A couple weeks ago, I mentioned the relationship between taste in music and identity. It sparked a good start-of-a conversation between Katy and me. She suggested that it was common to our personality type. I’ll agree that it probably is very common to our personality type, but not at all exclusive to it. I should say upfront, though, that I don’t really know why it is that we see taste as such a crucial part of identity. I have thought a lot about it, especially in the past 2-3 years, but I haven’t drawn a whole lot of conclusions. One thing I know is that most statements about our musical tastes are statements about ourselves.
Katy mentioned the people who claim–on Facebook, for example–that they like “everything” or “anything.” We’ve got reason to be suspicious of this claim. Surely, anyone who claims “anything/everything” can think of one or two artists they like better than most, one or two songs that they’d like to hear more often than others. But “anything/everything” avoids classification and outside judgement, and even reframes an indecisive lack of commitment as a cosmopolitan tolerance.
I’ve noticed a few variations on this claim. There’s the racist/classist–or at least rockist–exception that one likes everything “except rap and[/or] country.” There’s the over-explanation of circumstances under which one might want to hear a certain style of music (”rap when I’m dancing, country when I’m out with friends, pop when I’m driving,” etc.). I know a young woman who claims she likes anything, but hates music without lyrics. These exceptions avoid the pathology of “anything/everything” and help define identity with negative claims.
Then there are those who will list dozens bands as their favorite music. These people paint a broad picture without painting themselves in a corner. It’s both specific and evasive. It makes a strong claim without any strong commitment.
I’ve also observed, recently, that there seem to be just as many people who are afraid of being classified as trendy or snobby as those who are afraid of being unhip. The backlash creates just as much anxiety as the trend.
I want to emphasize that this is not a generational thing. When I was visiting my parents recently, American Idol sparked a dialogue about music. My dad claimed that popular music changed a lot more during his youth than during mine, that he and I had more in common than he and my grandfather. I shattered that argument. I raised my eyebrows and said, “Hip-hop?” He looked embarrassed when he heard his own retort, which was, “Well, that’s not even music.” I ended the conversation by saying, “See?”
In other related junk (books, movies, TV, etc.), the connection is not so intense as with music. Yes, I know that when I list all indie films as my favorites, I’m saying something about myself, but not something that feels so intimate. Same with books and TV shows. I’m guessing that Nickelback t-shirts outnumber John Grisham t-shirts, that G Unit tattoos outnumber “Good Luck Chuck” tattoos, and that Evanescence bumper stickers outnumber “According to Jim” bumper stickers.
To make this more personal, I have made several claims about how I like iCarly and tween TV in general. If I told you that I’ve been watching Hannah Montana, you might roll your eyes and dismiss it as a socially acceptable quirk. If I told you that I’ve been listening to Miley Cyrus, your response might be more critical. To be sure, I’m more embarrassed to listen to Miley Cyrus than to watch Hannah Montana, even if the chances of getting caught are equal.
On that note, another phrase to consider is “guilty pleasure.” This phrase is almost exclusively applied to music. What’s guilty about it? I don’t know.
I’m not trying to be judgmental. I’m just as guilty as anyone, and I’m not even saying it’s a bad thing to connect identity with taste in music. It’s just the way it is (or the way it seems to be, from my observation). The question remains: why?
7 Comments
Interesting stuff here, Lex. I think I agree with what you’re jiving at here. At least sort of. I wonder if the reason that music is more readily tied to identity is that it’s the most easily accessed of the options listed (it’s easier to listen to music than watch TV or read simply because I hear music in the car, while shopping, etc.). Consequently, we think about what we like more. This, of course, might explain why I have some disagreement, since I watch more movies than listen to music, which means that when people tell me their favorite movies I sometimes am disgusted (”Drop Dead, Fred,” are you kidding me?!?). Just initial thoughts.
Steve, I do agree that people judge other people based on movie taste–I do, and I’m not even a big movie fan–but judging others isn’t exactly what I’m talking about. I’m thinking more of the way one sees oneself.
I think a couple of examples from the Church illustrate what I’m talking about…
First, the whole youth group “garbage in garbage out” mantra is usually used to resist “secular” music. There is resistance to the occasional book and/or movie (Harry Potter), but those are singled out, while all “secular” music is mostly lumped together. In a lot of churches “secular” is to music as “pornography” is to film–categorically off limits.
Second, churches do split over which style of music to play. Those styles are more than just preferred sounds. They represent ideologies and cultural identities.
That is a good question! I have no answer. I am very much in the “fear-of-being-a-music-snob” category.
One thing I thought of while I read this is a quote from the Lewis’ Screwtape Letters that advises the young tempter to get his patient to be concerned about the RIGHT books and the RIGHT music. To distract him from simply enjoying the music or books he simply likes listen to or read is a great victory, because it destroys one’s sense of beauty and trades for a sense of fashion that breeds contempt.
That I think has quite a bit on insight into how we label ourselves.
Adam, good insight, thanks.
Good observations, Lex. I think you’re right to say it’s probably very common w/our personality type, but not exclusive to it. And I think you’re right about each of these statements making bigger statements about identity.
It’s possible that Steve’s right — the junk that has the strongest connection might simply be whatever the individual likes the most. However, I really do feel like there’s something different in play when it comes to music, & I think you’re onto something w/your comment about the Church. (I wish I’d thought of the “‘secular’ is to music as ‘pornography’ to is film” thing!) But I can’t figure out why the connection is more intense w/music or why we connect identity w/taste in the first place. I debunked every reason I came up with (i.e. maybe music is more personal because we’re more likely to partake of it when we’re alone, but then group reading’s not that common among adults).
But I will say maybe there’s less stigma w/watching Hannah Montana than listening to Miley Cyrus because it takes slightly more effort to listen than to watch. If you get cable, you’re paying for everything that’s on. Hannah’s part of a package deal. If you get caught, you can just say, “Ah, nothing else was on,” (it seems more people watch TV “just because” than vice versa) or “I’m just waiting until [whatever trendy/socially acceptable show] comes on.” But you actually have to purchase a specific Miley album, and you don’t have the same kinds of buffers/excuses. (I’m not doggin’ on Hannah or Miley!)
Back to the Church. I’d guess, not counting the Bible, music is (and has been) used more often in both corporate and private worship than other junk. Today, it’s present in almost every part of a service, whether it’s on the overhead, in the background, or being sung. It probably evokes more emotional & physical responses from more people in both settings as well.
The point about ideologies and cultural identities being represented is a solid one. Like you said, music divides & connects — on individual & cultural (and subcultural) levels — and has done so for most of history. I mean there no national movies, right? But there are national anthems.
Anyway, I think I should’ve written my own post! All that & I still don’t know the answer. But you know what my mom would say about Lucifer, right?
PS–I love the talk with your dad!
Katy, good observation about the commitment levels of TV vs. music. Still, let’s say I was watching Disney Channel vs. listening to Radio Disney (which, I’ll admit, I sometimes do). I still think there’d be a greater social stigma attached to the latter. Even if not, I’ll feel sillier about it, without anyone even knowing about it. And the situation might be a ten minute round trip to the dry cleaner or whatever, as compared to a 30 minute episode of Hannah Montana when I could be doing almost anything else at all.
I keep meaning to read this book, This Is Your Brain on Music, but I’ve just put it off for other reading. I’m wondering if there’s something physiologically that music does that movies/books/TV just can’t do.
Is it just me, or does music evoke emotion unlike any other art form?
I have wept at a movie, and I have been moved by art, but I have rarely experienced unbridled joy though art other than through music.