Why We Should Judge Music On if it Works, Not if We Like it
How Questlove gave us a better way to talk about music
Despite the fact that so many people, myself included, love to argue about music, we all know deep down that it’s kind of pointless. It’d be nice if our tastes were somehow based on us knowing what’s objectively good and bad, but of course we don’t have that kind of power. Instead, we judge music based on whether or not we enjoy it — if I like something I call it good, if I don’t I call it bad.
Usually, we’re just championing things that align with our values and attacking what doesn’t. Like when people attack Taylor Swift for making “stupid pop music,” they’re simply implying that music should always be “intelligent” — depending on the person, that might mean musically sophisticated or lyrically “about something meaningful” (of course, everyone has a different opinion on what’s meaningful). These people aren’t right or wrong, they just value one thing over another: in this case they prefer musical sophistication over fun and catchy hooks. Many of Taylor Swift’s fans value the opposite. But we continue arguing even though its as pointless as trying to prove that blue is a better color than red.
Maybe there’s a better way to do this. Over the past couple of years, Questlove has been discussing a recent shift in how he thinks about music. Instead of evaluating songs based on whether or not he likes them, he’s decided to judge them on if they work, or as he puts it, if they are effective. At first, this might just seem like semantics, but it’s actually a pretty revolutionary idea. In fact, it might be the closest we can ever get to objectivity when evaluating music. Rather than basing our critiques of a song on our personal opinions, which are as subjective as our food preferences, we start to consider what the artist is trying to do and whether or not the song fulfills that purpose.
If anyone knows about music, it’s Questlove. He’s the closest thing we have to a popular music guru. And he’s not just your regular, run-of-the-mill music nerd, either. He’s incredibly thoughtful, having well thought out reasons for why he likes certain songs and dislikes others. But over the past few years he’s started to find value in music that he hates. He tells the story of how he recently put on “Gangham Style” while DJing a corporate party. Now, in most contexts, the song is absolutely awful — it’s right up there with the “Macarena” and “Disco Duck” as one of the most idiotic songs ever made. But when the song came on at that particular moment it was the hit of the party: “You can laugh now, but nothing beats the feeling of watching a thousand execs at the Viacom Christmas party dance on tables.” Questlove realized then that It didn’t matter that he hates the song. It was the right context, so the song worked.
“Gangham Style” is exactly the kind of song that Questlove would have normally dismissed as brainless. But he saw that, despite his own personal tastes, the song accomplishes exactly what it’s going for. It’s supposed to be a stupid dance song that makes people act like fools. You know why corny dance records like “The Cupid Shuffle” and “The Electric Slide” are awesome? Because they work. They’re made for weddings and cheesy parties and without fail they do what they’re supposed to do. Sure, you probably wouldn’t listen to them while you’re alone, but they’re not designed for that — they’re made to get the crowd going. If you throw a party and everyone’s sitting during “The Cupid Shuffle,” its not because the song sucks, its because your party’s a drag.
Of course, these kinds of songs might not be for you. You might hate dancing and you might really hate the kind of drunken ridiculousness that songs like “Gangham Style” inspire. When it comes to taste in music, there’s millions of people who don’t even consider dancing a part of the equation and that’s completely fine. But even though the song isn’t for you, you can still appreciate it for achieving its purpose.
Thinking in terms of what works doesn’t just help us appreciate novelty dance songs, but can be applied to everything. When you start thinking about music this way, you begin to see how every song is made for a specific reason, something that the artist is trying to achieve with it. It might be trying to elicit a specific emotion, get people to dance, or tell a story — or it could be a combination of all three. Either way, each song has it’s own standards for success and shouldn’t be measured against other songs that are made for different reasons. Metallica’s “Enter Sandman,” for instance, is going for a completely different thing than, say, The Beatles were going for with “She Loves You.” They’re both effective in their own, completely different ways.
It might seem that this way of thinking means that no song is actually bad. I mean, if a song as terrible as “Gangham Style” works, how could anything not? But remember, there are tons of songs that try to do what “Gangham Style” does and fail. They get absolutely no response from the crowd and they’re completely forgotten about almost immediately after they’re released. And God knows millions of bands have tried to sound like The Beatles, putting out catchy love songs that don’t capture the magic of “She Loves You.” They didn’t fail because love songs are cheesy or unintelligent (insults many people use towards love songs in general), they failed on their own terms as catchy love songs — they simply didn’t work.
When it comes to music, we all prefer certain things over others and there’s nothing wrong with that. But looking at songs for what they’re trying to accomplish instead of projecting our preferences allows us to to appreciate them on their own terms. And you never know, by considering what the artist was going for you may find yourself enjoying something you never thought you possibly could. I’m sure Questlove never imagined a day when he didn’t hate “Gangham Style.” But now whenever he hears it I bet he can’t stop picturing a thousand execs dancing on tables and loving it…at least a little bit.
