In response to my better half’s reaction to this previous post:

The distinction I was going for here was really one between highly involved obsessive music types and casual fans. The obsessives, which I generally referred to as “music fans” (maybe too general a term) are the type of folks whose every waking moment is consumed with popular music; they spend over 20% of their income on CDs, they blog about their favorite bands, they own a guitar they can’t really play, they frame vinyl and hang it on their walls as art. That sort of thing.

The “non-fans”, on the other hand, may like a few bands or artists here and there, and they’ll buy the occasional popular CD, but they do so not because of some deep and abiding love for the art and craft of music, but rather out of a semi-routine participation in American consumer culture––an essential (and positive) aspect of modern American existence. We wouldn’t be Americans were it not for our occasional purchase of super synthetic, kind of terrible American pop-music. It’s just what we do.

And there’s nothing wrong with that, and no need to place a value judgement on anybody relative to their placement on the spectrum between “non-fan” and “music fan”. That’s not what I was going for, and I apologize to all the Nickleback fans among us.

And really, if you have to judge, you gotta give the edge to the “non-fan,” as they certainly have the upper hand in terms of “normalcy” and “humanism” and “non-assholiocity.”