Comparison & Conclusion
The two songs I analyzed, “The Landscape is changing” by Depeche Mode and “Earth Song” by Michael Jackson, are only a small part of a long list of environmental songs. There are a lot of other songs, especially folk and pop songs.
The analysis has shown that there are two completely different approaches. Depeche Mode contrasts music and lyrics, so that our alienation from nature becomes more explicit. But it needs some time to get to this idea. Michael Jackson’s “Earth Song,” on the other hand, is, due to a simple harmonic and instrumental structure, easier accessible. It focuses on the emotional/ dramatic atmosphere, whereas the Depeche Mode song creates a distance because of the very technological, synthetic sound.
Is one ‘method’ more appropriate than the other? Personally, I was at first emotionally more touched by “Earth Song,” but this is very subjective since everyone reacts to music in a different way and prefers different styles. So this is difficult to generalize. After a while, however, I learned to appreciate the Depeche Mode approach, too. I even detect a slight change in my preference: I still prefer the music of “Earth Song,” but for the lyrics, I tend towards “The Landscape is changing.” "Earth Song" addresses too many issues instead of focussing on one or two aspects. The environmental aspect is still present, especially since the video opens and closes with a natural image, but it is a bit overwhelmed by other moral topics. In contrast to this, the depeche mode song, which only concentrates on the destruction of the landscape due to human behavior, is, in being simple and complex at once, more convincing.
Both songs address environmental issues, but they do not offer any solutions. Michael Jackson "only" asks many questions and creates an overview of where we stand today or where we have gone so far, and thus only implicitly says that we have to change our behavior. This is different in "The Landscape is changing." There, Depeche Mode also does not offer pracical solutions, but they at least explicitly call on us to "take good care of the world."
Since “Earth Song” is by Michael Jackson, it gains more popularity than “The Landscape is changing,” which furthermore was rather a filler track on the album than a hit. From this point of view, it can be said: the more famous the artist, the more people will be reached by a song. If they do understand it, though, and, even more important, if they take action, is something completely different. The influence a song has on an individual is difficult to measure. It would require complex long term surveys in order to find out if an environmental song really had an impact on the way people behave in regard to the natural world. As far as I know, there is no such survey yet.
Speaking about music in general, I think that the song really is the best medium to communicate environmental ideas. As the analysis has shown, music and lyrics complement each other or add another meaning because of a contrast. In both cases, a deeper meaning is only achieved by the music and lyrics together. One alone would not be as strong/ powerful as the combination. In order to reach a broad audience, the song should further be a pop song with focused lyrics and a simple harmonic sturcture, rather than jazz music or classical music since more people listen to popular music. This does not exclude any other musical genre, but I think that a message can be most efficiently transferred through popular music.
The analysis has shown that there are two completely different approaches. Depeche Mode contrasts music and lyrics, so that our alienation from nature becomes more explicit. But it needs some time to get to this idea. Michael Jackson’s “Earth Song,” on the other hand, is, due to a simple harmonic and instrumental structure, easier accessible. It focuses on the emotional/ dramatic atmosphere, whereas the Depeche Mode song creates a distance because of the very technological, synthetic sound.
Is one ‘method’ more appropriate than the other? Personally, I was at first emotionally more touched by “Earth Song,” but this is very subjective since everyone reacts to music in a different way and prefers different styles. So this is difficult to generalize. After a while, however, I learned to appreciate the Depeche Mode approach, too. I even detect a slight change in my preference: I still prefer the music of “Earth Song,” but for the lyrics, I tend towards “The Landscape is changing.” "Earth Song" addresses too many issues instead of focussing on one or two aspects. The environmental aspect is still present, especially since the video opens and closes with a natural image, but it is a bit overwhelmed by other moral topics. In contrast to this, the depeche mode song, which only concentrates on the destruction of the landscape due to human behavior, is, in being simple and complex at once, more convincing.
Both songs address environmental issues, but they do not offer any solutions. Michael Jackson "only" asks many questions and creates an overview of where we stand today or where we have gone so far, and thus only implicitly says that we have to change our behavior. This is different in "The Landscape is changing." There, Depeche Mode also does not offer pracical solutions, but they at least explicitly call on us to "take good care of the world."
Since “Earth Song” is by Michael Jackson, it gains more popularity than “The Landscape is changing,” which furthermore was rather a filler track on the album than a hit. From this point of view, it can be said: the more famous the artist, the more people will be reached by a song. If they do understand it, though, and, even more important, if they take action, is something completely different. The influence a song has on an individual is difficult to measure. It would require complex long term surveys in order to find out if an environmental song really had an impact on the way people behave in regard to the natural world. As far as I know, there is no such survey yet.
Speaking about music in general, I think that the song really is the best medium to communicate environmental ideas. As the analysis has shown, music and lyrics complement each other or add another meaning because of a contrast. In both cases, a deeper meaning is only achieved by the music and lyrics together. One alone would not be as strong/ powerful as the combination. In order to reach a broad audience, the song should further be a pop song with focused lyrics and a simple harmonic sturcture, rather than jazz music or classical music since more people listen to popular music. This does not exclude any other musical genre, but I think that a message can be most efficiently transferred through popular music.
