We’ve been hearing a lot over the past two years about the “death of civility” in this country. But almost as dire has been the scarcity of critical thought. Much of the problem is that whenever one has an emotional investment in the issue, it’s far more difficult to apply one’s critical skills (assuming you have any) to it.
I’m going to offer an example of a critical analysis of a topic about which I had zero knowledge or emotional investment.
People who like the band got upset; others chimed in their approval. I had no opinion on the matter: I’d barely heard of Nickelback. I’m not sure I knew a single one of their songs (and I still don’t). Without watching the video, I suggested to the others that it might have been offered with tongue in cheek.
A fan of Nickelback urged me to watch the video anyway because, she claimed, it was symptomatic of the recent lack of civility in this country, so I watched it. My assumption going in was that the video probably shouldn’t be taken seriously because it starts from an untenable position (basing an aesthetic value judgment on “science”), and that makes it something of a joke from the get-go.
It was created, I supposed, only to attract clicks and be viewed by as many web surfers as possible, and therefore was framed in a way to attract viewers who are either Nickelback lovers and haters, and stir up discussion, disagreement, and further web traffic (presumably to justify or raise the site’s ad rates).
INITIAL REACTION
If someone made such a video about, say, The Monkees, The Eagles, Chicago, or anybody else I like (Led Zep I adore, but I’ll readily agree that Jimmy Page is not a very admirable person), I won’t get worked up about it, or regard it as symptomatic of the bigger conflicts and problems facing this nation.
The person who felt the video was mean-spirited still didn’t see what I called “the joke,” and labeled it an expression of unnecessarily nasty currents in this nation. So I decided to analyze the video in depth. Below, edited somewhat for length and clarity, is what I wrote, as an exercise in -- and illustration of -- critical thinking, especially when one has no emotional stake in the subject.
Here’s the original video. Below is my analysis of it.
WHAT THE VIDEO SAYS (AND DOESN’T)
First, the entire premise of “SCIENCE: Why Nickelback Sucks” -- that “science” could render a definitive judgment on a matter of taste – is suspect, and therefore, I would say, intended to be tongue in cheek. Perhaps if a research scientist had done an in-depth analysis of tone patterns and chord progressions, then discussed their potential effects on the brain and thereby human psychology, there might be something to it, but none of that was the case here.
Second, the piece leads off with assertions that are instantly disprovable: for example, at 0:11, “everyone, even Nickelback fans, seem [sic] to know the band is trash….” Well, I didn’t know that; I’ve barely heard of them, so I’m perfectly indifferent, and there are undoubtedly other people of all ages for which this is also true, so that’s a false statement.
The so-called scientist cited as authority is “Finnish researcher Salli Anttonen” [0:22]. Before I Google this person’s credentials, I’ll just critique the attributed content. I won’t repeat the title of Anttonen’s study, which also has “joke” written all over it. (Turns out, the title took most of its content from a phrase in a disparaging review of the band, which we will eventually discover was very much to the point.)
Anttonen reportedly studied music reviews from 2000 to 2014 [0:31-0:36]. There’s nothing particularly scientific about doing a content analysis of reviews; that would be like writing the history of a U.S. President’s tenure in office based solely on editorial columns from newspapers of the day, which would tend to be critical, and focus on immediate concerns to the exclusion of the big picture.
Briefly, the band formed in 1995, had its first major hit in 2001, and subsequent singles did not do as well. Also “Nickelback received negative reviews from most critics” [1:11], from which the study “drew convincing conclusions about why some people might like this band” … and the video quotes terms such as “boring,” “bland,” “fake,” “unoriginal,” “borrowed,” and “sounds wrong.”
Any of this sound the slightest bit scientific to you?
From there, the video shifts into cheap but flashy insults, and it’s impossible to tell whether they came from the original music reviews or the Anttonen study, or were simply cooked up by the video maker himself. There’s no chain of evidence or citation of authorities here.
A conclusion of sorts turns up at 2:16: “Basically, Nickelback is just a little bit of everything and a lot of commercialization.” But one could say as much about many bands, big and small.
On to part three, “Their lyrics suck” [2:31], which declares that Nickelback songs “mostly … have sentimental lyrics targeted toward women…” [2:36]. One could readily argue the same about most songs by Billy Joel, post-1977 Chicago, even gay singers such as Elton John and Freddie Mercury/Queen.
“It’s definitely not how most rock bands do business” [2:40] is an easily debatable statement (and possibly even scientifically disprovable). Lyrics at a “third grade reading level” [2:56] characterize some of the greatest rock and pop hits in history, from Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti” to Springsteen’s “Pink Cadillac.”
“Ruled” by what measure? Richness of vocabulary and grammar? Yes, ELP/Pete Sinfield, and Gentle Giant all had far more intelligent lyrics than Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, or Chuck Berry, but that didn’t make them greater or more beloved by the public.
Finally, the video fails to close the logical circle of its argument: It doesn’t show why its supposed “objective” criteria for rating the band low would cause both its critics to hate them and its fans to feel ashamed of them.
That’s a social phenomenon, not a scientific one. Science could perhaps measure the nature of those social norms -- the details of taste (such as why certain rhythms or chord progressions and lyrics can have an emotional resonance for the average person) -- but never really tell you WHY.
The final statement in the video -- “Share this with a Nickelbacker to ruin their [sic] love of the band!!” [3:12] -- openly acknowledges the nonscientific motivation of the enterprise. It’s a nyah-nyah exercise that’s not going to alter anyone’s taste based on bogus scientific “facts,” but merely seeks to make people feel smaller or cooler over a mere matter of taste.
So much for what meets the eye in the video itself. Now let’s go and see if we can find anything “scientific” in the background: the source of this “scientific” analysis and the researcher. . . .
WHAT A LITTLE RESEARCH TURNED UP
Here’s a more fair-minded report about what the Finnish doctoral student (not a “scientist” at all, really; I doubt she would claim the term for herself) in cultural studies wrote.
First, Anttonen studied music reviewers and critics, and the concept of “authenticity” from their perspective, not the wider one of fans and haters, or the nature of music in general, or the average person’s emotions and motivations.
Note also that Anttonen was ONLY studying music reviews and critics IN FINLAND and what they had to say about a Canadian band . . . again, not a particularly broad canvas, let alone fundamental psychology of the human species.
Finally, here are the crucial three paragraphs from a BuzzFeed report that might well have inspired the Smosh Bits video (although my Google search for Anttonen turned up reports on her paper that ran on BBC Newsbeat, US Magazine, and mentalfloss[dot]com):
One thing Anttonen noticed is that earlier reviews of the band were not as negative. The more successful the band became, the more critics delighted in hating on it.
“It became a phenomenon where the journalists were using the same [reasons] to bash them, and almost making an art out of ridiculing them,” she said.
The reason, according to her, is that rock critics see themselves as the protectors and arbiters of authenticity and originality. Hating on Nickelback is a way to assert their authority. So the more success the band has on the charts, the more critics feel emboldened to dismiss Nickelback as inauthentic commercial crap.
WHAT GOES UP GETS KNOCKED DOWN
Those of us who’ve been around a while have seen this phenomenon many times. Bands or artists who looked or sounded new and different at one point received warm attention from critics who “discovered” them early in their careers, for instance:
- white boys from Britain who performed African-American blues with a heavy beat and loud guitars
- a permanent brass section (such as this band . . . or this one)
- dual female guitarists/singers performing hard rock and metal
- earnest singer-songwriter sincerity (James Taylor, Elton John, Billy Joel, etc., etc.)
. . . only to be thrashed later when they achieved massive sales, and tried either to duplicate the pattern of their early success or dared to try something different.
In sum, Anttonen was studying and drawing conclusions primarily about FINNISH MUSIC CRITICS and THEIR PERSONAL AGENDAS (although the odds are high reviewers in other countries operate in a similar manner) . . . which is to say, self-appointed experts or “gatekeepers,” and not really Nickelback’s music per se or the band’s fans at all.
None of this constitutes “science” (certainly not any direct scientific evaluation of the music itself); it’s about perception (particularly the self-image of critics), cultural supervision, and the creation and maintenance of professional reputation. It’s about justifying oneself and one’s job as a music reviewer, rather than taste itself.
Thus, the video is little more than a labored version of a political photo-with-caption meme. Various publications, from the BBC to Smosh Bits, took the barest notions from Anttonen’s study and ran with them, to produce fodder for their news feeds that largely had little to do with what she had actually written.
THE LESSON OF A SILLY VIDEO
Similarly boneheaded (and even mendacious) videos and memes, not to mention entire “news stories” -- or at least proper news reports with improper and misleading headlines -- are circulated on topics of much greater import (climate change, Russian collusion, the supposed crimes of past U.S. presidents) every day.
It is OUR job to:
1. regard them ALL more skeptically, ESPECIALLY when we like what they say
2. read and listen to them carefully, and watch for the cutting of corners and leaps in logic
3. NOT pass them on to others until one has made some attempt to verify their worth independently
2. read and listen to them carefully, and watch for the cutting of corners and leaps in logic
3. NOT pass them on to others until one has made some attempt to verify their worth independently
One of the best critical comments I ever got on a college paper, early in my schooling, was “You move too fast here.” This is an ongoing problem with public debate everywhere, but particularly on the Internet.
When I get in arguments on social media, much of the time my basic message is “It Ain’t Necessarily So.” Slow down. Read more carefully. Check the background.
And try to be more polite and respectful of others, whether they’re average people on the Internet like yourself or celebrities.
And try to be more polite and respectful of others, whether they’re average people on the Internet like yourself or celebrities.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment