The Weekend section of USAToday, December 29th issue, presents the “sixth annual year-end pop-culture quiz” (answers on page 2E). Will Britney Spears be more likely to market a good album, a book on how to make marriage work in the short term, panties, or infant car seats in 2007? Hmmm… Pretty entertaining quiz until we get to the question on Sting (#3): having recently released an album featuring Elizabethan lute music, will his next album contain music of the krumhorn, concertina (huh?), lutefisk, or some form of pop music, so he can make it back into the top 10?
The correct answer of course is “D“. *sigh.* Call me un-hip, but the quiz just got a little less entertaining. (Thankfully, the answers do acknowledge that there's more to life than pop culture. Whew) Answer “D” brought to mind a comment in the same day’s Rochester Democrat and Chronicle by music critic Jeff Spevak. In reviewing the 2006 Southern Music CD compiled by Oxford American, he said, “A publication whose slim sales figures suggest it’s too literate for many folks, the Oxford American 2006 music edition is packed with 24 excellent tracks…“
Well. These indications of what the general public values are indeed unfortunate. It can’t merely be lack of education that makes the above true, though; there are lots of well-educated, smart people out there. I guess most of them probably aren’t interested in either Southern or 16th-century music. But those who do like Southern music, at least, are apparently missing out on a terrific recording, according to Mr. Spevak, by overlooking a "literary" compilation. Or maybe it's a marketing problem (though I refuse to make a stereotypical comment about the demand for a New Yorker-type publication or its recommends in the South...) Could it have to do with stereotypes regarding the cultural elite? Or is it that the general public, even the well-educated and smart ones, value what is mainstream and "hot" for their personal lives?
Funny thing is, lute music was pop music back in its time. But I guess it’s not so hip or interesting compared to modern big-studio-production pop music in all its slick, smooth, glamorous power-tripping. Yet it has aspects that are still very current. They have to do with human constants (the lyrics do, anyway). I admire Sting for pursuing an essential human expression -- music -- in itself, for exploring it and his own musicality. That’s what’s truly worthy of pursuit. That’s real art -- it's what real life should be about!
Art should be life, and life, art. Art isn’t just for the "arty" or the elite, it’s about living life honestly, seeking understanding, valuing what is given to mankind both internally and externally, revering the One Who gave it, and expressing it for true good. Of course many people make an art of superficiality (or worse), and do so with staggering skill. This is prostitution. It's an abuse of the skill, of oneself, and of the things one’s been given. Not all true art, I suppose, is edifying.
But back to pop culture: it doesn’t have a monopoly on superficiality and idolatry. I think the scholar, the intellectual, the academic, the cultural elitist (none of which I am) -- the one interested in “deeper” things -- can use these pursuits in a superficial and idolatrous way. What needs to be valued is learning about things for their sake alone, and then bringing this back inside oneself to make a new thing that can in turn be given. When one heterogeneously produces a new product that is partially of oneself yet much bigger, then true generosity can be manifest for the edification of all.
One might even become interested in Sting for what he has to offer, not just in music that tickles one's fancy. Or maybe they'd find that lute music tickles their fancy…
(check out this cogent review of Sting's album at, of all places, USAToday! HT: Hearts & Minds BookNotes)
