THE END OF SUBJECTIVITY

A Guide to Musical Correctness
by Tim Midgett

PREFACE

Whenever conversations turn to matters of personal opinion, disagreements are bound to erupt. And in the event of excess friction, some observer will likely throw in this breezy rejoinder:

"Oh, it's all relative anyway, you know!"

Everyone within earshot will murmur assent, chuckle sagely, nod their collective head at the timeworn yet obviously appropriate cliché at hand. No plumage will be ruffled. No ground will be lost, or gained. And no stand will be taken.

But everything is not relative. Though there is no accounting for simple bad taste, what is correct (or not) is readily apparent to anyone well-versed in the subject at hand.

For example, music.

Aerosmith c. 1973

(7.5 + 8) X (8 + 9.5 - 3) = 224.75

THE FORMULA

(c@ + E) X (rP + iP + T) = mc

Definition of Terms

c@ = coherent aesthetic

The degree to which a subject is capable of formulating and understanding (not necessarily explaining) a singular theory that lies at the heart of the subject's work.

E = execution

The degree to which a subject is capable of applying its aesthetic.

rP = real or true power

The degree to which a subject is capable of creating a substantive product of lasting importance by applying its aesthetic.

iP = imagined power

What the subject believes to be its rP.

T = tension adjustment

Bikini Kill c. 1993

(9 + 7) X (7 + 8 - 2) = 208

The degree to which the subject's musical correctness quotient must be modified to compensate for misjudgement by the subject of its abilities.

Derivation of T:

If rP = iP, then T = 0.

If rP > iP, then T = 1/2 (rP - iP)

If rP < iP, then T = 2(rP - iP).

And finally:

mc = musical correctness

The degree to which the subject is musically correct.

SCALE

All terms except T and mc may only be represented by positive numbers, usually integers, between 1 and 10.

Terms besides t and mc may only equal zero if subjects are not engaged in producing music; i.e. textile workers union, clutch of junkies on the subway, Congress.

Breakdown and Interpretation of Results

Lowest possible score: -140

Highest possible score: 400

300 - 400: Only the most correct subjects can expect to score anywhere near 300. These mavericks make up for any slight missteps with their adventurous spirit. Highest scores yet calculated: 361, for the Lou Reed-led, pre-reunion Velvet Underground, and 360, for John Coltrane's work between 1963 and 1967. These scores break down as follows:

Velvets (10 + 9) X (10 + 8 + 1) = 361

Coltrane (10 + 10) X (9 + 9) = 360

Other exceptionally high scores: Jimi Hendrix (351, antemortem releases only), the Stooges up through Raw Power (342), Big Star (333), pre-reunion Television (324), Joy Division (323.75) and a slew of subjects at 306 (the Go-Betweens, pre-major label Sonic Youth, pre-mental breakdown Fall, electric pre-Reactor and post-Eighties Neil Young [excluding soundtracks or Pearl Jam collaborations]), AC/DC (304), Led Zeppelin (304).

250 - 300: Still rarified, immensely correct territory. Great artists with weak spots in their careers, often involving musically incorrect periods of schmaltz, goofing around, macho posturing. Denizens include the Psychedelic Furs (276.375, first four albums only), Big Black and Lynyrd Skynyrd (each at 272), and Hound Dog Taylor (270).

200 - 250: 200 is the lowest score possible for musical correctness. The Feelies (240) and Sir Lord Baltimore (208, on the strength of their debut album) are examples who, need it be stressed, are still thoroughly correct. As are Aerosmith (224.75) and Black Sabbath (200).

150 - 200: The haunt of many guilty pleasures, many of them hard rock bands, and primarily subjects that overrate themselves based on commercial or critical success. Examples: Cars (198), Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd (196), pre-Hagar Van Halen (169), Kennen Sie Scorpions (154, '80s only)? Parlez-vous Danzig (150, debut LP only)?

100 - 150: Entertaining but somewhat embarrassing music: borderline-excusable sludge rock, effective heart-tug sap, clever competents that are merely funky/heavy/catchy. Kool and the Gang (144), the Police (140), Matthew Sweet WITH REPUTABLE NYC GUITARISTS ONLY (130), Oasis (120), Dead Milkmen (100).

Evan Dando

(6 + 6) X (4 + 8 - 8) = 48

0 - 100: Worth at most a moment on a car radio or a best-of single (7"). Some crucial defect renders these nincompoops vastly annoying, but each of them has coughed up a chunk of slight ear candy that keeps them from the bonfire. Like Peter Frampton's "Voice Box" guitar tracks only (51).

Other examples: Steve Perry-era Journey (35), Van Hagar (32), Steppenwolf (28), Smashing Pumpkins (20), and Soundgarden (15) (yes, including Screaming Life). Lest we forget Rush (8), or non-Barrett Pink Floyd (.5). Hole (0) is right on the cusp of . . .

-140 - 0: Only the most incorrect subjects can be expected to score below zero. At this point, a coherent aesthetic and apt execution will hurt a subject more than these factors will help. Consider: the Cranberries (-7), Sammy Hagar (-8), Motley Crüe (-14), Jane's Addiction (-28), Night Ranger (-40), Doobie Brothers (-45) (oh shit, forgot "China Grove"), Whitesnake and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (both -48), and Billy Joel (-75).

The lowest scores yet tabulated are:

Sting (6 + 8) X (1 + 10 - 18) = -98

Eagles reunion (8 + 10) X (1 + 10 - 18)= -126

This is not a band

(10 + 1) X (0 + 0) = 0

COMMENTARY

Likes and dislikes play no part in determining value of any terms. Correctness is correctness, not some vague and squishy point of debate. This formula can certainly be toyed with by just about anyone, but the mc can only be considered valid if it has been calculated by the equation's constructor, who is the sole arbiter of terms.

Tim Midgett is bassist for Silkworm. His writing appears in a number of noteworthy publications under the name Hot Dog Freddy.