Firstly, I should clarify that I am of the camp that thinks that there is no "right" or "better" music, and that music should not be compared as such. The quality of music is subjective to people, and there is no meaningful objective standard by which to judge songs against other songs.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to propose an idea as to why "Music snobbery" exists. That is, why some people genuinely believe that their music is superior to your music, and that they are better people for listening to it.
Back in late middle school, early high school, I was into alternative rock, stuff like Foo Fighters, Franz Ferdinand, Fastball and Lifehouse. Eventually, I discovered a late 80's, early 90's rock movement called "Shoegaze", which focused on using guitars to produce a very ethereal sound. Starting with the Verve, I liked the Spacey sound and stuck with it for most of early high school. Basically, as I listened to more, I began to appreciate more and explore new genres of music. I became more aware of the sounds I liked in songs I'd known before and delved into to new stuff that focused specifically on these new sounds.
In late high school, I discovered the guitar (you can all thank me, lol), and I discovered pretty quickly that trying to play Shoegaze on an acoustic guitar wasn't much fun, and pretty pointless. As I got better at guitar, I realized some songs and bands which I hated (because of the way the singer sounded), I started to like, because they had really fun guitar parts. Now, when I started listening back to my old music, I was listening to the vocals, lyrics and guitar parts which I had previously ignored. In a sense, learning to express the music opened up my appreciation for what others were expressing.
In College I got into Grunge rock (which I discovered was a pretty meaningless term, since everybody labeled "grunge" barely has specifically one thing in common: the fashion/attitude of the band). We got rock band back at home, and I got good at the fake drum set, which helped me understand drum rhythms in songs a bit better. I got into progressive rock, with the complicated guitar and drum rhythms intertwining, with a relaxed emphasis on vocals, because I had come to realize that after everything I had listened to, I found the vocals the most boring thing to listen to (with the exception of Alice in Chains. Layne Staley was a beast RIP).
The point I'm trying to make here, is that when I go back to the older music, which had drum rhythms and guitar melodies that were ignored for the sake of vocal melody and lyrics, I begin to realize that those songs just don't quite do it for me anymore. I came up with an analogy for this earlier this morning:
Think of it this way: Imagine that everyone enjoys music, but not all the same music. Music is not better or worse than other music. Now, replace "Music" with "Math problems". So, imagine that everyone enjoys math problems. It doesn't make much sense to say that some math problems are better than others, since they are just done for enjoyment. Now, when you were a child, 2+2 would have been a satisfying computational problem for you. You had to count your fingers, and by the end you got your total, 4. As you get older, you learn harder arithmetic, algebra and calculus. By the end, doing 2+2 flashcards aren't enjoyable anymore, because you're used to doing much harder and much more complicated computations, which produce higher levels of satisfaction.
So perhaps that's it. The fact that more complicated music, to an educated listener (somebody who listened to a great variety of music over time, and knows what he/she likes in music), will produce more satisfaction. So when he/she has to listen to what they would now consider "2+2" music, they look down at the others in contempt.
But here lies the mistake in their snobbery: not everyone listens to music the same way, or in the same order. So, what is "2+2" to one person, may very well be a much more engaging problem.
Also, another disclaimer to note: Just because a song is complicated by your standards doesn't mean that it will necessarily produce a high-level of satisfaction for you. There has to be some kind of payoff for your listening mind or some engaging factor in the music, or else your mind will reject it as noise.
Sorry for this wall o' text.
I hope this all made sense. Feel free to post thoughts.
TL;DR: Musical snobbery comes from listening to more engaging/complicated music over time, and looking back at what someone else enjoys as simplistic. It makes the mistake that what is engaging/complicated for one person is engaging/complicated for all. (A Led Zeppelin fan may look down on a Lady GaGa fan for listening to a song with a pretty uncomplicated drum rhythm, but it is only because he has an appreciation for complicated drum rhythms. It does not make himself/herself better off than the Lady Gaga fan)
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to propose an idea as to why "Music snobbery" exists. That is, why some people genuinely believe that their music is superior to your music, and that they are better people for listening to it.
Back in late middle school, early high school, I was into alternative rock, stuff like Foo Fighters, Franz Ferdinand, Fastball and Lifehouse. Eventually, I discovered a late 80's, early 90's rock movement called "Shoegaze", which focused on using guitars to produce a very ethereal sound. Starting with the Verve, I liked the Spacey sound and stuck with it for most of early high school. Basically, as I listened to more, I began to appreciate more and explore new genres of music. I became more aware of the sounds I liked in songs I'd known before and delved into to new stuff that focused specifically on these new sounds.
In late high school, I discovered the guitar (you can all thank me, lol), and I discovered pretty quickly that trying to play Shoegaze on an acoustic guitar wasn't much fun, and pretty pointless. As I got better at guitar, I realized some songs and bands which I hated (because of the way the singer sounded), I started to like, because they had really fun guitar parts. Now, when I started listening back to my old music, I was listening to the vocals, lyrics and guitar parts which I had previously ignored. In a sense, learning to express the music opened up my appreciation for what others were expressing.
In College I got into Grunge rock (which I discovered was a pretty meaningless term, since everybody labeled "grunge" barely has specifically one thing in common: the fashion/attitude of the band). We got rock band back at home, and I got good at the fake drum set, which helped me understand drum rhythms in songs a bit better. I got into progressive rock, with the complicated guitar and drum rhythms intertwining, with a relaxed emphasis on vocals, because I had come to realize that after everything I had listened to, I found the vocals the most boring thing to listen to (with the exception of Alice in Chains. Layne Staley was a beast RIP).
The point I'm trying to make here, is that when I go back to the older music, which had drum rhythms and guitar melodies that were ignored for the sake of vocal melody and lyrics, I begin to realize that those songs just don't quite do it for me anymore. I came up with an analogy for this earlier this morning:
Think of it this way: Imagine that everyone enjoys music, but not all the same music. Music is not better or worse than other music. Now, replace "Music" with "Math problems". So, imagine that everyone enjoys math problems. It doesn't make much sense to say that some math problems are better than others, since they are just done for enjoyment. Now, when you were a child, 2+2 would have been a satisfying computational problem for you. You had to count your fingers, and by the end you got your total, 4. As you get older, you learn harder arithmetic, algebra and calculus. By the end, doing 2+2 flashcards aren't enjoyable anymore, because you're used to doing much harder and much more complicated computations, which produce higher levels of satisfaction.
So perhaps that's it. The fact that more complicated music, to an educated listener (somebody who listened to a great variety of music over time, and knows what he/she likes in music), will produce more satisfaction. So when he/she has to listen to what they would now consider "2+2" music, they look down at the others in contempt.
But here lies the mistake in their snobbery: not everyone listens to music the same way, or in the same order. So, what is "2+2" to one person, may very well be a much more engaging problem.
Also, another disclaimer to note: Just because a song is complicated by your standards doesn't mean that it will necessarily produce a high-level of satisfaction for you. There has to be some kind of payoff for your listening mind or some engaging factor in the music, or else your mind will reject it as noise.
Sorry for this wall o' text.
I hope this all made sense. Feel free to post thoughts.
TL;DR: Musical snobbery comes from listening to more engaging/complicated music over time, and looking back at what someone else enjoys as simplistic. It makes the mistake that what is engaging/complicated for one person is engaging/complicated for all. (A Led Zeppelin fan may look down on a Lady GaGa fan for listening to a song with a pretty uncomplicated drum rhythm, but it is only because he has an appreciation for complicated drum rhythms. It does not make himself/herself better off than the Lady Gaga fan)
