From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Mar 25 2005 - 02:23:47 GMT
Arlo:
I'd hoped we could finally put Punk to rest, yet here we go again.
Look, I'm an authority only on my own beliefs and artistic preferences; I
wouldn't presume to recommend, let alone insist on, my choices for others.
And that applies to my philosophy as well. Let IMO preface whatever else I
may say. I believe in the freedom of each individual to realize and nurture
his own values.
That said, I don't think you can deny the dissidence that characterizes much
of
today's art, literature, and music. As a free society, we exult in
expressing ourselves
in a way that reflects the needs and wants of our culture. Fortified by
technology and instant world-wide communications, we've adapted the "sending
a message" syndrome of our politics to literature, the theater, and song
lyrics. You suggest that this may be a healthy thing. I would disagree.
For one thing, there's a significant difference in the kind of message being
sent in our postmodern era. It can't be compared to the troubador songs or
folk music
of past ages; has more in common with the Marxist slogan "Workers Unite!".
Also, those who express this message are only too anxious to use the arts
for their purpose. First they seek to establish that it's the message,
rather than the art, that counts -- the first step in artistic degeneration.
The next step is to put down the values that represent authority to many
citizens who, for one reason or another, already feel disenfranchised. This
leads to cultural regression. Our nation's youth are particularly
vulnerable to this movement -- hence the marketing of pop icons to
teenagers -- and our preponderantly liberal universities actively help to
promote it.
The consequence is that we are fostering a "deconstructive" social culture
that, combined with the ideology of "political correctness", is lowering our
academic standards and encouraging a kind of irresponsible behavior that has
no esthetic values or moral structure. In fact, it's what Allan Bloom,
Platt Holden and I understand as Nihilism.
If you find this movement disconcerting, as I do, you want to find out
what's causing it. I think I've outlined the cause fairly well in my
previous posting in this thread. But, since you've raised additional
questions relating specifically to music, I'll try to answer them 'by the
number'.
> (1a) Is your
> position, then, that one must "learn" how to recognize the good (in
music).
Yes.
> (1b)
> Since you find The Clash nihilistic, would you say that is because you
have
> more learned sensibilities than I?
Possibly. I have a Bachelor degree in Music Theory, was once announcer at a
classical music station (which, incidentally, has since sold out to rock
music), and I consider music my primary avocation next to philosophy.
> Are you capable of determining for
> anyone other than yourself, what is "degenerate" and "what is not"? Why?
No. See my qualifying statement above.
> (2) Are those who consider [all music?] to be [an artform] simply
> less informed than yourself?
I shouldn't think so.
> Furthermore, who determines whether it is
> "sexually provocative"? The individual or a group of specialists?
I think that is self-evident.
> Is it
> only "sexually provocative" music you have an issue with?
Absolutely not. That should be obvious from my opening remarks.
> (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.
I know nothing about "biological quality" in this context, and suggest that
you consult Platt.
> (4) 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?
It can apply to any genre -- including classical music. Stravinsky's Rite
of Spring and Bartok's music were called dissonant in their time; Mozart,
Strauss and Shostakovitch were patronized by state officials, thus
prostituting their talents to some extent. Composers have been known to
rebel against established artistic trends. For the minimalists, the
established trends were those of Modernism; for some modernists, such as
Pierre Boulez, Karlheinz Stockhausen and the electronic composers, it was
composing music according to the strict formulas of the style known as
"serialism." Others, like John Cage, threw out the rules entirely, in favor
of aleatory music, in which many aspects of composition are left to chance.
But these so-called radical composers were not out to destroy what had gone
before, but rather to extend the art in more creative ways.
> (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"?
No. I'm saying it's not music's purpose to challenge authority and incite
violence.
> (6) Do you agree or disagree that most people produce and/or consume art
> based on its relation to ones experience and life?
I really don't know. The music I sought had very little to do with my life
experience.
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?
Rap is symptomatic of our culture's regression to nihilism (See opening
remarks.)
> (7) 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"?
I don't know these songs, but why do you want my opinion, Don't you know
degeneracy when you hear it?
> (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?
I have no reason to disagree, but then I'm unfamilair with this repertoire.
>
> (9) 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?
These are rather foolish questions. I've already said that rock is a
symptom rather than a cause of nihilism. I see no point in rating music
with other factors, even if I knew
> (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?
I think at this stage of nihilism we're about ready to thow the babe out
with the bathwater. Anyway, it is not the creators of art, music or films
who should be determining what is to be revised or overturned.
> (11) 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"?
I like Martina McBride, also, and she sings love songs. Look, I'm not
sentencing or condemning here. But you know what media are working to
destroy our culture as opposed to uplifting it. You know it when you see it
in books, on CDs, in theaters, or on TV. We're all discriminating enough to
make these judgments, and should have the intelligence to decide which side
we want to be on.
(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???
Yes, I think it's possible that a few might see me as speaking with some
authority on the subject.
> (13) 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?
That's a good question. What the heck IS wrong with your standards? After
all, you live in the same world that Platt and I do.
If everyone liked just what you like, would there be
> any "degenerate" or "nihilistic" music?
I suspect there would always be an underground market for that sort of
thing.
> (15) 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?
Not at all. There, we're even!
> (16) 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?
Please see what I had to say about folk music in the third paragraph above.
> (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"?
Resentment of traditional values leads to nihilism. Nihilism causes the
regression of society. Listening to and studying the classics leads to a
greater appreciation of music.
Enough, already! ... and pardon me for bringing music into a philosophical
discussion.
Happy listening,
Ham
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 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 02:27:49 GMT