My Theory of the World... and Music

So, I've been formulating this theory/hypothesis for months now and thought I'd share it with fellow YCers. Unlike many of my posts, I don't think this should start any riots or endless threads of bickering. Quite simply, it's an opinion I hold of the world, of civilization, and how music and art in general 'relate' to the world.

Let's start at the beginning of civilization as we know it today. It began in the days of neanderthals and primitive tribal groups fighting for survival following the Ice Age. I suppose it was when the first spear (or take your pick of the series of primitive inventions available at that time) was created. Eventually someone came along who saw someone with this new tool, took it (probably stabbed the guy who made it), and called it their own. And this is the model for society today, although much more 'civilized' at best, much more 'concealed' at worst.

I suppose this is the premise of my argument, that 'ownership' is at the heart of the model for all of civilizations today (with a few exceptions). Whether it's a Tyrannical Government that 'owns' all it's territory or a Democratic Government that 'shares' ownership of land, goods, and services, the one guiding principle of all of civilization is that one person or group controls, owns, something that would otherwise not belong to anyone. I call this civilization's 'Aquisition Model', and it takes on many forms from Communism to Democracy, from Free Trade to Socialism.

Not that this is 'bad'. It is as I explained it... a model for society. Over time it has grown to generate a mentality for business and job creation, work ethics, accountability, and many other factors that we view as building value in a society. What also exists (and always must) is government, commerce, and scarcity. The need for government should be obvious, as law and order of some form must exist if an individual or entity is to claim rights of ownership. Commerce or trade is also necessary if ownership among members of the society is to exist, since without it, goods and services could not be exchanged in an equal way. But the most unsettling factor that must be present for the Acquisition Model to continue is the existence of Scarcity.

Scarcity of resources. Scarcity of money. Scarcity of human needs. Without these things, the Acquisition Model does not function or grow. And the biggest threat to the Acquisition Model, the biggest counterbalance to Scarcity, is automation through technology. When automation reaches its peak, civilization will no longer need to 'own' anything. Societies will sustain themselves through continued efforts in engineering and research to provide for all the needs of humanity. It is, in effect, a Utopian principle in concept, not without its own shortcomings in the present (the non-existence of such technology today notwithstanding).

For more on this, there's a two hour video that explains this view in more detail. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

So, what we're left with is an entire history of music which exists to express every level of human emotion, angst, and generally express approval or disapproval within a context. This is the primary reason why I believe much of the music of the 20th Century is music 'ahead of its time', because much of this music exists within a realm of expression that does not cater to the principles which exist in society now. What do I mean by this?

Take the principle behind the Sonata Form. There exists a principle theme, a secondary theme which functions, in many cases, as an 'antagonist' to build tension. This conflict is explored and developed, then resolves in the Recapitulation. Here we have an artistic expression of antagonism, of music working 'against' itself and reaching some form of resolution. Imagine a musical universe where no such antagonism exists... where there is no principle of antagonism within the context of civilization to stimulate such conceptual inspiration for art. This is more or less what music is beginning to do now. While it may go against the more commonly held belief that music 'follows' society, I'm more prone to believe music of the 20th Century is a guiding light, a beacon for us in the centuries that will follow us.

Perhaps I could explain this in more detail in discussion or clarify things that don't seem as 'clear' as I could make them. This is, for brevity's sake, the opening post. I hope there's discussion to be had, or at the very least, some thought-provoking ideas here for others to spin discussions from. For my part, I thought it best to try to grapple with the bigger picture as I see it to attempt to get us out of the box, so to speak.

More music please.

I mean that. Make your argument. You basically gave us nothing here -- not even a hypothesis. You stated a bunch of givens (Which isn't worth picking apart, since there's little connection to the main thrust of your post.), then made some thesis about how the music of the time reflected the culture, and then that the 20th century differed.

How did the 20th century differ? What, if not the zeitgeist of the culture, did it point to?

And for chrissakes -- give examples. Yeah, that'll mean a wall of text, but with musical examples, you can break it up.

I didn't know YC was AA's blog now.

Otherwise, I sort of gave up halfway through the first paragraph. How about a more to-the-point version?

I didn't know YC was AA's blog now.

*chuckles*

I have to agree with everyone here in that it doesn't make much sense. We had this problem before (*rubs temples in an annoyed and tired manner*). WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

I'm unsure as to whether I'm too stupid or too intelligent to understand it.

Voce's Theory of The World ~

People who can get their points across quickly win!

Antiatonality - if this thread is going where I think you want it to go, I hope you're prepared for me and many others to fall asleep. Seriously, that topic is some major zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Unlike many of my posts, I don't think this should start any riots or endless threads of bickering.

I think you're being very optimistic here. Just the title alone asks for it

More music please.

I'm not really looking to make a dissertation out of this or I would, with detailed analysis and a full list of suggested listening. Quite frankly, I don't have the time. I only have time to explain the initial spark of interest here. Believe me, if I had time, I'd offer a lot more... however, as an attempt to point out something in the 20th Century which might hold some insight.

From the top of my head, I'd point to something like Feldman's "For John Cage" or generally music written outside the typical conflict/resolution parameters for music as it used to be written. There are probably much better examples as well, and if I had the time, I'd explore more of them. Again, it's not a dissertation. Maybe it could be one day, I dunno.

----------------

@ Everyone else...

"What's the point?"

We live in a world today based on conflict at its core, because basic human needs (food, shelter, etc) are scarce in many parts of the world. Technology and automation could eventually remedy all of this. Were this to occur, if technology existed to sustain all humanity, where would conflict exist? I happen to believe it's inevitable that society will reach this point, maybe even several generations from now. It's a Utopian principle, sure, but it's hard to imagine where conflict would exist if everyone had everything they needed, government was no longer necessary, money was no longer needed, etc...

Now, juxtapose music of the 20th and 21st Century onto this broader view of civilization. The point I'm trying to make here is that music already abandoned the 'conflict' mentality almost 100 years ago. In general, my observation is that music of the 20th Century foreshadows the kind of artistic expression of a civilization (one I think is 'better' than our current model) that doesn't even exist yet... more or less. If that makes any sense, it's just an observation of the world and music that interests me.

Not trying to be a bore, though.

Sorry to say this AA, but I've kinda given up on hearing anything coherent from you.

Sorry to say this AA, but I've kinda given up on hearing anything coherent from you.

What is not 'coherent' in what I just explained? Really, if it's that unclear, I've obviously missed something because it makes perfect sense to a lot of people I discuss it with in person.

I think it would be most beneficial if you were to give us bullet points.

Since what you are saying is less formal than a scientific article, and this is the internet, it can be very hard to focus for too long. Quote wars help with this, but even then it gets tiresome.

Large blocks of prose turn off many people who might otherwise be able to contribute.

I would advise bullet points.

What was the shifting point of the paradigm?

How do you handle subcurrents (since they are not part of the zeitgeist as you define it) of music that are intensely confrontational, such as free jazz, crumb's black angels, punk... I'm sure something about the widening of "unlistenable" music being respected factors in, but it could flop either way...

Also, how does your utopian musical realm compare to Attali's composition stage of political economy? Or Spengler's eventual dissolution of "western" art music as we know it?

What was the shifting point of the paradigm?

Interesting questions... I don't imagine there's any 'shifting point' or a 'paradigm' at work. I tend to credit such a shift (more gradual and diluted than a full-fledged 'shift') to artistic awareness and, maybe to some degree, rejection of the status quo working against artistic freedom in the early 1900s, especially the rejection of works by audiences and discussions like Babbitt's "Composer as Specialist" and the like.

How do you handle subcurrents (since they are not part of the zeitgeist as you define it) of music that are intensely confrontational, such as free jazz, crumb's black angels, punk... I'm sure something about the widening of "unlistenable" music being respected factors in, but it could flop either way...

Like I said, it doesn't appear to me to be a full fledged shift, more a rise in awareness. Such awareness never occurs overnight, so there are going to be extremely diluted areas of 'subcurrents' and so on.

Also, how does your utopian musical realm compare to Attali's composition stage of political economy? Or Spengler's eventual dissolution of "western" art music as we know it?

I don't know.

I think it would be most beneficial if you were to give us bullet points.

Since what you are saying is less formal than a scientific article, and this is the internet, it can be very hard to focus for too long. Quote wars help with this, but even then it gets tiresome.

Large blocks of prose turn off many people who might otherwise be able to contribute.

I would advise bullet points.

I posted a link to a video I watched a while back for a more detailed explanation.

Now, juxtapose music of the 20th and 21st Century onto this broader view of civilization. The point I'm trying to make here is that music already abandoned the 'conflict' mentality almost 100 years ago. In general, my observation is that music of the 20th Century foreshadows the kind of artistic expression of a civilization (one I think is 'better' than our current model) that doesn't even exist yet... more or less. If that makes any sense, it's just an observation of the world and music that interests me.

Uh.

Abandoned the "conflict" mentality? Like all the absolute nonsense happening in the 3rd world? That's STILL happening, by the way. Oh, I guess looking from an euro/US centric point of view, maybe.

But the reality is, the social injustice, wars, etc etc are all still very important topics that DO get reflected in art. Sure, it may not be Ligeti-superstar status, but how many artists/composers do YOU know from Bolivia? Venezuela? Congo? India? Africa? Vietnam? Malaysia? Pakistan? Iraq?

The way it seems to me, the cultural isolation people experience in more developed countries may lead to the false impression that "nothing's going on today," and indeed I've had people say that "protest music is simply not done today" or that it's not "hip" anymore to be confrontational about issues. What you're saying is basically proving my point here as well.

A point that you may want to seriously reconsider.

Uh.

Abandoned the "conflict" mentality? Like all the absolute nonsense happening in the 3rd world? That's STILL happening, by the way. Oh, I guess looking from an euro/US centric point of view, maybe.

But the reality is, the social injustice, wars, etc etc are all still very important topics that DO get reflected in art. Sure, it may not be Ligeti-superstar status, but how many artists/composers do YOU know from Bolivia? Venezuela? Congo? India? Africa? Vietnam? Malaysia? Pakistan? Iraq?

The way it seems to me, the cultural isolation people experience in more developed countries may lead to the false impression that "nothing's going on today," and indeed I've had people say that "protest music is simply not done today" or that it's not "hip" anymore to be confrontational about issues. What you're saying is basically proving my point here as well.

A point that you may want to seriously reconsider.

Don't mistake my point, I'm not applying this universally in any way. Like I said, the overall expression is diluted by existing conflicts. There's no doubt about that. But there are emerging nuances as well where conflict has no place in the discussion of such music. Of course we're not going to see it universally in 20th Century Music. I never said anything of the sort.

Does social isolation play a role? Perhaps, maybe a great deal. I'm certainly not trying to qualify works devoid of confrontational inspiration as generating from some idealism for the future either. Perhaps isolation from social conflict might be interesting to study in music to see if, indeed, the music itself reflects the absence of conflict due to the composer's isolation from society.

Perhaps isolation from social conflict might be interesting to study in music to see if, indeed, the music itself reflects the absence of conflict due to the composer's isolation from society.

Not much to study, it's quite obvious that it has an influence. Someone ignorant to stuff can't possibly react to it, etc. A lot of composers/artists in places where they aren't really living the every-day reality of places which are plainly horrible, can't possibly be expected to react to it even if they ARE aware.

I think the isolation issue is not just an education thing, or a matter of reading the news, it's more of a life experience thing. But, it's obvious that since a lot of people are oblivious to it, it doesn't get to be of any significant influence.

AA's point, i thought, was limited to western art music, which probably excludes most of the third world (total baseless generalization there -- i'm just guessing)

I dunno. These all seem like half-baked ideas. It's an hour at 350, not less.

To me it seems that this 'ownership' you speek about is basicly a method to aquire ones basic needs. People wanted to own speerpoints in order to be able to make kills to eat. I don't think it's a fundament of society, but moreso a consequence of our methodes of survival.

Futhermore I don't think technology will take away our basic needs and therefor our need to own or aqquire. Our needs may shift, but in the end we're still animals. We need the same things we always needed. Maslov said it quite acuratly.

As for the place of art in our society, I think you are generalizing to much. Art has many function. It's just to individual to make general statements about it.

It's an hour at 350, not less.

?

To me it seems that this 'ownership' you speek about is basicly a method to aquire ones basic needs. People wanted to own speerpoints in order to be able to make kills to eat. I don't think it's a fundament of society, but moreso a consequence of our methodes of survival.

Futhermore I don't think technology will take away our basic needs and therefor our need to own or aqquire. Our needs may shift, but in the end we're still animals. We need the same things we always needed. Maslov said it quite acuratly.

'Acquisition' is actually the terminology I like to use. Ownership implies the rule of law where Acquisition more broadly includes ownership. But regardless, the point is not to 'take away' humanity's basic needs... actually quite the opposite. Automation through technology holds the potential to provide all of humanity's basic needs while freeing humanity from servitude in the distribution of those needs to others. In effect, if 1000 people are replaced in an automobile plant with a machine that can do their work, then how can we ignore the potential for duplicating this a million times over so no one ever has to serve an employer or business for a paycheck simply to acquire their basic needs?

As for the place of art in our society, I think you are generalizing to much. Art has many function. It's just to individual to make general statements about it.

Blah, I believe it goes without saying that the discussion generalizes to a certain degree. Does it matter? If the biggest issue is some microscopic detail, I'll gladly concede the point where it concerns that detail and go on about my business. I'm sharing an opinion, not an essay, not an article written for a journal, not a dissertation or anything else of the sort. Where the bigger picture is concerned (which I'm always more interested in piecing together), what's the harm in attempting to make sense out of music and its place in the world from a broader perspective and narrowing it down later? Sure, there will always be exceptions, but what's the difference?

'Acquisition' is actually the terminology I like to use. Ownership implies the rule of law where Acquisition more broadly includes ownership. But regardless, the point is not to 'take away' humanity's basic needs... actually quite the opposite.

I think a reading of Nozick might help you expand on this. He explains how the politik derivves from these basic acquisition rights.

Automation through technology holds the potential to provide all of humanity's basic needs while freeing humanity from servitude in the distribution of those needs to others.

Ah the youthful exuberance of the 1950s. I guess I can't talk, I'm stuck only a decade past.

In effect, if 1000 people are replaced in an automobile plant with a machine that can do their work, then how can we ignore the potential for duplicating this a million times over so no one ever has to serve an employer or business for a paycheck simply to acquire their basic needs?

This is where you jump the shark -- and it'd strengthen your argument to ditch it.

Due to ingrained understanding of the market, there would be at least a 2 generation "gray time" when people will remember that you had to work for a living. If you buy some of the concepts in Toynbee (and of course others), there's always going to be pockets running "slower" than the rest of the society. Therefore, even with the the status quo being as you say, pockets of low technology and work for (likely) higher wages will remain.

This inequality would lead to instability.

In addition, you're assuming a lot of freedoms, most obviously the freedom from Intellectual Property. Under your setup, the developers of the technology, the only workers, will either make the same as the non-workers, disincentivizing the development that would maintain the high productivity growth from the robot replacement.

Blah, I believe it goes without saying that the discussion generalizes to a certain degree. Does it matter? If the biggest issue is some microscopic detail, I'll gladly concede the point where it concerns that detail and go on about my business. I'm sharing an opinion, not an essay, not an article written for a journal, not a dissertation or anything else of the sort. Where the bigger picture is concerned (which I'm always more interested in piecing together), what's the harm in attempting to make sense out of music and its place in the world from a broader perspective and narrowing it down later? Sure, there will always be exceptions, but what's the difference?

So where is the music in all of this? Heck, even Attali used (a warped and Eurocentric view of) free jazz and the use of aleatoric and improvisation in then-contemporary Western art music to explain his Marxist utopia.

?

'Acquisition' is actually the terminology I like to use. Ownership implies the rule of law where Acquisition more broadly includes ownership.

Oke, my point still stays the same. Isn't acquisition, like ownership, not merely a method to provide in food, shelter, being loved etc? If I acquire a car, do I do that for the sake of acquisition or for the possibilities the car gives me? The possibilty of providing in one or another need. If I acquire a friendship, isn't that a function of the friendship itself? You see what I mean? I don't think acquisition is brickstone of society, because it isn't a goal on it's own. It's a methode, a mean to acquire the underlying goal. These goals being our personal needs.

?But regardless, the point is not to 'take away' humanity's basic needs... actually quite the opposite. Automation through technology holds the potential to provide all of humanity's basic needs while freeing humanity from servitude in the distribution of those needs to others. In effect, if 1000 people are replaced in an automobile plant with a machine that can do their work, then how can we ignore the potential for duplicating this a million times over so no one ever has to serve an employer or business for a paycheck simply to acquire their basic needs?

I'm not very knowledgeble in economics. But I can recon this will have many difficulties. One being the one Ferk pointed out. This doens't mean offcourse that it can't work.

?

Blah, I believe it goes without saying that the discussion generalizes to a certain degree. Does it matter? If the biggest issue is some microscopic detail, I'll gladly concede the point where it concerns that detail and go on about my business. I'm sharing an opinion, not an essay, not an article written for a journal, not a dissertation or anything else of the sort. Where the bigger picture is concerned (which I'm always more interested in piecing together), what's the harm in attempting to make sense out of music and its place in the world from a broader perspective and narrowing it down later? Sure, there will always be exceptions, but what's the difference?

As for you sharing an opinion, I'm aware. I'm also sharing mine. I think you state an interesting view. I'm just elaborating on it.

As for the generalisation. I agree it isn't possibily to make general statements without making generalisations, but I think you should be very precise in what field you make a generalisation. Music means different things to different (sets) of people. If I look to my nextdoor neighboor. Music gives him the possibility to ventilate his anger. Whereas my roommate listens to the same music because it gets her in the mood for a party. So when you speak about western society of maybe even Danish (p.e.) society you leave out so many functions music has for the people in it. I can see how these details aren't that intersting when speaking about a general picture, but maybe when you talk about what music means in a broader sense you still speak about only a few people, since so many people do not actualy belong to that 'broader' group.