This article can be broken up into two points: The problem
of how to attribute value to pop culture music, and technology of music.
In the first half of
the article Frith talks about how pop culture music has a value to it. That not
only is it objective but subjective, and the subjective part is where cultural
conversation and argumentation takes place. He explains that these arguments
between people are not only prevalent in music but in: sports, movies, TV
shows, etc.. Saying that people have a need to assign value to these things and
argue their point. Thus, he asserts that these value arguments have three main
aspects to be based upon: reason, evidence and persuasion. There was a process
that was referred too on how we judge something within pop culture music; we
try to point out what are the right things to listen to for other people, and
then try to get others to like that particular piece of music. He points out
that this was not only relevant for regular fans but created controversy when
music critics tried to speak for the fans (example of how a critic said that
rock was about sex, hate and smarmy p.10) yet when rock was talked about by an
artist he had a completely different opinion on the matter, who was to say that
the non-rocker critic had the correct assertion of what rock was? This was also
a problem in academics, who was to say what should or should not be taught in a
class? What should be considered ‘good’ literature to be taught?
The second part of this article talks about technology and
the problems that arise when talking about how to listen to music. Frith
explains that there are three stages to how music is stored: The body, notation
and discs/tapes or anything in which it could be retrieved electronically. The
act of recording turned music into an object. Is music then still viewed as an event
or a work instead? Which brings up the next problem, concert vs. recording? Some
talk about how music should not be recorded, that once it is, it takes away
from the originality of it. Others say that recording it not only preserves it
but also brings in new elements for music to expand upon.
I found a few things in this article interest. First, I
never thought of the common occurrence that goes on in my everyday conversation
that can be considered a pop culture value argument. It is very common and I also
noticed that it reinforces my connections to people; I can relate more to
people that have a common value about a certain thing, than someone that does not.
I also found the section about how recordings not only changed jazz from its
origins, but has made it largely to what it is today, something I should
research more into for my project.
My questions is:
1) Do you feel that the value that people attribute to music, the process of argumentation that arises from it is something that is common place in your life? Do these subjective values play a part in how you are analyzing your music for your project?
1) Do you feel that the value that people attribute to music, the process of argumentation that arises from it is something that is common place in your life? Do these subjective values play a part in how you are analyzing your music for your project?
I know that music is a big source of contention between myself and family/friends. Because I'm a western art music trained musician, it is generally assumed that I have a snobby view of music and only listen to classical which is far from true. Some of my friends think it is ridiculous when I'm singing along to some "crappy" pop song but I enjoy listening to music that's different from what I spend so much time rehearsing and analyzing! For my project, it is more about trying to figure out how music is being used in order to promote other values (such as materialistic) than the value of the music itself, except in terms of what it can be used to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I found memorable from this reading was the part about concern regarding whether or not a new novel/piece of music could be good because it was an unknown, whereas classics are safe because we know they are good already. It resonated with me, this fear of the unknown, because, although it is pleasant to stick with what is safe and recognizable, it is often more exhilarating to try new things. Sticking with the novel theme, I oftentimes intentionally select new, pretty unknown novels in place of popular (which I also read from time to time) because I enjoy drawing my own conclusions without a preexisting rabid fandom potentially influencing the author's future books.
I too, like Alex, can relate so the singing "crappy" pop song thing. When I am with some of my friends and something like "teenage dream" comes along by Katy Perry or "super bass" by Nicki Minaj and my friends see me singing along to this they give me funny looks. It might be because they are extremely girly songs, but they tell me its not because of that but because their music just sucks.
DeleteI think that there is an issue here in the western concept of 'high' art versus 'low' art and a fear of being considered less educated or intelligent depending on the music one listens to. There is a general concept in western society that western classical music requires more refined tastes to appreciate than popular music and that one is mutually exclusive to the other. Obviously, this isn't the case, but a lot of people seem to consider this to be true. This idea is fairly problematic though as it creates a hierarchy of musics, something that we seek to avoid, and resembles the ideas that somehow western classical music is more evolved than other 'primitive' music.
DeleteI agree with Brent's point where he problematizes the inherent hierarchy associated with musical tastes, particularly in terms of Western Art Music versus more 'popular' styles. In response to Brent P.'s question, I do think that processes of argumentation over music is common & something that is inevitable in an area as subjective as musical taste. People will not have the same taste regardless of the accepted 'norms' or 'higher class' tastes so debate & discourse is almost a given.
DeleteI think the subjectivity of values placed in music is very significant to my project because I am analyzing the relationship between Western Art Music practices versus "New Music" practices in the UCSD music department. The difference between the analysis of Western Art Music/Popular music & WAM/New music is that the hierarchy is less evident between the latter pair. Proponents of WAM and New often claim their own to be 'higher' art than the other. This may be a product of intellectual snobbery & the environment in which these styles of music/art tend to thrive, nevertheless there exists a constant debate over what is essentially 'better' or at least 'the kind of music you're SUPPOSED to like.'
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think Western Art Music has class associated to it and is considered refined or better by a lot of my friends too. To me, I feel that this is because of it's history and how it came about. Western Art Music came from Europe, which is a world power and has superiority associated to it. Additionally, the composers such as Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven played for royalty. This links how society perceives it today. Another relevant fact is that classical instruments such as pianos, cellos, and harps cost a handful of money. In order to play them, you need money, and class is associated with money.
DeleteI think also lyrics contribute to a big portion on how popular music is judged nowadays. Western Art Music is generally about the art of the sound being produced. However, aside from the sounds being produced, lyrics also play a big factor in pop songs today. A lot of lyrics for popular music today are about sex. At this time, I think it's reasonable for people to not associate this type of music with class. Personally, I think a lot of pop music does not have that much musicality to it. What I mean by musicality is that the rhythms, harmonies, and even pitch sometimes really don't amaze me. The melodies are repetitive, and it is more about the showcase of lyrics rather than the music itself. One of the reasons I love EDM is because it showcases sounds and the way DJs transition from sample to sample require a lot of skill. It's interesting to hear them mesh rhythms together and warp the tempo so smoothly. Also, you need to understand what sounds would act as good transitions to another and when a phrase of music sounds complete. Or, they could also make it sound intriguing by transitioning it in an unexpected way. There's a lot of art associated to it. Of course I can't say, EDM is better than pop music because some people do prefer lyrics over musicality.
For the first part of the article I liked how Frith broke down what the problem in academia is with studying certain works of art. He described the problem as a notion that academia never teaches why something has value, or what value judgments even are, and instead just view culture as an object to be studied instead of seeing it as a popular activity.
ReplyDeleteI also liked how how he countered Friske's point that high culture values art intrinsically while low culture values it instrumentally. Frith says this is not true because people involved with in high culture use art for social functional ends, therefore making it instrumental. This instrumental use of music is very much seen in folk music. As i did research and conducted interviews there was always this notion that folk music is used to counteract hard time in peoples lives. It has a function of spreading awareness and hope.
I definitely think people's, as well as my own, value judgment of music are a daily occurrence. For example I feel like I connect more with certain people if we like the same type of music, and not only that but music is not just something that is isolated away from other art forms or lifestyles so knowing someone's taste in music leads to certain assumptions as Alex said above. Now obviously these assumptions are not always correct, nor is it right to make such assumptions but one can't help it.
As for letting these subjective values play a part in my research is hard to say, because yes I chose folk music because I like it, but also my questions are also based on how I might perceive the value of folk music. This is not to say that my research is biased though, because asking such questions doesn't mean there's no room for them to be disproved.
Concert vs. Recording...That is what I found most interesting when doing the reading. I've always questioned this. What is better? Does recording take away from the performance, or enhance it? In my opinion recording is a great thing. Through recording we can keep track of what has been played and when it was played. It's a blog of its own in a way. I do not thing that music loses anything when recorded, if anything things are gained from it. Recordings influence other people to play other things. For example imagine a world with no recorded works. What would we do at clubs? DJ's build off and create something original with work that is already out there.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Afsar mentioned above, I too "click" better with people with similar musical preferences. I believe that simply having something in common, like music, can always lead to conversation.
I have to disagree that music doesn't lose something when it is recorded. There are the most obvious things, in that a recording cannot replicate the exact sound of a live performance. There will be parts of the sound itself that it's lost in the act of recording, as well as, depending on whether or is an audio recording or a visual one, the visual element is lost. Another element I believe is lost is one that I find difficult to describe, but I think most people could identify in a live performance versus a recorded one; some kind of, for lack of a better word, energy is lost when one listens to a recording versus a live performance. That being said I believe that recording is a good thing, but that it is not superior to live performance. I agree that it can add new elements to music such as in the case you mentioned with DJs and of course in other styles of electronic music, so while I don't believe recording is bad, I do think that it cannot capture certain elements of live performance.
DeleteI believe for the most part with Brent in saying at music does in fact loose something upon being recorded, however instead of saying it looses something I would say that it offers different elements. For example Brent touched on this when talking about the missing excitement, the experience offered through a recording versus a "live" performance is totally different. Different things that need to be thought of that effect this is the environment, setting, visual elements, the performer-audience connection, etc. the recording of a piece of music cannot make up or offer the same things that a "live" performance can offer and vise versa. Questions I thought of about recording vs. concert music is what was the music intended for? Not all musics are intended for a large social settings, and some music is written and composed not for "live" performance, so I don't think it can fairly be said that one is better than the other (it can be really dependent on the listeners preference as well...) but instead that they offer very different things to the listener.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree strongly with Ashley that it really depends on what the music is being used for. Of course in terms of electronic music, recordings are essential. I know that electronic music came about a long time after recordings were invented, but I'm also saying that it contributes to it today. In our new age of technology, we can morph sounds and mesh them into new music that has never been heard before. Music is always evolving and technology contributes to that. However, I also really enjoy live and acoustic performances as well. In my opinion listening to voice acoustically and live is so much better than listening to it on my computer or phone. This is because the timbre of the voice sounds so different in person acoustically than over a recording. When I listen to music that has been made electronically, the difference is not as drastic. Of course, I would rather listen to it on good speakers over my computer or phone, but even so, the music still sounds good to me. So it really is about the different genres and purposes of music. If the timbre and acoustics are important to the genre of music, then a live performance would be much more preferred. If the genre is more about lyrics or melodies and does not rely on acoustics or timbre, then I think a recording would be a great way to listen to music as well. In regards to the purpose of music, if the music is used purely for listening purposes, then a live performance may be preferred. If the music were to be used for a blog or to dance to, then recordings are very useful too. Either way, the music is still being appreciated, so I feel like recordings are very valuable and useful.
Deletei think the point you made about there being an objective and subjective division of musical study to be a good one. how do subjective values play a part in the analysis of music? in my opinion, anyone can make a subjective analysis or "critique" of music. as brought up in some of the comments above, the intensely strong social aspect of music today has come into HUGE existence and importance ... particularly with the rise of technologies that allow for easier and easier access to a broader spectrum of sound. so much so that it is sometimes hard to separate the objective from the screaming subjective of mass media and social commentary ... a kind of "peer pressure" basis has become relevant in the experience of music where one cannot listen to something without already having some sort of "inner ear" of subjective experience of critique that comes from this bombardment of an age where information and subjective commentary and opinion has being so unavoidable ... is it possible even to approach new music with a "clean slate" ?
ReplyDeleteThe idea about deciding what music is good and bad and imposing your opinion on others is definitely true. Although you may not hate certain types of music, you undoubtedly will favor some types over others. This favoritism I think is something unavoidable in daily life, but in regards to ethnomusicology, is something that one has to be actively aware of. We learned earlier that in ethnomusicology, all musics should be considered equal. However, sometimes it is hard to think this superficially if one just doesn't favor a type of music. So to me it seems in ethnomusicology, everything must be considered "good literature" when we are talking about styles of music.
ReplyDeleteIn answering Brent's questions at the bottom of his article post I would definitely say that the idea of musical value and the argumentation that arises with that is something that is prevalent in some everyday conversations I find myself in. I believe the question of a particular musical value can be a very personal question that also in an indirect way asks someone why it is they are so drawn to it, whether it be connected to them through experience performing, imagery, aesthetically, or emotionally (just to name a few). I find myself in conversations and "arguments" with both family, friends, and fellow music students about my studies as a music humanities student and what exactly the value or purpose of the study is. The argument usually includes some kind of statement regarding the musical value of the subject seeing as it incorporates other fields such as art, history, and literature equally with performed musics.
ReplyDeleteI feel as the attribution of value and argument about music is also seen everyday in situations and environments such as academia, for example the constant decline in funding and prevalence in music programs within education. Also the limited opportunities available for those pursing music as a career and a way to support themselves.
In regards to my project, the argument of value and meaning within music mostly pertains to specific individuals. An aspect I have been focusing on is the value of specific songs to the listener, student, and performer. Questions I have been asking and looking to answer are things like, what is the motivation towards the performer/musician choosing a particular song and what influences are there posed upon that. Also die the songs always hold some kind of personal or emotional value? As a musician and performer how is the songs value portrayed through personal choice of word choice, ornamentation, tempo, etc. As a listener I look to answer what value the listener finds in the song? Does it offer so e kind of imagery, a sense of identity, or memory? Is the song valuable to them at all? All of these themselves can be very argumentative and subjective as there is no one exact answer and each answer has an individuals perspective imposed on it.
Subjective argumentation about music, particularly popular music, is one that goes on in my everyday life. As a self-identified musical snob who has decent taste in music, I do try to impose my music on those who haven't heard it before or don't hear it often. One of the biggest challenges for me every single day is my roommate. He listens to electronic (rave) and popular rap/hiphip around the clock. He sees value in that music, whether its because he actually enjoys it or he enjoys what it represents and the cultural capital it provides. I, on the other hand, find it obnoxious and can't stand it. We constantly bicker and try to impose our will on the other.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I'm winning.
An interesting point to also think about when exploring argumentation about music is the influence that the media and music industry have on these conversations. The perception one has of a particular song or artist is largely manufactured by whoever is distributing the artist and his respective songs. I think an interesting experiment would be to play several different popular music songs that are each associated with a particular image to a listener who is not familiar with the music, and examine how he or she responds to the music and associates the music with an image or scene. Is it congruent with the image that the the record labels and marketing groups were intending to produce? I wonder if it the image is built into the music itself or if it is a post-production label that has nothing to do with the music, only the artist's image. Finding out this answer would, in my opinion, play a large role in our discussion about the value attributed to music and the process of argumentation that arises from it.
ReplyDelete