be found via http://delicious.com/nbrr/faneconomy.

Personally, I like Chorazy’s description, which has a different spin to mine — but then I don’t have the refined literary palate or razor insight of mic, so who am I to judge? The more, the merrier.

Thanks to b., though, for mentioning my work in this interesting discussion, and to Chorazy for taking the trouble to draw my attention to it (the discussion, not my work, obviously…).

1 06 2009
drop it like it’s hot. « good news for people who love bad news.

[...] music blog Be Silent’s post on Categorically Defining Your Aural Pleasure. Check it out here, it’s a good read (personally i fit somewhere in between category 3 and [...]

1 06 2009
KJI

“For simplicity’s sake, and the fact that I don’t know what music North Koreans listen to, I’m going to focus on defining these categories from a western perspective”

I object to this ignorant and lazy research. North Korean’s are only allowed to fit into one category: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycUrPYpn3FE

Leave a comment