Going Big
February 17th, 2006I’ve made a reference before about a music critic on the Sunday morning (Grandpa) show CBS News Sunday Morning. He talks about elitism, smallness and exclusivity, with the implication that being small and exclusive might not be the best way to get your music heard. He was talking about Coldplay. And I can hear the haters already:
“Coldplay sucks now.”
“Coldplay was never good.”
“You like Coldplay?”
Yes, I do. Whatever.
The part of the critic’s review of Coldplay’s album X&Y that really resonated with me was this:
“Since the 90s, a lot of rock has gotten exclusive and elitist and small.”
What struck me about this comment so forcefully last summer when I heard it, wasn’t just that it was so perfectly dead on. It was the universality of what it meant for who we’ve become. And why we choose things like bands and hobbies and movies and television shows and software and sites we visit and how we publish or perform or express ourselves publicly.
Something has to be little-known to be considered cool. Otherwise it’s mainstream. And mainstream sucks. Being big sucks. I used to believe this when I was younger. I used to embody this attitude. There was a kind of mean-spirited quality to it as well. For example, when I was in bands, we’d get pissy when another local band got to go to South by Southwest, or when another local band got a better time slot at a show, or recognized for some great work. Really stupid stuff that was very small. It didn’t make the other band smaller, it made me smaller. And it didn’t really make me feel better in the long run. It didn’t make me write better music or put better energy out there into the world.
I see this nearly every day in the online world. Comment threads and blog posts full of vitriol towards anybody remotely considered mainstream. I’ve been guilty of it as well. Whole sites dedicated to the belittling of the big. When it’s smartly done, and done without ire, I think there can be a valid and necessary conversation. Satire and sarcasm can be wonderful leveling devices. Humor is good. Anger can be good. For example, Enron or a governmental entity. Or Pamela Anderson’s boobs. But if it’s coming from a jealous place or a small place, it’s going to be small in six months or six years and who’s better off?
I’m married to a person with a fairly popular web site. She’s none of the things that the haters rant on about. So many of them fall into what David Pogue at the New York Times calls “online curmudgeons“. But beyond their opinions, however misguided, which they are certainly entitled to, there seems to be a general smallness. Which I think is why, in 2001, when I decided to pursue Heather and make some big life changes, I decided to consciously stop being exclusive, elitist and small. My experiment on this site with openness has often paid me back with huge personal satisfaction and an awareness of others. Others who often don’t agree with me. Watching the same thing happen with Heather and post-partum depression was a truly wonderful experience. Which made the tsunami of anti-advertising commments (and then a subsequent wave of supportive emails to Heather) all the more confusing. “You go girl” vs. “I liked you better when”, with the latter being tinged with precisely what I’m talking about.
To be sure, there is also an element in modern culture of the ever-changing zeitgeist and our constant need for new new new new. But I think that isn’t what I’m getting at today.
Going big isn’t about making money or not making money. For me it’s about not thinking small anymore.
This personal choice has made a huge difference in my life. I’ve been able to work through and get through some difficulties without going supremely crazy. I’ve been better able to wish others well. I’ve been less angry on a creative level. Success for others in my field(s) is only going to benefit the field as a whole, and what is my contribution? Anger? Negativity? Or good work? I’m hoping for the latter. o
I’ve often found that very same thing. I really liked Modest Mouse’s last CD and I was extremely pleased that they’re getting the recognition they deserve. But all around me were people saying they’d sold out because their music was now being heard. Any slight variation from their old style was taken as evidence of that “selling out.” It pissed me off.
And at the same time, some bands I’ve truly hated have been revered by hipsters because– well, I’ve never really understood why. Because no one knows about them yet? Because the music sounds so terrible that no one in her right mind would actually WANT to listen to it?
When when what CDs one owns becomes akin to membership in a club, I think things have gone a bit too far.
Two things:
Coldplay’s “Fix You” off of X&Y gives me the chills and gets me all tear-y and I don’t care who knows that. (Especially the live version) I didn’t think music (pop, mainstream, whatever) could do that to me anymore.
and two:
You threw in Enron, the government and Pam Anderson’s boobs all in one paragraph and made it work. Nice job. :-]
What a great post. I think as we get older we get a little more all-encompassing.
In New Zealand the local music scene really struggled for many years. In part I think this was a lack of support from broadcasting, but also there was an elitism by supporters that would have them drop away as soon as a band went a bit more mainstream. I think now we’re getting over it. Many local groups are hitting number 1, and people aren’t embarrassed to admit they like them anymore.
Or is just me since I hit my 30s?
Jon, I agree with you on that things that have become mainstream are apt to more criticism, but i look at another example musically – U2. They are the most mainstream band in the world and by that I mean record sales, cross over and selling potential. Does that mean they are selling out or suffering musically wise because of this – no? I tend to take another approach – with big ness and more attention comes a responsibility to do good. To do something with that fame.
We live in an age with media that is infinite. Internet, newspapers, magazines, etc.. there are infinite voices and infinite opinions. Don’t let the haters bring you down. Take your success and Heather’s success as a validation of your labor.
I agree with you that small often equals elite. My personal choice of small often relates to the fact that I prefer small/different.
I am SO SICK AND TIRED of the “outback”, “montanas”, big box restaurants, and choose local, different cuisine when dining.
While I don’t exclusively choose small/retro/underground bands, I do like to hear what they have to offer/say. I do, however, still love Madonna, Coldplay, Pink Floyd, R.E.M., etc.
As for Heather’s move to add ads to her site, I figure why not. If enough people click on the ads, to pay your bills. Who cares??? No one is forcing them to do so. I think people are just pissed that they didn’t do it first.
Personally I don’t click on them, but the ads don’t prevent me from going to her site either. Her stories are heart warming, funny, heart breaking and a part of my every day. I’ve told her as much.
OK, this may sound really geeky, but check out the extras on the original Star Wars trilogy.
George Lucas has some awesome commentary to this point.
He discusses how he was anti-corporation, and now he is head of such a corporation, and how this is exactly what the Star Wars storyline is about.
(Wow, I cannot believe I just admitted to being such a huge geek. My apologies.)
Most people grow and mature. We realize that some of the things we did in the past out of anger and frustration really didn’t help anyone. Instead, they just gave us an outlet.
So now what are you going to do about your WHORES list?
I guess we like “small” and “elite” because it makes us feel special. It’s easy to feel like we’re being led by the nose by “taste makers” and media companies and the like. Then when we stumble upon something like “Little Britan” on BBC America, we feel like we’re our own little elite class. (Never mind that I learned about that particular show by reading the LA times.)
But I agree that much can be lost by ignoring the mainstream. I consider myself a travel snot. When I go somewhere, I want to get off the beaten path and avoid the tourist traps. Why go to Paris and spend all your time in line for something lame with other Americans, right? But an attitude like that would keep a person from visiting the Eiffel Tower. Yes, it’s the very mainstream tourist symbol of Paris. But it got that way because it’s an elegant structure, an engineering marvel, and fun. It would be a tragedy to deny yourself that experience because you were too cool.
That’s where I come down on the whole Dooce question. Her site got popular not because she was posting nude photos of Asian hookers or some stunt like that. It blew up because of hard work, great writing, and brutal honesty.
A lot of big, popular things suck. But many others are big and popular because they’re actually good.
I think that our need to be small and perfectly niched is quite damaging. It means that we create a self-perpetuating attraction toward those things that make us different, exclusive, (perhaps) standoffish, and elite. As marketers and media seek out the niches to create advertising and build stories, the niches are revealed to those outside and appear to become “mainstream.” This drives those in the niches to seek out a new hole.
The problem is, that what is revealed to be mainstream usually isn’t (rainbow parties were talked about on Oprah, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who knows anyone who has ever been to one). Even if the trend (or great blog, or great band, or great indy movie, etc.) is picked up by the larger public, why should it make a difference? Those who think it does, like living in holes. That’s not a place I want to be.
Great post Jon.
There’s always pressures in whatever situation you’re in, big or small. You can use it to your advantage or let it screw you up.
You can go big and still be brilliant. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Do you know what these elitists and haters lack? Emotional maturity, but also self-esteem. I think that often times haters put down others because it makes them feel bigger. It seems to me that these people don’t like themselves very much. Having good self-esteem allows you to say things like “I LOVE Coldplay, so sue me” or “I don’t care if this jacket is 10 years old, i love it!” and only being a little embarrassed. One of the positive things of turning 40 is learning to love myself for all my quirks and weirdnesses and not being afraid of what people will think. My mama always taught me that we all have the same worth. And this keeps me from being snotty about someone else’s passions and also makes me less susceptible to others’ elitism. It’s easy to slip into old habits of criticizing others, but I’m working on it.
I wish that more mainstream cultural fare was complex and organic and interesting, and although my tastes are primarily geared toward experimental things that are necessarily going to draw smaller audiences, that doesn’t stop me from appreciating the newest Missy Elliott single or whatever. I think that a lot of what is presented to the mainstream is condescendingly bad and so artificially constructed as to be soulless, but I’m not categorically opposed to anything just because it’s mainstream. And insular, invariably insecure haters with fascist, unattainable purity standards totally gross me out.
Bravo. Personally I’m glad you’re big. I need to get hit by a Mac truck sometimes to see things that are good. (I’m the person who would miss the Grand Canyon and walk right off the edge). I’m so glad to have found Dooce and Blurbomat. What you both have to say is meaningful, and funny and wise. You ALWAYS make my day.
Jon,
Your honesty and insight are why I read your blog. Plus you expose me to music I wouldn’t otherwise have found unless I read your blog. And…Chuck Rocks! Keep up the good work!
Tim in Flyover Country
“Going big isn’t about making money or not making money. For me it’s about not thinking small anymore.”
A truly inspiring thought. Thank you.
A few years back, slam poet and hip-hop artist Saul Williams (http://www.saulwilliams.com/) performed at the college where I teach, and in the Q&A that followed, a student asked him about whether he thought that political artists could effectively remain political after they’d “gone big.” “Like Rage Against the Machine,” he asked (who had just signed that big tour deal with whatever beer company it was, which totally dates my story). “Can they still be effective, or have they totally sold out?” Williams’s response was exactly in line with the kind of thing you’re suggesting here. He rejected the idea that success (whether financial or on other terms) automatically means selling out, saying that if going big gets their message out to more people, more power to them. I try to hang onto that thought as writers or performers I like achieve mainstream success: more power to them.
God! This post struck a chord for me.
Here in Canada, it seems to be the national pastime to complain about any Canadian that makes it big (i.e. gets US popularity). It’s the rare Canadian celebrity that can make the jump to popularity in the States while still keeping their goodwill back home — usually it takes them mentioning frequently and loudly that they are Canadian to anyone that will listen (e.g. Mike Myers).
And then their are the Canadians that are HUGE in Canada but somehow always fail to find an audience outside our fair country — the perennial example being the Tragically Hip, arguably the biggest band in Canada for years now, but no blip down south. And what does this do to their popularity here? It makes them even more popular here.
Your words have touched on a familiar subject for me personally, and reading your entry has helped me realize that I’m not the only person who has struggled with thinking small and has worked through (and in some ways is still working through) that huge issue.
This proves it. We’re all human.
My husband and I both have “transition” phases in our lives when we went from hating everything that was mainstream BECAUSE it was mainstream, to trying to develop opinions absent of popularity. When you spend years knocking Top 40 radio and popular fiction, it’s hard to read The DaVinci Code and buy a Justin Timberlake CD. But I’ve done both of those and am not (too) ashamed to admit it.
But, there are still times when the old reflexes kick in and we have both been known to roll our eyes at something simply because it’s popular. Old habits die hard.
Great piece, I really enjoyed it.
Very well put and I wanted to applaud a little. I’ve always hated the judgment we seem to want to attach to matters of personal taste. Whether it’s music or books or television or food, it seems like we are willing to let someone else tell us when something is worth enjoying rather than deciding for ourselves.
I don’t understand why it seems we have to despise one thing in order to like something else. I can, for example, appreciate Applebees and Olive Garden for what they are without taking away any of my enjoyment from more unique restaurants. I can appreciate quality music from popular bands without taking away any of my enjoyment from finding some hitherto unknown piece of music that really touches me. That is what seems to be the smallness to me, we may miss a tremendous amount by limiting ourselves to that which someone else has labeled cool.
If you two hit “the big time” – and I have no doubt you will, in some way or another, it’s because you’ve been genuine. Everybody rants, everybody dismisses something someone else likes, it’s all part of being your own flavor, not homogenized artificial vanilla. But being genuine, and not succumbing to plastic, to vitriolic volleys, and sharing thoughts, ideas, writing, captured moments in a way that’s eloquent, makes you think, makes you cry – that’s art. And who gets to decide what’s cool, in the end? If it’s Hollywood, or Simon Cowell, or the religious right, most people want to be told, because it’s too scary to put your own set of standards out there. Whoa. Getting too deep for a Friday afternoon. Must play sudoku now. Is that still cool?
I really needed to hear this today. I’ve been going through a lot of trouble with work.
I’ve been trying to break into journalism the past three years, and was recently dealt a pretty big blow. Your entry reminded me to not let bitterness creep in.
Thanks ever so. Love your site, and Heather’s. Look forward to the Amsterdam updates.
Miranda
I think you’re completely right in saying that we have a choice as to what we put out there. Sometimes I have to wonder if the haters (and I mean that of anything- bands, Heather, whatever) just have nothing with any substance or originality to contribute. Then again, it could be a roundabout way of showing admiration. Who knows, but I’ll stop now before I become a hater hater.
I think sometimes things just get old after a while. What was new and fresh at one point can easily get tired and old after repeated exposure.
For example, some folks who were completely enamored with the whole Dave Eggers thing have moved on, not because Eggers (and other McSweeney’s authors) sucks but because the individuals in question have shifted their interests elsewhere. Often, by the time something small and exclusive goes big, the folks who have been following it have gotten their fill. This isn’t a pissy-moany thing or a smallness thing, it’s just a reflection of how a dynamic society works.
Now, folks who make decisions based on fads (decisions include following them or purposely avoiding them) need to work on their individuality a bit. People who reject Coldplay because they’re mainstream are no better than folks who like them because they’re mainstream. Folks in general need to form their own thoughts. That’s the real problem. Intentionally not being small isn’t any better than being small; you’re still forcing a viewpoint that is driven positively or negatively by society.
Just my personal opinion…
(BTW, I am using the figurative “you” here, not the literal “you.” I speak of nobody in particular.)
I am paraphrasing of course:
Dee Snider commenting in retrospect on following up a platinum album after many years of struggle:
After the mega success of “Stay Hungry” made them millionaires (Twisted Sister) it was increasingly hard to write with the same edge, attitude and hunger so prevalent in their signature sound when he was
sitting by his pool in the shade of his mansion, staring at a garage full of vintage automobiles.
NOTE: The “in retrospect” is important here…..Don’t think for a moment Dee would have made that admition when
he was promoting “love is for suckers”…..It was a realization that came 20 years later.
IMHO — Art usually absorbs ones current surroundings and situations. What comes out the other end
is indirectly influenced a great deal by the struggles and hunger of the artist at the time of creation.
Or if that example is to old for you young bucks — there was a time you may have been purchasing the latest Green Day CD in the punk section instead of the top 40 “pop” section of your local record store.