# File Under Popular



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This is the title of a book by Chris Cutler (Henry Cow), avowed Marxist/musicologist. Also, "Absolute Music" by Arved Ashby. These books question the post-modern nature of "art" music vs. popular. As everyone knows from reading my blogs, I have largely resolved these issues, but there is more detailed food for thought in these 2 tomes, which I will ponder, absorb, and use in later polemics...

Cutler's view, predictably, is that music as a "commodity" (similar to Adorno's scathing views of jazz and popular music in general) insures its banallity, if it's only that and no more. He offers exceptions: music can be a commodity, yet transcend that function (as I have said many times regarding The Beatles). He also emphasizes "folk" music, as being "of the people;" predictable, since he is a hard-core Marxist. His ideas on performance,however, are very valuable, when examining the question of "absolute" music, as a score, as an artifact, or as a performance. Things get complicated in the post-modern era of recordings and DVDs.

For that reason, a first reading of Ashby's "Absolute Music: Mechanical Reproduction" adresses these very questions and definItions. For Ashby, you must get his use of the term "absolute music," which did not exist until the 18th century, the era of symphonies, secular concert halls, an emerging middle-class, and the notion of "art" music; music designed for "sublime contemplation" in and of itself, not as a descriptor or addendum to dramatic staged action and plot/dialogue.

Glenn Gould is cited as the first classical musician to consider the "performance" (as a fixed artifact, not simply na commodity, although it is that as well) as the ultimate reference. For Gould, there was no "absolute" standard or "best/most faithful" version of anything; only what he deemed "the best take." This is very similar to Chris Cutler's view of "performance" as in jazz, without score, as being the ultimate record or product. Gone is the older "Biblical" paradigm of the composer as God, issuing-forth his written score as the 
"Gospel" to which all performances are subsumed as mere attempts at manifestation of "The Word;" after all, in the era before recording technology, it's easy to see how this paradigm of the score held power. As a comparison, the use of printing technology revolutionized the view of the Bible, in the same way; the "artifact" of the printed book changed everything. In the same way, the score once held sway, as a form of "writing and reading," but is being displaced by the recorded performance.
So, take heart, ye bearers of 50 different versions of Mahler symphonies; each one is different, none will ever attain perfection as the "definitive" version, just as The Bible can be interpreted in different ways.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Let's not forget that often a heaping helping of (file under?) hypocracy is included with beliefs, basically nullifying whatever those beliefs were or are.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Gone is the older "Biblical" paradigm of the composer as God, issuing-forth his written score as the "Gospel" to which all performances are subsumed as mere attempts at manifestation of "The Word;"


This is, just by the way, not a terribly accurate depiction of Biblical reality. It is, unfortunately, a spot on description of the most common current (distorted) way of looking at that reality.

As an example, you can only talk about the written score to which all performances are subsumed as "Gospel" by ignoring the etymology of that word. It was originally a calque of the Greek for good message. Only later, when the good message had been turned into something like "commandment" can you use "gospel" to mean something pejorative. In fact, come to think of it, the score as "commandment" is historically fairly recent. Up to the classical era (improperly so-called), written scores were more or less mnemonic devices for improvisation. (I say "more or less" because composers wrote them to be that, but there were some Baroque theoriticians who had the idea of fixedness that would result in the score as Beethoven and beyond would perceive it. (This came at the end of the transition period in which the entire logic of previous centuries would be carefully isolated (ghettoized) as the cadenza. By Beethoven, even the cadenza was a thing that was written out in detail.))

One of my favorite things about the twentieth century, philosophically, was how it turned away from the practices of the nineteenth century to revive/restore (philosophically) the practices of pre-"classical music" musics.

(I would add Derek Bailey's _Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice in Music_ to your list of books that music lovers should read. Lovers only, please. People in it for the prestige need not apply.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Hypocracy;" A term describing "too much government"? Anyway, if you read the book (or the little tome "Music" in the Very Short Introduction series), they're all grappling with the same issues. Glenn Gould is a good example; his Goldbergs "hit" in 1955; in a very big way, even though they existed in score all that time previous; his recorded performance suddenly made us aware of them in a new light.
So Gould placed a new importance on the listener, and on recording as performance/interpretation as being as important, if not more so, than the score.
By contrast, his Beethoven late sonatas have always been criticized. If nothing else, this underscores a conservative tendency regarding Beethoven, exemplified by the reverence Schnabel's "definitive" recorded versions have long held, as well as Toscannini, Furtwangler, etc.
I've discussed before the act of listening to old historic 78's, etc, as being more akin to "reading" as a medium, since it is so "hot" (see McLuhan, "Understanding Media" for understanding of the use of these terms).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> "Hypocracy;" A term describing "too much government"? Anyway, if you read the book (or the little tome "Music" in the Very Short Introduction series), they're all grappling with the same issues. Glenn Gould is a good example; his Goldbergs "hit" in 1955; in a very big way, even though they existed in score all that time previous; his recorded performance suddenly made us aware of them in a new light.
> So Gould placed a new importance on the listener, and on recording as performance/interpretation as being as important, if not more so, than the score.
> By contrast, his Beethoven late sonatas have always been criticized. If nothing else, this underscores a conservative tendency regarding Beethoven, exemplified by the reverence Schnabel's "definitive" recorded versions have long held, as well as Toscannini, Furtwangler, etc.
> I've discussed before the act of listening to old historic 78's, etc, as being more akin to "reading" as a medium, since it is so "hot" (see McLuhan, "Understanding Media" for understanding of the use of these terms).


Anybody less conservative than these artists that you have mentioned I cannot imagine.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

millionrainbows said:


> This is the title of a book by Chris Cutler (Henry Cow), avowed Marxist/musicologist.


Is this Henry Cow as in RIO? With the socks and stuff? Astonishingly creative lot.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, same Cow. I think what Karman was trying to say is that the score, as a guide to performance, is not definitive, since performances change; but this misses the point that the recorded artifact is, in fact, unchangeable; thus, the idea of "definitive" version emerges, and what criteria to use in determining this. Some, like Schnabel and Toscannini have constantly referred to the score, as being the ultimate determining factor in a "definitive" or accurate performance; artist like Gould, with his "Gouldbergs," have re-defined the idea of definitive as being the recorded performance. That's the real issue here, not the distracting issue of my off-hand use of the term "gospel." Gee, I hope I haven't offended anyone.
Some of these responses seem irrelevant. I suppose there is no-one really prepared to discuss this subject, although I find it fascinating, and an aid to my overall understanding of popular vs. classical music, among other things.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Music is a performance art, so each new recreation has to make it new. It lives in performance and not simply on the page. And in the sense that it is something which is created and then recreated it is a valuable commodity which can be re-used and food for thought, as opposed to just a basic commodity which is just used and thrown away.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> This is the title of a book by Chris Cutler (Henry Cow), avowed Marxist/musicologist. Also, "Absolute Music" by Arved Ashby. These books question the post-modern nature of "art" music vs. popular. As everyone knows from reading my blogs, I have largely resolved these issues, but there is more detailed food for thought in these 2 tomes, which I will ponder, absorb, and use in later polemics...
> 
> Cutler's view, predictably, is that music as a "commodity" (similar to Adorno's scathing views of jazz and popular music in general) insures its banallity, if it's only that and no more. He offers exceptions: music can be a commodity, yet transcend that function (as I have said many times regarding The Beatles). He also emphasizes "folk" music, as being "of the people;" predictable, since he is a hard-core Marxist. His ideas on performance,however, are very valuable, when examining the question of "absolute" music, as a score, as an artifact, or as a performance. Things get complicated in the post-modern era of recordings and DVDs.
> 
> ...


Other than hunter-gatherers performing for their own entertainment on instruments they made themselves, I cannot imagine music that isn't in some real sense a commodity. Someone commissions the music, someone pays the performers (in kind if not in cash). Even in ordinary folk music, just performed among friends for fun, even when no lessons had been paid for nor any instructional materials bought, some of the instruments have been bought. And ordinary hunter-gatherer groups engaged in trade with other groups and to some degree among themselves, so likely enough an ordinary hunter-gather folk performance it'd be hard to ensure that none of the elements had been adulterated by commodification. I can understand how a Marxist might object to industrialism, but not to commerce as a whole. (FWIW I almost always find Marxist thought, beneath all the flashy jargon, extremely banal - at its best, it's an impressive amalgamation of "the banal and the ridiculous.")

Also, if the idea that the performance is absolute is supposed to be Marxist (I'm not sure that is what you meant because I can't tell whether or where the subject changed during the course of that post), then it's deeply ironic that the idea (that the performance is absolute) is at least in part a marketing tool.

So, according to either of these theorists, or according to anyone else, how precisely can commodity-music transcend its commodity-nature? Is some kind of subversive class consciousness necessary?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well I think something that is shared and distributed even without economic advantage could be considered a commodity which people take and use for their benefit. As something which takes effort to produce it could be considered to have some value which people recognise and acknowledge.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> Well I think something that is shared and distributed even without economic advantage could be considered a commodity which people take and use for their benefit. As something which takes effort to produce it could be considered to have some value which people recognise and acknowledge.


But of course you're legitimising the exploitation of the working class! (I'm just kidding, BTW!)


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> an aid to my overall understanding of popular vs. classical music, among other things.


This seems to me to be a very peculiar thing to want. I would say that it comes straight out of the nineteenth century idea that "classical" would be a dandy thing to modify "music." Et voila. From that time on, we've had the idea that "classical music" is different, superior, morally uplifting. In what's now called the "classical era," there was a vague sense that there were differences between a glee and an opera aria and a movement from a symphony, but the only practical use of that sense was to ensure that your concerts all contained representatives of each type.

I would also point out that in practice, the recorded artifact is not unchangeable, either. That is, regardless of the fixedness of the media, each person listening to it and each time the same person listens to it, there will be different experiences. How easy it is to forget the whole point of having a piece of music on the one hand and a listener on the other hand, namely, to combine the two in order to make an experience.

The artifact exists, unchanging. But without someone putting the artifact on or in a playback machine and listening to it, the artifact's existence is quite remarkably exiguous. I'd be inclined to say that there is something there but that it doesn't really _exist_ until someone listens to it. But perhaps a discussion of existence would just be another derailment.

(Where did the idea of a conversation being like a choo-choo train come from? It's so, um, fascistic. As it were.

A conversation is more like a ramble, eh? A nice ramble through the countryside with some friends.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, same Cow. I think what Karman was trying to say is that the score, as a guide to performance, is not definitive, since performances change; but this misses the point that the recorded artifact is, in fact, unchangeable; thus, the idea of "definitive" version emerges, and what criteria to use in determining this. Some, like Schnabel and Toscannini have constantly referred to the score, as being the ultimate determining factor in a "definitive" or accurate performance; artist like Gould, with his "Gouldbergs," have re-defined the idea of definitive as being the recorded performance. That's the real issue here, not the distracting issue of my off-hand use of the term "gospel." Gee, I hope I haven't offended anyone.
> Some of these responses seem irrelevant. I suppose there is no-one really prepared to discuss this subject, although I find it fascinating, and an aid to my overall understanding of popular vs. classical music, among other things.


What fascinates me, and I have a deep reflex against, are these supposedly learned, intellectual and deep tomes which use elaborate constructs, grafting on political ideologies, etc. to something which I think is beyond simple and flamingly obvious... a live performance from score is a oner and a temporal event, with a beginning, middle and end, and the recorded performance is fixed.

So you decide you like a particular recording, listen to it repeatedly, as a performer you refer to it, or somewhat or near wholesale model your performance after the one recorded, and Bob is your uncle.

Unless you've got an extraordinarily remarkable capacity of an eiditic aural memory, or have developed your hearing to a degree the blind pianist has who won the Cliburn competition, you are going to be reading from that score to play the piece.

I just don't get the excitement or big whup of it all.

I'd file this all under "False Excitement," or "Popular but needless academic hype."


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

I love false excitement!!! WOW!!!!!!

YEAH!!!!!!!!

False excitement, WOO HOO!!!

Popular but needless academic hype? I can take it or leave it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I see it as not overly intellectual, but almost too basic, too simplistic for most folks operating on assumption and habit, to question the very basic functions. Now, some guy is starting to sound like Elijah Wald. Even in popular music there are distinctions which I wish to agree with, such as Jimi Hendrix being a more substantial experience than his contemporaries The Monkees. As Monterey Pop demonstrated (The Monkees were not invited), even as it was happening, this "fact" was recognized. But I have no need to argue this area further, I simply am exploring what criteria are accepted as being indicators of "definitive" performances or versions, and how this has changed with the advent of recording.
As I have said before, "music as commodity" is a fact of life in our era; yet one can see which music has transcended this category to become more. Again, The Monkees are a good case in point, created as the "Pre-fab Four" for a television series. In fact, Michael Nesmith (the "smart" Monkee) uses this as a defense against comparison, saying "Hey, it was created for TV, it's unfair to compare us." Yet, any cognizant pop fan would acknowledge the superiority of Hendrix as "art" which has well-transcended the boundaries of mere pop commodity.
Therein lies the difference; art is human, whereas mere commodity is simply consumable stuff designed to "feed the machine."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Some Hendrix could be widely considered good, some not so good. The same with pop music. Nesmith incidentally went on to do more substantial music than anything I at least know he did with The Monkees.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Therein lies the difference; art is human, whereas mere commodity is simply consumable stuff designed to "feed the machine."


So it's all a commodity but some of it is also art. In this case, it looks like we've replaced straightforward terms like "good" and "bad" with unnecessary economic jargon. Perhaps there's an intention to preserve the idea that ours is "real art" and theirs isn't, but I've put a deal of thought into that and can't find anything in that idea that is more useful than the more straightforward and more accurate idea that we think our art is better than theirs.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Therein lies the difference; art is human, whereas mere commodity is simply consumable stuff designed to "feed the machine."


Firstly, its all made by humans, and is made for general consumption, perhaps for a smaller percent of the populace than 'everybody,' but general consumption nonetheless.

Secondly, I'm truly aghast that anyone needs an academic essay to bolster an opinion readily arrived at by millions, reflexively the moment they think of it, or that such common coin would need confirmation from "experts."

I think you are, in an actual and extremely elitist way, vastly underestimating gigantic numbers of the population at large -- that the tiny and obvious thought here presented is for them unthinkable, that they are somehow anesthetized by some draconian plan by a cabal of those in power, the population asleep, dead, zombie-like buying what they are told to like etc.

It makes me think you have very little trust in people in general, or little or no belief in their capacity to think and feel (...and all that leads me to think you need to get out more


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Addressing PetrB's response, in this era of musical diversity and the explosion of genres and technology of both producing and consuming music (at home, in cars, on busses, on radios, as muzak in malls, television, etc), I feel that defining one's opinions, and seeing from where we derive them, i.e., defining and mapping our musical landscape, will aid us in becoming more than just a "mindless consumer", and this idea of a capitalist consumer machine was not started by me, but is evident in Adorno's ideas, as well as those other "Marxists" out there who wish to approach music critically.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Firstly, its all made by humans, and is made for general consumption, perhaps for a smaller percent of the populace than 'everybody,' but general consumption nonetheless.
> 
> Secondly, I'm truly aghast that anyone needs an academic essay to bolster an opinion readily arrived at by millions, reflexively the moment they think of it, or that such common coin would need confirmation from "experts."
> 
> ...


With all due respect to Humanity in general, most people don't hold dear what I think is most important. They either "don't get it," or they have other concerns and uses for music, such as the adolescent search for identity (Katie Perry's "Teenage Dream") or some other "lifestyle" aspect of music. I'm interested in "_Music itself_" and the nuts and bolts; if you see that as "elitist," then I'm uncomfortable sitting in this football stadium you have conjured up. I'm leaving the game early to avoid traffic.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Addressing PetrB's response, in this era of musical diversity and the explosion of genres and technology of both producing and consuming music (at home, in cars, on busses, on radios, as muzak in malls, television, etc), I feel that defining one's opinions, and seeing from where we derive them, i.e., defining and mapping our musical landscape, will aid us in becoming more than just a "mindless consumer", and this idea of a capitalist consumer machine was not started by me, but is evident in Adorno's ideas, as well as those other "Marxists" out there who wish to approach music critically.


I can completely agree that anyone should think about anything they consume, and why. Making a polarized politicization of it just seems to me overkill, if not plain silly.

And, like you, I do mean really think about it, including what is available to you, what is put in front of all our faces, commercially, and the "highest" of art music, in a professional setting, is also "commercial."

I think it was Sarah McLaughlin who said that she thought a lot more of the public would like a far greater range of music outside of the handful of selects in the pop genres the record companies felt were safe to promote... and I agree with her. I could say the same about many a too conservative (imo) symphony board as to their regular subscription programming.

But the big political construct? Well, safe to say, simple me or lazy me I don't want to be bothered, "I just do not get it," especially when it is in the matrix of an ideology put forth, tried, tried again, and failed each time, it seems more like a last gasp to keep that ideology alive -- in the more safe and nebulous arena of the arts -- where it has died several times over in most of its other attempted apps.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

science said:


> straightforward terms like "good" and "bad"


science, I think you have identified the core difference between us, philosophically, the basic impetus for our unceasing antagonism: I do not think by any stretch that terms like "good" and "bad" are in any way, shape or form "straightforward."

Quite the contrary.

Well, I don't know if there's anything to be gained from this insight. But, "oh well." I'm fond of insights, just for their own sweet selves.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> science, I think you have identified the core difference between us, philosophically, the basic impetus for our unceasing antagonism: I do not think by any stretch that terms like "good" and "bad" are in any way, shape or form "straightforward."
> 
> Quite the contrary.
> 
> Well, I don't know if there's anything to be gained from this insight. But, "oh well." I'm fond of insights, just for their own sweet selves.


I don't believe in objectively good or bad art, but those are the terms that other people use, and which I suspect the Marxist theory millionrainbows was telling us about is trying to replace with fancier jargon.

All the same, it's reassuring to know that you are still looking for (more?) reasons to classify me as something ridiculous you can treat with customary scorn.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> little or no belief in their capacity to think and feel


People can have that capacity, but they also have a great capacity to follow the crowd (not just in music, in everything).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hmm, both Adorno and Chris Cutler were Marxists, but I see that more as being "philosophical idealists" rather than hopped-up Soviets or fringe characters like Lee Harvey Oswald was.
The way our own country's politics are headed, even journalists like Bill Moyers are pointing out to us that "capitalism is not democracy," and is, indeed, at odds with a democratic principles. I say this just in case "Marxism" rings of being a dirty word. To me, & many others, "capitalism" is beginning to ring dirtier and dirtier. That certainly doesn't make Adorno or Cutler "radical political thinkers" for simply wanting the human spirit to be reflected in art, rather than a market-researched version.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Cutler's view, predictably, is that music as a "commodity" (similar to Adorno's scathing views of jazz and popular music in general) insures its banallity, if it's only that and no more. He offers exceptions: music can be a commodity, yet transcend that function (as I have said many times regarding The Beatles).


The only music that _might _not transcend it's function as a commodity is music which is designed to remain unnoticed. Music that has no intention of transcending it's use as a commodity. 'Elevator' 'background' 'supermarket' wallpaper. Even in this sphere there is music which has transcended it's use and is listened to 'for it's own sake'.

Also, why single out The Beatles - that only shows your particular (generational, I suspect) bias.
How did the Beatles succeed where for example, The Rolling Stones, The Stone Roses, Stone The Crows, Sly And the Family Stone, Joss Stone (just to start with artists containing the word Stone) failed?

The music of Eminem, The Libertines or Amy Winehouse is no _more_ a commodity than Mozart's.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

science said:


> All the same, it's reassuring to know that you are still looking for (more?) reasons to classify me as something ridiculous you can treat with customary scorn.


If this is what you got out of my post, then I am sorry I posted it.

But "oh well." Here's how I see it. You continue to look for reasons to undermine what I say and to deride what I think. I don't feel any scorn towards you at all. Even though you seem to be inviting me to! So I'm gonna guess that you probably don't feel like you deride me ever.

Well, OK. Talking to each other is pointless, then. But it's not likely to hurt either one of us.

Carry on, my friend.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

We should probably think about what kind of word "commodity" is. The first thing I would say about it is that it's loaded. And if I'm right, then no one will be able to use it as if it were a synonym for object.

My mother used to ask "Don't you think you have enough records, now?" What a strange question, eh? But not if your idea of a record is that any record is essentially the same as any other record. They're all black.* They're all flat. They're all round. They all have a hole in the middle. And there's a groove on each side.

That's to ignore the one essential thing about a record, that it stores a particular piece or set of pieces. The storage units all look pretty much the same. But the physical appearance of the storage unit is really neither here nor there. It's what's being stored that's important.

And I see something similar happening here. Items which are very different from each other are being described as essentially the same on no other grounds that I can see that you can buy all of them in a store. Or experience any of them by buying a ticket and attending an event. To argue the similarity of Eminem and Mozart on that premise is to have a very flimsy argument indeed. It is an argument at the very least that ignores or pretends to ignore the differences.

*Well, mostly.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> To argue the similarity of Eminem and Mozart on that premise is to have a very flimsy argument indeed. It is an argument at the very least that ignores or pretends to ignore the differences.


I didn't say there was no difference between Eminem and Mozart. I was taking issue with the notion that one is, in essence, more of a commodity than the other.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> If this is what you got out of my post, then I am sorry I posted it.
> 
> But "oh well." Here's how I see it. You continue to look for reasons to undermine what I say and to deride what I think. I don't feel any scorn towards you at all. Even though you seem to be inviting me to! So I'm gonna guess that you probably don't feel like you deride me ever.
> 
> ...


I'm not at all sorry you posted it - I'm sorry you would (leap at the chance to) think something like that, whether posted or not. Posts like that belie your true POV, so they're useful.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> I didn't say there was no difference between Eminem and Mozart. I was taking issue with the notion that one is, in essence, more of a commodity than the other.


Yes, but can we say there is more marketing and hype behind Eminem, to put him into the position he is compared to some other hip-hop people, than Mozart ever needed with his work?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> Yes, but can we say there is more marketing and hype behind Eminem, to put him into the position he is compared to some other hip-hop people, than Mozart ever needed with his work?


They're both very talented at what they do/did, and earned their reputations, but at the very beginning of their careers, Mozart certainly enjoyed more hype than Eminem did.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Many people write music as a hobby. If you do it as a career like Mozart and Eminem then you are producing goods for sale.
There are always many processes at work which help to bring a particular artist to a wider public recognition. Talent will get you only so far. Hype, publicity, even luck have always played a role.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> They're both very talented at what they do/did, and earned their reputations, but at the very beginning of their careers, Mozart certainly enjoyed more hype than Eminem did.


And he lived up to every bit of that hype. It's harder to say now with the amount of marketing that goes on which people truly deserve their reputation considering many talented people are virtually unknown in comparison to those who get the hype.


----------

