|
|
|
|
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 5:17:40 PM | Again, with the histrionical comparisons: Hitler in the 1920's as a parallel to licentious behaviour in the popular music scene?
You completely missed the point, Rory -- which was that for of all our so-called modern "civilization", modern man is quite capable of reverting to barbaric behaviour at any time.
As far as murder or crime being "down", there are lies, dam*ed lies and then there are statistics. Anyone who is not blinded by those dam*ed lies and takes a look around can see that violent behaviour among young people -- who represent the future of our society -- is hardly "down" today. Though there have always been school bullies and probably always will be, the problem is far worse than ever in this day and age. I never heard of "swarmings" when I was young but today they are commonplace. Child murderers are also a relatively modern phenomenon -- not surprising considering what our young are fed by the media in all its forms today.
But as far as you are concerned, images portrayed in popular art and entertainment -- whether in music, literature or other forms -- have no relevance and their effect is negligible. That's not what most studies on the effects of media violence show. According to the American Psychological Association, "male youth who view sexualized depictions of rape in television or in film are more likely to display callousness toward female victims of violence, especially rape... " Bury your head in the sand if you wish. You shouldn't need a psychological study to realize that people are affected by what they see and hear -- but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Also, how can you seriously propose that words -- whether they are spoken, written or sung -- have no significant effect on people's attitudes and behaviours? Why then do Macdonalds and other advertisers spend millions every year on "jingles"? Do they just like throwing their money away? They obviously feel that words and music can affect people's buying behaviour and they have the profits to prove it. If words and music can affect what people buy, they can certainly affect other aspects of their behaviour as well. If your words cannot affect anyone, why do you even bother posting here? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/17/2006 8:31:59 PM | No. It's you who've missed the point entirely. I've maintained throughout that violence is a multi-layered, multi-headed gorgon, that when you "cut off" one snake-tail, as you're trying to do, here, then ten other twisting entrails emerge out of their restful states.
I never once stated that words have no power. Now you're putting words in my mouth. What I object to is the setting up of exclusionary bogeymen as a particularly fearsome problem in the curtailment of violence. Look. No one is disputing that foul-mouthed young and frustrated kids get their message out. Does it have an impact? Of course. Everything we say and do, even if it's sitting in a room peacefully, alone, has an impact on the rest of the world, in ways none of us will ever be able to fathom. Again, it's your pointing to this one element as particularly fearful that I object to.
Of course people are capable of reverting to barbaric behaviour at any time. Violence, potentially or actually, is in every man, woman, or child on Earth today. We can't censor, or even "control" our basest emotions. We can try to understand them a little better, though. And it's here I have to interject and say I've always found the "behaviourist" approach to life, in its psychology, to be gravely misguided. We are not all blank moral slates waiting to be moulded by the first enlightened OR violent persona who comes down the pike. You're the one who brought up the Hitler comparison: my point was that it's ridiculous at best, disingenuous at worst, to compare an actual political reality, one in which the political fact was stark, to one in which a cultural blip, and an accompanying hypothetical fantasy, is postulated, and somehow come up with a, "see here, this is what can happen" scenario.
As to trotting out the "statistics, damm statistics, lies" chestnut, well, then, I guess it's better that you project into the future rather than dealing with the facts on violence? Swarmings exist. Violence against children exist. Never neglect the fact that the media, in its ever-insatiable search for ratings and $$$$$$$, will up the ante, and sensationalize the "news" in order to feed a jaded and bored viewership with ever-increasing "shock" stories. Again, read some history. It may not be as "exciting" to read records in dusty tomes about child abuse and gang-related violence occuring in 1700's America, but it's there. After all, a 200 year-old story doesn't sell well with the public, and we all know what that means. Advertisers pull the plug, and the "news" doesn't get out. Perhaps, then, artandsoul, you're part of the problem-- enthralled by the skewed media, doing your bit by watching it, which increases the ratings. The hyped tripe is generated further, and the cycle continues.
One could even go the opposite way as you, and see the increased exposure of violent words and deeds as a positive in that it shines the spotlight on the garbage so that people can see, directly, how nauseating it is, rather than its converse: gangs who hide out, organize, are secretive, level-headed about their objectives, who spread by indirection, subterfuge and stealth, and who have a clear-cut goal in mind. Hmmmm...... reminds me of a few other actual, horrific historical forces and their toll. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 12:36:28 AM | | By the way Late, there is ancient Greek art which depicts some things that most of us would consider deplorable; like incest, young boys together, etc... I think we've all been raised with so much of the Puritan/Victorian influence, that we can't see beyond it... | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 12:55:16 AM |
What I object to is the setting up of exclusionary bogeymen as a particularly fearsome problem in the curtailment of violence.
What "exclusionary bogeyman" am I supposed to have set up? I've never once claimed that music is the only "bogeyman" out there. I hope you enjoy kicking the crap out of the straw man argument that you've set up for yourself. Knock yourself out.
I've maintained throughout that violence is a multi-layered, multi-headed gorgon, that when you "cut off" one snake-tail, as you're trying to do, here, then ten other twisting entrails emerge out of their restful states.
Gee whiz, Rory, thanks for the revelation. Duh ... sorry, I guess I was so caught up in my simplistic attacks upon that exclusionary bogeyman that I missed that. Until you came along to enlighten me, I thought that rap songs caused all the violence that has ever happened in human history. I thought that if we could just stop all those bad rap songs all the violence in the world would end instantly -- really I did! What would I do without you to correct my simplistic thinking? I guess we should all just give up trying to make a difference in ANY way or in ANY area of life because those dam* twisting entrails will get us no matter what we do, won't they?
We could go around and around this mulberry bush forever. This is a thread about the power of music. You don't deny that music has power. Surely you won't deny that with power goes responsibility. Here's the statement from my original post that I have maintained throughout and that nothing you have said has effectively refuted: "I believe that songwriters and musicians have far greater power than they realize -- or perhaps than some would care to acknowledge -- and should therefore take some thought as to how they use that power."
So, if you care to and if you can, refute that -- and we can both try to stay on the topic. If not, we really have nothing further to argue about here. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:12:46 AM | If you want to nitpick my detailed post, and focus on the one word, "exclusionary", then perhaps you're right that we have nothing more to talk about. This isn't a quibbling arguement; to me, it's an important one. I wish you were more serious and substantive about it yourself.
If you don't like the word "exclusionary", then try "a specific, well-thought-out list of priorities".
Really, what am I to make of one, as yourself, who neglects any acknowledgement of the role that personal psychology, subjective and selective interpretive siding amongst artistic and entertainment and news media, apathetic citizens, hidden religious conversionists of whatever stripe, ignorance as to the goals and means of artistic expression, financial and social realities of the frustrated enraged ones who spew the filth you decry, and the spiritual responsibility (for better or worse) inherent in every one exposed to the words you fear?
You fear an "end of days" scenario based on our perceived debased moral values, not so much the hoods who have already gone to "the dark side". You're welcome to your faithless outlook on humankind. I prefer to see the tough good sense in most people that, when the going gets scary (not that it is in your example), that good sense will prevail.
I've given more than enough contrasting examples throughout my posts to show how lightweight your fears are next to the extreme historical realities (and circumstance) that existed during those times. If you fear the "dark influence" of pop schlock so much, on what colossally horrific scale would then be ratcheted upward as to international terrorism, religious intolerance, financial inequity and greed?
And don't insult me and the rest of the posters by a condescending put-down to "stay on topic". It's not a simple, one-dimensional question from an OP which doesn't automatically encompass other tangents very much to do with that topic.
I've acknowleged your point that the dreck thrown at the public like already-stale barf is awful.
And late, and myself, have dealt with your naive, and shameless, view that artists, REAL artists, aren't already, and have always, combatted it by doing what they always do-- producing high-level artistic expression through their dedication and high moral calling.
Too bad you can't acknowledge-- through your blinkered hysteria-- a similar recognition of what others have said about the bigger picture. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:38:27 AM |
Too bad you can't acknowledge-- through your blinkered hysteria-- a similar recognition of what others have said about the bigger picture.
I see the bigger picture quite clearly. I hope that the two of you can find happiness together producing your so called "high level artistic expression" through your "dedication and high moral calling" -- meanwhile, when someone else brings up the subject of the moral responsibilities of artists, you launch into a tirade condemning and ridiculing them for it. Talk about "blinkered hysteria"! You're right, pal. We really have nothing left to say to each other.
 | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 10:13:33 AM | | I recently wrote an essay on my fascination with music for my writing class in college, and in it, I mention how after my mountain biking accident, when I was in a wheelchair I was more concerned if I'd ever play my guitars again than if I'd ever walk again. Happily, I have been mobile on my feet for quite some time. Unfortunately I still cannot play my guitars as well. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 11:11:39 AM | Yeah Kevlar~~ Music makes the world go round  | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 11:38:20 AM |
Yeah Kevlar~~ Music makes the world go round
sure does...it also incites mindless masses of youngsters to violence and reprehensible behavior that they would otherwise have never done!
Right AandS? | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 11:47:34 AM | | Only if they're mentally unstable to begin with... Like with anything>>>> | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:03:53 PM |
"Yeah Kevlar~~ Music makes the world go round"
Livewirehere
"sure does...it also incites mindless masses of youngsters to violence and reprehensible behavior that they would otherwise have never done!
Right AandS?"
JustJazz
"Only if they're mentally unstable to begin with... Like with anything>>>>"
Livewirehere
Jazz, does it make you feel important or satisfy some deep need within you to lash out at someone by misrepresenting their argument and then ridiculing them for it? Are you, like several irresponsible debaters here, implying that I have somehow indicted music itself? I'll refer you to the original post which suggested that (a) music is powerful (b) power can be used in both positive and negative ways (c) artists who wield such power should take care how they use it. Which of these premises do you deny, if any?
If you are serious about making a real contribution here, please don't launch into a tirade about what "real music" or "real art" is. In a sense, I agree with you completely on that -- as I have made clear here more than once. Still, if you want to argue against my original points, those comments are just as irrelevant as statements to the effect that musicians and other artists are not the only ones who have responsibilities in this respect. I have never denied that nor did I ever suggest otherwise.
Livewire, I have never debated -- and have more than once acknowledged in this thread -- the point that those who commit violent acts and indulge in reprehensible behaviour are NOT entitled to "blame the music" as an excuse for their actions or as a way of escaping responsibility for their actions. Indeed, most if not all of these people were no doubt "mentally unstable" -- or morally suspect at least -- "to begin with". My point has been that responsible artists would not reinforce, encourage and justify such anti-social tendencies by creating and performing songs that do just that. You seem to feel that we should just "look away". I disagree. I believe that it is both our right and our duty to call artists in general to consider the power that they have and to choose to adopt a higher sense of responsibility in regard to its application. For all who DO adopt such a higher sense of responsibility I have nothing but respect. For those who do not, my point remains.
Furthermore, how "mentally stable" ARE impressionable youngsters who listen to such "music"? Are these youngsters not in the very process of forming the attitudes that they will carry through their adult lives? Should we just "look away" while "gangsta rappers" and others play their regrettable part in helping them to adopt anti-social attitudes?
To all and sundry here who seem to enjoy the sport of attacking my position with irrelevancies and "straw man arguments": I'd like to clear something up once and for all and remove another false label that some here seem eager to slap on my back -- presumably so that they can feel important or morally and intellectually superior when they attack me on the basis of that label. I have never once advocated "banning" any type of "art" -- so called or not -- in society in general. I have certainly spoken out against people who promote "art" that I consider to be an irresponsible use of their artistic power. Again, I consider that to be my right and my duty -- but to label me as some kind of "censor" on that basis is NOT an example of arguing with integrity. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:08:17 PM | | It all depends on the individuals mental capacity. Some see music as a power of unity. People who don't speak the same language are often united through a common love for music. I admit, some guys at shows are all about getting s***faced drunk and beating the s*** outta anyone in the moshpit. THAT is not cool!! I've been to a few shows like that in the past, and it wasn't all that fun. Normally, people are nice to each other at punk rock shows, and offer a hand to anyone who falls in the pit. Those over aggressive @$$holes give punk rock, and harder music a bad name | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:08:41 PM | | It all depends on the individuals mental capacity. Some see music as a power of unity. People who don't speak the same language are often united through a common love for music. I admit, some guys at shows are all about getting s***faced drunk and beating the s*** outta anyone in the moshpit. THAT is not cool!! I've been to a few shows like that in the past, and it wasn't all that fun. Normally, people are nice to each other at punk rock shows, and offer a hand to anyone who falls in the pit. Those over aggressive @$$holes give punk rock, and harder music a bad name | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:12:45 PM | artandsoul, are you having difficulty reading the English language?
Every post of mine has been detailed, with several points from different angles refuting your "one-note-Johnny" OP. You then asked me, again, in your second-to-last-post to refute it (since you obviously didn't like the many compelling answers I gave to your OP), or else bow out of the thread. (Veiled threats aren't cool.) I then explicitly answered, again, your OP. So I'll repeat it once again: I agreed with the, on the face of it, simple and obvious observation that kids screeching filth over the airwaves was awful. I then answered, again, your ONLY OTHER POINT that artists have always dealt with the challenge you set up for them to combat the dreck being produced.
You, on the other hand, since your only two points have been answered well and thoughtfully(and I'll remind you it was you who, like a chastising school teacher, said to "stick to the topic of the OP"), went on to expand your OP with your hysterical futuristic nightmare. That, I submit, is certainly straying from the OP if you want to be hypocritical about it, and which required,-- no, begged-- for an answer, which was forthcoming, and which you similarly neglected.
I could, and would, go on with other, equalling thoughtful and compelling arguements-- I have many other angles of the topic to discuss-- but it's obvious that you can't, or won't, deal with them. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:42:04 PM | Rory, are YOU having difficulty understanding the English language? Or are you perhaps having trouble arguing responsibly and with any integrity at all? I have NEVER asked you to "bow out of the thread". Would you be so kind as to quote the number of the message in which I am supposed to have said this? Is this false accusation just another example of the way that some people like to twist another's argument around to satisfy their own need to appear morally and intellectually superior?
You are obviously a pretty intelligent guy. In reality, we probably have far more points of agreement than is obvious in the unproductive and aggravating argument that we have been carrying on here. I've enjoyed many of the comments you have made and have acknowledged that here. Things went terribly awry after that and it's become obvious to me that further debate with you is a needless vexation to my own spirit and that nothing will ever be resolved between us in any case. Argue away and keep posting in this thread your "other, equalling thoughtful and compelling arguements" to your heart's content. That is your right. I am under no obligation to respond to your posts or to continue arguing with you -- and I have decided to exercise my own right to ignore you. If you want to believe that my decision is motivated by an inability to respond adequately to your brilliance, knock yourself out. It's a free world. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:42:58 PM | OK. Look, it's obvious you're not going to give a point-by-point come-back to the many points I've made. I have never asked, and it would be silly of me, to expect total agreement. All I want is a specific acknowledgement of the stance I'VE made vis-a-vis to your arguement. I've dealt with your points to the best of my ability, as I've mentioned.
One thing that frustrates me about your OP is that it's completely vague, (the call for "positive" music, whatever that means). How can anyone argue with your obvious point that music, pop music, has been increasingly mindless, amoral, and of no talent? Certainly we agree on that. It's your second point that causes me great difficulty in assimilating. You challenge artists, musicians, entertainers, to combat the problem. But that's not the way I see the calling and function of art:
1) Art is not prescriptive, as I dealt with on page 1 or 2: this means that it is not a simplistic morality lesson where a "good message" is trotted out in sterile and didactic fashion.
2) Art is not simplistic. I've dealt with this in the context of how violence is depicted in art, the means the artist uses to get his or her point across, so that the listener, if he or she has any imagination, can then complete the "message" (if one is to be so heavy-handed about it) themselves, thereby having a much greater impact on "change" in the song or music's effect on the cultural ethos.
3) Art is not reactive. (This ties in with the previous point.) The hoods you speak of are reactive in the worst sense: spewing venom at a society they feel, justifiably or not, has let them down. Art, on the other hand, sets up its own initiatory "message" or imaginative vision. The best art is trailblazing, in which others then react with or against-- this is where real change is effected, not in a knee-jerk, dumbed-down attempt to engage the mouth-breathers in their own ball park and on their own terms.
So there, if that's a more understandable answer for you, is how I see your question as to how to challenge the "negativity" of current pop culture. Again, it's what artists have always done.
Why don't I include entertainers in the mix? It's not their position to take on moral challenges. The definition of entertainment is to largely avoid serious issues, as well it should be. There are times I like to be humored or enthralled without any illusion that I'm under the spell of great art. This is why you have to identify, specifically, the musical forces which are the apogeal contrast to the nasty forces you are talking about.
Thank you for opening the thread so that I could make my views heard. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 4:38:52 PM |
Thank you for opening the thread so that I could make my views heard.
OK, Rory ... things are looking up. You're welcome re my opening of this thread. I did so because I feel it to be a very important issue. Noone is more aware than I of how controversial the issue can be after having dealt with it for the past five years in connection with the non profit music society that I founded -- at least in part based on my feelings about this issue. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I am fully prepared to defend my beliefs when they do not.
It's unfortunate that intellectual disagreements frequently become so personally rancorous that productive debate and discussion becomes impossible. I am willing and able to move past that and it seems that you are too. I thank you for that and also for your good contributions to this thread.
All I want is a specific acknowledgement of the stance I'VE made vis-a-vis to your arguement.
I will give each of the points you made in your last post some thought and respond to them soon. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/18/2006 8:58:58 PM | | My and mine have deemed this power "The Funk". It doesnt mean just funk music of course but anything that can move you, make your body tingle, etc. When your foot starts tapping or you cant help but join in that is the funk my friend. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:10:44 AM | I don't mean to personally attack you artandsoul, and I guess I thought you'd get that... It's just my opinion. I was involved in some pretty risky behavior as a teen and you know what the music was like in the mid to late 70's. Yet, it didn't incite me to commit crimes or misbehave. My own mind did that to me~~~ REALLY~~~
I just hope we can all agree to disagree, if that's what it comes down to. Times change, but if you look closely, they don't change all that much>>>>  | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:56:56 AM | I don't mean to personally attack you artandsoul, and I guess I thought you'd get that...
I never really thought that you did, Livewire. It wasn't you I was referring to as part of the "all and sundry" in the post that I assume you are answering. Thanks for being concerned enough to make the above statement. I never really took offence at what you said though I did disagree with it, as you know. Yes, we may disagree and hopefully we can do so in an agreeable manner. Peace to you.
Granted, sometimes "the more things change, the more they stay the same". I do think nevertheless that some things have changed considerably and that many of the changes are not for the better. If you can pardon my dramatic expression here -- and I don't remember who said this beautiful line -- I "rage against the dying of the light". Some have to call attention to disturbing trends and say, hold on, things are going too far, let's conserve some decency and not just let the louts take over. It may be a hopeless cause but I think it's worth taking up. It reminds me of a great saying:
"The world favours underdogs but follows only top dogs. Fight for a few underdogs anyway." (from a book called "Anyway -- The Paradoxical Commandments" by Kent M. Keith) | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 6:55:32 AM |
controversial the issue can be after having dealt with it for the past five years in connection with the non profit music society that I founded
Just curious in what way you had to deal with a persons moral values in regards to their "music" in your "music society"? That is what your OP boils down too, that your idea of what is right and good are just that, right and good. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and I must deal with them | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:57:34 PM |
Just curious in what way you had to deal with a persons moral values in regards to their "music" in your "music society"? That is what your OP boils down too, that your idea of what is right and good are just that, right and good. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and I must deal with them
Jazz, what we've had to deal with is people who seem to feel that they should be allowed to play, sing or say anything their little heart desires at any time and in any place. When they are told that there are limits regarding that within our association, many of them start beating their chests about "censorship".
Occasionally, we do have to say that a certain song can't be played at our events. Despite the fact that our stance on this was clearly laid out in our literature, in our early years, even people who had taken positions on our executive committee got irate when they realized the implications of it and left, calling us "censors" because we disallowed the song "Goodbye Earl". Check message 111 in this thread for more details on that.
There are two passages in our mission statement that we are bound by in this respect.
One, our (fifth) purpose: to promote the expression of the universal language of music as a positive and creative force in our community and beyond
Two, an unalterable provision: we will not support, sponsor or endorse music whose content is deemed by the association to be demoralizing or degrading to any person or class of persons or otherwise in contradiction to the purpose stated above.
To help us decide what makes the cut and what doesn't, a set of guidelines was developed and approved at membership meetings that is very similar to what has been accepted by the Australian Recording Industry Association. Basically it says that you can't play at our events -- or under our sponsorship -- anything that glorifies, promotes, incites or instructs in such matters as criminal violence, hard drug abuse, sexual violence, child abuse or other activities commonly deemed abhorrent. When people start preaching to me about the evils of "censorship", I tell them they can hear and buy that stuff at any number of other places, they just won't get it at our events nor will it ever come out "under our banner", eg, on any recording projects sponsored by our association. Then I ask them which "banned" activity they think we SHOULD support -- child abuse? rape? murder?
In reality, for all the chestbeating that goes on about "freedom of speech", every one of us practises a form of "censorship" or "self censorship" on a daily basis. We don't use the same kind of language if we are dealing with a customer at work that we might use in the locker room. We don't say whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, do we? We don't stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "fire" for the fun of it. Nor do we allow others to say -- or sing -- whatever they might want to at any given time. If people come into your home, you probably wouldn't allow them to use certain language in front of your children. You certainly wouldn't allow them to start singing a song about having sex with children or animals, I would assume. If you once take a stand curtailing ANY "freedom of speech", you've admitted that there are limits to it. Then it becomes a matter of deciding exactly where to draw the line. | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 4:39:27 PM | Music is my drug of choice... I dont have to snort, shoot , smoke or pay to get it......
Turn on the computer, load my library and hit random...there is no rush in this world that can compare to it... add a couple crown and cokes, and your all set.... | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:06:04 PM | artandsoul, thanks for opening up as to what your position entails. You certainly have the right to set up a statement and adhere to it.
Many people know, but many more would be shocked, if they knew how much "selective programming" is already in place, as in your instance, to combat the spread of bile and hate, but also, as I have pointed out, many other creative efforts that can be mistakenly interpreted as "offensive" to some person, to certain groups, or even to "the moral foundations of society", to be grandiose about it.
Along that line, I dug up some verse of mine from ten months back that I posted on POF in a poetry exchange, where specific topics were suggested, and the posters wrote something with those set titles. I'm under no illusions that this is "art" (gawd): I dashed it off in about ten minutes. But it references, directly, my point in my last post, point 2, and its first-person speaker is a musician. As lyrics, would these fly with your society? I doubt it, even though you have every right to call the shots.
TWELVE DAYS AND I AM A STAR
Twelve days and I am a star,
I'm phoning my friends and spreading the word;
this'll be the greatest thing they ever heard.
I'll pull up to the concert in a bulletproof car.
Yeah, sure, you laugh, I'm just the opening act,
but I get things revved up for the aging KISS,
what a chance to upstage those fogeys is this !
I'll tear the house down and that's a fact.
They won't dare to pull me offstage so quick
when I swear and spit and rage and flash,
just look at all that teenage punk gash.
Up their asses with gusto I'll shove a guitar pick.
Break out the beer, boys ! It's party time tonight.
The record company suits'll be kissing my ass
when my tunes sound like synthesizers passing gas.
After my first million, I'll just quit and get tight.
Misinterpretations, confusion of context, missed ironical direction, identifying the narrator in all cases with the creator: it's an old story. Many people in postions of power as to whether or not to air, promote, and/or publish work that, superficially, looks as if it were beyond the bar of "good taste" (how I've come to loathe those two words), have fuzzy, misguided, and inconsistent views regarding what is art, or even what is morally acceptable. In obvious cases, it's good there are hindrances, even laws to reject it; in all too many other cases, the baby (art; or at least acceptable entertainment ) gets thrown out with the bathwater (hate-filled junk). | |
|
| The power of music
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:51:54 AM | Rory, I'll answer your posts with my take on things in bite size pieces because they are complex questions.
One thing that frustrates me about your OP is that it's completely vague, (the call for "positive" music, whatever that means).
Rory, I did give some thoughts on this one in message 111 which I'll more or less reiterate and add to here: 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 Love" is another example. I particularly admire artists who can pull off a new song with that kind of message which doesn't sound schmaltzy and cliche ridden. Phil Collins "Another Day in Paradise" is a more recent example of a song that really has a positive lyrical message in that it brings attention to the plight of homeless people -- and it does so in a creative, entertaining and musically satisfying way. Ya gotta love old Phil.
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?" We all want a little "bite" in our entertainment too.
Granting your point that the primary function of entertainers is not necessarily to teach or to preach but primarily to entertain -- one might consider that in itself to be a positive use of one's artistic talents. We all want to hear a haunting melody, a great guitar riff, an infectious rhythm, a thrilling chord progression, etc, etc. Those things bring joy to our lives so that in itself is positive enough. The lyrics don't always have to be profound; even silly little love songs have their place.
It's when vile lyrical messages get thrown into the mix -- such as those that glorify and glamorize murder, etc -- that I get upset. In those cases, it seems to me that everyone involved -- the musicians, the "industry" and the public itself -- shares in the responsibility for what I consider to be a violation of their obligations as responsible and moral persons. If you can pardon a dramatic analogy here, in these cases, one might call the musicians and others involved on the "creative" end to be the "prostitute", the industry to be the "pimp" and the public who clamor for this kind of thing to be the "John". Now, I can expect to get blasted from someone for that one, I suppose; if so, bring it on, what else is new? Nevertheless, it occurs to me now, after using that analogy, that I'm as likely to be successful in restraining this so called "artistic expression" as human societies have been in curbing the so called "oldest profession"!
So, I'll stick with my music association and hope that we and the artists who emerge from our midst -- in part at least due to our efforts because one of our purposes is to discover and help develop emerging artists -- can function as a sort of oasis in the desert. We can't really change what goes on in the world out there. All we can really do is to be an example of something better.
Response to your other points coming later.... as mentioned, and as you know, they are pretty complex and deep questions. I don't just want to bang off something that doesn't do them justice. Take care, my friend. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
