-Allen Ginsberg, "Ignu"

Musing on the interwebz.




I was considering writing an essay similar to this for an undergrad symposium calling for papers analyzing or interpreting a literary work, film, or culture, but the deadline has approached too soon so I have decided to flesh out my ideas here.
I guess if I were to have an introduction and informal thesis for this formal blog entry, it would read something like this: different music is consumed and interpreted differently by different people -- that is, of course, why music is so "universal."-- But is it fair to assume how one specific genre is interpreted by one specific group of people? Say, college students ages 18-25? I argue that it is. Further, if the aforementioned assumption is accurate, can the observer then compose other assumptions and compare them based on common ethics, deducing which genre of music is morally and intellectually better than others? I also argue that this can be done.
QUASI ABSTRACT
There are two contrasting geneses of music: popular and serious. Just as popular and serious music sound different, they are consumed equally different. That is, the music is aurally experienced and is then mentally processed. In this mental process, the listener attempts to relate the music's content, with or without text, to one's own experiences. Both kinds of music attempt to entertain and fulfill its listeners' sense of musical curiosity, taste, and whatever subsequent actions or ends it may produce. Those ends, grounded by common ethical principal, can be considered unsound in one case and intellectual in the other.
The engaging of popular music is frequently and ethically shallow and material while the consuming of serious music allows its listener to entertain thoughts not grounded by trend-driven fashion. So, in more than one sense, this serious music is challenging and equally rewarding to listen to.
What I'm really interested in here is figuring out why popular music has been accepted to the degree that we have witnessed and what goes through the college student's mind when it is listened to. I don't mean that flippantly, but really, what is going through their minds?
And like any other sort of formal essay, the material discussed in the thesis and body of the work is likely to change.
Before you read any further, a small word on this large entry. All of the assumptions mentioned above are all, of course, grounded by my taste. This is not an expository piece of work; rather a largely opinionated piece discussing how people consume music differently and how some genres of Western music can be branded "better" than others. I will, for lack of a better term, "prove" these conclusions to be true through widely-accepted cultural fact and historical pattern.
Another quick word: the content in "No. 4" may possibly be misconstrued by underlying thoughts of elitism and ignorance. None of that here. I believe these opinions to be well-informed by years of observation and CSI-grade brain picking. If "No. 4" is considered to be an elite mini-case study by anyone, I argue that the supposed superior thoughts and opinions presented here are well researched and defended, accounting for more than enough evidence to support the following conclusions.
On the PRT one morning, I inescapably listened to another student's iPod. It was a popular "rap" single. Why was he listening to it? Yes, he enjoyed it. But which part of the music did he enjoy? The harmony, melody, maybe the percussion? Or did his satisfaction with the music stem from a product of the former elements paired with lyrical content? I argue that he was mentally conditioning himself for the day. Through the music, he was allowing it to say to him, "This is the behavior you are to realize. This is the language you are to use. This is the way you are to treat women. Consider money this way. Consider fame this way. Consider yourself this way."
In a larger sense, why does he wish to answer those questions with a response that would uniformly match what he sees in his peers? A response his peers also attempt to realize. A response that conforms to the popular image conveyed through television and other means of media.
Why Schoenberg is to be Respected more than P!nk!
I have not chosen to discuss these particular figures because one has done especially much for music and the other has done especially little; rather, I have chosen them because of their respective places in their own discourses; both of them are widely considered accomplished musicians. If this is doubted, or read as a sort of gender related issue, I invite the reader to conduct the same sort of analysis on female composer Ellen Taafe Zwilich and male hip-hop giant 'Lil Wayne.
*This blog entry is not really about why Schoenberg is to be respected more than Pink; the two figures are merely two icons representing the divided worlds of "high art" and "low brow music."
** Like others, I believe popular terminology to be a bit of a misnomer. "Solo artist," for an example, usually implies an artist's independent work in which the artist governs his own work and makes executive decisions. We all know this isn't really true –and I am aware of this generalization.--When I am forced to use phrases like this, I will use quotes.
If you would rather not read about Schoenberg or Pink, I forgive you. You can skip the next three paragraphs.
Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) was an accomplished composer, theorist, painter, essayist, and poet celebrated for his innovative compositional techniques and successful disciples of those techniques. There are, of course, volumes upon volumes written about Schoenberg's effect on music, the way he thought about music, and various biographical accounts, so any background I provide here is by no means exhaustive.
Schoenberg's early works were largely Romantic. With those works, he pushed the boundaries of "traditional" harmonic means and Romantic ideals with monumental works like Gurre-Lieder. Soon, the composer felt this style of music could go no further and eventually began composing in an atonal harmonic language. That is, music with no harmonic center. To a degree, this style relieved Schoenberg of creative limitation, but lacked formal structure. After a short period of experimentation, Schoenberg developed the twelve tone technique in which all twelve notes of the Western music system are presented in a certain order before the composition is written and during the course of the piece is mutated and developed. For years, this method of composition and other theories created by Schoenberg eclipsed his mastery of composition. Since his death, however, Schoenberg's compositions have proven to be popular, successful works themselves.
Alecia Beth Moore, known as P!nk! (Pink) in "the biz," began her career as a rhythm & blues and hip hop performer in the all-girl group Choice. After a short stint with the group, Pink separated with Choice in an effort to develop a career as a "solo" artist. The product of her solo material was released as Can't Take Me Home (2001), an album in which "Get the Party Started" was featured. For many, the track was Pink's first exposure as no nonsense, fun loving singer. This image was soon shed as a result of M!ssundastood (2002), a release in which Pink attempted to rid the cookie cutter image she gained from her previous effort. Her next album Try This (2005) was a success in Europe in Australia but failed to enter the top forty stream in the U.S. After a short break, Pink returned to U.S. fame in 2007 with I'm not Dead Yet. The album was Pink's lowest seller until the release of "U +Ur Hand." Pink has promoted the album by opening for Justin Timberlake's on the American leg of his FutureSex/LoveShow tour in 2007.