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