|
|
|
|
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:33:07 PM | artandsoul, I won't add to the specifics of your OP. My earlier points stand.
But you've now introduced a more sensationalistic example to the mix, albeit a hypothetical one, that of a song written urging the assassination of Bush, which then takes place, and the further conjecture that you can give force to your conclusion by planing the two events together and, like Sherlock, wrap things up with a 'there you go, Watson". That kind of simplification is a gross knee-jerk reaction of the worst kind. If one is to accept that it's to be taken seriously, what next? Any violent act can be analyzed to death from a million different angles, and, depending on the bias of the sentencers, a backward-spinning historical conjecture can yield thousands of contributory initiators. And I know this isn't the political forum, but this is a particularly assinine example because, as you should know, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world hostile to Bush. Far more benign presidents have been assassinated before. Did a lyric from some radio noise push the perpetrator over the edge? Seriously.....
The graver concern, here, though, is that it isn't a question of semantics, as you maintain. Countless arguements have been persuasively put forth that what you say has no basis in "art" or "music". What your arguement, more and more, comes down to is "freedom of speech". You're offended by the words of your examples, not any sounds that may accompany them, and a more direct parallel would be to that of literature and/or journalism. We already have the requisite hate laws to act as a counterpoint to those of free speech. When the pendulum swings to the repressive side of the ledger, as it often does during these politically-correct times, this latter danger already exists and has effects from the type of scare-mongering that you've outlined and is all-too-common.
What are those effects? Have you picked up a poetry journal in the past twenty years? You'll look for what seems an eternity to find an offensive, or even challenging thought, amongst the monochromatic somnolence contained therein. It's not because people are too afraid to send anything provocative and meaningful in; it's because it doesn't get published on first glance by the terrified publisher.
And really, isn't the tone of your post condescending to artists-- musicians, poets, public speakers-- anywhere? Anyone who creates in any meaningful artistic medium is doing so not out of any simplistic good/bad reminder from a moralist, but because their message and form comes directly from their soul, and is already well thought-out as to presentation, mood, vision. Your post reminds me very much of the well-meaning but superficial bromides that issue all-too-often about "what the artist should do". I have countless examples of those people who, when presented with opportunities to do specific things, given their power, were too hypocritically afraid or apathetic to follow through (not saying that's the case with you at all, just a general comment from my experience and observation).
In closing, there are far too many commentators and critics of art today-- due in large measure because of the financial opportunities those posts allow-- and far too many who become immersed in, and who act as serious consumers of that same excellent art. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/11/2006 11:24:15 PM | | Correction: last clause should read: "far too FEW who become immersed in....." , of course. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/11/2006 11:37:48 PM | Well said rorey. And, we also have the "freedom" to not listen to or view something we find offensive. The freedom of speech "clause" is still there, and rightfully so~~~ | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 104 | |
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:33:54 AM | I think it's important to note, that the sad "state of the art" in terms of pop culture, has happened not because of musicians, but in SPITE of them. This has in fact existed in some form for centuries and has manifested in different ways dependant on the "patron"
Long ago, this was royalty, the church and privileged classes. Now it is corporate elite, whose concern is not the advancement of culture, but the parasitic exploitation of it in harvesting wealth from the middle and low income demographic.
In the last couple of decades alone, even with the fact that the average age of N. Americans is getting older, we have seen the largest target market demographic getting younger and younger to the point where it's 6 - 12 y/o females.
Why?
Consumer indoctrination. decades ago even advertisers saw directly marketing to children as taboo, rightfully so, the exploitation, and worse, the indoctronation of children into a culture of consumerism isn't a far cry from pedophilia. The damage that this business model has wrought on our "culture" is unmistakeable, yet some still believe that these kids are the willing arbiters of what constitutes pop culture, or "giving the kids what they want". This myth and the affirmation of it only serves as a hidey-hole for the corporate pedophile.
Do you really think that media is serving it's customer base? ....or is the obvious conclusion that it is in fact, the other way around.
The music industry relies on the big demographic remaining uninformed, uneducated and functionally illiterate in regards to music. Those who make informed decisions regarding "taste" in music are an anathema in the eyes of a demographer, a rogue element who cannot be relied upon to unwittingly feed at the trough of mediocraty.
Who's yo' daddy?
Take a look at genres like "alternative", "hip hop", "punk", yes, and even "rock 'n roll" ....... These forms have as their origins, a denial of the media trends that existed at the time of their emergence, as these forms have as their progenitors, "youth", they were swallowed up by the biz and homogenized, packeged and made part of the "trough".
Rock 'n roll wore jeans, t-shits and came from the wrong side of the tracks, now it wears a Brooks Brothers suit and tie and lives in the office buildings of NY and LA.
Who is this coprorate entity?
It is a psychopath, according to the diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV.
Don't fool yourself.
Should we worry about the influence of music on youth?
Perhaps.
Should we worry about the influence of youth on music?
Perhaps.
Or should we open our eyes, and realize that these things are immaterial to the reality of the situation, and in the big picture? One and the same.
Should we worry about the influence of the corporate entity?
.....With every fiber of our being. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:01:01 AM |
Art, anyone who will argue that Mozart had not the greater talent then anyone else and was just in the presence of his father, etc. should not be debated IMHO.... :-)
I'm with you, Flames and I'm taking the advice. To argue that child prodigies were not born with natural talent is beyond ridiculous. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:18:45 AM | This thread has got me thinking in a larger perspective than it had originally. Another question that's just entertained my thoughts is: What, exactly, is this "positive" message that artandsoul nebulously puts forth? What does it entail?
Because, specifically, many songs is the classical genre are direct lyrical transcriptions of poems. Not to give an exhaustive list, but Berlioz, Shostakovich, Schubert, have used others' poems, and set them to scores usually faithful to the mood of the written word, which was...?.... Often violent, vengeful, sarcastic, morose,.... This relates to an earlier point in the thread, but it's worth exploring more in full. Many people, in listening to poetry or song lyrics, confuse the "I' of the singer/poet with the "I" of the song/poem. Sometimes the two are the same, an autobiographical or confessional outpuring. At other times, the words are (not willfully, or spitefully abstruse) ambiguous, so that the listener has to actively work to understand the context, perhaps multi-layered. And at other times, still, the singer and the "I" he or she is singing about have no connection whatever, and it's a rendition of another's experience, who often is fictional.
Why harp on all this? Because art, not the manufactured shyte that screams through the airwaves, often uses shocking images, ideas, words to startle the listener, not for cynical financial reasons, but to challenge and overcome the listener's usual apathy to hearing anything new. This ties in with the aforementioned dreck because that IS, of course, cynical in its goals, and because there is nothing behind any of the simplistic, unintelligible words, the illiteracy of the heart.
So-- back again to the "positive" message: is music prescriptive? Because then the bland, didactic, preachy "feel good" words are just as bad as the over-the-top hate-filled jibberish of pop culture at its worst: the writer "trying" too hard, assuming an attitude (remembrance of bubble-gum music, anyone?). Music, like the best of ANY art, explores and arrives at ,often, difficult truths, not by setting up a simplistic morality lesson, but sometimes by becoming immersed in the very nastiness that the OP seems to want to run from. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 107 | |
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:39:08 AM | To argue that child prodigies were not born with natural talent is beyond ridiculous.
To expect people to eschew their frame of reference to adhere to your religious beliefs is intolerant, and is noted.
Because art, not the manufactured shyte that screams through the airwaves, often uses shocking images, ideas, words to startle the listener, not for cynical financial reasons, but to challenge and overcome the listener's usual apathy to hearing anything new.
Part of the very nature of what art is. Metaphorical.
So-- back again to the "positive" message: is music prescriptive? Because then the bland, didactic, preachy "feel good" words are just as bad as the over-the-top hate-filled jibberish of pop culture at its worst: the writer "trying" too hard, assuming an attitude (remembrance of bubble-gum music, anyone?).
Well said.
Music, like the best of ANY art, explores and arrives at ,often, difficult truths, not by setting up a simplistic morality lesson, but sometimes by becoming immersed in the very nastiness that the OP seems to want to run from.
In the abscence of metaphor any resemblance to "Art" is moot.
"Painting is poetry that is seen rather than felt, and poetry is painting that is felt rather than seen."
~Leonardo da Vinci
| |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:53:05 AM |
And really, isn't the tone of your post condescending to artists-- musicians, poets, public speakers-- anywhere?
Rory, in what way is it condescending? On the contrary, my original post affirms that artists do have great power -- potentially at least. Power is always a double edged sword; it can be used for creative or destructive purposes. Power entails responsibility. Did I ever once suggest that all artists abuse their power?
A song with lyrics is a form of literature and can be just as powerful as literature. Do poets and public speakers not have a similar power and corresponding responsibility? What if a public speaker glorified and glamorized child abuse? Do you think that such a person should not be called to account? Does a person who does so suddenly become guilty of addressing public speakers "anywhere" in a condescending manner?
Anyone who creates in any meaningful artistic medium is doing so not out of any simplistic good/bad reminder from a moralist, but because their message and form comes directly from their soul, and is already well thought-out as to presentation, mood, vision.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The message and form of your art that comes from your soul is well thought out -- when? Does it come out of your soul ready made? Do you not consciously shape the form and presentation of it and determine the message of it yourself? Who or what is in control of the final product, the art or the artist?
If one writes a song glorifying murder, I maintain that this is an abuse of his power as an artist. Of course, noone can say for certain that his song was the "cause" of a violent act -- but it's easy to surmise that it may have been a contributing factor. Why would a responsible and moral person want to make that kind of contribution? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:18:24 AM |
If one writes a song glorifying murder, I maintain that this is an abuse of his power as an artist.
If he writes anything glorifying murder, he is NOT an artist | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 110 | |
| The power of music
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:48:08 AM | Why would a responsible and moral person want to make that kind of contribution?
That's better.
PEOPLE have a responsibility not to glorify murder, rape, etc.
....PEOPLE who glorify acts of violence of any kind should be denounce for it, as it's obscene.
I'm cool with that.
Assigning degrees of blame for the actions of a sociopath because of some kind of "power" assigned by a deity?
 | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/13/2006 2:46:16 AM | Rory, you raised some interesting points in your post (message 106). I agree that a steady diet of nothing but "bland, didactic, preachy 'feel good' words" in songs or other artistic/literary efforts would be pretty insufferable. There are some tastefully done examples of songs with an undeniably "positive" message. Much of it was done in the 60s, for instance, "Get Together" by the Youngbloods. A song like "What the World Needs Now" is another example. But I agree with you: how many times can you redo and restate that kind of thing before we all get bored out of our minds?
A lot of popular songs might be described as "morally neutral" and many are little more than ear candy -- for instance, the "silly little love songs" that "some people wanna fill the world with" as in the Paul McCartney song. As he asked, "what's wrong with that?" Well, nothing really. Those songs have their place and are harmless enough. It seemed almost as though McCartney wrote that song in reaction to his estranged songwriting partner John Lennon -- whose later material was certainly more "substantial" and often acerbic and combative -- and who seemed, rightly or wrongly, to regard McCartney as a lightweight because of his penchant for sunny, often unsubstantial type of material with no "bite". Perhaps, as a balancing factor, this apparent polar difference in their temperaments and outlooks accounts to some degree for their success as a popular songwriting team.
In any case, I often appreciate some "bite" in my music myself. I agree with you that art has to explore difficult truths sometimes by becoming immersed in negative emotions and situations. I don't really have an issue with that -- with the caveat explained below.
To give you some idea of where I am coming from, in the music association that I run, we allow at our events any number of songs that may deal with subjects such as murder -- but we exclude certain material because we feel that this material not only immerses itself in this sort of negativity but actually glorifies and glamorizes it. It's sometimes a difficult call to make so we had to come up with a set of guidelines to help us make the call when the question arises about a particular song.
For instance, we would allow the Tom Jones song "Delilah" which deals with a jealous lover who murders an unfaithful spouse. The lyrics "so before they come to break down the door, forgive me, Delilah, I just couldn't take any more", among others in the song, indicate that the murderer has some remorse about his actions. On the other hand, a song such as the extremely popular "Goodbye, Earl" by the Dixie Chicks is unmistakably a celebration of a cold blooded premeditated murder; consequently we do not allow this song to be played at our events. A lot of people call this "censorship". We prefer to call it setting higher standards although we don't deny that it is a form of "censorship". Perhaps "self censorship" is a more apt description. We don't advocate that society in general ban this kind of thing -- although numerous radio stations in fact did ban this particular song -- because that is not our mandate. We do however feel that, as a non profit society which includes as one of its stated purposes "to encourage and promote the expression of the universal language of music as a positive and creative force in our community and beyond" that it is our right and our duty to set our own standards regarding what is acceptable within our own organization -- in much the same way that any individual has the right to regulate what goes on in and what goes out of his own home.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your point is also well taken about who the "I" in a song might be or might not be. I think perhaps though that you have misunderstood my own position relating to all of this. I probably haven't made it explicit enough. I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the matter. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/13/2006 8:39:46 PM | I can see this is a passionate issue with you, but to me it's a non-issue. To get nervous about allowing some no-talent moral ingrate with an axe to grind, a venue or opportunity to air his or her overtly sympathetic views on violence is, if anything, just playing into their hands. In effect, the message sent is that what they say has importance if you're worried about it. There are laws in place to hinder and even prosecute those who use the radio, concert hall, newspapers (since this is more of a "word" issue than a "music" one for you), and the like, to spew their filth.
Remember that many books, movies, and pop "songs" are intentionally written in inflammatory style to engender the very fear and denunciation you're emitting: if they succeed in getting this response, it means publicity, notoriety. And that, quite simply, is what marketing anything is all about. Air anything on commercial media brashly enough, long enough, and there will be a gathering force of equally mind-damaged mouth-breathers who will cotton on to it, and buy it.
The irony, here, is that the creative music, of which I've outlined above, also dealing with violence but in a much more complex and mind-opening way, gets lumped in with the simplistic trash because, after all, the arbiters of morals, of Art, to be quick about it, often can't tell the difference between the two, as has been well demonstrated throughout the ages by the censoring of legitimate art. The daring and controversial (which much of new artistic expression is) gets the same sidelong nervous glance, and if the circumstances and groupthink surrounding its reception is repressive enough, censored.
I'd like to put this in a little more perspective, though. A lighter perspective. What is a good example of an appropriate reaction to violence in songs? You used the Tom Jones "Delilah" tune, and even though, yes, it shows the first-person character as given voice by the singer as repentant in some way, the subject and wording are still brutal. And this is where it's appropriate to talk more about the SOUNDS in the song, because I firmly believe that sounds convey far more emotion in any song than do the words alone. (Classical music has created joy, anger, hope, sadness, fear, and much else, without any accompanying words, for centuries.) :
Now the only controversy with Tom Jones was when people wondered whether or not he visited the women after the show who threw their room keys at him on stage. He's schmaltzy and light. And "Delilah", despite its lyrics, follows that same mood in its musical arrangement and vocal phrasing. I have a live version of The Sensational Alex Harvey Band doing a hilarious send-up of that song, and it captures the ridiculous mawkish emotion of it. And it diffuses any "power" the violence in the words may have had.
I type all this about "Delilah" ....(gawd, it's Friday night and I'm discussing the medallioned Tom Jones) to show that what, if anything, should be feared in so-called "music" is not the words, but the often hideous, soulless racket that emanates from the talentless dummies who engender it.
If anyone is going to be incited to violence because of listening to a modern day ear-assault, it's because of the sounds, not the words. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/14/2006 2:04:31 AM |
There are laws in place to hinder and even prosecute those who use the radio, concert hall, newspapers (since this is more of a "word" issue than a "music" one for you), and the like, to spew their filth.
There may be laws in place but judging by what's being played on the radio and sold in music stores regularly, they aren't enforced that often. Re disallowing certain songs at our events, we've always said if you want to listen to that stuff you can get it in any number of places, you just won't get it within our organization. Consequently, a number of people have turned away from us, adopting a kneejerk reaction and accusing us of "censorship". So be it. We can't control what goes on in the world, we can only control what we do. We feel that making a stand about it has at least caused a number of people to consider the issue and perhaps it will make a difference to some of them down the road.
If anyone is going to be incited to violence because of listening to a modern day ear-assault, it's because of the sounds, not the words.
I don't doubt this either. It's just a little harder to measure. What kind of sounds do you have in mind? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/15/2006 8:24:23 PM | I'm thinking too much again, but if one "glorifies" murder in a painting or photograph, is that the same thing then>? I've always thought it was a matter of personal expression and also personal taste... Whatever it may be.
As the song says, "Look away".... | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 1:22:28 AM |
I'm thinking too much again, but if one "glorifies" murder in a painting or photograph, is that the same thing then>? I've always thought it was a matter of personal expression and also personal taste... Whatever it may be.
As the song says, "Look away"....
No, Live, you're not "thinking too much" -- that's what we're here for, after all. The original post raises the question of the responsibility of the artist in these matters. It's all too easy to say, if you don't like it, look away. That's a nice pat answer. Think about it a little more though. What if a painter, out of his own "personal expression and also personal taste... whatever it may be" created a graphic scene of children being sexually abused and proposed to hang it in your local art gallery? Would you object or would you merely "look away"? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 6:06:27 AM | | you mean like wrapping yourself in the american flag and killing 200,000 Iraq's for oil? Oh yeah I see what you mean. Propaganda! all is phony. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 2:15:20 PM | you mean like wrapping yourself in the american flag and killing 200,000 Iraq's for oil? Oh yeah I see what you mean. Propaganda! all is phony.
Huh? Aren't you in the wrong thread, Mink?
On topic -- a few relevant quotes:
"...when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the state change with them."
Plato
"Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
Daniel O'Connell | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 2:39:37 PM | | Absolutely, I believe music does have a lot power and a lot of affect on people. I know many songs have had a profound impact on me. They have changed my life. Very powerful. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 9:47:34 PM | Artandsoul, I don't imagine many galleries would be showing paintings or photos of children being raped, abused, etc, but I would hope the exposure would be minimal. However, I've seen some very violent paintings and photographs that have been considered "totally" acceptable.... I guess I'm relating it a bit to television or movies as well--when people complain about the content. If you don't like it, don't view it. To each their own. I just always try to have an open mind, because it seems like we have to be like that in this "ever-changing" world.... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 120 | |
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 9:54:16 PM |
I don't imagine many galleries would be showing paintings or photos of children being raped, abused, etc
Now child-porn is considered "art"?
Amazing.... | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:54:56 PM | Artandsoul, I don't imagine many galleries would be showing paintings or photos of children being raped, abused, etc, but I would hope the exposure would be minimal. However, I've seen some very violent paintings and photographs that have been considered "totally" acceptable.... I guess I'm relating it a bit to television or movies as well--when people complain about the content. If you don't like it, don't view it. To each their own. I just always try to have an open mind, because it seems like we have to be like that in this "ever-changing" world....
Live, you're right ... not too many art galleries are showing paintings like that -- yet. But there are music stores where you can purchase CDs by rap "artists" including lyrics about raping one's mother and inviting one's friends over to have their way with one's little sister. If you don't believe me, do some research on the "lyrics" of hugely popular media darling Eminem.
You're also right that we live in an "ever-changing" world. So, assuming that you're humming that Paul McCartney tune to yourself when you say that, should we just "Live and Let Die"? How far will these changes go? How far will we let them go? As more and more of this kind of thing gradually becomes "acceptable" in our everchanging world, as the boundaries of taste and decency and morality are pushed ever harder by a greedy and amoral entertainment industry, as more and more popular "artists" of every sort begin to consider this type of offering "acceptable" and profitable, will there EVER come a time when people should not merely shrug their shoulders and say "oh, well, if you don't like it, don't view it". Will there ever come a time -- and, if so, has it not already come? -- when people should stand up and say "hold on, this has gone too far! It's NOT "acceptable", it's not "art", it's not right ... don't buy it, don't sell it, don't "create" it ..."? Would such a day ever arrive for you, for instance, only when there ARE graphic paintings of child abuse in an art gallery because some so called "artist" managed to justify it on the grounds that it has some "redeeming social value" or "freedom of expression" or "artistic freedom"?
If that day does come -- and don't be ALL that surprised if it does -- it will be probably be too late to stop it. The voices of those who object to it at all will be shouted over by those grown ever bolder and more strident due to the lack of opposition from decent people who kept "looking the other way" while this garbage continued to be foisted upon us. No offence, darlin', but is such a stance really "open minded" or might "ostrich-like" be an apter description?
Peace to you too, Live. Food for thought too, I hope ... | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 12:22:16 AM | "....don't be ALL that surprised if it does -- it will probably be too late to stop it."
I used the word "perspective" in my last post. It's a great word. Do you have any idea how your delusional futuristic hypothetical scenarios are clouding your judgement about the wider picture?
"too late to stop it." Oh? Why? Because then the infiltrating Dracula-sounds of modern pop music will also sway the morals of the listeners, who, like robotic chanters, will goosestep to the nearest record store, and scoop up the offerings exponentially? And it is "pop" you're talking about, not "underground" culture: read the definition of "popular"-- the obvious link is to its widespread appeal. Do you seriously entertain the bizarre notion that a handful of renegade hucksters have the power to sway the moral compass of an entire international entertainment, or even artistic (*retch*) community?
You speak of a simplistic black/white scenario based upon a strong personal reaction which you then extrapolate to fashion a doomsday outcome. I could just as easily speak of actual events in many artistic and entertainment milieus which completely contradict it:
A poet sends in a sheaf of highly achieved, creative, and original work only to be turned down by an editor squeamish that any mention of sex, no matter how thoughtfully done, might cause consternation amongst the cliquish, stifling co-members of the magazine. A monotonous and unoffending "poem" about one's mother's laundry is chosen instead..... AND...
A young and energetic, surrealistic rock band, critiquer of social norms, is shunned by agents, program directors, promoters, records company execs because their songs aren't pre-packaged in any discernible "genre", and besides, it's too "heavy" for commercial play, anyway......AND...
An investigative journalist digs up some interesting links between terrorism and respectable financial institutions, but Larry King decides to go with the Lacy Pederson murder case for the 32nd day in a row.....AND.....
The point is that choices, just as the ones you make in your musical role and position, are made for a wide variety of reasons, subjective ones often closely informed by the preferences of the ones in power. Do you have so little faith in the powers responsible for the final make-up of museum showpieces, musical programs, and the like, that culture is somehow predestined to go down an irreversible black hole of amorality, even immorality, if there are a few cracks here and there as to certain egregious examples?
So where's the REAL danger? There is more than enough evil ALREADY being perpetrated and NOT attacked, partially because it's of little concern to middle-class overworked citizens who want to go home and drink or escape in mindless entertainment; partially because it's too complex for most people (we're all guilty of that last one to varying degrees).
Amoral horror flicks have been with us for many decades. Have they inflamed others to go about and re-enact the crazed events therein? Yes, a few copycat murderers are reported-- those people were ALREADY fukked up to the nth degree. They would just as easily been influenced to go "over the edge" by any rude comment against them, by a rainy day, by a drinking binge, and, yes, ironically, even by a morallly strident forumite speaking of banning the horror flicks he loves.
It's a complex world. I try to understand it to the best of my limited ability, but what you say is grounded in paranoia and hypothetical misguided generalities. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:06:26 AM | I used the word "perspective" in my last post. It's a great word. Do you have any idea how your delusional futuristic hypothetical scenarios are clouding your judgement about the wider picture?
Thanks ever so much, Rory. Where would I be without you to fill me in on great words and their meaning? Here's a little "perspective" for you. Have you considered the idea that perhaps your seclusional, apparently deliberate blindness to what IS actually happening in the very real, very present world out there is clouding YOUR judgment and leading to your delusional reactions here?
Has your bandana slipped down over your eyes? Do you read newspapers? Watch the news? Have you been in a school lately? Ever heard of "bullying"? Ever wondered why it has apparently reached such epidemic proportions that educators are busy night and day creating and implementing programs to combat it? I suppose the music kids listen to these days has nothing to do with it? I suppose that other inspirational treats provided by popular culture such as the antics of their heros, the swaggering bullies of the World "Wrestling" Federation and their ilk, has no effect whatsoever on young boys and girls? I suppose the thugs who sexually assaulted young women in Central Park while chanting the lyrics of a popular rap song and imitating the action in the video for that "song" make no impression on your blithe assumptions that there is little danger in this type of entertainment!
Oh yes, your argument is that they were basta*ds already before they ever heard of a rap video ... sure, they probably were -- and this type of entertainment made them even worse basta*ds by feeding their addiction and being part of a vicious cycle. Any fool can see that popular culture, art and entertainment not only reflects popular morality, it also reinforces and helps to create it -- and, please, let's not get into more hairsplitting by arguing any further about what "art" is. That ground is worn out and irrelevant here; what you and I might call "real art" is not what touches -- "sears" might all too often be a better description -- the lives and the hearts and the minds of most people in this world on a daily basis as popular art and music does.
It's just as true to say that life imitates art as that art imitates life. Please don't ascribe to me "simplistic black/white" positions that I have never taken. I've been pretty clear throughout this thread that I think it's a two way street.
Do you have so little faith in the powers responsible for the final make-up of museum showpieces, musical programs, and the like, that culture is somehow predestined to go down an irreversible black hole of amorality, even immorality, if there are a few cracks here and there as to certain egregious examples?
I never said that it was "predestined" -- please don't put words in my mouth -- but as for the possibility of culture going down a black hole, take a look around; it's already well on the way, my friend. Have you been to a video store lately?
Sociologist P. A. Sorokin, chairman of the Harvard University Department of Sociology for fifteen years, argued as far back as 1941 in "The Crisis of Our Age" that we had entered a period of decay in terms of the fine arts and culture in general. What passes for art and entertainment in the minds of the public -- whether it's in an art gallery, a television program or a popular song -- is increasingly guilty of what Sorokin called "debasing the socio-cultural values of art to a mere means of sensual enjoyment ... including a pathogical exhibitionism of the negative aspects of man and culture". Pimps, gangsters, "grifters", "hos" -- increasingly, these are the protagonists, the "heros" of popular art and entertainment in all its forms. Heads flying, blood spurting, sick and psychotic behaviour of every sort -- these are increasingly the themes of art and entertainment in all its forms.
"Sex and violence sell; give them sex and violence", says the industry.
"It's hard to make a decent living on real 'art' (so what else is new in history?) because the industry demands sex and violence, not real art," say the artists.
"We loved that last round of sex and violence," say its consumers, "give us more -- but, hey, we're getting a little bored now ... what else have you got for us? Can you up the ante a little?"
And the cycle continues. Each of the guilty parties passes the blame along in a never ending circle. Meanwhile, "art" and "culture" continue to degenerate.
The example of an art gallery displaying graphic scenes of child pornography was obviously meant to be a dramatic illustration of the possibilities. It was also meant to ask "how long should we keep 'looking away' and "would there ever be a time when it was appropriate to question the responsibilities of people all along the artistic food chain in these matters?" It sometimes takes an extreme example to get people to see something -- as you yourself have pointed out in a previous post.
Still, do you really think it beyond the realm of possibility that such a thing could happen? Talk to your grandmother about the way moral values can change over time in this "everchanging world" that Livewire referred to. Things that were once considered the height of immorality are now perfectly "acceptable"; things that were unheard of in art and entertainment are now commonplace.
Do you think it's impossible that attitudes towards such things as child sexual abuse -- and the portraying of it -- can change? Do you think it's impossible that in the not so distant future what is now called "abuse" may one day be referred to on a wider scale in kinder terms -- as it already is by such groups as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)? Does history show that we are incapable of abusing our children? Do the words "child labour" and "child sacrifice" mean anything to you? Oh, but we are so much more "civilized" now, aren't we? It could never happen, could it? Just like a "civilized" nation like Germany could never descend to the barbarity that it did earlier in this century! Furthermore, is it impossible that so called "artists" will play a role in changing attitudes and moral values? Do we have no influence, no power and no responsibility?
As for having "faith in the powers responsible for the final make-up of museum showpieces, musical programs, and the like", why should I? Are these people "philosopher kings" or something? Are they any more or less moral than the general society in which they operate?
They would just as easily been influenced to go "over the edge" by any rude comment against them, by a rainy day, by a drinking binge, and, yes, ironically, even by a morallly strident forumite speaking of banning the horror flicks he loves.
Sure, "blame it on the moonlight" and ridicule the poster -- the last resort of someone who really has no argument! This "morally strident forumite" has no particular love for horror films and is in fact disgusted by many of them. Have you considered arguing with some integrity?
Despite the fact that it's been conclusively proven that what people see and hear in popular entertainment does have an effect on their attitudes and behaviours, because no lawyer could "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt the exact connection in specific cases, therefore there must be no connection or any connection is irrelevant and unimportant? Highly logical!
It's a complex world. I try to understand it to the best of my limited ability, but what you say is grounded in paranoia and hypothetical misguided generalities.
Have you considered the possibility that your rose colored glasses are skewing your perception of reality and further impairing your limited ability to understand this complex world? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:39:32 AM | Two typos and one unjustified line in the last post:
Sorokin's quote should read: "a pathological exhibitionism of the worst aspects of man and culture".
The line pointing out that "civilization" is often a thin veneer covering the still barbaric potential of human beings should read : "Just like a 'civilized' nation like Germany could never descend to the barbarity that it did in the last century!"
Sorry, I hate typos, especially when I make them myself!
Also, I see I misread your line about the "morally strident forumite banning the horror films he loves." The way I read it initially was wrong. Disregard the line about my disgust for some horror films and the one asking you to argue with integrity. My mistake. I apologize. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 3:46:28 PM | Whew !
"Rose-coloured glasses"? Based on what? And I'd rather have colorful vision, than to be blinded to the big picture.
Again, I'll use the word "perspective".
Again, with the histrionical comparisons: Hitler in the 1920's as a parallel to licentious behaviour in the popular music scene? How anyone can make such a comparison, however "daring" or (ironically) "shocking", is astounding. Ever hear of the strictures of the Versailles Treaty? The rampant anti-Semitism of the time (based on almost 2, 000 years of it starting with the Church Fathers)? The nullification of all Art, all entertainment, and any press not in line with the future Fuhrer? Do you see how incredibly embarassing and bizarre it is to use this comparison? How insulting it is to anyone with even a morsel of historical perspective? Would the louts descanting on "sex and violence" in your worst-case scenario world have a chance to even be heard in that particular time, let alone aired, copied, and sold to the public?
"Rose-coloured glasses"? Read the massive three-volume tome "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn, and what the human condition includes, in all its brutal manifestation. And then ask yourself how many music videos, how much commercial music was on the airwaves at the time.
Read the accounts of the pogroms and butcheries, the perfidious hunting down of people who had a different political, religious, sexual, and/or lifestyle outlook than did the ruling political/religious elites at the time. Then ask yourself how many gangsta rap "songs" were performed during the period.
Go to any number of places throughout the world where ANY form of music is outlawed (by Islamic law, for the most part) except for "holy" chants. Then tell me how many media stars are being revered in those locales.
If your answer is that this is a particularly Western abomination, due to our increasingly "permissive" society, that is an old and tired arguement. It is not a shocking one at all. The cultural history of the West has been a see-saw between the extremes of permissiveness and repression: when one side goes overboard, there is an inevitable corrective reaction the other way. I laugh when people talk about the "sexual" revolution of the 70's, for example, as if those people were the first to discover "free" sex. It happened, with different social issues and forerunners, in the late 1700's, in the late 1800's , and in the 1920's. And you know what? The world didn't go to hell in the proverbial handbasket.
The same parallels can be made as to "popular" or underground violent "culture" in various periods. (Would you, in your artistic assessment and wisdom, put a late Goya painting in your gallery? And that is art. ) Look up popular entertainment throughout history, and you'll see countless examples of that, as well.
As to your citing of a sociologist, that holds as much weight, to me, as a rat's fart. Sociology is a pseudo-science, purporting to show seminal truths garnered from archaeological and cultural history. I'll take history itself, and a global perspective on what it points to, rather than the academe-jargon convolutions of a self-important tenured "teacher" with a personal axe to grind. I read that sentence: sounds important, doesn't it? But it says nothing.
The short of it is: There are hateful messages being portrayed in the media? Old news. By the way, violence, including murder, is down significantly in the United States, over the past decade or so. What would your "wise" sociologist say about that? Yet, it is up slightly in Canada over the same period. Hmmmm.... same culture, same access and airtime of "music" videos and CDs, and radio-played efforts. Another reason, or reasons, are obviously apparent, then, but that's not the nature of this topic, and I don't want it to be derailed into further offshoots.
We all have our own peculiar subjective fears. I don't begrudge people their own, much different than mine. But I do strongly object when those personal fears are trotted out in scare-mongering fashion to others without any historical perspective, or any accuracy as to the countervailing forces which I've outlined as to the very opposite repression evident in our society and which contradicts what you've outlined. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
