my museAfter both my Radiohead/Caviar post and the Hip-Hop/Fast food post, I began thinking about the compatibility of cuisine types and music genres. Strangely, it's a lot easier to compare a band with a dish than it would be a genre with a cuisine. Radiohead may be the musical equivalent of caviar, but what genre is the musical equivalent of diners? Does the founding premise of this website fall short when I try to examine both food and music from a more global perspective? With the economy and morale where it is, could the nation handle the possibility that the You Hear What You Eat system (previously established to be Penn's opinion) is fallible?
More importantly, if I discover that the system IS fallible and my comparisons are only apt in certain instances, do i have an obligation to sidestep the issue gracefully to provide stability and constancy for the sake of America? Torn in two directions by my phantom journalistic integrity and my phantom patriotism. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. (Note: Author does not sniff glue).
Without further dalliance, let us examine the cuisine types as provided by Citysearch.com. Donuts. Italian. Hot Dogs. Eclectic/International. Greek. Noodle Houses.
Everything I do, I do it for my hood....
Pretty straightforward stuff. Most cuisines are simply named after their country of origin. Failing a distinct country of origin, the descriptor falls to whatever the most prominent menu item is. Hot Dogs. Noodles. Even when it gets more convoluted, it's pretty straightforward. Asian-fusion. Bistro. Dim Sum. While the fare might be slightly more cryptic, one still probably knows what they are in for.
Then, you have names that are beholden to the concept and atmosphere, rather than the fare. Diner. Fast food. Deli. Family.
From the forty or so listing that Citysearch has, you can toss in your descriptors, which are sometimes specific to the cuisine and sometimes not. Greasy Spoon. Red Sauce. Regional. Gourmet. Dive.
So much white it'll hurt your eyes...
Components of these cuisines remain the same. Tastes may change, but the Italian restaurant isn't going to serve biscuits and gravy to reflect evolving tastes.
If only music was so easy. As genres evolve and devolve, music classification changes with them. It often seems the genres are steeped in uselessness due to one of three reasons:
- The genres are so specific that they do nothing to give a sense of context of the music.
- The genres are so vague that they do nothing to give a sense of context of the music.
- The genres are labeled to reflect the sensibilities of the listener, rather than the music.
(Note: In determining the efficacy of this system, I will use the following test: If I use the musical equivalent to describe to a friend the type of cuisine that I desire, would the friend tell me to shut up or call me a name?)
Bitch, get ya mind right...
Let's try this one out with my phantom friend. Let's call him Montecore, after Sigfried and Roy's tiger.
Penn: I'm hungry.
Montecore: Where do you want to eat?
Penn: I will eat anything as long as it is very popular and ephemerally embraced by our culture.
Outcome: Montecore, the person, mauls Penn.
So the parallel fails in the instance of pop music.
15 years ago, this country was ass-deep in Alternative music. Ironically, what started as a descriptor for music that ostensibly defied classification became co-opted by very mainstream bands and media that wanted to harness the power of the fringe to legitimize themselves. We are seeing this with the terms "indie" and "emo" right now. These terms are exactly as fleeting and meaningless as "alternative" was by the time Dishwalla and Counting Crows dug their talons into it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. I feel strongly about this.
Flashlight in my eyes, muthafucka wants my registration...
How does this stack up in my restaurant-decision-conversation with Young Montecore?
Penn: I'm hungry.
Montecore: (licking the backs of his hands) Huh?
Penn: I said I'm hungry.
Montecore: Where would you like to dine?
Penn: I would like to eat something that defies classification. At an off-beat place that is different from all the places we normally eat.
Montecore: I would like to eat gazelle, so that totally works for me.
Outcome: Montecore delights in the idea of eating something different that deviates from the norm. Penn's ego and limbs remain intact. They eat at a place that incorporates different cuisines from different locales that reside on 34 degree north latitude line.
So one up and one down for the hopelessly vague musical genres. This may not prove to be the strongest stance I have ever taken on an issue.
Let's move on to the overly specific genres. Sophisti-pop? Shoegaze? Queercore? Hi-NRG? Ugh. Each of these genres consist of about 5 bands. In case you're curious, the bands that come to mind when I hear these genres are, respectively, Pinback, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Queers, and some crappy techno band I've never heard of before.
How does these over-classifications work in the culinary world?
Penn: I'm hungry.
Montecore: What kind of food do you want? I know this is going to sound crazy, but I could totally go for gazelle again!
Penn: I want southern food deconstructed with an urban gourmet sensibility. And I want to eat it in the gay part of town.
Montecore: I know a place like that!
Outcome: Penn and Montecore dine at Magnolia Tree, a soul food restaurant with one of the ten best wine lists in West Hollywood. They have a wonderful time.
You in the minor leagues, I'm a heavyweight
You try to sell your house, I own ya real estate...
Dining tastes are evolving to the point that concepts are becoming more and more specific, so the parallels between the extremely focused music descriptors and singular restaurant concepts are becoming more and more prevalent.
That leaves the third classification of music: those that the audiences project on the artists to label themselves rather than the music. World music. College rock. Gangster rap. World music is enjoyed by the Starbucks drinker who doesn't enjoy going to a second retail establishment, so they simply buy their CD's at Starbucks and pretend to be cosmopolitan. College rock is for people who are no longer comfortable admitting they like R.E.M or really wish that they had attended college. Both reasons are completely understandable. (Where do people who didn't go to college get turned on to college rock?) Gangster rap is for idiots and gangsters.
The above paragraph, like all my writing, is a gross oversimplification. There are people who genuinely like world music, though they will probably never get to see their favorite bands in concert. But the true believers are overshadowed by the douchebags who discuss fair trade coffee and conflict diamonds. And don't see the irony in sharing articles from Stuff White People Like. For every one true believer, there are 5 poseurs.
Are there true believers and poseurs when it comes to food and restaurants? Not really, but it's growing. It's still way easier to listen to a band you don't truly like than it is to eat a meal you don't truly like. But times are changing. People are throwing around words like locavore and organic because some people believe in the causes and some people want to be identified with them the same way idiots wear red kabbalah bracelets as fashion accessories.
I got my bankroll,
Sittin' on the corner like a lightpole
The point is, with both music and food, it doesn't really matter if people believe in the nuts and bolts of something. If they like the image, they will take it. Just like mixing a glass of red and white wine, everything turns pink and gets tainted or affected (depending on your POV).
Let us, once more, drop in on Montecore and Penn as they discuss their dining options.
Penn: I'm hungry.
Montecore: (Napping in the sun) Where would you care to dine?
Penn: I want to dine where the cool people dine.
Montecore: There's a macrobiotic place on Melrose that grows all their own food.
Penn: Wow. That's neat. i read about macrobiotic food in US Weekly!
Montecore: Celebrities! We're just like them!
Outcome: Penn and Montecore see the Olsen twins as they walk into their new restaurant find for a smart brunch.
Is this common? Do a lot of people feel this way when deciding where or what to eat? Not at all? But they will.
What does it all mean?
Unfortunately, not much. People are still much snottier about their music than their food. it can be seenin the light of people's projections, aspirations, and devotion to finding the "next big thing". This is happening in food culture more and more every day. People toss around terms like "molecular gastronomy" and palettes, the same way a record store clerk discusses noise rock. But it's still confined to the affluent, as eating obscure preparations of food from France requires a lot more money than listening to a progressive record by a band from France. And you can't steal the French food off the internet.
Was this entire article a misguided effort to find similarities were there aren't any? No. I didn't think the parallels would be there. I actually ended up finding more than I originally contemplated. And, in examining, found that food is moving closer to where music is (sophistication quickly becoming available to the masses).
Also, the parts with Montecore made me chuckle as I wrote them.
Stumble It!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment