Something has always seemed strange to me about people's expectations of music, as opposed to other forms of art. When we watch a film or read a book we understand that the person or people involved are not necessarily baring their souls or expressing their desires. Nobody really thinks that Stephen King is hiding murderous impulses. Bryan Fuller doesn't secretly want to slaughter and cannibalize people just because he has created a TV adaptation of the Hannibal Lecter series of novels, nor does Mads Mikkelsen, the actor portraying Dr. Lecter. Even with graphic art and sculpture we can understand that we simply may be seeing something that the artist finds fascinating and not necessarily anything deeply personal.
Music is treated differently. Somehow music is considered more personal by listeners and that impression is projected onto its creators. Musicians who use gruesome horror themes are regarded as being dangerous people and corrupting influences (see: Cannibal Corpse). Horror briefly takes away our control, our sense of balance, and makes us feel helpless and scared. It's all in good fun because we come out the other side safe like we always knew we would. So why is that different if it's music? Why is the musician considered to be expressing personal impulses and opinions? And what of the listener? Now that it's a song instead of a short story is everyone suddenly on the side of--or even vicariously living through--the monster?
But it's a lot broader than just tales of the weird and the macabre. Horror themes were what originally got me thinking about this "music is more personal" idea, but that prejudice has an impact on many aspects of our relationship with music, and because I don't feel that way I experience music differently.
Read More
