These remarks are a totally subjective and purely opinionated take on how I believe modern Americans view the individuals who are in the performing arts, specifically popular music, and how they view those in the field of science. Disclosure: I work for a scientific institution and once played in a band.

I have also been reading some modern (or “post-modern”) philosophy on this subject which often points the finger in a metaphysical direction which I myself dare not attempt to tread. I’ve always been completely influenced by the last book I’ve read, and in this case the last one in question happens to have briefly touched upon the place of the scientist in culture and society. I am also completely influenced by my personal work situation and point as an example to my time employed by the New York Philharmonic where I immersed myself in classical music, only to retreat when joining the periphery of the scientific community (I am support staff at my current job).

The popular musician is performing for our society in the role of the class clown who has grown tiresome to his schoolmates with his antics and is, for the most part, largely ignored as having anything serious to contribute on any subject. In the 1960s and the 1970s, I believe that musicians and composers of popular music were active contributors to revolutionary and societal evolutionary forces in the realm of original thinking that spread virally throughout the globe. Much of this was for the betterment of mankind. The sublime songs and careful production of The Beatles’ oeuvre comes to mind, as does the deep philosophical musings on David Bowie’s album Heroes. But the music sensations of those times also gave rise to a sycophant paparazzi climate that is fascinated by the ridiculous drug, alcohol, and sexual antics of musicians. It is now to the point where society anxiously awaits the salacious details of the fall of its next public figure (in any realm).

New ideas–that’s the rub. Fellow musicians were stimulated by the complexity of the music and poetry in the years I’ve mentioned. Culturally and politically, what had been long accepted as the idea of a state of continuous war came under question. Several doors of perception in the mind were opened wide to those curious enough to seek what was on the other side.

I recently heard a song where the tag line was “seven things I hate about you.” It sums up the current state of modern popular music. I was stunned to hear hate glorified in music in such a flippant manner. It was like the first time I saw explicit and unnecessary violence in film. “This is what they do now,” I thought. The song is sung by a young woman not yet 18 years old. Thus followed a slew of ugly breakup songs, and more videos of slithering young men and women who need the Auto-Tune software to sing on key (thanks MTV for killing the musically-gifted star).

How fares the scientist in this culture? The scientist may be the last bastion of mass societal respectability. Of course, the world is plagued by what has been termed “bad science” and each day the headlines boast news of the latest ridiculous study. But for the most part, the scientist has survived the bad news brought to so many professions from bankers to publishers. The shelf life of news of scientific study is fairly short compared to the hysteria that follows a sports figure’s disgrace, but at least science is taken very seriously in conservative news outlets such as The New York Times. My own feeling about scientists today is that they should be revered simply for guaranteeing, metaphorically, that the circuits they create will “turn on the light.” What appears to be almost wondrous and downright magic is based on hard facts, proven theories, a demanding and patient work ethic, and other redeeming human qualities.

The problem facing the scientist today is being caught up in research that serves trends that feed the continuous war mentioned above when it should be turning swords into medicines or even into a better toaster. The political climate too often directs the nature of the climate for scientific study, since one often can only work where the money flows to feed an unnecessary need of consumption and industrial production for its own sake (as explained in “the last book I read”).