Music

What Happened to Music' In the opinion section of the State News, guest columnist Josh Cohen begins by discussing the success of the music group U2. Due to the upcoming performance by U2 at Spartan Stadium, he questions the ability of musicians to “stand the test of time.” It is relatively unclear what he means by “standing the test of time;” however, one can fill in the blanks by what he may mean. A musician/s who stand the test of time appear to refer to popular musicians or musicians who are able to periodically release songs that top the tops decade after decade. Under this understanding of the test of time, Michael Jackson would be an example of a singer who stood the test of time. Although Jackson was at the height of world popularity in the 80s, youth today still identify him as a music icon. Cohen points out that musicians are made, and are unmade very fast in modern times. Hence, a musician who stands the test of time would not be subjected to this unmade/forgotten stage, but rather he would go on and continue to produce music worth listening to by the masses. Where Cohen is most disputable is his claims that today’s youth value “catchy hooks” compared to the older value of finding a band worth listening to and becoming a patron to this band’s music. Cohen fails to incorporate cultural changes amongst youth generations. One could argue that today’s youth have a bigger sense of variety when it comes to musical choices. Cohen seems to have a view of what is worth listening that is implied throughout the piece and is severely value laden. Apparently, today’s youth do not have an understanding of what seasoned talent looks like, which is probably correct. Cohen’s arguments focus on a critique of popular music, whereas his arguments against the artistic value of the musicians that are widely praised by today’s youth seem to invoke an element of talent that popular artists do not have to demonstrate necessarily. Popular artists do not have to be innovative or new to become popular. The case has been made that catchy hooks and a particular tempo invokes crowds to dance and this dance music has become popular music (which Cohen addresses). I am not sure the youth are desensitized to “real talent.” The bigger question is: Are the youth looking for talent' The upcoming shows at the Wharton Center will attract a particular group of people, mainly people who understand art culture and appreciate it. Until then, the masses will be swept up with popular music; however, it is not the worst thing in the world. Another aspect of Cohen piece is the assumption that students are not interested in learning about the quality of music and this may or may not be true; however, there is a positive correlation between years of education and appreciation for fine arts. Statistically, a PhD candidate is more likely to go see an opera over a college freshman. To refer back to my earlier claim, the shows at the Wharton Center will attract people who appreciate art culture not rowdy MSU freshmen. In sum, Cohen never distinguishes popular art from fine art. He compares The Red Hot Chili Peppers to Justin Bieber (which hopefully was only rhetoric), and he draws a blurry line with his definition of real talent. One could argue there are talented artists who are unable to produce good work in the art world or popular arena. Cohen never makes this important distinction, and he focuses far too much on this talent aspect. Cohen makes solid claims about the unlikeness of seeing student suddenly become interested in quality, but he is hopeful.