From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 17:07:50 GMT
Ham,
I'm summing up the questions you continue to leave unanswered. Some further
comments below these:
(1a) Yesterday you wrote: "What I'm saying is that if our sensibilities are
not developed sufficiently to respond emotionally to music as defined
above, we lack the ability to appreciate it for what it is." Is your
position, then, that one must "learn" how to recognize the good (in music).
Since you find The Clash nihilistic, would you say that is because you have
more learned sensibilities than I? Are you capable of determining for
anyone other than yourself, what is "degenerate" and "what is not"? Why?
(2) Through the beginning of your post you wisely use the qualifier "my",
when referring to your views on what music is "degenerate" and which is
not. Then you say: Sending a sexually provocative message to fans by
drum-beating, yelling, amplified dissonance, lyrical obscenities, or stage
gyrations may be considered a "communicative artform" by some; but it is
not the art of music." Are those who consider it to be [an artform] simply
less informed than yourself? Furthermore, who determines whether it is
"sexually provocative"? The individual or a group of specialists? Is it
only "sexually provocative" music you have an issue with?
(3) This is more a "Platt" thing, but I'll include it in hopes you can shed
some critical light. Pertaining to the comment that "rock is degenerate
because it promotes biological quality", (1) why Bluegrass, Jazz, Swing,
Polka, Salsa, Country-Western or Reggae also aren't lambasted for
"promoting biological quality", and (2) why "biological quality" (even if
this were true) should be universally condemned.
(4) Below you make a very intriguing critical shift. You say "getting
oneself aroused to sexual activity or social revolution though the medium
of music demeans this art form and is a symptom of degeneracy." This
critically places the "degeneracy" in the individual doing the sexual
interpretation. If "getting one's self sexually aroused by music" is what
is "degenerate", why does this only apply to "rock"? Why not "Jazz"? Do you
believe that "all rock" *must* make people "sexually aroused", but other
music that does is incidental? Since you and Platt read "sex" into most (if
not all) "rock", does that mean you and Platt are being "degenerate" and
not the music?
(5) When you claim degeneracy is a function of "arousal to social
revolution", are you saying that music that challenges authority and
normative practice is "degenerate"? Is this your claim? Must all music
reify social norms to avoid being "degenerate"?
(6) Do you agree or disagree that most people produce and/or consume art
based on its relation to ones experience and life? Do you think rap
"causes" these things, or is emblematic of social decay and
disenfranchisement? In other words, which comes first in your view, the
"music" or the "degeneracy"? Is your view of "art" then that is
historically "causal" or historically "representative" of social conditions
and/or cultural practice?
(7) You say " It's the feeling that traditional values somehow represent an
intimidating authority that engendors insecurity and must therefore be put
down." A nice Platteral dichotomy, by the way. Either we embrace all
traditional values, or we are nihilistic. Is that what you are claiming?
Much "rock" (as well as the Blues, Reggae, and Country-Western) is critical
of certain "traditional values", sure. But what is inherently "degenerate"
about this? Should all music promote social norms regardless? Also, much
rock has nothing to do with criticism of "traditional values", I'm thinking
of U2's "Beautiful Day", or Lennon's "Beautiful Boy", or Garth Brooks's
"Beer Run". These songs have nothing to do with (a) sex, or (b)
overthrowning certain traditional values. Are they, or are they not,
"degenerate"?
(8) Can "rock" ever be "socially affirming"? Or is "deconstructive" an
inherent feature of the genre, regardless of lyrics, sexual content or
beat? What about Bob Segar? Bruce Springsteen? The Joe Satriana concert Ian
describes. It seems these were socially affirmative. If you disagree, why?
(9) If one accepts, for argumentative purposes, you supposition that "rock
causes social degeneracy", what is your view on poverty, homelessness and
disenfranchisement? Are these "caused" by rock? Do they in turn not
contribute to social degeneracy? Please place rock in contextual relation
to other factors causing "social degeneracy". Is it "number one"? In the
top 10? If you disagree with these others I suggest, can you provide some
of your own?
(10) You say "It's the Nietzschean idea that man can discover his essence
or meaning only in revolt, by overturning the status quo." Some status quos
are worth overturning, aren't they? Or should they all be left unchallenged
and uncritically protected?
(11) You quote a talk-show host who says: "Those who believe in nothing are
very, very jealous and angry at those who believe in something." He was
talking about nihilism -- and, of course, so was I when I cited punk rock
as an illustrative example. Are you claiming that all people who listen to
punk "believe in nothing"? Maybe some don't. But the "punk rock" I listen
to mostly condemns racism,
poverty, class elitism and disenfranchisement of the "have not's". Maybe
you, like Platt, find these things desirable, but many do not. So they sing
about it. But, listen to The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais"
(youth race relations, and exploiting disenfranchised peoples for profit),
or The Ramones "Bonzo Goes to Bitburg" (anger at political double-speak),
or The Sex Pistols "Bodies" (very strong anti-abortion song) (or look up
the lyrics online), and explain to me how you infer that it is about
"believing in nothing"?
(12) You say: "I've concluded that it's the resentment of authority --
especially against what is seen as the authority of a music connoisseur --
that has roused the ire of this Value-sensitive group." Not quite. It is
about the resentment of blanket acceptance of "authority", and these
authorities who make logically vapid claims and still wish them to be
accepted uncritically. And who is seen as a "music connoisseur"? You???
(13) You claim, in response to my challenge of the superiority of your
musical sensibilities: "Of course, I never said anything like that. I was
asked specifically for MY opinions and preferences regarding a variety of
musical genres, and I qualified my answers by stating that they expressed
my personal tastes." Yes you did. And I gave you full credit for that. What
I asked was "Even above, while giving Ian the personal charge to determine
whether or not a particular song has Quality, you make it sure that it's
"by the standards I've cited". What's wrong with Ian's standards? Or mine?
To restate, why must Ian determine whether or not a particular song as
Quality "by the standards [you've] cited". Why not by his own?
*** (14) Answer this: If everyone liked just what you like, would there be
any "degenerate" or "nihilistic" music?
(15) You say: "Does Platt or Ham represent a threat to your values simply
because we've derived much enjoyment -- and perhaps enhanced our esthetic
sensibilities in the process -- from a more highly developed art form than
punk rock?" Not at all, do I or Ian represent a threat to your values
simply because we've derived much enjoyment -- and perhaps enhanced our
esthetic sensibilities in the process-- from an art form you personally
find "lesser" than your own personal taste in music?
(16) You say: " Why this great outpouring of antipathy to someone's defense
of the classics?" I am not "attacking" the classics, that's absurd. I've
stated repeatedly that I enjoy Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Peggy Lee,
Sinatra... They are great musical instantiations, in my view. Hardly
something I would think of attacking. But let me ask, during, say Mozart's
time, there was also a lot of "traditional folk music" around, yes? Was
this that period's "degenerate" music, since it was "lesser" than what
Mozart was doing? Should it have been condemned because it was sung in
pubs, and at raucous dances and in the streets? For example, in Vienna,
while Mozart was composing his music, in the streets people were drinking
and dancing to folk songs such as Bundeslied. Was this "degenerate"?
(16b) To simplify the above, is "degeneracy" a function of being "about
sex" or simply by virtue of being a "lesser" form of music than "the classics"?
By the way, what I am "antipathetic" towards is the view that ONLY the
"classics", as defined BY YOU, are non-degenerate or non-nihilistic, or the
idiotic generalizing about "all rock" based on foolish generalizations,
indefensible logic, and complete lack of critical definition or context.
Are there songs I find personally "degenerate" or "nihilistic", sure. Are
they "only rock songs". No. Do I condemn them as "causal"? No. I find them
to be representations and evidence of social decay. In my view, then, one
does not start at "the art", but start at the underlying social strife that
is causing its manifestation. For one example, "community" and civic-space
engagement is being structured out of social life in this country. The
physical and metaphoric idea of a "commons" is being replaced by the idea
that "everything is private property", physically and metaphorically. We
are being conditioned to forgo social, public or civic engagement. In
short, the prevailing view is that we are only responsible for ourselves,
and everyone else can go to hell. This, again TO ME, causes more social
decay than a few rock songs, whether they are about sex, or not.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 17:36:45 GMT