The Death of Music

             In his novel Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman describes the relationship between substance and its appearance and discusses how society as a whole has begun placing a higher priority on appearance. Postman affirms this notion by using Japanese technology as an example: “Even the Japanese, who are said to make better cars than the Americans, know that economics is less a science than a performing art, as Toyota's yearly advertising budget confirms” (Postman 5). The Toyota workers in Japan have discovered this trend in society and have begun to increase advertising costs because consumers are beginning to prioritize flashiness over actual quality. Consumers are much more likely to buy products that look “cool” or increase their own social appearance than products that might be better or less costly.

In honor of the 57^th Grammy Awards that took place on Sunday night, let’s examine the American music industry and see how appearance, not talent, is the most important factor when it comes to succeeding. In the early parts of the 20^th century, when America’s music identity was forming, the most popular artists were people with actual talent – Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, etc. Musicians like those became successful not based on image but because they possessed pure talent through performance and/or music composition. While arguing about what kind of music is better can’t be done due to the subjectivity of music, comparing how musicians market themselves is a much more objective topic. Frank Sinatra is unarguably one of the greatest male vocalists in American history, and he achieved his fame through his pure talent. His image was consistent with most of other musicians at his time: he always donned a suit of some sort with a fedora. Generic, but still very classy. Compare that to a modern singer today such as Katy Perry, who unarguably is one of the most popular musicians in recent memory. Despite whether or not you like her music, one thing is certain: she doesn’t market herself through her music or talent; she markets herself through her body and image. Katy, along with many other popular young female musicians of today, make their fortunes through their looks and shock value. Just as Postman argues that what society is interested in reflects their values, the success of those musicians reflects American culture’s emphasis on the importance of sex. A young woman only makes it into the music industry if consumers find her attractive.

Understanding why this trend in American society has surfaced is not a huge leap. In the early 20^th century, technology was not nearly at the level as it is today. If you look online, you can find tens of thousands of articles that discuss the latest celebrity gossip. The speed of modern communication and use of social media makes it easy to keep up with celebrities. Back in the 20^th century, people didn’t know where Billie Holiday was at any given moment or what Etta James had for dinner the night before: they became popular through their sound, not image. American society’s ability to keep up with musicians forces modern ones to try to appease consumers through their image if they want to remain successful. That notion in turn created a trend that sacrificed music quality for appearance and marketability.

The Freedom to be Infringed Upon

Developing opinions is a paramount aspect of human nature, one that under no circumstances should be infringed upon in any way. But raising that point also presents a troubling situation: at what point does an individual’s use of freedom of expression infringe upon someone else’s freedom to express and defend his or her own personal beliefs? Recent events such as the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France committed by Islamic extremists in response to a cartoon mocking the Muslim prophet Muhammad further question that notion. The extremists conducted the attack in protest of the ad, simply because the magazine’s freedom of speech infringed upon their religious views. Simply because the satirists hurt somebody’s feelings. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Karl Sharro quotes Kenan Malik: “’The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence’” (Sharro, “Charlie Hebdo and the Right to be Offended”). Malik argues that the fear of upsetting someone’s feelings might indirectly infringe on a writer’s (or cartoonist’s) freedom of speech. Additionally, succumbing to bullying that directly attacks freedom of speech makes the target that much more vulnerable. Since there is too much grey area to draw an outright line between critical and blatantly offensive, the only possible solution is to allow for absolute and unrestricted freedom of speech. Along with that comes for the need for universal acceptance and tolerance. Cartoonists shouldn’t have to fear for their lives in order to write about what they believe in, regardless of the topic. Political analyst and comedian Bill Maher chimed in on the Charlie Hebdo incident, and in a segment called “Self Censorship vs Free Speech,” he made the following remarks: “Opinions shouldn’t be illegal. Everyone can always come up with a reason why the thing that bugs you should get a waiver. But free speech only works if there are no waivers” (Maher, “Real Time with Bill Maher”). There can’t be a society that believes in freedom of speech unless you hurt someone’s feelings. That society can’t justify an attack or any violent response just because someone was offended. Free speech can’t have restrictions placed on it. Doing so contradicts the very thing that freedom of speech and expression is supposed to stand for and protect. The rest of Bill Maher’s segment on free speech and its recent opponents can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipu0ifyC-Xc. WARNING: It does use some choice language and makes controversial points, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that anyway.