Dream Theater and Kenny Rogers – The New Metrics of Music
My old college roommate – Mark M’Roommate – and I used to discuss the comparative merits of bands. Because the qualities that make music good are pretty intangible we quickly found that this wasn’t easy. How does one rate Wesley Willis? He’s awful and yet so enjoyable. Can you compare him to Yngwie Malmsteen and say that Yngwie is categorically better? (The answer is no, by the way.)
The problem is that what makes music good is only related to the performer’s ability to extract an emotive response from the listener. A good example would be Elliot Smith who is a very good guitarist, yet his music is stripped down to only what he needs to communicate. Highly technical music that doesn’t say anything more than, “I can play fast” tends to be nearly unlistenable. It lacks the passion that music deserves yet is not bad enough to become unique or amusing in its own right.
In other words, it’s Dream Theater.
But for all that is lame about them, Dream Theater might be one of the most important bands in music because they define the bottom end of music’s listenability, yet there are bands who are arguably worse. It’s fairly undeniable that Tay Zonday is worse than Dream Theater, and yet I would rather listen to Chocolate Rain for an entire day than anything from Awake for thirty seconds.
Ask youself if any music you enjoy is better than Kenny Rogers. Yes, it most likely is. Now ask yourself if any music you enjoy is worse then Kenny Rogers. Probably not. Kenny Rogers is right at the edge of bland mediocrity and yet is still acceptably listenable. Through the Years, The Gambler, She Believes In Me – These are all the epitomy of just fine songs.
The chart below illustrates how music can be so bad it’s good, so bland it’s bad, and so good it’s great.
(Click on the image to see a larger version.)
Obviously the truly great acts are on the right side of this graph. The Beatles, for instance, would be right around a .95 on both listenability and quality. Notice, also, the plateau where quality is better than average, but listenability stays relatively flat. The majority of music sits in this neighborhood. It’s good, but not great.
The absence of quantitative metrics like the ability to play super burnin’ fast licks is intentional because that bears little impact on the quality of music. As an anonymous poster commented, Nirvana was a great band while not being technically proficient. Similarly, King Crimson and Mahavishnu Orchestra are great bands with virtuosic playing abilities. Dream Theater—and Paul Gilbert, to a lesser extent—have amazing chops but suck balls.
Not only does this chart validate listening to bad music, but it also validates that good music really is good and that technical proficiency isn’t an inherent indicator of quality. You can finally listen to your Hall and Oates albums without shame.
Have fun figuring out where your favorite bands sit on this chart.
Yr Fthfl Bddy,
Mike