The Butt's Friendly Debate Hour: Is Music Just Sound? Or Is It Also Ideology?

[Einherjar86]

Music is organized sound for entertainment. People can put ideology in it, but it doesn't inherently contain it.

I don't think it's this simple. If it's organized, then it exhibits some form of ideological predisposition.

If notes and meter accidentally fell into place by natural physical chance, then we might say that no ideological agenda inheres in the form. But as music is organized, and pays attention to specific conventions (whether it obeys them or not), engages in contract with an audience via genre, etc., it "contains" ideology.

However, there's nothing bad about this. If music had nothing to say about/for ideology, then it would be worthless on any cultural level. It would possess nothing more than an entirely subjective/affective value.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Then again, there are bands that claim to be just that. :Smug:

Can you list/link one Christian Black Metal band then?

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Can you list/link one Christian Black Metal band then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unblack_metal

There's a list near the bottom of the page.

 

[Eligos]

Music is organized sound for entertainment. People can put ideology in it, but it doesn't inherently contain it.

What ideology is this?

ThesongIwhistleonfoggyNightsism

 

[UltimateApathy]

Ha:

 

[Dak]

As Addo said, you all have to understand considerations and so forth. In light of this, formulating a change of discern becomes paradoxically a hypothetical and categorical imperative in relation to the epistemological understanding of both ideology and ideation of sound, namely, that is to be music.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

In some genres though ideology is inherent. Christian black metal cannot exist.

Ideology is not inherent, however aesthetic is. Emotion is apparent in all choices of composition be it key, tempo, modulation, production, and instrumentation. Heavily distorted and wall of sound percussive music is inherently furious and aggressive. There's a reason you don't run into too many goregrind bands with emo lyrics, and why doom metal lyrics tend not to be about hyperviolent topics. The arrangement is made to complement the message.

Christian black metal is a paradox (or: just fucking dumb) because it co-opts "negative" sounding musical choices such as distortion, blast beats, and shrieked vocals and then attempts to smush a positive message into it, or at least a "moral lesson". It doesn't work. The cognitive dissonance is IMMENSE. It's like trying to play Satanic bluegrass. You can't have a vile and evil message when you're playing a damn banjo in a major key.

Ideology isn't "inherent" per se, but there's a REASON that the music's tropes came about, given that the original scene was ideologically homogenous. They were aiming for a sound that represented misanthropy and hate, and out came black metal. Acting like the ear doesn't interpret those sounds as vile and, well, "blackened" is willful ignorance.

 

[damnromulans]

As Addo said, you all have to understand considerations and so forth. In light of this, formulating a change of discern becomes paradoxically a hypothetical and categorical imperative in relation to the epistemological understanding of both ideology and ideation of sound, namely, that is to be music.

.

 

[-CC-]

This Friendly Debate Hour is getting hostile. Y'all bitches better start getting epistemological up in dis. Also, could you (The Butt) not have picked a worse debate topic? This is the shit we look back on, on our deathbed, thinking to ourselves "was it really worth it?". That is coincidentally also the question you will eventually ask yourself in the penitentiary after being convicted for statutory rape.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

That's a stupid joke, considering that age of consent is 16 in Canada.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think there may be some misunderstandings present here. I just want to clarify a few things. Granted, I'm not saying we can't argue the points I'm about to make, but I personally feel there are some inconsistencies in previous posts.

PT. I:

In some genres though ideology is inherent. Christian black metal cannot exist.

I agree with the first part; but not the second. The ideology of black metal doesn't preclude an ideology of "un-black metal." Ideology isn't a fixed metaphysical essence that prohibits the existence of others; it's a social construct that reflects the values and interests of a culture. Ideology can only ever exist in a social, collective context because it must be recognized by multiple members.

That said, I believe that ideology inheres in music because music is always informed by cultural principles, even if it's the artist's intention to avoid certain principles. Music is ideological in the same way that language is ideological.

There's no such thing as a language that functions as an institution of pure communication. Language is bound to institutions of power, hierarchy, and exclusion. It is, perhaps, at the core of all ideology. Music is merely an extension of this.

PT. II:

Christian black metal is a paradox (or: just fucking dumb) because it co-opts "negative" sounding musical choices such as distortion, blast beats, and shrieked vocals and then attempts to smush a positive message into it, or at least a "moral lesson". It doesn't work. The cognitive dissonance is IMMENSE. It's like trying to play Satanic bluegrass. You can't have a vile and evil message when you're playing a damn banjo in a major key.

Ideology isn't "inherent" per se, but there's a REASON that the music's tropes came about, given that the original scene was ideologically homogenous. They were aiming for a sound that represented misanthropy and hate, and out came black metal. Acting like the ear doesn't interpret those sounds as vile and, well, "blackened" is willful ignorance.

ALL ideology consists of cognitive dissonance. There is no such thing as a logical ideology. Ideology is the means by which we convince ourselves our cultural beliefs and values are normal and universal.

As a matter of fact, there are satanic bluegrass/country/folk bands. The history of country music (i.e. its history as primarily Christian) doesn't preclude the possibility of later bands co-opting the sound and injecting it with a different system of values. Nothing prevents or prohibits this. Even the most revolutionary action is, in some sense, ideological in that it responds to another set of ideological beliefs.

A truly, purely non-ideological language/movement/system could not even be described as such because we would have no differential system against which to compare it.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

ALL ideology consists of cognitive dissonance. There is no such thing as a logical ideology. Ideology is the means by which we convince ourselves our cultural beliefs and values are normal and universal.

As a matter of fact, there are satanic bluegrass/country/folk bands. The history of country music (i.e. its history as primarily Christian) doesn't preclude the possibility of later bands co-opting the sound and injecting it with a different system of values. Nothing prevents or prohibits this. Even the most revolutionary action is, in some sense, ideological in that it responds to another set of ideological beliefs.

A truly, purely non-ideological language/movement/system could not even be described as such because we would have no differential system against which to compare it.

This has nothing to do with my point, which was that the form of art follows its function. If your message is to be in any way uplifting or moral, the aesthetic of it should be the same. An exception could be made for pieta art of the infamous "passion plays" that were intended to terrify people into being more Christian, but even that was pathetic reaching rather than an actual appeal to people.

It is irrelevant what message and what sound are specifically, the point is that music isn't an "ideology", but it is a "feeling". I have never, in my life, met anyone who wanted to spread the word of Jesus and the only way they could express this feeling was through agonized shrieks. It's transparent trojan horsing. The issue isn't that music has an inherent ideology, it has an inherent aesthetic.

There's a reason when you listen to symphonies and orchestral pieces, they don't NEED lyrics. They convey the message via the music itself. If the lyrics you're using are not the same emotion as what a person would glean from the song WITHOUT said lyrics, then one of two things is true. One is that you're intentionally using ironic counterpoint (think Cee-Lo's "Fuck You" as a good example of that), or you're trying to simply steal what the "youth of today" is into in order to push your message across.

The reason it's prevalent with "Christian rock/metal" is you don't really see any other groups that feel the need to do this, but I would happily, and I mean happily, point out the problem with them as well.

Music cannot be Democratic, Republican, capitalist, communist, Satanic, Christian, Islamic, Nazi, or vegetarian. It can be emotional and cultural, and that is both inarguable and important for anyone CREATING art to keep well in mind.

 

[Einherjar86]

This has nothing to do with my point, which was that the form of art follows its function. If your message is to be in any way uplifting or moral, the aesthetic of it should be the same. An exception could be made for pieta art of the infamous "passion plays" that were intended to terrify people into being more Christian, but even that was pathetic reaching rather than an actual appeal to people.

Aesthetics aren't inherently "uplifting or moral." The notion that uplifting music should be in a major key, depressing music in a minor key, is itself an ideological notion.

It is irrelevant what message and what sound are specifically, the point is that music isn't an "ideology", but it is a "feeling". I have never, in my life, met anyone who wanted to spread the word of Jesus and the only way they could express this feeling was through agonized shrieks. It's transparent trojan horsing. The issue isn't that music has an inherent ideology, it has an inherent aesthetic.

Feelings are ideologically conditioned. When a movie tugs at your heartstrings, it's because the film is appealing to specific generic conventions that evoke such a response.

There's a reason when you listen to symphonies and orchestral pieces, they don't NEED lyrics. They convey the message via the music itself. If the lyrics you're using are not the same emotion as what a person would glean from the song WITHOUT said lyrics, then one of two things is true. One is that you're intentionally using ironic counterpoint (think Cee-Lo's "Fuck You" as a good example of that), or you're trying to simply steal what the "youth of today" is into in order to push your message across.

Instrumental conventions used in symphonies are equally as ideological as lyrics about satanism.

Music cannot be Democratic, Republican, capitalist, communist, Satanic, Christian, Islamic, Nazi, or vegetarian. It can be emotional and cultural, and that is both inarguable and important for anyone CREATING art to keep well in mind.

Music can "be" whatever it ends up being.

The very generic and aesthetic conventions of music - aside from any lyric content - are densely ideological. These conventions aren't birthed from the mind of a solitary genius who crafts the perfect musical/aesthetic translation of pure feeling or emotion. They're only constructed out of a history of very specific power dynamics.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Aesthetics aren't inherently "uplifting or moral." The notion that uplifting music should be in a major key, depressing music in a minor key, is itself an ideological notion.

Feelings are ideologically conditioned. When a movie tugs at your heartstrings, it's because the film is appealing to specific generic conventions that evoke such a response.



Instrumental conventions used in symphonies are equally as ideological as lyrics about satanism.



Music can "be" whatever it ends up being.

The very generic and aesthetic conventions of music - aside from any lyric content - are densely ideological. These conventions aren't birthed from the mind of a solitary genius who crafts the perfect musical/aesthetic translation of pure feeling or emotion. They're only constructed out of a history of very specific power dynamics.

I think you're kind of jumping to an extreme. There are inherent feelings triggered by certain sound patterns. It's not like people in India listen to the 4th movement of Beethoven's 6th and say "oh, how soothing!" or listens to the opening passage of Chopin's Funeral March and thinks "this is pure joy."

The reason that certain types of music trigger the same emotions in people across culture is because so much of music is grounded in basic emotional patterns and sounds, or natural phenomena that are inherent to humans.

All the other stuff you're talking about is connotation. I agree that connotation is inextricable from how any individual interprets a given piece of music and that the interpretation is inherently cultured, but nonetheless there is often an inherent pattern that transcends all connotation.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you're kind of jumping to an extreme. There are inherent feelings triggered by certain sound patterns. It's not like people in India listen to the 4th movement of Beethoven's 6th and say "oh, how soothing!" or listens to the opening passage of Chopin's Funeral March and thinks "this is pure joy."

The reason that certain types of music trigger the same emotions in people across culture is because so much of music is grounded in basic emotional patterns and sounds, or natural phenomena that are inherent to humans.

All the other stuff you're talking about is connotation. I agree that connotation is inextricable from how any individual interprets a given piece of music and that the interpretation is inherently cultured, but nonetheless there is often an inherent pattern that transcends all connotation.

This is a controversial point, so it's worth discussing.

There's no doubt that we experience "interior" sensations, or brain processes. In a limited sense, we might call these "feelings." And there's no doubt that the cause of music likely induces some kind of effect in a listener; but the entirety of music isn't the sound that is intercepted by a listener.

Music, in any and every case of its creation, is an artistic/aesthetic practice that is rooted in: culture, politics, religion (or lack thereof), economics... power dynamics in general. Even if a listener experiences some form of music as pure sensation, this doesn't subtract (or negate) the music's ideological construction. Music is organized sound. It is organized according to specific principles, aesthetic or otherwise. In this sense, it is inextricable from ideology.

That said, I find it highly doubtful that anyone actually experiences music as only pure sensation/feeling. In fact, it's my opinion that the belief we can experience music as such is an ideological phenomenon. That is, we believe that music can touch some inner place or evoke some inner part of us, beyond language or communicative expression - some pure, essential substance.

I don't believe that this is the case. Music is ubiquitous. Before all of us reached the age where we could recognize music (or the age where we began to have cogent memories), we were exposed to music. We were exposed to the reactions of people around us to music. The music that ends up touching and influencing us does so not because it touches some purity within our selves, but because it registers some kind of ideological value or interest that has been instilled in us over years/decades.

 

[Vimana]

I don't think it's this simple. If it's organized, then it exhibits some form of ideological predisposition.

If notes and meter accidentally fell into place by natural physical chance, then we might say that no ideological agenda inheres in the form. But as music is organized, and pays attention to specific conventions (whether it obeys them or not), engages in contract with an audience via genre, etc., it "contains" ideology.

This doesn't match up with the dictionary.com definitions.

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy .
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

According to your definition, this conversation is an ideology, or all of nature itself is an ideology since it follows conventions and interacts with an audience. In this sense, music is ideology because it's part of nature.

However, there's nothing bad about this. If music had nothing to say about/for ideology, then it would be worthless on any cultural level. It would possess nothing more than an entirely subjective/affective value.

I'm not talking about whether or not it's good or bad. That part is irrelevant for me.

 

[Einherjar86]

This doesn't match up with the dictionary.com definitions.

According to your definition, this conversation is an ideology, or all of nature itself is an ideology since it follows conventions and interacts with an audience. In this sense, music is ideology because it's part of nature.

I think it matches up perfectly. How is music - composed, socially received, always politically/economically/culturally motivated - not a part of a "doctrine, myth, belief, etc." that provides guidance and validation for a large group of people?

As far as your second comment goes, this conversation is certainly ideological; we're obviously agreeing upon some predetermined rules of language in order to understand each other. However, nature (as in the external world apart from our senses) is not ideological; I'm not sure what conventions you believe to be inherent in the external world. Nature, on the other hand (capitalized Nature, Nature sublimated into thought) is ideological in the way that it is appropriated: all-natural food products, procreate the natural way, etc.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This is a controversial point, so it's worth discussing.

There's no doubt that we experience "interior" sensations, or brain processes. In a limited sense, we might call these "feelings." And there's no doubt that the cause of music likely induces some kind of effect in a listener; but the entirety of music isn't the sound that is intercepted by a listener.

Music, in any and every case of its creation, is an artistic/aesthetic practice that is rooted in: culture, politics, religion (or lack thereof), economics... power dynamics in general. Even if a listener experiences some form of music as pure sensation, this doesn't subtract (or negate) the music's ideological construction. Music is organized sound. It is organized according to specific principles, aesthetic or otherwise. In this sense, it is inextricable from ideology.

That said, I find it highly doubtful that anyone actually experiences music as only pure sensation/feeling. In fact, it's my opinion that the belief we can experience music as such is an ideological phenomenon. That is, we believe that music can touch some inner place or evoke some inner part of us, beyond language or communicative expression - some pure, essential substance.

I don't believe that this is the case. Music is ubiquitous. Before all of us reached the age where we could recognize music (or the age where we began to have cogent memories), we were exposed to music. We were exposed to the reactions of people around us to music. The music that ends up touching and influencing us does so not because it touches some purity within our selves, but because it registers some kind of ideological value or interest that has been instilled in us over years/decades.

I don't disagree that all music (both listening and creating) is inherently cultured and that our understanding of music is always framed by the culture we were raised in and the cultures we enter into (I'm using culture as a grab-bag term to cover the whole economic/political/cultural spectrum you're talking about).

My main point is that cultural dimension does not exhaust the meaning of music. And it's more than just "interior sensations." There are shared human phenomena that transcend specific cultures. There's a reason people cry at funerals across the world, laugh at jokes, and dance when celebrating. Because of the kinds of beings we are, we tend to have certain responses certain experiences/events. Music reflects that. For example, there's a reason that there are certain patterns in spiritual music that can be identified across cultures. Or another example, if I played you a funeral song and a party song from a culture you knew nothing about, you would probably be able to identify which one was which, simply because of your shared constitution as a human.

I think if you get too caught up in the fact that our experience is cultured you can lose sight of these trans-cultural patterns and have no explanation or understanding of them. And yet, they are clearly there, so if our interpretation of music dismisses them then that interpretation is inadequate. Bottom line: going to the extremes of unity or difference is basically always means you're dismissing something important.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't disagree that all music (both listening and creating) is inherently cultured and that our understanding of music is always framed by the culture we were raised in and the cultures we enter into (I'm using culture as a grab-bag term to cover the whole economic/political/cultural spectrum you're talking about).

My main point is that cultural dimension does not exhaust the meaning of music. And it's more than just "interior sensations." There are shared human phenomena that transcend specific cultures. There's a reason people cry at funerals across the world, laugh at jokes, and dance when celebrating. Because of the kinds of beings we are, we tend to have certain responses certain experiences/events. Music reflects that. For example, there's a reason that there are certain patterns in spiritual music that can be identified across cultures. Or another example, if I played you a funeral song and a party song from a culture you knew nothing about, you would probably be able to identify which one was which, simply because of your shared constitution as a human.

I think if you get too caught up in the fact that our experience is cultured you can lose sight of these trans-cultural patterns and have no explanation or understanding of them. And yet, they are clearly there, so if our interpretation of music dismisses them then that interpretation is inadequate. Bottom line: going to the extremes of unity or difference is basically always means you're dismissing something important.

I'm not entirely swayed because your examples lack universality. Not all people cry at funerals; some people laugh. Not all people laugh at jokes; some people get offended. And not all people dance at celebrations; some people cry. The notion of transcultural phenomena is almost impossible to verify because of the variety of responses even within given cultures.

It is my critical opinion that meaning is always partially retroactive; that is, it is never wholly inherent in something (a work, a piece of music, a painting, a text, etc.) but is inscribed culturally after the fact. Even if a hypothetical text written in a vacuum could be introduced into a culture, it would immediately become saturated by the ideology of that culture; but there's no such thing as a work of art that exists in a vacuum. This thing would not be a work of art.

Music, created in specific socio-cultural circumstances, and received in certain socio-cultural circumstances, attains its meaning purely from ideologically conditioned behavior and beliefs. You cannot write a non-ideological piece of music on a guitar, or a violin, or a piano, no matter how much you tinker with it. The instrument itself is the product of a specific ideology.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I'm not entirely swayed because your examples lack universality. Not all people cry at funerals; some people laugh. Not all people laugh at jokes; some people get offended. And not all people dance at celebrations; some people cry. The notion of transcultural phenomena is almost impossible to verify because of the variety of responses even within given cultures.

There's nothing that's universal to all people, but I've yet to hear of a culture where it is uncommon to cry because of death. And even if such a culture does exist, it's the exception to the pattern that characterizes the vast majority of humans on this planet. The patterns that I mentioned are sufficiently common across diverse cultures-many of whom evolved separately- that an explanation is needed. You're zooming in so narrowly into culturally specific ideology that you are dismissing these patterns, which simply leaves your theory lacking in critical respects.

It is my critical opinion that meaning is always partially retroactive; that is, it is never wholly inherent in something (a work, a piece of music, a painting, a text, etc.) but is inscribed culturally after the fact. Even if a hypothetical text written in a vacuum could be introduced into a culture, it would immediately become saturated by the ideology of that culture; but there's no such thing as a work of art that exists in a vacuum. This thing would not be a work of art.

Agreed.

Music, created in specific socio-cultural circumstances, and received in certain socio-cultural circumstances, attains its meaning purely from ideologically conditioned behavior and beliefs. You cannot write a non-ideological piece of music on a guitar, or a violin, or a piano, no matter how much you tinker with it. The instrument itself is the product of a specific ideology.

This is where we disagree. People have certain natural capacities that also condition creation. This is why phenomena like art, music, etc. manifest in cultures that are totally separate from one another. Many of those conditions are inherent to the vast majority of humans (the exceptions being those with certain disabilities or injuries). By ignoring these inherent human (heck, in many cases inherent mammal) qualities you are engaging in a form of reductionism.