RE: [acid-jazz] has capitalism ruined music?

From: Steve (scatanzaro4_at_cox.net)
Date: 2004-06-26 00:52:21

  • Next message: kristopher robin: "Re: [acid-jazz] has capitalism ruined music?"

    ok matt, let's keep the rant going;
     
    first, you're right that military inventions = socialism, more or less.
    i only put that in there because the only area where western socialists
    ever want to seem to cut is military and defense. BUT;
     
    the theramin is a good example of socialist technology. it doesn't do
    much, it's impractical, esoteric, and most importantly, it never went
    anywhere. compare the original theramin to a current theramin.. now look
    at moog's first vca, and the minimoog. both inventors came up with an
    original, if esoteric, technology. moog was able to change the face of
    music by developing his vca in such a way that the average gigging
    musician could get his hands on it and use it. theramin remains a
    footnote. (new theramins are available, btw. courtesy of bob moog!)
     
    as for cuba, thanks to fidel, "having the richest depository of skilled
    musicians in the world." yeah, sosa and rubalcalba are great; so are
    meldhau and jason moran and geoff keezer and about 500 other pianists I
    could name that grew up in capitalist society. further, I don't know how
    it could be tested, but I'd say the average Japanese has more music
    education than the average Cuban. I heard there were over 9000 yamaha
    music schools in japan. which is roughly the number of subway sandwich
    stores in the us.
     
    the real question would be, would the AVERAGE Cuban musician be better
    if, for instance, he/she had access to modern technology? what kind of
    piano did omar sosa play on, btw? probably Yamaha!
     
    as for needing lots of money to study. wf buckley once said, "life
    cannot be all bad, when, for $50, you can buy all 32 beethoven sonatas,
    and listen to them for 5 years." now days, if u have a computer and
    $9.95 a month, u can access a massive world-class selection of music via
    rhapsody or other download services (not to mention all the freebies
    that are out there.)
     
    as for lesser markets. funny, i was out in phoenix last nite, and I
    heard jazzanova at a club u could only describe as bourgeoisie!!! to say
    that "the masses" need the state to get hip to jazzanova is silly. got
    news 4 ya. the proletariat in the heartland r rocking plasma screens,
    satellite dishes, and 5.1 surround!
     
    if your theory was correct, the only people who would be successful
    musicians in a capitalist society would be sons and daughters of the
    wealthy. this is decidedly not true. in fact, it never has been. ray
    charles, born rich? nat cole? charlie parker? huh? do u have to be rich
    to make an album in a capitalist society nowdays?
     
    look at the result of all the ominous signs socialists pointed to, a
    world controlled by starbucks, clear channel, and wallmart. the fact is,
    your "big city" socialist view doesn't take into account that half the
    country has a high speed modem and access to more music and radio shows
    than could have been dreamed of even 10 years ago!!!
     
    finally, here's the most dangerous sentence in your post, imho, and the
    real reason I am a capitalist.
     
    u say, in cuba, If students show promise they are given training and
    attention there that only the rich get here.
     
    consider this statement. if students show promise, according to who? the
    state says, "this is a promising musician" based on the state's (i.e.
    fidel's) criteria. hell, capitalism will produce a new style of music
    that a socialist state doesn't even recognize as music while the
    socialists are still trying to codify their "promising musician"
    criteria.
     
    but let me ask u a question. who's going further in music, the one with
    "promising talent" or the one with the most fire and desire?
     
    in the '70's, there was a great soviet weightlifter named alexyev. his
    story showed the "superiority" of the soviet system, where his natural
    talent was seized upon at a young age, and he was given expert training
    his whole life.
     
    in America in the '70's, there was a great baseball player named pete
    rose. after his team, the reds (heh heh), won their second world series,
    they asked rose's manager if he was the greatest player he ever saw. the
    manager, Anderson, responded, "he's the greatest player I ever saw with
    no talent."
     
    pete rose would've probably never made it as an athlete under the soviet
    system. by the time he was 13 years old, he would've been shipped to
    some fishpacking school someplace.
     
    human potential, desire, talent, genius, etc. can not be quantified via
    the state!!! it is 2 individual, imprecise.
     
    look at the the eastern european classicists, henryk gorecki and arvo
    paart. they sold more records then ALL the socialist professors of
    music, western and elsewhere. why? because when union of socialist
    republics imploded, they turned away from the academism of their
    "complicated" days and towards simple, soulful, spiritual music. I
    actually heard a socialist music professor yell out "why this man part
    and his old fashioned music has caused such a stir is beyond me!' more
    grist for his socialist mill. ie, mass consumption = whackness.
     
    and one final point. cuba is a magic island, no doubt. but what kind of
    musical life did cuba have b4 fidel? giving 1 man credit for the prowess
    of a nation that was swinging well b4 he came on the scene. silly. like
    giving hirohito credit for japan's extremely strong musical life.
     
     
     
     
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Matthew Glesne [mailto:mglesne_at_sbcglobual.net]
    Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:52 PM
    To: acid-jazz_at_ucsd.edu
    Subject: Re: [acid-jazz] has capitalism ruined music?
     
    steve, steve, steve
    you have touched a nerve on this fair socialist, so please forgive if i
    get a little ranty myself.
     
    you base your hypothesis - that capitalism is *good* for music on the
    basis of
    1) that equipment was made in "capitalist countries." Yet you
    immediately discredit that theory with your observation that much of the
    d technology was developed in military laboratories - or (i would
    strongly guess) research laboratories. That may sound capitalist, but of
    course, the military and university research facilities are some of the
    lone bastions of socialism in western countries. Massive state
    subsidies, plans and targets, working for the common good = socialism.
    plus, don't forget the theramin - the granddaddy to electronic music = a
    product of early soviet revolutionary research.
     
    And to reduce Cuban music to the Buena Vista Social Club - and its
    pre-castro origins is a severe mistake. The emount of styles and quality
    of music that have come out of cuba since the revolution is
    mind-blowing. Everyone in Cuba is looking forwards. because of the
    revolution, cuba is perhaps the richest depository of skilled musicians
    in the world. i witnessed omar sosa this past week at the skirball (do
    not sleep on this wonder) and was amazed at his mastery of the piano.
    the rich heritage of classical, jazz and latin were so effortlessly
    under his control that he is able to create something truly new in
    today's world. our musicians simply don't have that knowledge, that
    classical training - particuarly one's unfortunate enough to be poor or
    middle class
     
    2) You say that socialist music (there is no such thing) can be best
    found on university campusues. You are referring to a slice of socialism
    within an overall capitalist framework in American/Western nations.
    Whereas, yes the means of production are "socialist," this has nothing
    at all do do with the socialist view on music. Socialists stress high
    level musical training for the masses. Capitalists say that musical
    training is only for those who can afford private lessons.Socialists say
    that the best music should be available for all to hear. Vanguard music
    (sorry i get caught up in my marxist termonogy) in Capitalist societies
    is highly elitist by its nature (the radio is crap, so you need a
    computer or lots of money to buy releases - not a level playing field
    when 1/2 the country does not have internet access). You seem to have an
    opposite impression of socialist music - that it is supposed to be
    avant-garde and unliked by the masses. THis is totally wrong. !
     
    State funded radio is the only place where we can hear our music,
    whether it be the BBC, Radiomultikulti in Gernamny (jazzanova), Radio
    Nova in France or US college radio, community funded pirates, etc.
     
    Yes, even if you feel that today is a good time in American for our
    music, you have to realize that we are looking through things fom a
    privledged vantage point (los angeles, new york, san francisco,
    chicago... to a lesser extent believe me). ask those living in a small
    town anywhere, or those even in a place like phoenix or san diego, where
    the basic requirements of a "scene" simply are not there. this excludes
    90% of our country from even getting a clue about this great music. this
    is good?
     
    in cuba (i have been there), i had conversations with young jazz heads
    about subjects much too far for me to relate. they were at the club free
    (foreigners had to pay - to subsidize). all the case de la musicas are
    free, there are many Party organized parties that are free. Seats are
    reserved at the havana international jazz festival (one of THE best in
    the world) for students for free, the opera costs pennies, the
    philharmonic, etc, etc. If students show promise they are given training
    and attention there that only the rich get here. instruments and
    equipment is shared equally and rationally across the country, rather
    than hoarded in million dollar stuidios here. remember our country has
    banned the export of any US music or music instruments for 40+ years,
    and they still maintain a musical culture of a breathtaking scale. It
    simply innundates you and is everywhere - and loved - and constantly
    looking forward - not backwards to the buena vista days. everyone in
    cuba see! ms to be a musician - and you make as good a living as anyone.
    the cuban government puts on festivals for everytihng - the hip-hop
    festival flies in mos def, the roots and dead prez... there was a
    beatles fesitval when i was there.
     
    i could go on and on about things we already all know about - the
    evilness of the RIAA, the record labels, commerical radio, the concert
    promoters, the empy jazz joints, the troubles our artists always find
    themselves in, etc....
     
    i just wish people had a better idea of what socialism really means.
    matt
     
     
     

    Steve <scatanzaro4_at_cox.net> wrote:
    :: rant warning :: :: rant warning ::
     
     
    perhaps you've seen the painting "capitalism - socialism" which shows 2
    views of a violinist; under the capitalist system, he is huddled in the
    cold, shivering over his violin, a sad look, like a chick tract
    character on his way to hell, while behind him are the faded lights of
    saloons, taverns, and other "joints" he is exploited by and forced to
    perform in. under the socialist banner, he is proudly performing as a
    soloist (presumably a russian aka soviet approved piece) in a concert
    hall to an ennobled audience.
     
    nice bit of propaganda, that. but then, I had the experience of seeing
    art become life when, in the same week, I saw the gonzalo rubalcalba
    trio, live, and the source awards, on tv. it got me wondering, is
    capitalism really bad for the musician and her/his art? could the death
    jaw of lucre really squeeze out all of the "charm for the workman," even
    in music?
     
    but I look at the question a little longer, and some things become
    apparent to me; first, nearly all of the tools now indispensable for the
    creation of modern music come from, for the most part, largely
    capitalist societies; that would be firstly japan, usa, germany, uk,
    then korea, poland, estonia, and oh yeah, sweden.
     
    what are these essential tools? technics turntable. akai sampler. fender
    rhodes / telecaster. logic audio, cubase. neve / ssl console. marshall
    amp. on and on.
     
    (btw as an aside. interesting to note how many of these technologies had
    their origins in a "military" use at some point. the rhodes, for
    instance, was born when harold rhodes was ordered to start a music
    therapy program for the tens of thousands of wounded gi's in ww2. and.
    ever wonder why neve stuff has that boring "grey" finish? because neve
    started out as military equipment. in fact, the modular design of neve
    gear, part of what makes it so prized today over mackie and the like,
    was due to its original conformation to military spec. ie modules were
    easier to repair on gunships, even though they were much more costly to
    make.! next time u listen to return to 4ever, thank the military
    industrial complex!!! tax money at work.)
     
    if you're not a musician, you may not realize the revolution that has
    occurred / is occurring with music technology. it is possible, if not
    probable, that a hit record will come from the home pc of a teen-aged
    kid with not more than $1000 invested in his equipment - this when
    record companies routinely spend millions to record, to say nothing of
    promote, albums.
     
    back on point. without the products made in these capitalist economies,
    there would be no music as we know it. no 4 hero. no dkd or bugz in the
    attic. in fact, roll back further. there is no rush, as far as I know,
    among vintage music gear enthusiasts, for much of anything coming from
    soviet states. did they ever produce any great piano? any great
    microphone? when the maestro, v. horowitz, returned to the ussr late in
    life, did he play any soviet piano? no, he had his u.s. steinway and
    sons flown over. there's the reality your poster has twisted. punked.
    what about cuba, what about buena vista social club? well, it may dismay
    some to recall sones and tumbaos pre-date castro, that the legendary
    Havana studio, "egrem" was built by rca in the '40's. that it has a uk
    board and uses german mics, etc. what cuba has been really good! at, in
    addition to quashing political dissent via imprisonment, is saving old
    western technology in museum condition.
     
    just consider; if it wasn't for capitalism, ALL of the great music of
    the 20th century we have on recording (thanks to marx's nightmare,
    edison) would *sound* a lot different, i.e. worse.
     
    and, it should be noted, that the nu music software business is as about
    as unlike the caricature of capitalism marx sets up in the manifesto as
    to be funny. software development is very dynamic, and sizeable fortunes
    can be built from a desktop, where a nerdy kat/kitten is programming
    away, trying to develop the next useful vst.
     
    BUT, u say, what have the capitalist musicians done with the wonderful
    tools capitalism has bequeathed on them? or better, while u might
    (grudgingly) concede that capitalism has been indispensable to the
    artist's convenience, what has it done to her soul, her art? here, we
    enter in to more esoteric realms, but a couple of questions might be
    asked;
     
    first, when u, dear reader, hear a piece of music, a track, that really
    moves u, do u think, "wow. that sounds/feels great, but it would sound
    better if it wasn't for that dam patriot act!!!" or "if only clinton
    wouldn't have passed welfare reform, amp fiddler would really sound hot
    2 me."
     
    but consider this; almost every piece of music u like, from mozart's
    concertos to dkd, was made, at least in part, to get people to like /
    buy it. very few artists want their music to be unliked. and that
    includes the most "socialist" artist out there. (socialism's a lot like
    Christianity in that regard. a lot of people espouse it on the macro
    level, but few actually live it in the micro of their own personal
    lives, especially the average attention-pimping artist.)
     
    what about socialist music? does it exist? yes; the best place to hear
    the socialist sound is in university composition faculty concerts. these
    are compositions by artists who's salaries are paid, not by the public,
    supply / demand, but by the state. that's what music sounds like when a
    musician is state subsidized. academic, self-indulgent, dry,
    self-referential, etc. if capitalism makes the artist a pimp, socialism
    makes the artist a bureaucrat.
     
    so, here we are. does the capitalist system suck 4 artists. sure it
    does; the world itself, in some ways, sucks 4 artists. BUT, the
    capitalist system has also provided artists with the TOOLS necessary to
    paint the world w. their OWN sound NOW, much more so than ever before.
    with everyone rocking a software computer setup nowadays, the playing
    field is leveled. u have now only to 2 perform, 2 administrate and 2
    market, which takes talent, energy and persistence. is it in u?
     
    paradox ::: when u pay your subsidy to fund michael moore's 911 this
    weekend. just imagine how boring it would've been if it was made for PBS
    instead of your pocketbook. (mmmm, just like ben and jerry's, sweet
    guilty pleasure!!!)