[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Re: Music is not political (Was Re: music is political)

At 20:56 04/04/06, you wrote:
>>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...)

In UK the academic music scene seems full of atonal stuff.
and of course MAX/MSP.

So while they don't support your favourite pop 
bands, they still manage to favour music that 
doesn't immediately appeal to the majority.

>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.

you'd be surprised, my music was called "that's 
not jazz, that's not even music" quite recently.

>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.

Isn't that the sort of statement that would look 
better with a bit of supporting evidence?
I'd make an equally unsupported statement that 
there's a vast majority of people
who would never like Stockhausen however much they were encouraged.

>. some things are quite different and others not so
>much... a Kurt Schwitters sound-poem from 1920 is still pretty


amazing how musical Schwitters performance is.
Just by listening, I'd assume his intention was to make beautiful sounds.

>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.

so you think capitalists are turning into artists 
because they can take someone else's music and re-sample it?

>i think people who don't "believe" in politics are playing into the
>hands of those systems who would control us.

Where are these people who don't believe in politics?
We all believe that the government exists. ( 
possibly not Klobucher...who can tell)
Rather there are people who believe that politics 
is the government of a country.
( oh, and the study of the government of a country)

>  at least privately realize the political ramifications
>of their participation in the world in all its aspects, and not to
>deny these things.

The government of the country you live in won't 
be influenced by the music that you play.

>my semi-coherent 2-cent rambling, once again ;)

and mine ;-)   apologies for bandwidth

>- you will now be returned to your regular broadcast
At 20:56 04/04/06, you wrote:
>polˇiˇtics  (pl-tks)
>The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a

just quoting loads of stuff doesn't make a case.
There's plenty of dictionaries that connect politics with government.
The Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so how do we know you didn't just 
it before quoting it :-)

If "everything is political", then the word "politics" becomes useless.