Beware the Killer Snobs: In Defense of "Sledgehammer" and "Big Time"
Now for some good news/bad news. The good news is that most Gabriel fans are the smartest, best-looking people on the planet. We have numerous desirable qualities, making us the envy of all other music fans. We're also an easy going, fun-loving bunch, who are usually kind enough to give others the benefit of the doubt.
The bad news is: there has been, and always will be, a clique of Snobs who attempt to ruin it for the rest of us. While they pose as avid Gabriel fans, their goal is to elevate themselves with their snobbery and alienate not only non-Gabriel fans, but all other Gabriel fans. Sometimes they go so far as to look down on Peter Gabriel himself. Let us elaborate by defining some of the major qualities of a Gabriel snob.
Note: Do not confuse a Gabriel snob as someone who merely disagrees with you or who simply states that he or she doesn't like a particular song...it's the harsh criticism of a song for all the wrong reasons, along with the tone of voice that states that the snob's opinion is gospel. See characteristics below.
Snob characteristic #1: Holds completely irrational standards to a single favorite Gabriel song or album.
A snob often has their one favorite Gabriel song, or a favorite Gabriel album, and then measures all other songs/albums to it...usually in an unfavorable light. Say for instance, a snob falls in love with a song like "San Jacinto" (which is perfectly fine, and shows taste.) but then tosses a fit when they hear a song like "Sledgehammer" and say that it's vastly inferior and such a song is "beneath" Gabriel. The snob hasn't even considered a song like "Sledgehammer" as being a great song for what it is: a song in tribute to the Stax/Volt legends and a fun song about sex. The snob simply realizes that "it's no 'San Jacinto'" and proceeds to ramble on how "Sledgehammer" is a complete sell-out.
Gabriel's ever-changing song styles get attacked too...every once in a while, you'll hear someone wish that Gabriel would "go back" to doing songs about grandiose mythical themes like when he was in Genesis, or wishes he would go back and play "characters" in song as on Peter Gabriel 1, 2, & 3. They dis' Gabriel's theme of relationships, not because he does a bad job of singing about human psychology and love, but because he's not singing the type of song the Snob thinks he should be singing.
Take this page of Xplora 1 for example: the author states the above sentiment outright..."now all he sings about is love" as though that in and of itself is a horrible crime against humanity. The shallow author doesn't care whether or not if said songs about love are any good in their own right...he just dismisses them because it's simply not what he considers to be "true" Gabriel, whatever that is. Pity this poor man.
Snob characteristic #2: Believes that any song that is popular and has chart success must be lacking in artistic depth or quality. Likewise, the more obscure a song is, the better it must be.
Actually, this is usually a Prog Rock Snob characteristic. Prog Snobs on alt.progressive.music love to rant about how anything remotely mainstream sucks, while any act that hardly gets any exposure must be brilliant.
To be fair, there is a lot of truth to the idea that "the masses are asses"...King Crimson, while they have a sizable core audience, they hardly have the fame as, let's say, the Spice Girls (ugh). Michael Bolton, Mariah Carey and many other schlocky artists have had more than their fair fifteen minutes of fame, and yet they keep on selling albums. Meanwhile, groups with a bit more depth and originality usually have to be satisfied with a smaller (but often more devoted) audience.
But then again, lets give the masses some credit...it's been known on occasion that a legitimately good song and/or performer to make it big with the people, and on the charts. Also, anyone with ears can reasonably say that many songs to not become favorites of the masses for a very good reason: some of them are truly rank. From this, a thinking person can wisely conclude that popularity alone is not a good measuring stick for whether or not a song is good or bad.
Unfortunately, Prog snobs, and by extension, Gabriel snobs, don't want to admit this. The psychology going on here is that loving the obscure and hating the mainstream only shows how much "cooler" they are to other music lovers. So you'll hear inane comments such as, "In Your Eyes", "Steam", and So are "sell-outs" because they became popular and sold a lot of copies.
Now, it's okay to say that So isn't your favorite PG album, and that songs like "Steam" just isn't your cup of tea. But saying So or "Steam" are trite simply because they're popular is completely asinine. The snobs often ignore the fact that So, although popular, has a great deal of depth and fine songcraft with "Mercy Street" being the prime example. And it's just as difficult to write a good lasting pop song than it does to write a prog piece. When a Snob is forced to explain why a song like "Big Time" is unworthy of critical praise other than the popularity issue, they revert back to Snob characteristic #1: "It's no 'San Jacinto'." Speaking of "Big Time", let's move on to Snob Characteristic #3.
Snob Characteristic #3 : Hates "Sledgehammer" and "Big Time" (and "And Through the Wire", "Kiss That Frog" and others) because they're somewhat upbeat.
First off, we know Gabriel is in touch with his "dark side." We know that Gabriel has more seriousness in his little finger than most singer/songwriters have in their entire musical careers. Heck, Gabriel's more upbeat efforts usually have a dark, haunting quality to it. Even when Gabriel isn't singing any real lyrics ("A Different Drum", "While the Earth Sleeps") it resonates with emotion. You don't know what he's singing, but you can tell by the urgency in his voice that he truly means it, dammit!
Both "Big Time" and "Sledgehammer" are examples of the way Gabriel can balance a song. Both are considered more upbeat than what many long-time fans consider to be the norm for Gabriel. Both songs show that Gabriel puts as much effort into these songs as he does his more somber pieces. Both songs seem to irritate the snobs to no end.
For some inexplicable reason, snobs love to bash "Big Time" and "Sledgehammer", insisting that both are examples of 80's schlock and that Gabriel surrendered his artistic integrity on these two hits.
"Sledgehammer" is a tribute to both Stax/Volt and the late great Otis Redding. The streets are littered with the remains of the efforts of those who tried to sing a Stax/Volt-type song and failed miserably. Gabriel not only succeeded, this writer believes that Redding himself would be a fan of "Sledgehammer" if he could hear it. If you want meaning, fine. Gabriel states that it's about getting through a breakdown in communication, and has insisted it has some Nietche-esque imagery there. But as music critic Dave Marsh said, fortunately Gabriel had the good sense not to sing it that way.
In addition, the fact that (1) in 1986 the charts were infested with over-synthized, boring 80's pop dreck ("Sledgehammer" slammed "Invisible Touch" out of Billboard's #1 spot. 'Nuff said.) so "Sledgehammer" was definitely a breath of fresh air, and (2) we can safely say that the song (and the video) have withstood the test of time.
And then there's "Big Time", a fast-beat song that manages to praise the virtues of success while all the time slyly making fun of the excessiveness that goes along with it. "Big Time" so perfectly defines the '80s a decade and a half later that no edition of the VH1 series "The Big 80's" would be complete without it. It's also got a punchy horn line and introduction of the "drumstick bass" which would later become Tony Levin's trademark sound.
Despite all of the above...the Snobs want to claim that both songs are inferior sell-outs. Either they don't "get" the songs, or they feel that because both are somewhat upbeat, it's just not worthy of praise. Which leads us to Snob Characteristic #4...
Snob Characteristic #4: Believes that Gabriel is and should remain an example of the "artistic tortured soul".
It's bad enough that Gabriel is not allowed to do an upbeat song. Now he's not allowed to ever be happy, either. At least, that's the decree of the snobs.
Some snobs insist that Gabriel is at his best when he plays the tortured soul. Which wouldn't be so bad except that Gabriel doesn't play the "tortured soul" in real life or his music, and he's stated that point-blank in an interview (and Gabriel seldom ever states anything point-blank in an interview, so he must really mean it!:) While dark-and-disturbed are accurate descriptions of much of Gabriel's catalog, it never gets to the point of melodrama and there's always a light at the end of the tunnel. "Digging in the Dirt", "Mercy Street" and "Washing of the Water" although emotionally exhausting, there's a feeling that expressing these emotions are a key part of dealing with them, rather than letting such feelings stagnate. No shameless wallowing in depression is to be seen here. Navel-gazing, maybe, but no wallowing.
The snobs not only insist that Gabriel is the tortured soul on the radio airwaves, his personality reflects that in real life as well. One Usenet poster claimed that Gabriel himself has stated something to the effect that he was only happy once in his life. (If anyone can find Gabriel stating this in any resource, please contact us immediately.) Another Usenet poster pontificated for paragraphs on end that Gabriel's fate is to continue to live a life a emotional pain and misery (?!), and so he must suffer for his *sigh* art. (Okay, stop rolling your eyes just long enough to read the rest of this article.)
We're willing to bet that Gabriel has good and bad days like everyone else. And we're also willing to bet that Gabriel need not be the "tortured soul" in order to make great meaningful songs. Memo to snobs: Let the man have some fun, okay?
Snob Characteristic #5: Over analyzes songs to a fault and thinks his or her interpretation of a song is the "correct" one, and everyone else's interpretation is wrong.
Face it: it's fun to discuss the meaning behind different songs and say to others, "This is what 'I Grieve' means to me." We discuss context, meaning, imagery, symbolism on Usenet, chat rooms and song essays. We soon find that different songs mean different things to different people. All of this is great. This is how open discussion should be.
Some snobs, however, often go crazy with the interpretations. They seem obsessed with finding out What It All Means. To them, music isn't to be listened to and enjoyed but to be dissected and examined. Once they feel they found the meaning, it becomes gospel to them. Anyone offering an alternate view gets shot down verbally by the snob.
Just as bad, they'll quote Gabriel from an interview where he describes what a song means, and it's held up by the snobs as the "true" definition. If Gabriel wanted everyone to parrot his thoughts and not think for themselves, he wouldn't write music the way he does. But just try telling that to a snob, who think he or she "gets it" and everyone else doesn't.
How to deal with snobs: Usually it's pointless to try to change a snob. It's best to (a) ignore them or (b) annoy them, as most snobs are easily affronted. After a while they get the hint to take their snobby attitudes elsewhere.