Popular Music and the Middle School Cafeteria
Last Sunday, an ongoing debate within the classical music world picked up steam when the New York Times focused its Sunday dialogue on a letter to the editor from former Metropolitan Opera violinist Les Dreyer. Its subject was one that we musicians are all too familiar with: whether or not classical music is “dying.” While Dreyer generally expresses optimism for the future of the genre, he also implies that its future is contingent upon an increased exposure to classical music by the younger generation, whom he characterizes as victims of the “cacophony of rock and the neon glitter of ‘American Idol’-type TV shows.” Children “must be weaned away” from these types of musical presentations, Dreyer argues, and instead exposed to classical music, even if is just by watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon. A greater emphasis on our children’s musical education is vital for our future; we mustn’t allow for them to be inundated with the pounding beats, simplistic chord progressions and unsubstantial lyrics that our culture deems “popular.”
Obviously, Dreyer isn’t calling for an all-out boycott of popular music; he is merely suggesting, with good reason, that we collectively make an effort to make our type of music a feasible option for youth to listen to. However, there is a fine line between the concept of increased exposure and visibility and literally discouraging youth from listening to popular music, a distinction that was evidently observed by several of Dreyer’s readers. One particularly dissenting voice came from a man who wrote that “the argument is, frankly, condescending and counterproductive. Nothing about classical music is intrinsically superior to any other kind of music. You will find as much artistry in certain parts of the the rock world as you will in classical music, albeit of a very different kind. Young people need to come to classical music on their own terms, and telling them they should abandon a kind of music that they love is not the way to accomplish this.” Other readers expressed similar thoughts, while still others agreed with Dreyer. As we contemplate the complexities of this vibrant (and occasionally fiery) debate, further questions arise. What actually makes music ‘popular’ in mainstream culture? Why is classical music apparently not? And most importantly, could it ever be?
The answers lie in a place that many of us have probably tried hard to forget: the middle school cafeteria. I cannot say I have too many pleasant memories of mine; we had about fifteen minutes at ten in the morning to wolf down a sack lunch before we were all shepherded, table by table, to the back of the room where we threw the remains of our lunch into the trash and dumped the remains of our beverages into a giant washtub (as one might imagine, the contents of that washtub were decidedly less than appetizing by the end of the day). But the most torturous element of lunch was not the dining protocols, but where one sat whilst adhering to them. The “popular kids” would all crowd around a table in the back, cracking jokes and surreptitiously eyeing members of the opposite sex, while those deemed “unpopular” (such as myself) had no choice but to awkwardly assimilate with alternative groups of dining mates, making uncomfortable conversation and glancing frequently at the corner clock, desperately wishing for the period to end. As simplistic as such a social hierarchy may seem, it ultimately represents a microcosm of popular culture. What is popular is always new, different, and magnetically attractive; what is unpopular is unappealing and perceptibly out of style. In the middle school lunchroom, you will have no chance of attaining a seat at the “popular” table unless you exhibit a popular hairstyle, are very sociable, and spend your weekday afternoons in football practice. Parted hair, a thick turtleneck, and a reputation for being afraid of the ball in gym class will get you nothing but a seat alone at the opposite end of the room (you can guess which fate befell me).
Considering such a division in terms of the argument that youth should be discouraged from listening to “popular music” yields some intriguing insights, the first of which is that we will simply not be able to do that. Say the popular kids represent popular music’s audience and the unpopular kids symbolize classical music’s patrons. Why would any of those hormone-crazed seventh graders voluntarily leave their lavish life at the popular table to entertain the likes of the dork chewing lonely by the corner window? And conversely, it’s practically impossible for said “dork” to metamorphosize into a “popular kid”; if dorks could do that, there would be none left. But that doesn’t mean that they have no hope. Maybe they can go out to Kohls and convince their mothers to let them buy some “cooler” clothes, or maybe they can trade that sharp comb they use to part their hair for a bottle of Redken gel (that’s the brand I used in eighth grade, anyways). They’ll still be the same person–and they’ll probably still be afraid of the ball (I still am…what can I say, I’m a string player)–but they’ve adapted some elements from the popular types, and maybe with time they’ll make friends with some of the more open-minded ones. The same goes for classical music. If we keep doing things the way we always have, we’ll keep sitting by ourselves in the cafeteria, and will certainly have little success in persuading pop music aficionados to join us. But if we are unafraid to change the way we present ourselves–while still keeping to our true intent–and make an effort to reach out to the aforementioned aficionados, then perhaps we’ll begin making some new friends.
It’s important to note–as the commentator quoted above did–that popular music is not a bad thing, nor should it be considered inferior to classical music. Having grown up in a family of classical musicians, I do not pretend to be an expert on today’s latest hits (although I am somewhat familiar with “Gangnam Style”), but I have heard a variety of new music that is actually quite good. Here again, the cafeteria analogy proves useful: we all remember the John Huges-type popular kids who ended up not doing too well and are still selling popcorn at our hometown movie theater, but we also recognize those guys who were genuinely intelligent and just lucky enough to have decent social skills in addition to academic ones. The same goes for popular music; some of it is just a mix of basic progressions and soppy lyrics, while some of it embodies the essence of today’s culture, making powerful social and political commentary. That is why it is important not to make popular music the enemy, as we often seem to do in our discourse. It is not causing the apparent “death” of classical music; it only will if we think that is.
So what makes music ‘popular’? Its eye-popping (and eardrum-popping) presentation, its blatant informality, its embodiment of everything culture considers new and attractive. But what culture considers to be new and attractive changes almost as fast as dorks dart through the showers in junior high gym class, while classical music remains an enduring presence. The solution, therefore, is not to attempt to bring audiences over to “our side,” so to speak, but to merely enlighten them that “our side” actually exists, and that there’s something to gain from being on it. There will always be popular music, and it will always be more desired than classical music, but that’s okay–because if we continue to educate future generations in the nuances and power of our art, in a hundred years people will still be going to the symphony and listening to Mozart. And something tells me that “Boyfriend” and “Gangnam Style” will most definitely not be on the program.
