Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Music: an art in decline ? » Music: an art in decline ?

Music: an art in decline ?

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Music: an art in decline ?
Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 10/01/07 - 11:30 AM:
quote post
#51
Jonicus wrote:

My arguments are made not to lessen the pleasure that one may have from listening to these things—if you like it for what it actually is, that's fine.


Good. I do like it for what I think it is - not, however, what you or anyone else think it is.
Jonicus wrote:

Instead, I am making an argument with information that can be empirically evidenced. I am claiming objective qualities of the compositions. That they do not follow form for lyrical compositions; that they are cheaply made; and that they are marketed in a manner which employs dubious marketing techniques—the same which cigarette manufacturers were successful in using to convince people to start consuming miniature sticks of death. These advertisements are highly successful in convincing impressionable people with weak minds—not weak because they are stupid, but because they've not been in the world long enough. They have the power to convince them to do things which aren't good for them, which go against even the person's most basic common sense, and all-out brainwash them. They are so successful that it has been found over and over again that it is the advertisements themselves which actually convince most people to take up smoking—because certainly there's nothing good in the actual product: cigarettes. The government has passed laws that have all but completely banned cigarette advertisements.


This is an argument about cigarette advertising. You are trying to draw an analogy between cigarette advertisements and the record industry. What I remember of the earlier cigarette adverts - one of the Freuds, unless I'm mistaken - was that they very successfully played on certain unconscious desires in order to sexualise smoking. Is this what you're suggesting? I'd be surprised to see anyone argue that music wasn't sexual before equal temperament, let alone before recorded music. Didn't Hildegaard von Bingen write on sexual pleasure? Is there an opera that isn't deeply sensual, if not sexual?

Incidentally, I'm too young to remember cigarette adverts, consciously at least, but I do fully enjoy smoking in spite of better (yes, objectively better) advice.


Jonicus wrote:
These are powerful techniques for brainwashing.


You've merely stated that cigarette advertisers used what you very blithely term 'brainwashing'. I'm pretty sure the success of cigarette advertising is a combination of appealing to subtle desires and aspirations whilst turning a blind eye to the health consequences, amongst a million other factors. Where and how is this done in the music industry?

jaybzjaybz wrote:


he 'alternative' culture or 'high' culture is an illusion. If it does exist then it has the same function (exchange of cultural capital) as the 'base' cultural forms that you describe.

Also: are you immune to 'brain-washing?' What qualities do you possess that the ordinary listener does not? Essentially, I'm wondering what quality it is that produces immunity to this 'brainwashing', and by extension the machinations of cultural outlets (?)


I'd post the same question. It's not so much that the record industry doesn't use subtle and insidious techniques - it's that I don't see how anyone with the slightest amount of advertising nous - which I'd imagine is most adults - couldn't see through this.
Jonicus
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62
Posted 10/01/07 - 05:50 PM:
quote post
#52
Post-burnt wrote:

This is an argument about cigarette advertising. You are trying to draw an analogy between cigarette advertisements and the record industry. What I remember of the earlier cigarette adverts - one of the Freuds, unless I'm mistaken - was that they very successfully played on certain unconscious desires in order to sexualise smoking. Is this what you're suggesting? I'd be surprised to see anyone argue that music wasn't sexual before equal temperament, let alone before recorded music. Didn't Hildegaard von Bingen write on sexual pleasure? Is there an opera that isn't deeply sensual, if not sexual?

Incidentally, I'm too young to remember cigarette adverts, consciously at least, but I do fully enjoy smoking in spite of better (yes, objectively better) advice.

There is a difference, however, between the advertisement of sex and advertisement using sex.

When there is the theme of sex used to advertise the opera, it is exactly that theme of sex that you get when you go to the opera. When there is the theme of sex used to advertise the cigarette, what do you get? A theme of sex, or a paper tube with poison-grass in it?

We can simply chart these out in a table of what is advertised vs. what is sold:

Advert:
Sexy Opera
Sold:
Sexy Opera
Advert:
Sexy woman
Sold:
Cigarette

The reason that it's important to make this distinction, is because it shows the first level required in 'brainwashing'—dishonesty. Now, we can also say, that when that dishonesty is intentional, then we have manipulation. Furthermore, we can say, that when a person actually falls for the manipulation, and does so repeatedly—showing that they believe to actually get from it what is advertised, or that the use of the product itself has made that difference irrelevant—that you have brainwashing. In other words, brainwashing is achieved when your subject has at last been convinced of the 'truth of the lie' as it were.



You've merely stated that cigarette advertisers used what you very blithely term 'brainwashing'. I'm pretty sure the success of cigarette advertising is a combination of appealing to subtle desires and aspirations whilst turning a blind eye to the health consequences, amongst a million other factors. Where and how is this done in the music industry?

So, you must ask yourself for these compositions, this 'pop' music: what is being advertised? Notes and poorly-sung verse is being sold. But, what is being advertised? That will determine if there is brainwashing or not.


I'd post the same question. It's not so much that the record industry doesn't use subtle and insidious techniques - it's that I don't see how anyone with the slightest amount of advertising nous - which I'd imagine is most adults - couldn't see through this.

Well, here's one problem with what you're saying—thinking they're adults. Most are kids, 13,14... or they are mentally and emotionally immature older teens, 17-19. If you notice, 'most adults' wouldn't touch pop music with a 12 yard pole. Perhaps, you've answered your own question and proven my point? But, I will not go so far as to say that... yet.




Jon
Jonicus
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62
Posted 10/01/07 - 05:58 PM:
quote post
#53
jaybzjaybz wrote:

Also: are you immune to 'brain-washing?'

I beg your pardon? The topic has nothing to do with immunity to brainwashing. We are trying to determine whether brainwashing is taking place or not.

What qualities do you possess that the ordinary listener does not?

The brainwashing doesn't take place in the music, not the 'listening'. It's the advertising that is brainwashing. The music is just what you hear; I doubt there are any subliminal messages within.

Essentially, I'm wondering what quality it is that produces immunity to this 'brainwashing', and by extension the machinations of cultural outlets (?)

Who ever said that there was any immunity to brainwashing?

Again, we are only trying to decide if there is brainwashing taking place; we can make morality judgements afterwards based on the results we find in tackling that problem.




Jon
jaybzjaybz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12
Posted 10/02/07 - 02:33 AM:
quote post
#54
In fact I think immunity, and the lack of immunity to 'brainwashing', is everything to do with this topic. Running through your ideas is a sense of priviledge:

<i> I do not think of any of those things you listed as being music, so I do not think they can be representatives of the music art form. As such, they have no bearing on the state of music.</i>

and

<i>I think most, if not all, of the 'music' produced today falls into the category of 'pop', especially as JAC defines it being: "...solely a product, to be produced for some end other then itself - namely, money."</i>

and

<i>New country, rap, hip-hop, R&B, etc, even the music forms that were at one time good, have now become just another way to make money, and it has stripped all the value from the art of music. </i>


What I wonder is: how is this not true for other artists?? Above you're implying that there is a pure state where economics and cultural exchange don't come into music. Or that this once existed. What I wonder is: What kind of artist could possibly defy the ignobility of touching or being econmic music, 'brainwashing' music? You provide your own answer to that question though:

<i>I think the last true musical artists really went out in the mid-nineties, such as Nirvana, who literally killed themselves in devotion to their art. </i>

You then begin to sketch out 'brainwashing', although you are yet to name it so...

<i>The record companies do not merely record music. They also advertise music; and they advertise HEAVILY. They produce cheap garbage, and then advertise it excessively, using such tactics as 'all the good looking people listen', 'being a gangster is FUN', 'copulating excessively will increase your IQ' and convince young and impressionable people that they surely will achieve those things if they listen to that cheap music. </i>

Now my question is: what, in this outline of the music you associate with 'brainwashing,' cannot be said of Nirvana (who you choose as an example of a group who do not / did not fit into the 'brainwashing' music category?) I will give my answer to that: very little. Nirvana were advertised heavily, perhaps even excessively (the road to success and fame were ultimately a contributing factor towards cobain's suicide.) One simply substitutes 'being a gangster is FUN' with 'being a wild rock-star is FUN', 'all the good looking people listen' with 'all the wild rock fans listen.' 'Brainwashing music' and 'non-brainwashing music' occupy the same ground, if they exist at all.

And therefore I posit, as I have before, that your distinctions between 'high' and 'low', your insinuation of 'priviledge', are mistaken. What is the qualitative difference between the 'brainwashing' music and other music? (This is why my questions about immunity are not moral, contrary to what you suggest. They are in fact key to the way I'm trying to understand the author of your thoughts in relation to the thoughts themselves.)

This is why I asked :

<i>are you immune to 'brain-washing?' What qualities do you possess that the ordinary listener does not? Essentially, I'm wondering what quality it is that produces immunity to this 'brainwashing', and by extension the machinations of cultural outlets (?) </i>

And in fact you had already answered that question in an earlier post:

<i> I'll gladly remain as far from it [the music you chastise] as possible. </i>

I don't think, purely from the ideas - some latent - that you've expressed, that you have achieved this distance. I would posit that it is in fact an inherently impossible action to achieve. And herein lies the problem; the essential hypocrisy (a term I use in a philosophical sense, please don't take it personally) of your argument. You yourself, despite a professed immunity (above), are immersed within it, if it exists at all.

Jack

Edited by jaybzjaybz on 10/02/07 - 02:50 AM
Makarismos
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206
Posted 10/02/07 - 11:01 AM:
quote post
#55
Hey Jaybzjaybz , Jonicus,

It seems this is all about perceived authenticity. Some music is perceived as being authentic, and people buy in to this. You find that sub cultures develop where perceived authenticity has higher and higher levels.

Take metal for example. You get people who just dabble in the music, maybe wear a band shirt, and maybe dye their hair black. Then you get those who take it a step further, Get tattoos, piercings; and so they are more authentic. They will probably dislike the more "commercial" bands, because they have "sold out". Pretty soon you get a kind of feedback loop, where those who are really in to the music, dislike almost all of it because its to popular.

Personally, this is the reason I give all types of music a fair listen.


Cheers


Edited by Makarismos on 10/02/07 - 11:13 AM
Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 10/02/07 - 11:08 AM:
quote post
#56
Jonicus wrote:
In other words, brainwashing is achieved when your subject has at last been convinced of the 'truth of the lie' as it were.


So, if I am emotionally swayed by an opera, or a film, or a book, am I not convinced of the 'beauty of the lie'? I realise you're attempting to wedge a gap between art and commerce, but I think you've not done enough to illustrate that - I think this is one of the lines jaybzjaybz is pursuing.


Jonicus wrote:

So, you must ask yourself for these compositions, this 'pop' music: what is being advertised? Notes and poorly-sung verse is being sold. But, what is being advertised? That will determine if there is brainwashing or not.


'Poorly-sung' or sung with conventions distinct from those of academic singing? It's easy to come back to, and often apropos - Is Ella Fitzgerald a 'good' singer in a classical sense? No. She's terrible, in that sense. She is still a brilliant singer. There are some pop singers that have less-than-savoury voices. This does not, and cannot, apply to every pop singer - you'd do well to realise that pop music is not some niche art, it is a global enterprise, it has long since ceased to be an Anglo-American thing, if it ever were (Jacques Brele, Edith Piaf...)


Jonicus wrote:

Well, here's one problem with what you're saying—thinking they're adults. Most are kids, 13,14... or they are mentally and emotionally immature older teens, 17-19. If you notice, 'most adults' wouldn't touch pop music with a 12 yard pole. Perhaps, you've answered your own question and proven my point? But, I will not go so far as to say that... yet.


Jon


'Most adults' are welcome to listen to what they want to. I listen to a lot of pop. Probably comparable to a lot of 12 year olds, in fact. I dislike the implication that, at an older age than any of those you mentioned, I am 'emotionally immature'. To be honest, I could talk about difficult contemporary art music, sound-art, the avant-garde, the various other schools of the 20th century, a fair wedge of early, baroque, classical [etc] music and a healthy slice of South Asian/ Arabic/ Chinese/ Japanese/ West-African [etc] music. At no point does this make me above simply enjoying a pop song for what it is.

I'd like to make the point that, while Adorno is superlative, his arguments regurgitated have very little currency with me.
Jonicus
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Minnesota!

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 62
Posted 10/02/07 - 12:19 PM:
quote post
#57
Post-burnt wrote:
pop music is not some niche art, it is a global enterprise

Enterprise? That terminology will do just rightly. cool

Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary wrote:

enterprise n ... 4.Organized business activities aimed specifically at growth and profit.





Jon
Makarismos
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206
Posted 10/02/07 - 12:32 PM:
quote post
#58
Jonicus wrote:

Enterprise? That terminology will do just rightly. cool

Jon

If a good artist struggles for years, then sells a painting for ten thousand; Is he better or worse afterward? If he hires a publicist and they market his art, what does this do to the quality of the art?

Does marketing ruin art, enhance art? The answer is yes and no.

The artwork/artifact itself is not affected, but the associations it causes in the minds of the viewer are altered. Where once we saw the mona lisa we now see pound signs.

If an artist is successful within their own lifetime, then perhaps they will see pound signs as they create. If it is perceived that they are doing this, then this will affect how we perceive the artwork.

On the other hand; If an artist makes no money by producing their art then they will not be able to do as much. If they also have to hold down a job etc, they will produce less, perhaps in both quantity and quality.

I would object to the posibilaty of this not for proffit artist: Many bands which are deemed more authentic, support themselves by creating their music. They style themselves so that their own lack of apparent commercial effort works in their favor, drawing an audience turned off by blatant advertising. Suddenly secret gigs, limited edition vinyl EPs and scruffy unkempt styling becomes the fashion.

It is still a fashion though.

Cheers
jaybzjaybz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12
Posted 10/02/07 - 12:37 PM:
quote post
#59
Makarismos wrote:

. They style themselves so that their own lack of apparent commercial effort works in their favor, drawing an audience turned off by blatant advertising. Suddenly secret gigs, limited edition vinyl EPs and scruffy unkempt styling becomes the fashion.

It is still a fashion though.


Jaybzjaybz wrote:

'Brainwashing music' and 'non-brainwashing music' occupy the same ground, if [the distinction] exist[s] at all.
Post-burnt
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 10/03/07 - 08:43 AM:
quote post
#60
Kurt Cobain is the richest dead musician alive [sic] as well.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/22/09 - 12:17 AM.