Think Different, but please, within what we deem acceptable

Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry, Pink Floyd, B.B. King, Michael Jackson, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, The Beatles, Sex Pistols, James Brown, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Nirvana, The Who, Public Enemy, and Frank Zappa.

Yes. Fine musicians. Plus they make up a list called “Klink Anders”, which quite literally translates to “Sound Different”. It is a list put together by a popular talk show in The Netherlands (De Wereld Draait Door) with as goal to celebrate those musicians who have changed music by thinking out of the box.

Great idea (honestly). One caveat: it’s an amazingly hetero, masculine, normative list.

These are people who think differently, but within normative society. In other words, it is a list picked by, made for, and predominantly consisting of artists appropriated by white heterosexual males. So it kind of celebrates thinking differently, but please, within the boundaries of what the societal norm dictates.

Now, I’m not saying these musicians don’t deserve to be on the list (they do), and I’m not saying this is done on purpose to push some malign agenda (it is not). However, it still is a canonical list that ignores the voice of “others”. With “others” being those who fall outside of the heteronormative society. Women are, at the time of writing, completely absent from the list, none of these genres have done anything whatsoever for gay culture (luckily Bowie is in there to relieve it a bit), and one could make a case that as far as African-American culture goes, either the musicians have been appropriated by mainstream culture (Ray Charles and country, Jackson and pop), or they are the most masculine representatives they could possibly find.

What is missing, is the feminine, is the electronic side of music, is the queer, and missing are those who have been one way or another involved in gay culture and feminism. What we get are guys with guitars. What is represented is the masculine. No women, no trumpet players, nothing coming close to anything as feminine as a synth or other electronical devices. In other words, though the list has terribly good musicians on it, it is slanted to the heteronormative.

This, in itself, is not very out of the ordinary (the whole world is heteronormative). I’m not crying out Wolf! over this. I just want to point it out. For I think many people are not aware that there are different voices than this. Because other voices are rarely depicted in a way they can enter mainstream consciousness. This is a shame, because it means people are not represented, it means peoples voices are not being heard, and it also means that a whole lot of musicians are being left out simply because they are part of a different cultural heritage than the heteronormative one.

Not letting those voices be heard does a disservice to the list, because dagnabit there have been some brilliant musicians on the outside that have influenced both music and society. Where are Jazz musicians? Where are Jazz and soul singers, those who showed that women could make it on their own, and who gave a voice to the African-American situation. Billie Holiday singing about those strange fruits hanging from Southern trees, or Nina Simone who has got some words for Mississippi, goddamn. Bob Dylan isn’t the only one who did some protesting back in the day.

Where are disco divas, who coined a new genre, who went on to influence and shape the clubs and dancing (John Travolta being the main beneficiary of that one). These singers also told women and gay men that, yes, they too are divine. Something they, at that time, surely didn’t get to hear every day.

Disco transformed into house music, which is basically the start of how we club today. No more record on, people flock to the dancefloor, record is finished, people go to the sides. Instead, continuous beats, continuous rhythm, continuous action on the dancefloor. Plus it also gave gay people, and certainly gay African-Americans, a place to acknowledge their sexuality, something they could not do in their personal lives or their congregations. Frankie Knuckles, Juan Atkins, they were on the fore of dance and club culture, and also made waves in terms of social issues. Where do you think Madonna stole all that vogueing from? However, house is gay, dance is feminine, hence it is not heteronormative and therefore not included in the list nor in the dialogue that stems from it.

Let me put in an example. If a European travel group lists the ten best natural wonders, and these are all from Europe because all they have ever been to is Europe, an American might find it flawed. It misses continents (voices), and he does not feel represented for his continent (voice) is missing.

Then this fictitious group travels to America, sees the natural wonders (red rocks, canyons, sequoia trees) there, suddenly they see (hear) a different version(voice), and they become aware of more and different kind of options. They might still list the European wonders higher on the list (they have a cultural attachment to it), but at least they are aware of it, take it into consideration, appreciate it, and it shapes the dialogue and understanding. Maybe they even bring in an American to make them even more aware of why these natural wonders are so special for the world and, specifically, for him.

I’m not saying guys with guitars in masculine music genres are bad picks, but they are not the only options out there. Heterosexual white males of a certain age find these picks more significant because these genres, these musicians, coincide more with their values and it says more about their cultural history.

However, by showing only this point of view it standardizes this point of view even further and with that it essentially devalues other points of views by not acknowledging them. For the musicians and genres that coincide with other peoples values and that coincide with other cultural histories are deemed to have been less important. Which is not the case, especially if you consider how much normative culture has appropriated from underground culture.

As said, this is not done on purpose. It merely reflects the values and the cultural heritage of the television host and the intended demographic of its viewing public. It is also not bad per se, as this is what simply happens. It is not unfair, nor am I judging anyone for promoting an agenda. All I want to point out is that there is a wider discourse out there. One that not only represents more cultures, more people, and gives them a voice, but it also introduces people not aware of other voices to these new points of view, these new cultures, and to all these great musicians who have made the world and the musical atmosphere to what it is today.

It might also give an indication of what unintentionally happens to “other” voices, and it might just show that they are there and that they might be able to shed another light on a situation. The broadening of the dialogue can only be a good thing, for both the people to whom it opens up options and points of view, and to those feeling they’re not always heard.