An exploration of pop, jazz, and the importance of diversity in music
As an unapologetic fan of popular music, watching this year’s 67th Grammy Awards was a delight. The most anticipated awards of the night went to Beyonce’s Cowboy Carter for Album of the Year, Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” for Song of the Year and Record of the Year, and Chappell Roan for Best New Artist. On one side, critics celebrated these wins, heralding Beyoncé and Lamar as well-established geniuses of the music industry. But on the other side, the hits of today were also labeled as “unintelligible” and “juvenile.”
Disapproval is nothing new for the pop musicians of today. Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones famously remarked, “[Pop music has] always been rubbish […] that’s the point of it. They make it as cheap and as easy as possible and therefore it always sounds the same.” His sentiments echo Marxist critiques of popular culture. For the Frankfurt School, ‘true art’ is loyal to the individual and challenges the pressures of mass society. It is creative and rebellious in nature, unlike the mass produced art of popular culture.
On the whole, the idea of ‘true art’ seems appealing. It is natural to desire authenticity in art. But who decides what art is authentic? In my (clearly biased) opinion, a drag queen demanding a liveable wage and healthcare for artists during her Grammy acceptance speech captures the rebellious creativity of true art. This should not be negated by Chappell Roan’s commercial success as a popstar. As Dr. Meier, Associate Professor in Media and Communication at the University of Leeds, points out, authenticity is a value ascribed to music, and we must ask “not only what is being authenticated, but who.” The resulting insight is that mass-produced art has the opportunity to be redeemed if consumed by social groups demonstrating “positive mass consumption.” Professor of Music, Simon Frith summarises, “if it’s popular it must be bad, unless it’s popular with the right people.”
There are parallels between the musicians of today and those of 1940s America. Preceding the second world war, Americans of all backgrounds were enthralled by the rhythmic stylings of big band swing — a groovy form of jazz often accompanied by Lindy Hop swing dancing. Big band swing was vibrant and captured the optimism of Americans at the time. Professor John Gennari writes, “This was especially true for African Americans, who contributed to the war effort with the promise of a ‘Double V’ — victory abroad conjoined with the vanquishing of Jim Crow at home.” Following the war, the disillusionment with the promise of racial equality made it difficult for jazz stars of the time, many of whom were Black. The American Federation of Musicians remained racially segregated, and musicians who participated in diverse bands were condemned.
The response was a new form of jazz that prioritised the musician, a genre that boldly announced, “if you don’t like it, don’t listen.” Bebop pushed jazz in a new direction that subverted musical expectations and championed black liberation whilst attracting diverse crowds. Parallel to the criticism of today’s popular music, Bebop was met with significant pushback claiming that it could not match the ‘authenticity’ of older jazz.
With big band swing, then bebop, and many musical innovations following like R&B and hip hop, the creative leadership of black musicians ultimately garnered popular appeal, attracting white audiences. As these musicians continue to pioneer new styles, white audiences lean to older styles that are rebranded as ‘white’ music, like country or rock which originated in black communities. Gennari writes, “It is not just the sound of new music that fractures the audience; it’s the larger cultural atmosphere and landscape shaped and signified by the music.”
I argue that the judgments against today’s popular music are rooted in the same fear of progress as the criticisms of bebop in the 1940s. It is no surprise that in an increasingly conservative North America, critics are fighting to discredit revolutionary art directed at the mainstream. Inspiring discourse is important, and pop culture has become an influential tool for inciting political and social awareness. I’m not saying that we should look to artists as social leaders. In fact, as rapper Noname points out, wealthy musicians often enable the same systems of oppression they condemn. Before her, Malcolm X warned against hailing entertainers, celebrities, and artists as leaders. However, there is immense value in provoking thought amongst the masses, which much of the art in today’s mainstream has accomplished.
