Sometimes I attend too slavishly to the Internet. That is why I have recently come across Plugged In magazine’s (www.pluggedinonline.com) online music review area. The website is under the entertainment section of the Focus on the Family website. Although aimed at teens, the average college reader would readily be advised: The writers seem to assume a general ignorance towards the music being reviewed.
Being an ardent supporter of critical, yet thoughtful, music analysis, I investigated this website. Several hours of shock and disbelief continued until an overall sense of befuddlement washed over me. What had gone so viciously wrong? I came to the conclusion that what had happened was not actually the reading of music reviews. Rather, I had read the constant drumbeat of how good Christian teens should throw away this or that album. Throwing them away, that is, without regard to how the music sounded.
The criterion for dismissal varied with each album review I read. Phish’s Farmhouse was deemed a bad influence due to “floundering spirituality.” Radiohead’s Hail to the Thief was added to the NO list due to “sleepy sound(s) that might narcotize teens.” Finally, Pearl Jam’s No Code was sent packing due to one song. The disapproval for it hinged on Eddie Vedder’s use of two expletives. More swears are alluded to, none are found. But first, Phish.
To quote reviewer Bob Waliszewski on Farmhouse, “Just when Phish seems prepared to ponder the Creator, the singer dismisses the thought as if finding God were trivial.” This is referring to the song “Bug,” from which the line “it doesn’t matter” is quickly taken out of context and criticized. “It doesn’t matter” is referring to the singer asking, “What do you think I meant?” Straight away there are opinions being attributed indiscriminately to the artist. Throughout the site’s reviews, this trend picks up speed quickly and never slows down.
I’m not going to argue theology with Bob Waliszewski or the editors of Plugged In, but aren’t they supposed to be writing about the music in these reviews? In what way do Phish’s supposed theological views influence the way we hear the group’s sounds? Chances are, not very much. The alarm is going off now! Bias detection. The reviewers have something else on their minds besides making interesting comments about the music. Yes, lyrics are important but there is a reason why the bands have instruments.
The way music is usually dealt with is exemplified in the site’s Hail to the Thief review. As quoted earlier, the music of Radiohead apparently narcotizes teens. The offhand equivocation of drugs and Radiohead’s music is a ravaging criticism of the often-praised musical content of the band. It appears as though the band can’t get a fair trial from the reviewers because there isn’t an atmosphere of open-mindedness about the matter. Singer Thom Yorke tried to set things right years ago when he said that the lyrics he uses are “just words” and are made to fit the music, not to suggest ideas. The reviewers at Plugged In should get this message.
The most upsetting aspect of Plugged In is the general lack of common sense. The music is clearly not even considered during the No Code review. Waliszewski, again reviewing, is content to dismiss the album on the grounds that there are two F-bombs during “Lukin.” Waliszewski calls this “frequent use of the f-word.” So frequent now means at least two occurrences. Please, someone call Webster’s. The complete disregard of the music as an element to discuss prompts the question: Why are they reviewing these albums?
The obvious answer is that they believe unwitting teens will be saved from horrendously devilish experiences by reading the reviews. That may be laying it on thick, but that’s the gist. The writers don’t give the readers any credit to make a judgment on their own. “Should Christian teens invest in No Code?” asks Waliszewski. His answer is a resounding, “No Way!” The reviewer’s audience shouldn’t be intended to discourage readers on minimal grounds. Rather, they should encourage their readers to invest time in finding the meanings and messages for themselves.
The consideration must be made that the editors simply do not know anything about the music they are reviewing. This is made apparent in several ways.
First, they lack a sense of satire and sarcasm. Again, Pearl Jam is the victim. It seems bands with the slightest ambiguity in their lyrics are lambasted for any possible secularist interpretation. Take the lines, “I can kill ’cause in God I trust,” from Pearl Jam’s “Do the Evolution.” Taken out of context and without a sense for sarcasm, these lines seem to reflect an odious tone toward God. In the context of the entire song, however, the meaning becomes much less directed at God and more so at the idea of killing in God’s name. In fact, the whole song is a social commentary. It criticizes materialism, adherence to convention and arrogance. It’s hard to understand why Waliszewski can’t see past what he describes as “obscenities and ambiguity” in the lyrics.
Secondly, any mention of the music tends to be associated with negative vocabulary. That is to say, words like dark, hypnotic, chilling and unleashed don’t tend to bring to mind happy thoughts. This is what Waliszewski is going for. By defining the music in negative terms, he hopes to ward off wayward teens. Yes, teens who might consider listening to the music before judging it so harshly. One point to note, P.O.D. is ruled satisfactory despite the group’s “dirty” rock sound. That is, so long as they stick to the sanitized lyrics. Examples of controversial lyrics could be anything from criticizing the president to merely referencing drugs or alcohol.
One thing to point out before moving on is that the reviewers are completely against music and lyrics written about or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Stemming from the misinterpretation of sarcasm, the ignorance of a critically inept world-view bleeds through the words of the many reviews dealing with politically conscious albums. The world isn’t going to pretend that potentially bad influences such as drugs and alcohol don’t exist. The naíve teen listener is going to be exposed to these realities one way or another. And as for speaking out against the president (confronted in a Beastie Boys review), I see no reason to classify this as “objectionable” content. Ever.
We all have the right to disagree with the president, even the Beastie Boys. All presidents have been the targets of political disagreements within the artistic community. You can’t expect everyone to simply approve automatically.
A final comment must be added. The Plugged In reviewers can’t get facts straight. Waliszewski contends that Radiohead has never had a U.S. tour. Of course they did, including 33 shows in 1996. He also claims they never had US singles or music videos. That would certainly mean a simple search on Amazon.com would turn up nothing but albums. Unfortunately for Bob, Radiohead has two DVDs stocked full of live music and video footage and music videos. What a coincidence. And the claim about no U.S. singles? I think most people are familiar with the first U.S. single from Radiohead. It was a song called “Creep.” It even came out on cassette when it was released in 1993.
The musical message has been lost. Plugged In, please tell us about the music.