Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> The educational/academic establishments now promote music which > "most people don't consider music". they do? i can't think of an educational establishment promoting someone like Merzbow or Pita, even Einsutrzende Neubaten or La Mont Young, an art-mag darling. (well, maybe La Mont...) they promote so- called "new music" (Philip Glass), basically classical music updated a little. it's still tied to all the previous pseudo-scientific "rules" from the 18th century of music theory. most people might not like it, but i suspect they consider it music. it's simply a class differentiation (or education difference, or degree of indoctrination some might say) for people to appreciate Mozart or Varese or Stockhausen instead of The Gypsy Kings or the Rolling Stones. of course there are interesting differences in these groups in their political implications for where society is headed. but in the larger view, they are not particularly radical in their organization of noise. we have had people like Cage and Eno and all sorts of other "mainstream" intellectuals that i think really have heralded some kind of significant change. but that was the point of the article, and esp. something like Attali's book "Noise: the Political Economy of Music". that changes, social and political changes in society, are seen first in music. so to the extent that music different now than 100 years ago is taught in the academic world, we can see the truth of this - the changes that have come about politically and socially in that same time. some things are quite different and others not so much... a Kurt Schwitters sound-poem from 1920 is still pretty radical, for example, whereas Eno is quite accepted, at least sonically if not so much philosophically. and note that the academic establishment has had to incorporate these new developments after-the- fact, it was not the originator. i think Attali's point about a future stage of "composers" (which he wrote 30 years ago), where the former passive consumer of music, whose main function was a capitalistic one of purchasing recordings of music, instead in some fashion creates (or 'composes') their own music has proved somewhat accurate. he could not forsee PodCasts, file sharing, mash-ups, ableton Live, and so on, but given his remoteness his prescience seems remarkable. needless to say, i highly recommend his book "Noise" to anyone with a smidgen of interest in music, philosophy, politics or society. i think people who don't "believe" in politics are playing into the hands of those systems who would control us. just because we are lucky enough to live in a comfortable situation, should we be sheep and run around consuming and sensually enjoying life without actually participating as full-fledged independent, thinking, human beings? to say "oh i hate when these political types start ranting" is of course to to play straight into the hands of the status quo. i'm not saying someone needs to jump right in to any political discussion, anywhere anytime, but at least privately realize the political ramifications of their participation in the world in all its aspects, and not to deny these things. my semi-coherent 2-cent rambling, once again ;) - you will now be returned to your regular broadcast -3nki On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:27 AM, a k butler wrote: > At 17:27 03/04/06, you wrote: >> music >> which most people don't even consider music could be seen as the most >> radical as it is defying the dominant value-system, whose ultimate >> purpose is of course control. a much broader system of control than >> "left wing" or "communist" labels imply. > > Not these days surely? > The educational/academic establishments now promote music which > "most people don't consider music". > ...and of course those establishments are the tool of government, > and of course they are a big part of the dominant value system. > > andy b > > > >