Musical Group Names: The Final Neutral Frontier?

Are names fair game in the music business?
(Cit. PasGraphe.blogspot.com)

Each time the topic of musical stereotypes sweeps across my site, it usually does in so in a manner that involves dissecting one piece of the stereotyping puzzle. Clothing, behavior, lyrics, chord progressions, audience reception...these pieces do play notable parts in either deconstructing or fostering a pseudo-belief about different styles of music but is there any aspect, any element that onlookers might com across that does not evoke a fanning of the fire of judgement, regardless of what genre is under the spotlight?

I had mused over this question recently when reading up about a separate story on the "20 Worst Dressed" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala. The source where I found such a headline was surprisingly from music and pop-culture players, VH1. At first I wondered why, despite being a hub of pop culture, VH1 would be reporting on the attire seen at a Met Gala. It's not as if we see a best and worst dressed list for them every year or for their sibling, the Met Opera. However, realizing the theme for the Gala and the accompanying exhibition was/is "Punk: Chaos to Couture" and seeing that many A-list celebrities outside of the Met's circle had attended, VH1's notice of the event made much more sense. This event crosses many pop culture and arts borders of its own. However, I digress.

***********************

After seeing medium-crossing names like Anne Hathaway and Beyonce and Anna Wintour mixed up together for this event, it got me thinking about names and mediums when it comes to musicians and groups. Sure, a name, next only perhaps to a logo, is one of the first things a person might reflexively pull from their memory banks when thinking or talking about a group and typically one might assume the picking of name is heavily weighed against the type of music being made or the type of musicians playing said music. Nevertheless, what, aside from those musicians who firmly position themselves in a genre and match their group name with it, stops any group or individual in any style, from deciding on a name that in no way reflects their sound? If the answer to that question is a resounding "Absolutely nothing," then would it be unreasonable to think of group names as that one element of a musician's "overall package" that has no limitations when it comes to genre-fueled judgement?

Okay, so maybe it would be naive to think a name like "The Perishing Undead" would not call up possible thoughts of a group in an aggressive vein of rock or metal and that the cause of such is most likely due at least in part, to genre-based stereotyping and conditioned cultural influence for the less genre exposed. Still, while such a name might come off as a misleading marketing ploy if it were the monogram of a classical piano duo, would anyone dare tell a group they are not "allowed" to have that name or that it did not belong with them, simply based on repertoire or instrument choice? 

Whether a name is brief and rather linguistically innocuous, (e.g. The Eroica Trio) or is complex and imaginatively baiting as the hypothetical example above, if background and context is given to a group's name, then the focus becomes that of the story, not of whatever associations -logical or not- that  a person might form with a name and subsequently the group. This could be applied to any active musician and even within the contemporary and commercial pop-rock side, there are times when a story can make all the difference. One name that comes to mind? Nickelback.

The very plain, everyday nature of where the Canadian group came up with their name, (giving back five cents in change to many-a-customer at Starbucks,) immediately dissolves any potential musical connection and makes the name stand on its own.  

Of course, I realize we have not incorporated much discussion of marketing up to now and that names can often come about without a real life story and are more about generating or abstaining from excess attention. That being said, here is another question:

Is the reality of the situation that musical group names are only  limited by the pre-existing conditions of marketing, which applies to and affects all musicians across the board, separate from their varying sounds and lyrics? 

Even if it might be impossible to completely remove all imagery and reflex association from names with certain words, my point in raising these questions and ideas is to say that I see a good vantage point from which music listeners can approach virtually any artist without bias. (or least without genre specific bias.) If marketing and branding are the only things that influence thoughts on a name, and marketing applies to all in the music business, and the question is not about whether a group "should" or "should not" have a name based on the type of music they play, then maybe, just maybe, that could be the key to disassembling more style barriers and gaining more of an open-minded listener.

Art Imitating Life: Sound signature of the 21st century?

The internet brought to operatic life in "Two Boys" by Nico Muhly, at the London Coliseum.
Photo Cit: Tristram Kenton for the guardian.co.uk

Before the year 2000 came around, 20th century composition was about as recent as one could get; seeing as, well, the 21st century had not arrived yet. Compositions in the latter half of the 20th century breached structures less common, keys less recognizable, use of shorthand that never existed...all kinds of conventions that weren't as expected in a typical college-level theory class.

These strategies and motifs were how music extended itself to new borders and reinvented itself to take on new tonal personality.

At this point though, we're in the 21st century. Every ten years' time seems to be designated its own audio flavor and pop culture scandal, even when we as a speaking public can't necessarily come up with a snappy nickname for said short era. (00s?) The sounds and stylings of the 20th century are now in the past and what are we doing as a classical community to give the 21st century its own compositional identity?

While I don't have a complete answer to this query, I do have a set of examples that I think demonstrate a sense of evolution that could be considered a new facet of 21st century compositional thinking.

*********************

Recently, (meaning the past couple of months,) I have come into contact with two different pieces that stood out and caught my attention. One by the famed contemporary classical composer Nico Muhly and one by the new Pulitzer Prize winning violinist (and composer,) Caroline Shaw.

The 2013-2014 season line up for the Metropolitan Opera includes a new work with music by the former of these two, titled “Two Boys.” During part of the preview, background video for this new opera, Muhly explains that the music was designed to reflect a key element of the story's setting: the internet. (We're talking early 1990s edition thereof.) Shaw, who just gave a short interview for NPR's blog, “Deceptive Cadence,” makes a specific statement after hearing a clip from her own work, which is titled “Partita – for 8 voices.” She speaks to the interviewer with a slight sound of awe, explaining that her first thought after hearing this specific clip way back when she first wrote and premiered it, was, “'Wow, that's what the Internet sounds like!' When you open your computer and everyone's talking at you suddenly,"

The reason for pointing out this particular reaction and its connection to Nico Muhly and Two Boys, comes from the unique ways these very different people seemed to have stumbled upon composing the same idea: Sounds of the internet.

Two Boys, as you will hear elaborated upon within the video below, deals with a story that revolves almost entirely around characters interacting over the early version of the web and chat rooms. While that subject matter is fascinating all on its own, the way in which Muhly personifies the mostly silent venture of “talking” over the internet so that it stands as sufficient to support an entire opera, is what fascinates on an entirely different and higher level. Aside from the occasional “beeps” and ringing sounds heard in early messaging programs or chat rooms, there was no actual speaking to be heard, let alone any kind of singing worth stage wide praise.

 

Right around the 1:30 mark, viewers of the video hear Muhly explain the mentality behind his version of “the internet personified,”

“What was thrilling for me about writing Two Boys, was that we very quickly realized that the way the chorus was going to function was in this sort of ecstatic language of overlapping voices. Kind of as if you're almost seeing the entire aggregate of all the things people are saying on the internet at once. And for me what that sounds like...[or rather] what that should sound like, would be this sort of music of the first Pentecost, when all of a sudden everyone is sort of speaking a million languages and the room is engulfed in flame.” 

Indeed, during the minimal amount disclosed in the Met's video, one does hear an aggregate of voices, clashing together and yet staying in a musically tolerable form and not descending into complete aural chaos, even if that's how early chat room screens might have tended to appear visually –as anyone who has ever tried to carry on a linear conversation in one of these virtual hangouts knows. Melodically and harmonically speaking, it doesn't come across as the most pleasant blend, though it does seem to fit together in a technical sense. “Partita” on the other hand, is not a piece revolving around the internet but nevertheless delivers a similar aural aesthetic, in between the same eight people singing these very pristine and simple chords. This video contains the debut performance of movement four, “Passacaglia,” by Roomful of Teeth, a vocal group that Shaw has long been involved with and to whom her Pulitzer-winning piece is dedicated, as it was written with and for them.

 

The spoken parts within Passacaglia involve inspiration from the text of Sol LeWitt's “Wall Drawing 305” displayed at MASS MoCA. The eventual rise of “cacophony,” as NPR likes to call it, is created by overlapping and increasingly colliding voices speaking the same lines at different times –much like a round gone somewhat awry. Though Shaw was not setting out to emulate the internet as Muhly was, her “version” embodies much more of what a person might be inclined to imagine if the internet were made to be aloud. (After all, I don't believe people chat rooms always harmonize, even in early Pentecostal form.) Still, the intrigue keeps coming before everything is over because, Shaw is saying both that she “really want[ed] to hear the sound of jumbled talking, where you can't understand what's going on” but also that “[it's] orchestrated jumbled talking.” In that regard, there is likely to be a lot more focus on rhythmic synchronization hidden among the jumble because the lines are not melodic. However, rhythmic stability is still very much a traditional element of music.

Going back for a moment to 20th century music, a common quality in some works saw that it also utilized “noises” and non-typical sounds in compositions. Things like bangs and crashes and typewriters and non-musical glass...John Cage and Phillip Glass are two prominent examples of 20th century composers with such kinds of ideas. Conversely, Muhly and Shaw are creating what they think of in their heads as these “atypical sounds,” using music's traditional melodic and rhythmic structures and rules. It just so happens that the internet is the vehicle of choice for both these artists, which makes for a playful coincidence. The bigger question arising from their interpretations of this (coincidentally) non-audible space, is whether or not this kind of “reverse personification of sound” in music might become either one of several, or the single signature strategy of modern 21st century classical music: Taking music (or elements thereof) and putting them in a role that is not inherently musical, as opposed to taking inherently non-musical elements and putting them in the throes of traditional melody and harmony.

Thoughts?

Pop music: A “dumber” style than classical?

Autograph sketch by Beethoven for his 'Egmont' overture
(Cit. BritishLibrary.typedpad.co.uk)

Don't get offended.

When I say “dumb,” I mean it in context of the term's  original form. Silent. Mute. Is pop music a less vocal and extroverted art form when it comes to fans' understanding the style itself? Irrespective of whether one likes pop music more or less than other genres, are the defaulted to foundations of pop music's enjoyment preventing its style from being more widely appreciated by anyone other than a specific, younger age demographic?

Sure, music is somewhat limited in that almost always, lyrical content or emotional association stands next to one of the following: love, hate, life, death or drinking. That is a very limited list in and of itself. However, could approachability and appeal for older listeners, or even just mental and emotional expansion for the targeted younger listeners, be improved if the pop musicians in question spent more time on, what I am going to call, musician intimacy?

I've spoken before about how classical artists could, and or sometimes need to, spend more time nurturing the active level of artist intimacy they provide to their fans, as it is not always easy to identify with the people behind this music. When it comes to pop musicians though, perhaps it is just the opposite. Social media has allowed a more instantaneous artist-to-fan bonding experience and the idea that your favorite pop artist is sitting down somewhere in the world, typing on a smartphone to post something to Twitter, just like you or I...well, that boosted the personal connection factor by somewhere upwards of 1000-fold in the beginning.

Not even getting into all the ways people abuse or de-personalize the micro-blog, this allowed everyday people to get a more “everyday look” into the lives and non-musical feelings, tastes, happenings and otherwise non-musically related parts of an artist's life. Figures like Taylor Swift, who were already about creating a deep connection with fans, could jump right into this mode of thinking and it would help propel the artist intimacy factor even further.

So, aside from hearing a new pop song and feeling the joy, sadness, torment or triumph of an artist in their music, people could start contemplating, responding to and talking amongst themselves about artists' personal lives. A much more whole picture thereof in fact. What can this sometimes translate to? Ample fodder for daytime talk shows, radio gossip / dirt, tabloids, TMZ (because TMZ gets its own category for how it defines “exposure...”) until the subject matter makes its way back to social media where it started and floods itself among the tween/teen population as a hot topic of discussion and debate.

***********************

Now, I understand that this demographic is what some artists are marketing to and that's that. One has to cater to these age groups to stay in their good graces. Still, are artists/their marketers/managers, etc. not at least partially responsible for steering fan desires more in that direction? We know plenty about the outer layers of a musician's life. What would happen if someone of heavy Twitter usage, were to start talking about their music –and not jus about the ex that inspired the song or go on a tangent about the tasty cheeseburger they ate at their hometown pub.

Interviews and blogs are common places where insider info on songs and album recording timelines tend to fall. There's more substance leaning toward musician's intimacy there, as fans can learn what makes the soul of a song but, still, even knowing who or what a song is about does not necessarily reveal anything about a pop artist's feelings on the crafting of their tracks or the art of their genre. The farthest some seem to go is a willingness to partially breach the topic of their songwriting process; where they might go to write down lyrics, if they have a favorite guitar or piano they use just for composing...

• What about song form?

• What about pre-existing (or previously non-existing) elements of pop that encouraged you to go in on particular direction over another?

• What about why your band sticks with this particular instrument arrangement and doesn't add in more layers (or take away some?)

These are just some example queries and yes, they are more technically based questions. I can hear some of you out there that might be saying to yourselves, “Top 40 radio and pop musicians don't market themselves that way. That's not what pop music is about.”

Well why not? Is it because pop music is simply meant to be fun and experienced; not complex and analyzed? Would making it more of the latter two turn pop music into too much of an “educational venture” and thereby make it less accessible? This is where I believe pop music makers and marketers do not necessarily give their desired consumers / fans enough intellectual or contemplative credit.

If we assume for a moment, that tweens' and teens' love for pop artists' personal lives is at least somewhat perpetuated by the artists themselves, as well as a “this is the way things are” marketing mentality, then that also means “the way things are” can be changed. It would have to be gradual for sure but change could occur nonetheless. If after that the argument harps on the idea that getting more technical would alienate people who might not know “enough” about music, I would like to take this moment to present you with this clip called "People in Your Neighborhood," from a recent episode of Sesame Street, posted to YouTube on April 9, featuring Mr. Alan Gilbert.

Granted, anyone close to, or in, double digits doesn't need such fundamental explanations, (Yes, yes, Sesame Street has a target audience.) but work with me. If young children, who have presumably very, very little, to no knowledge of music in general, can be taught the core concepts of conducting and become familiar with at least five different musical terms in a period of less than five minutes, (all without the producers of Sesame Street fearing the segment will cause feelings of inferiority or intellectual alienation,) then is it too far fetched to believe that once those kids become pop playlist-loving tweens and teens, that the same more-informative approach can be used with their pop music's compositional and historical background? After all, the kids in question would be older and wiser, so the concepts would theoretically be more complex to match their older selves.

Then, if this went on long enough, maybe parents (or just older music savvy people in general,) could be more plugged into and possibly even genuinely interested in the artists kids are fawning over because there would be more involved in marketing them past, “Hey, did you hear? Bieber's newest single is totally about Selena and him getting back together after that lunch date he tweeted that they had in LA!”

Hearing about Selena Gomez is certainly personal. The hypothetical tidbit paints a picture Bieber's life outside writing songs but, is there much potential for that substance to be of any care or concern to people over the age of “bona fide Belieber?” Probably not.

Pop music should speak more about itself and the artists that make and perform it should be proud and confident enough in their work to support that and convey it to their fans. Who knows, maybe then their fans would actually take an interest in the topic and they would start to becomes less “dumb” about the matters of pop music by asking questions and feeling intrigue.

Julie Mar's new “Theorem” is ready to expand your musical horizons

"Theorem" Album Art
(Cit. Amazon.com)

The life of any aspiring New York City songwriter or musician can, at times, feel like the ultimate paradox. Imagine living in one of the most dynamic, densely populated, culturally and age-diverse cities in the world –a place where nearly every walk of life is embraced and flourishes. One would presume under such conditions, that as long as the will and the creative energy is there, any musician that takes that first step will explode onto the scene with artfully graceful ease. Despite this utopian ideal, trying to stand out is probably the most difficult task facing any fresh face in the music business because there are so many people out there.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

Funny that following my last post discussing scientists and musicians, a friend of mine, whom I first met thanks to some help from random chance, has a great and unlikely artistic combination of her own to share with the world and the day for her to do that has finally arrived.  

There might not be one scientific formula to ensure a musician's success but singer-songwriter, Julie Mar, has tapped into just the right blend of exceptional spirit, tight songwriting and genuine support to bring her to the newest echelon in her career with her debut album, “Theorem.”

The hometown New Yorker just busted out the new record on April 2^nd and the official launch party will be held tonight, April 4th, at classic venue, The Bitter End, in Greenwich Village. Julie opened up about some of the tidbits behind what makes Theorem so near and dear to her heart and where her place is on the stage of “The Greatest City in the World.” Read on for more about Julie Mar and the exclusive Q&A!

[Julie] Mar’s zeal for music began at the young age of [seven] when she started piano and guitar lessons and although her interest in singing began as a lighthearted hobby, she later pursued voice training. The raven-haired songbird began writing lyrics and poems at age 11 and her talent with text manifests itself on [Theorem] through poignant and gut-wrenching lyricism. The album is emotionally charged, yet hopeful. There are elements of loss, heartbreak and self-discovery; a scrapbook of feelings and experiences everyone can relate to.

–Cit. JulieMar.com “About”

Genres, Gender and Gosh, It's a Girl?!

The official logo for "I F--king Love Science"
(Photo Cit. the official Facebook page's "Profile Photos" - designed by Eric Hamm)

While it may be true that science and art are often facing one another from polar opposite sides of both the popular and academic spectrum, science and the arts -specifically music- face more of the same sociological difficulties than society tends to recognize -or at least recognize adequately enough.

When I was young, I tended to see the "battle" between the sciences and the arts as one of very black and white proportions. (of course, is that not the way most things in life are seen during grade school years...?) The "science kids" could not relate to the "music kids" and as one would get older and come to know the realities of monetary need for school programming and school support, this is where the age-old schism could and would start to form, because, well, you have to support your brethren, right?

Well, what's interesting, (and possibly needing an anthropological analysis to be fully fleshed out,) is how we as people impassioned about learning, breakdown and draw out lines of social groups and establish their factors of empathy. If social groups were as simple as, "all the trumpet players hang out with trumpet players" and "all the biology majors hang out with biology majors," there would be no discussion to have. Where the complexity lies, is in how much of a macro versus micro view is used to group people together -regardless of whether they are "team science" or "team music." 

Case in point?

Yesterday, on the CBS morning news, an avid lover of science was interviewed about their online content, featured through a Facebook page / Twitter account. The element of surprise in the story was the gender of said science lover/blogger. Elise Andrew is the mind behind "I F--king Love Science" and she caught the internet, and especially her followers, by surprise, when she revealed her Twitter account and her gender suddenly became a major focal point. Many were in disbelief the page was created and run by a woman. This being in spite of the fact that Ms. Andrew has never acted in complete anonymity and her name has always been present on the science page's "About" section.

As is explained in part of the interview below by Dr. Michio Kaku, though science is not an exclusively male dominated field (anymore,) and even though there are branches of science that have women dominating the majority, many other sects of the field still significantly lack a female presence.





The "elephant in the room," as it was described in the interview, dealt with three things: women, the soft sciences and the hard sciences. Dr. Kaku made mention of women progressing in areas of study like biology and psychology; generally deemed soft studies. However, with hard studies like physics, engineering, math and chemistry, percentages are still notably low in woman Ph.D. candidates. Giving personal perspective on how slanted things used to be, when Dr. Kaku was studying at Harvard, he explained the physics classes were "typically 100% male."

All of this being said, it becomes intriguing to think about the kind of discussion and interchangeable support that might arise if musicians, music journalists, scientists and technical thinkers were to look across the table at one another through the lens of common gender, rather than the lens of their contrasting professions. Such an idea might come off colored a little feminist but this isn't intended as a feminist rant. Rather, it is just an observation of another angle these two social groups might be able to examine to find common ground and support their respective existences; perhaps lessening the perpetual struggle between the two for stability and power in the academic and professional worlds.

**********************

Music in general, as an enjoyed activity and interest, doesn't really get automatically "gender boxed" but, just start separating the genres... Certain musical instruments, behaviors and aesthetics associated with one style or another... with any one of these factors, women are not always the first to come to mind -let alone be thought of as a potential majority. As with science, things have loosened and improved but because of these varying outside factors, women (or to be fair, men as well,) establishing themselves as vehement fans of some genres is not always accepted -especially when an individual avoids a genre's other social norms and expectations in an attempt to simply like the music for the music. 

The extreme nature of metal, the regional connections of country, the affluent expectations of classical, the intellectual assumptions of jazz... Throw in the bells and whistles of appearance and public behavior that accompanies any of these and it becomes nearly impossible not to question how it manages to all fit under the same umbrella.

Like the wavering balance between connection and deviation of the sciences, illustrated through this "xkcd" comic strip, might it be possible that aside from the inarguable differences in tempo and instrumentation, that the foundations of musical genres are just an application and manifestation of sociological mentalities? Furthermore, that these mentalities are born from the non-subjective structure of a composition, which, in and of itself, is simply physics and math?? (e.g. Can someone count us off at the 15th bar in 5?)

xkcd comic strip #435 - "Purity"
(Cit. xkcd.com)

MAYBE EVERYTHING IS JUST ONE BIG CIRCLE OF NUMBERS AND FORMULAS AND ALL OF MUSIC -WRITTEN CONCEPTS AND SOCIOLOGICAL GROUPINGS ALIKE- COME FROM MATHEMATICS... (oh god.)

...but then, doesn't that make "mathcore" a redundant genre label?
/end bad joke attempt here.

One thing is for certain: People like Ms. Andrew and expectation-busters like her Facebook page serve as great reminders without boundary, that human behavior and historical restrictions can, and should, be challenged constantly. In other words: You go girl!

Accessibility Through Animation?

DreamWorks Animation Logo
(Cit. Official Facebook "Profile Photos")

A little under two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to come upon a posting about a live streamed event that was to be moderated by a member of the staff for the Telegraph, Ms. Sarah Crompton, the Editor in Chief for Telegraph Arts and presented in part by the Royal Opera House. The presentation was titled "The Big Question" and the question at hand dealt with whether or not opera and ballet are elitist.

There's no denying that the subject of elitism comes up again and again. If it were a bush, the poor plant would have long since been beaten around to the point of probably having been uprooted by now.

One of the problems, or circular traps rather, that I saw in the discussion, which took up precious minutes of talk time, was the back and forth "explanation" of what the definition of elitism is, for relating to the Big Question. People need to all be on the same page in order for things to move forward. This is important for any discussion in life, not just the arts. Therefore, in having to distinguish between discussing if opera singers are elitist or if the medium is elitist or if attending the  medium is elitist, a rift is created that makes it much harder for people to be able to take and then defend a °side° on the simple-looking, yet complicated issue.

Regardless of which angle the discussion decides to jump off from, the common desire for more approachability, understanding and appreciation can be hooked on to all three of the above mentalities. Even if each one suffers a resounding "YES" as the answer to whether elitist airs are around, reversing and removing those airs is something that would be of benefit. Considering as well that education and exposure are often used as tools for supporting arguments in why or why not a person takes to opera, ballet or the like, what would be the world's reaction to this novel idea? 

Classic opera tales re-imagined and interpreted for children and families in the form of animated feature films?

The first in potential candidates that came to my mind for this idea was not so surprisingly, Disney. The Walt Disney Company has breathed memorable life into so many fables, fairy tales and otherwise international stories, that at least on the surface, why couldn't one imagine them taking on an operatic storyline and giving it the old Disney touch? Goodness knows there are plenty of princes and princesses that could join the ranks.

Walt Disney Animation Studios Logo,
drawn in 8-bit style
(Cit. Official Facebook "Profile Photos")

Of course, Disney isn't the standalone powerhouse it used to be, what with competitors like DreamWorks and Pixar (when not partnered with Disney's Studios) turning out films that are placed high on daily "to-watch" lists for kids 12 and under and with Disney-level staying power; much the  way any Disney video release would be hyped back in the 90s. Shrek, How to Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda are just a few examples of unique stories that pushed DreamWorks much more prominently into the spotlight in recent years, amid the more aggressive move to CGI from hand drawn animation.

This though, not being a contest to compare the two animation heavy weights, no matter which studio were to take the challenge on, it is certainly interesting to imagine what it would mean if kids got a general recounting of classic opera repertoire and grew up knowing the tales, which could then alleviate possible overstimulation or confusion with the plots when taking them to a full operatic performance.

**********************

I realized, even as I went to type the names of some opera "standards," very large, "non-child friendly" parts of story lines jumped up in my thoughts. To that end, I gently will remind anyone who may be having the same thoughts as I just did, that plenty of Disney's strongest sellers during their "Renaissance" period, which "ended" around 2000, were born from existing ideas and characters that weren't necessarily child friendly at the start. 

It amazes me that with so much talk (from the court of public opinion) about the film industry losing original thinking, that, if such were true, no one has tried to update an opera story by turning it into a kid's movie. There is certainly plenty of material to work with, is there not?  I realize what makes an opera an opera, is the unique singing and execution, and that's not something a movie studio could look at and simply say, "OK, we can do that." Still, even a loose adaptation of core plot material would be a less intimidating (and everyday feeling) form of exposure that has the potential to simultaneously hit upon access, early age and (hopefully) lasting appreciation.

Unfortunately, this whole idea might be more than a bit of eccentric thinking on my part. After all, not only would it take a very creative and dedicated mind to make some of opera's antics G-rated but with news like that of Disney indefinitely putting hand drawn animation on hold, thinking of opera being retold in both watered down and CGI formats might be one modernizing step too many?

Conversations on Context: Letting Loose on Lyrics

"The 20/20 Experience" Album Art
(Photo Cit. RollingStone.com)

This week, two new albums hit the social media sphere and got people talking, praising, critiquing and criticizing. Justin Timberlake's upcoming album, "The 20/20 Experience," which isn't officially out until the 19th but, is currently available for streaming on iTunes and "Like a Rose" by Pistol Annies singer-gone-solo, Ashley Monroe.

These two artists and albums couldn't be further apart from each other in sound, audience and style but where the two do cross paths engineers quite the potential for substantial discussion, given what people have to say about each of them separately.

"Like a Rose" Album Art
(Photo Cit. tasteofcountry.com)

Earlier in the week, Fluxblog creator and BuzzFeed Music staff writer, Matthew Perpetua had started a branch conversation on "20/20" that included him posing a question about Timberlake's numerous and overt references to drugs --particularly heard on the starter track, "Pusher Love Girl,"

"What do you all think about all the references to drugs on the record? There is something about it that seems...a little too eager to seem cool, maybe."

Simply type in "#JustinTimberlake" or "#2020experience" in Twitter's search function and opinions about the album as a whole, will flood your screen. The consensus thus far seems to include a good portion of listeners coming away with descriptors like, "trying too hard," "adult," "sophisticated" and "complex" among others. Mention of things like MDMA, cocaine, hydroponics and other thematically connected terms are surprising and yet not, due in part to the nature of where many envision this record being played, as well as the slick, high-class imagery it irrefutably displays, such as in the lead single "Suit and Tie." 

It has been stated in spades by the listening public, that these metaphors are likely Timberlake's route of choice to describe his feelings on his new married love / new role as a husband / whatever else may fall under that same umbrella of feeling. That said, people can at the very least, understand the point he trying to make about extreme fixation. Nonetheless, there are others that see such verbiage as overly dramatic and sleazy if he's trying to be classy and “adult.” 

Ashley Monroe on the other hand, is presenting a work so staunchly in the traditional country vein, that seeing a track titled “Weed Instead of Roses” in the lineup, inspires less of an individual conversation about controversy or disapproval and more praise for her strong execution in stylistic purity despite her young age --something alluded to in the NPR piece recently posted about the record. The album runs the spectrum of emotions from cheery, to heartbroken to a little reckless and even a touch wild, knowing that love, spite, smoking and drinking are never out of the lyrical realm of possibility if one is playing and writing to the country right. Mildly clever play on theme and words for Ms. Monroe but the title refers to exactly what it implies: marijuana. Take a listen:

Here, unlike with Timberlake, the clear drug/risque behavior references don't leave the same bad taste of, “I'm trying to hard to be adult and it's coming off as being a dirty, drug-addict.” This is possibly due to the "mentality" offered by the instrumental melody placed behind Monroe, which plays with honky-tonk style casually and lightheartedly, as opposed to the more serious and heavy-handed nature of Timberlake's love proclamation. Monroe's emotional intent is affirmed with an added explanation from her own mouth, as well as that of co-producer Vince Gill, emphasizing "Weed" as a song intended to be satirical and humorous. 

Do we become biased, not only by a genre's history of subject matter and sub-culture, but also biased by the nature of the instrumental setting in which any and all words are placed?

Is the intended funny mood all that is necessary to "excuse" Monroe's equally blatant drug references?Are positive or negative feelings affected, due to the fact that Timberlake is imprinting his metaphors onto a specific person, while Monroe uses them as more as just a "lyrical support tool" to establish and steer direction? Is this just a matter of genres having different qualifiers for when and how the artists therein are colored as hitting different creative stages?

For example, when, (in an artist's career) and how, country music sees a country artist trying to "go adult," might be different than that of pop-rock, R&B, rap or any other style. Some critics or even other members of an artist's same genre might deem that artist as changing image with the introduction of new compositional decisions (there's no denying that Timberlake's song forms are of a more "grown up" style than your basic cookie-cutter pre-teen pop hit.) or they might concur change with an artist altering dress and lyrical content.

I know it isn't typical of me to end with so much open thought but for this, I don't have the answers --or even thoughtfully postulated theories. My questions might as well be my answers on the subject. 

How Timberlake has framed his entire new record, as well as himself in reality among the public, to me, greatly slants how his content is viewed. Whether this is fair or not -that's what I want to know... 

Let's talk!