One could say that contemporary musics the past 20 years or so) downfall is that we have attached the nasty habit of compartmentalizing it from its original intent...which is-in the most humanly innate sense-to entertain human emotion.We package it,process it,compress it,chop it and polish it all to serve a premeditated (advertised) desire that may not exist.Neil Young once said he preferred the sound quality of Vynl to the unnatural sound quality of the CD.Its barriers exist heavily in media driven capitalistic cultures/society's like here in the US.I am curious how much of the music we listen to is as holistic as it were originally intended? I assume thats what makes basement tapes so interesting...the process of sound development (or creative intent) can be heard.How are society's affected when they are not exposed to the creative process?Even the non-artist should have a slight comprehension of the artistic sacrifice.Could it be that our emotions and lived experiences are compromised when musics organic (holistic) intention is not exposed?Can a seventh generation recording of aboriginal music retain its pure intent in this format?
Keep in mind that we may be in a new kind of digital revolution. When Napster and Limewire presented itself (to money hording record companies) as a resource of free music, also surfaced the idea that accessible music was a tool of empowerment~that music was ours again.The idea that accessible-free music (regardless of its category or genre) may speak to our emotions more freely as opposed to a more corporate controlled entity is something I feel that's is research worthy.In this sense the quality of its impact in our lives could be a different experience.
Swinging back to my post regarding the transformation of bohemian (index) cultures, where music actually began as an accessible venture...then shifts in content,venue and position in commerce, is also something that interests me.For example ,Woodstock 69 was intended as a capitalistic venture and it ended up being a free event,what if the fence never came down? This fact I believe contributed much to the events impact socially and politically~not just here in the U.S. but globally.
Thank you for your sharing your email with me.Culturally Ishamel and I have may have a different experiences with music ...but its lived existence in our emotions (whatever form and or concept) is something I am sure we can relate to.Think of the global impact the Beatles music has example,our attachment to it in a lived sense could be something we may all share.Now the Beatles music was not free,they made a ton of money and still do.Yet what makes their music touch us so,while still having underlying capitalistic intent?Regardless each moment, within each song, could mean something different for all of us.The idea then shifts to the creative control of the artist.I believe if the Beatles did not inolve themselves in their own creative process, then it would have had less of an impact.Briefly,I explored this idea in another post "Leadership In The Arena" regarding an experience I had just recently with a band (Rush) I quite fancy.
John Kane
I think the whole issue of "original intent" in regard to various musics is highly debatable. This kind of orientation (or aesthetic) took over the classical music world for a time (several times in fact....each in different ways interestingly) and has been intensely debated in that realm for 150 years or so.
ReplyDeleteThrow in the commercial angle....and "economic analysis" of the effect of selling musics to people....and where is intent? It's a pretty complex dynamic.
I'm currently reading Marc Shell's book Art and Money. It's not an easy read....but his core contention is that the Marxist economic argument (the argument against capital is misleading). That the real original of the relationship between money and art (or musics for that matter) is religious and spiritual and goes back much further in western culture than the economic analysis that we most often apply these days.
In the Venda Music of South Africa the intent or the creators and performers has to be understood in political and social terms. Otherwise, you simply can't appreciate the music except as a kind of sentimental exoticism.
I'm always interested in how musics work on the surface....not in the in depth analysis. Music that's commercially appealing has many surfaces that attract listeners....from pure collectors (I have to have it) to people who are moved by the lyrics....by the rhythm....by the instrumentation (whether acoustic or digitally created).
So....there's the intent of the creators (some powerful arguments would have to be created for understanding the essential human element in all musics) and then there are the cultural understandings of what's going on. There is no necessary relationship between the two....although there may indeed be connections.
I think the whole issue of "original intent" in regard to various musics is highly debatable. This kind of orientation (or aesthetic) took over the classical music world for a time (several times in fact....each in different ways interestingly) and has been intensely debated in that realm for 150 years or so.
ReplyDeleteThrow in the commercial angle....and "economic analysis" of the effect of selling musics to people....and where is intent? It's a pretty complex dynamic.
I'm currently reading Marc Shell's book Art and Money. It's not an easy read....but his core contention is that the Marxist economic argument (the argument against capital is misleading). That the real original of the relationship between money and art (or musics for that matter) is religious and spiritual and goes back much further in western culture than the economic analysis that we most often apply these days.
In the Venda Music of South Africa the intent or the creators and performers has to be understood in political and social terms. Otherwise, you simply can't appreciate the music except as a kind of sentimental exoticism.
I'm always interested in how musics work on the surface....not in the in depth analysis. Music that's commercially appealing has many surfaces that attract listeners....from pure collectors (I have to have it) to people who are moved by the lyrics....by the rhythm....by the instrumentation (whether acoustic or digitally created).
So....there's the intent of the creators (some powerful arguments would have to be created for understanding the essential human element in all musics) and then there are the cultural understandings of what's going on. There is no necessary relationship between the two....although there may indeed be connections.
Hi Allan,
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading "The Rise of The Creative Class" By Richard Florida.
In the chapter called "The Creative Ethos" he says (Pg 30) "Creativity is often viewed as a rather mystical affair."
His analysis encompasses all forms of creativity including music.He goes on to say (Pg 31)"Creativity involves the ability to synthesize.Einstein captured it nicely when he called his own work "combinatory play".Its a matter of sifting through data,perceptions and materials to come up with combination's that are new and useful."
Allan, when the creator is "synthesized" is he or she free of the baggage of commercial success.The self assured artist may apply an ethos of holistic intent at the point of creative genesis.
Is "Ethos" the word we are looking for?
Thanks,
JK