I agree with this. But I'm less interested in stopping the criticism towards Tyler and more interested in talking about how we're all to blame. It's not necessarily fair that Tyler is getting the worst of this criticism, considering there's all kinds of other musicians/ people guilty of this language, but he's also not innocent.
And it's obvious why we're singling out this one individual. He's the talk of the town. He's simply very good at provocation. We all want to get our two cents in.
The crappy thing about this issue is that he's obviously very awesome otherwise. Tons of energy and confidence and skill.
I'm semi-certain that Tyler doesn't hate gays or wish harm upon women or condone violence, but that's not the issue. The problem is that there is a systematic marginalization of gays and women (for example). It's a real problem that exists and hurts many people. When a rapper casually makes gay jokes or rape jokes he/she may not mean it, but they are perpetuating the harmful language. You say 'fag' for example, you might not mean it, you might not even mean a gay person. But 'fag' is still a hurtful slur towards gay people, and by joking about it you're making it an ok word to use. It's not ok to use.
I keep refering to 'taste' because I'm trying to differentiate between taste and goodness. The enjoyment (or taste) of an album is subjective, the goodness of the album is not. I guess it's not mathematical objectivity, but its objective through observation. If you look at music critics and avid listeners of indie rock (in other words, experts) it's clear that the majority of them think this album is good. They know their shit, they think it's good, therefore its good. It doesn't matter if you don't like it.
Go to metacritic.com to see my point. This album has got an 87 rating, based on a compilation of various critics ratings. Their are 3 middling reviews ( or 3 other Brandons), but for the most part its got a great score. The user rating is high too. This is an observational way of determining an objective goodness.
Actually yes. I think it's a lot like math. My biggest point is that there is a difference between personal taste and good music. Admittedly, both The National and Arcade Fire suit my tastes, but I also think they are objectively good. This idea comes from Kant (which is really pretentious to drop here, I know). There's no such thing as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". There are good albums and bad ones and in between. Who decides? Learned individuals, experts, and maybe the test of time. Enough critics and listeners who know what they are talking about have already determined that this is a good album. You don't like the Suburbs? That's fine. It's great actually, I believe in people discussing they're personal tastes. But's it's an objectively good album. You just happen to not like it.
I know that people will hate this. But I believe it. To hammer it home: You might not enjoy Shakespeare or Picasso, but you know it's good. Same goes.
I think saying that the lyrics are "high school poetry" is condescending. You're suggesting that high school poetry is bad.
I realize that you (Brandon) lean towards more 'difficult' music, like the Haunting the Chapel stuff and CocoRosie. That's fine, I like some of that too. I know that you don't want to come off as only liking weird shit, and that's probably why you started this column by stating you like some of the 'popular' albums. But we know you lean towards that stuff.
But what I don't get is how you pick and choose which big rock album to praise. I think The Suburbs and High Violet hit all the same bases. Obsviously, the lyrical content is slightly different, but both records bring up the same emotions. They reach the same parts of my brain. And musically, they're obviously pretty close.
What I am trying to say is that I'm dubious of this "music is subjective' argument. It's a pretty big argument on most music blogs. And I think this column exists to prove the 'subjective' point. You're in a position of power, writing for this blog, and so you can say: "Hey look, not everybody loves this album. Look at me, I'm a music critic on a popular music site and I don't really like the Arcade Fire. Music IS subjective after all."
Anyways, all I'm saying is that I think it's kind of bullshit. I honestly think that there is good music, bad music, and music in between. I think this album is clearly good music. And if you don't like it, it's because of some other reason, not because of the songs.
In your case, it might be your personal taste. Your taste seems to lean towards metal and noise and outsider stuff, with the odd popular record thrown in. But I think there's a difference between taste and good music.
Comments