John Cage on Music

John Cage gives an interesting account on sound and just what it is and what it does:

Cage often complained that musicians can't properly hear an individual sound, they only hear its relation to other sounds around it. While I may not agree with this in scientific terms (sound is created by an infinite number of sin tones and its timbre, phase, etc. is determined by their relation to one another), I am forced to question its validity in our current musical world.

These days do we really hear the beauty of individual pieces of music, or do we just hear them in relation to other pieces of its pre-determined genre? Within the realm of popular music does the music even matter? Is music just given value based on what it is related to: sexual scandal, american idol, going green, or club-music?

Music has lost its power of embodied worth. In most instances of a popular song, its end cause or final cause (according to aristotle) is not beautiful noise with the accompanied subjective response, but an ideological hum-drum.

The Professional Musician

It is hard to realize how wide a gap there is today between the professional musician and the amateur/recreational musician.

With the advent of the Music Industry (especially when it went digital) there came a distinct drop in the number of amateur musicians, Instead of everybody getting together and playing a piece of Bach or Beethoven, we buy a couple of tickets on the unholy Ticketmaster and go see a rock concert, or a classical concert for that matter. In this era, the Music Industry's Professional Musician era (which I think is coming to an end), there was also a drop in the number of recreational musicians.

In the early 20th century and late 19th century proper english families children would learn how to play the piano, this status quo was later replaced by the guitar (a more portable and "folk feeling" instrument).

The guitar is an interesting instrument and I feel it has very liberating potential, this potential came at a gradual trickle with the advent of the electric guitar. The guitar seems to tap into the roots that schoenberg and other atonal composers began, by trying to escape the confines of the 12 tone scale and other musical limitations, by directly manipulating the harmonics of its structure (distortion, phase, etc.). This expressivity was bottled to quickly for its lack of relation to the mass (or as Adorno would say it lacks "plug-ability") and therefore a lack of immediate profit, but we see the expressivity being opened back up again in certain artists, such as Omar Rodriguez-Lopes who once stated he uses the guitar only because his audience and musicians can relate to it, and uses a wide array of effects to "make it sound like anything else besides the thing I hate: the guitar"

But back to the amateur musician. One can see the frustrations caused by the idolization of professional musicians pop up in some interesting ways. One of them being Rock Band, this is a sort of immature example because I think it is the Music Industries prayers answered. It keeps people from playing real instruments and keeps people appeased by "playing" like a professional musician in a digital world where everyone can win. BUT at the same time I think Rock Band is a dog without a leash, and is inspiring a small number of musicians for each that it appeases/sedates. We have also spoken in class a great deal about the number of musicians who aren't "playing the game" of joining a label, selling cd's, etc. This is also a frustration of the pop star/professional musician.

Terry Riley's "In C" is a great example of the power of the recreational musician (how much power this is in comparison to the professional musician is a different subject). The piece, however, went largely unnoticed by mass culture as well as "classical culture" at its release. This piece is a great step towards re-establishing the amateur musician, Terry Riley includes the score and his instructions on the piece giving the listener the full ability to play the piece with a group of fellow musicians:

Beethoven eh?

The days of "conventional" compositions (if such a thing exists) are over. We are bred with the idea that music (like business, driving a car, playing baseball, etc.) has to be done a "certain way."

Composition, I would argue, derives its complexity and meaning (as most art does) through its function or embodiment, a set of constitutive rules (12 tone scale, meter, etc.) may be characteristic in this embodiment, however they do not regulate what is "right." Music can be whatever we choose to make it:

Hmmm....

My last post was stupid so I deleted it... here is a better one.

As I was walking around listening to some music I realized I was in the mood to listen to Venetian Snares (great artist, drum and bass, electronic, difficult to classify). As I listened to the blasting melodies and odd time signatures (he makes it a point to only use 7/8 5/4 13/8 9/8 no time signature etc.) I realized that he uses time signatures, drums, electronic loops, orchestral samples, poems, lyrics, in all musical ranges that can be arguably deemed comfortable to all ears (an old reading we read for class claimed that most pop music is derived from drums and vocals) so I had to ask, would it be justifiable to claim that Venetian Snares is Avant Garde? As i crept deeper and deeper into the question, fueled by the schizophrenic melodies and rhythms I eventually came to the question: Is Avant Garde (the classification) a creation of the music or is it a creation of the listener/classifier? In other words, if everyone got up in the morning tomorrow and decided that Lady GaGa Kanye and Adam Lambert was just to strange and foreign for their ears and decided to listen instead to Venetian Snares Lionel Marchetti and John Cage (which was more pleasing to their ears), would the term Avant Garde still apply?

From this argument I am forced to see music in the light of subjectivity, where is the line drawn, when is something Avant Garde when is it Popular? Does it even matter?

Does music have any power?

Being a Romantic I would say that music has vast potential and vast power, but where does that power lie, does its power lie within some sort of Ideological system as it relates to our economic policies? Does it lie within the Listener's intellect and stimulus when reacting to melodies found pleasing invigorating or thought provoking?

John Cage once said music is one of those things that doesn't require any sort of meaning, Sound can just be sounds, it doesn't have to be psychological, sound can be loved just for the sake of being a beautiful sound.

Kant also said that there are 2 things that don't have to mean anything in order to give us immense pleasure, one is sound and the other is laughter.

Music Piracy

Our discussion in class this last friday about the rights of property and music piracy led me to a certain conclusion about how we (any person who has downloaded music illegally) can steal without feelings of guilt and remorse.

It is the notion of a "group". I've realized just how careful one has to be when dealing with a group of people.

Downloading music today is relatively simple and accessible to anyone with a computer and internet. The last essay we read for class revealed that in a span of 7 years the total revenue of music sales has gone down 4.2 billion dollars, due to illegal downloading on the internet.

If I were to walk into Target -or the Mushroom for that manner- and steal a Cd, odds are I would get caught and even if I wasn't, if it was my first time stealing (and I'm not a sociopath) I would probably feel guilt or remorse. As we can see though the more a person steals the more desensitized one becomes to the guilt that is an effect.

However say there is a giant riot going on in New Orleans and it reaches the Mushroom and Target, people break windows crowd in and steal like it's their job. This is done with little or no remorse, because of this crowd mentality.

We see the same thing going on in the Internet, people download massive amounts of music illegally, but we don't feel the same remorse that we would've had we stuck the Cd in a backpack and walked out the door of the Mushroom, we don't even feel the same remorse if we had joined a riot and collectively stolen Cds fro Target. It is a huge step back from a personal experience, we can join an online riot without seeing any faces of the other looters, and steal more than we could carry out of a store with our own hands.

A "group" has no physical form, it is intangible, it cannot be prosecuted, it cannot even "hear"(music). (I'm not talking about a crowd at a concert I'm talking about an abstract entity falsely created by a mass of individuals)

A group is just a collection of individuals, a "group" isn't real. We can claim that there is nothing wrong with downloading music illegally but to a simple point it is in theory the same as participating in a looting fest.

...But here is where we get into the strange middle-ground...

If Zizek has taught me anything it is that people (generally) don't follow a strict ideology, it is the implied rules that exist between the theoretical rules that truly make up an ideology.

I would say that stopping the illegal downloading of music would be an amazingly daunting task for anyone to take on, especially when it has so many participants. I would also say that it is equally ridiculous to go around arresting kids from middle school up to college for downloading music illegally (this is the main age group that participates in downloading illegal music).

So... what does the individual (the musician, the businessman, and the listener) do?

The answer is to be smarter. The music business is changing very rapidly, money is being channelled out of record companies' pockets by the minute (through illegal downloading).

Even though illegal downloading is itself illegal, it is so completely present in our society today.

Artists and Businessmen (as well as a combination of the two) must think up new and innovative ways to market their music, if they wish to make money off of it.

And we the listeners are responsible for our actions, I would not deem it appropriate to go online and download 10 gigabytes of music in one sitting. We have to be ethical, learn about an artist and their music, and if you enjoy it find a way of letting them know and a way of supporting them.

For example:

This is Alex Beaser's new Guitar Concerto just recently completed and written for Eliot Fisk. When I think of the time, dedication, creativity, innovation, and powerful minds that created a piece like this I will proudly buy the Cd when it is for sale, for not only my enjoyment, but to also let the artist know that I understand his work so fully and that the artist truly deserves X amount of my money (my money is a token of honor, not just paper, it represents what I have produced with my time and energy) for this monumental work that I enjoy so much.

The Cult of Moral Grayness

Our discussion in class today raised some very interesting thoughts, ideas, and insights. I'd like to sketch a little bit on it and find some way to relate it to music...

Today we tried to relate the Base Superstructure schema we have been speaking of in class to a code of conformity and non-conformity (mainly following your values and morality, or going with the flow). Our main example, a Kiss Cd.

If one goes to a Walmart and buys a Kiss Cd, one is a conformist (giving into mass media doing so). If one chooses not to go to Walmart and not buy a Kiss Cd, one is still a conformist... (conforming to a group that "chooses not to buy Kiss").

If one buys a Kiss Cd even though they know the profits will go to some corporation that is immoral, this is conformity! acting on a whim and going with the "flow" (grayness) of society. It seemed like the reigning dogma of our discussion today was that this is not "bad", because by not buying the Kiss Cd you have "conformed" to a group that chooses not to buy Kiss Cd's.

Therefore a society that accepts these terms that there is no Black and White, is a society that accepts that there is no set right and wrong. Right and wrong is determined by our ever changing ever shifting Base and Superstructure schema. This Base and Superstructure schema is manipulated at will by those with the most power and money. Those who are low enough to manipulate the "masses." Those on top are not challenged because the masses refuse to take responsibility for the actions, they see everything as "grey" nothing is entirely right or wrong, there are no conformists or non-conformists.

This superstructure turns the invisible forces of the market (those in power) into arbiters of what is right or wrong, able to change them at will for profit, power, or any other fantasy that comes to their minds.

A great example of this would be Nazi Germany, when Hitler was elected into power by entirely legal means. Jews and other minorities were taken from their homes and put into concentration camps, and for a long time... no one stopped them. Society said the Jews were destroying the German economy? well then lets just take them away and kill them, and thats okay because it was said that it would be "for the good of society" (good for those at the tip top of the triangle, good for those with power).

The only way to escape this moral grayness is to live in a free society, America has been for a while but the values it was built upon are being stripped away "in the name of society", or in "the greater good of the masses."

The only way to live in a free society is by protecting our freedom and the individual rights that it entails. So on the subject of conformity that we discussed to day, I have this to say:

We must learn the nature of morality, ethics, and judgement. By claiming that there is no black or white, that we are "all conformists" does not excuse you from or change the fact that it is evil to conform. Because there is no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil

For irony's sake:

Detroit Rock City is actually my favorite movie...

Lost In Translation

I found our discussion about the politics of musical artists and how it is often met with resistance by fans to be very interesting. We sometimes see that when a band tries to give some sort of input into a subject rather than just being an output for their music they are belittled, booed, ignored, or misunderstood. This says something about a fundamental difference that exists between a band's mentality and a fan's when dealing with live concerts and political insight in general.

Any band has some political value within their music (whether inferred or blatant), so why does the fan try to resist any sort of spoken political activism?

If I had to provide an answer I would say the animosity exists because it is created by the mass media.

The "larger" or more renown a band becomes, the easier it is for their message to be lost in a sort of translation. Because artists put themselves out to the mercy of the media it becomes easier and easier for fans (especially the stupid ones) to infer more and more about a certain group. These inferences are made, generally, with little or no background knowledge of the background of the band and its political values. These inferences are being made, generally, in a mob mentality (where the bigger brute force is the winner), whether on an online blog or in the midst of a crowd at a concert. These two factors feed one another and you get the viscous cycle that, the more famous a band becomes the less openly political they can become.

The Solution! Steadfast political values of band members, expressing these values whenever there is danger that they may be misinterpreted, or inferred that they are in agreement with something that they disagree.

For an example just check out At the Drive-In:

Not afraid to piss people off...