The obsession with Music

[Norsemaiden]

You do get manipulative people in all walks of life - and successful businessmen do have psychopathic personality traits also, as it is usually necessary to be ruthless to make a large profit. It is official that politicians are consistently lying however.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/redbox/story/0,,958361,00.html

"Truth is, politicians just can't help lying
Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday May 18, 2003
The Observer
They may prefer to call it being 'economical with the actualité'. But it's official: politicians just can't help telling lies.
A new study of the art of telling political whoppers, from the cash-for-questions scandal to Bill Clinton's sex life, concludes what cynical voters have long suspected - that it is almost impossible for modern politicians to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. "

 

[Keltoi]

C'mon Norsemaiden, I'm sure you've told a little white lie here or there.

 

[Horus]

I agree, until the last line. I dont think politicians operate in a fundamentally different way than others; they have a different context and realm to project their will. The farmer and plant worker are often just as manipulative and despotic within their arena as the politician is within his.

No, the farmer and plant worker are not nearly as manipulative and despotic as the politician, because the farmer and plant worker do not have the money or power to get away with money laundering, bribes, and a whole assortment of retarted crimes.
If you had enough money to pay everyone around you not to touch you, would you go drug dealing, money laundering, and all those other crimes?

 

[War_Blade]

Yeah, musical taste does influence the media, but if the media wants to sell what they like, what better way to do it than shoving it down peoples' throats? Seriously. If people weren't spending every minute of their lives watching people get their rides pimped, or watching tv shows about how cool celebrities are because they're rich anorexics who don't know how to do anything other than party, do you think people would want to be like that if the media wasn't constantly saying "These people are cool."? If they weren't doing that, than too many people would like too different things and they wouldn't be able to sell their stuff to as many people. So they get everybody to like one thing, and they sell that one thing to everybody.

+1
well, its a shame that most people are fools, and just do what the media tells them. People treat metalheads as just a group of crazy kids simply trying to rebal by listening to loud music. They don't realize that all they are listening to is the lastest "phat joint" because mtv put in on.

 

[ARC150]

I would contend really really good music also inspires thought; yet I suppose that's not the kind of music we're talking about here.

I think that, for better or worse, there is no distinction between "really really good music" and "the kind of music we're talking about here."

The idea that music influences people is, IMHO, a truth that can not be debated. All music inspires thought; but when music involves lyric, the inspired thoughts are typically confined to the subject matter expounded in the accompanying words -- but the emotional involvement is first derived from the music itself.

If this is true, then there is a grand opportunity for an argumentum ad verecundiam style, fallacious cognitive connection between how one feels about the music and how one feels about the messages put forth in the lyric of that music. A given adolescent (NB: Not limited to adolescents, but more typical within that group), attracted, on an emotional level, to certain music, ends up influenced by the associated lyric-message on an emotional - not logical - level.

A great example is the band Laibach:
This group originated from members of the Laibach political party who advocated an overthrow of the Chechloslovacian government. These individuals recognized the influential power of music and, so, formed a band that extolled the party's beliefs. The idea was that if people liked the music, they would become a voluntarily captive audience to whatever ideas the band bespoke in their lyric.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Good point. Political messages in music are rife. John Lennon's music was political, and the music of the hippie movement was political, and there is far-right political music and communist (like Billy Brag, and many others). Punk was mostly political. And hiphop/rap also. It is expected that if you like the fashion and the music, or simply choose the identity regardless of any appreciation of the music or proper understanding of the politics, that you will choose to think in a prescribed way. Otherwise you would not fit in with the chosen identity.

There is a phenomenon called "leaving the nest syndrome" that teenagers often experience. It is an urge to assert their independence from their family and gives rise to the "rebellious" behaviour common at this time. My mum hated jazz, but as a teenager she tried her best to get into it and listen to it, just to annoy her parents.

Some, may be even most, kids that are into metal may be simply reacting in this way and not really appreciate the music at all.

 

[speed]

I think that, for better or worse, there is no distinction between "really really good music" and "the kind of music we're talking about here."

The idea that music influences people is, IMHO, a truth that can not be debated. All music inspires thought; but when music involves lyric, the inspired thoughts are typically confined to the subject matter expounded in the accompanying words -- but the emotional involvement is first derived from the music itself.

If this is true, then there is a grand opportunity for an argumentum ad verecundiam style, fallacious cognitive connection between how one feels about the music and how one feels about the messages put forth in the lyric of that music. A given adolescent (NB: Not limited to adolescents, but more typical within that group), attracted, on an emotional level, to certain music, ends up influenced by the associated lyric-message on an emotional - not logical - level.

A great example is the band Laibach:
This group originated from members of the Laibach political party who advocated an overthrow of the Chechloslovacian government. These individuals recognized the influential power of music and, so, formed a band that extolled the party's beliefs. The idea was that if people liked the music, they would become a voluntarily captive audience to whatever ideas the band bespoke in their lyric.

No I suppose there is no distinction between really really good music and others. However, my point--which I failed to develop--is that Bach, Palestrina, Bruckner, Ligeti, Mozart, and for me Isis, Sunn0))), Jesu, and other classics, do create higher thought through the compositional and emotive power of their music--not through lyrics etc. Of course this is rare.

But you hit on a major point about lyrics. I personally never bother with them, but to combine propaganda or ideology can be very powerful.

 

[Justin S.]

No, the farmer and plant worker are not nearly as manipulative and despotic as the politician, because the farmer and plant worker do not have the money or power to get away with money laundering, bribes, and a whole assortment of retarted crimes.
If you had enough money to pay everyone around you not to touch you, would you go drug dealing, money laundering, and all those other crimes?

Manipulation, despotism, etc. are types of relations. What content these modes are applied to wasnt an issue.

The "degree" of one's manipulation/despotism is not determined by a future evaluation of its physical effects, scale or scope, but the essence of how one operates manipulatively/despotically. For example, the degree of despotism in a father who beats and lords over every aspect of his family can be much greater than a politician, even though the latter's actions may affect millions. The politician may have only signed a piece of paper, made an abstract decision, uttered decisive words. The abusive father, on the other hand, must manipulate, intimidate, and use violent language and force constantly to maintain his order (unlike the government, where power is diffused over a huge bureaucracy, the abusive father functions as a monolithic, and very tangible, authority/power figure.)

 

[Justin S.]

Music, especially to those of adolescent functioning (could be 70 years of age) as noted by ARC150, is especially effective in drawing an audience into its creators metaphysics.

Whats amusing to me is that music is quite limited in its physical options (in terms of tones or "notes", not overtones, production, personal craft, etc.) There is only so much to work with on a foundational level, and most music operates within tight bounds of meter, dynamics, and structure (yes, even those supposedly "breaking" them).

Here again we are faced with things-as-they-are. Sounds. Only when they are arranged in a familiar manner (acculturation), imbued with world-historical prestige ("Classical"), or used as a backdrop for lyrical propagandizing (most modern music) do they have that emotional effect we are discussing- essentially, when sound is shaped by metaphysics, forging song.

Recognizing this is the step is to break from adolescent relationality- to see sound as it is, and to find most attempts at music distasteful, because frankly, nearly all metaphysics are so.

 

[Horus]

Manipulation, despotism, etc. are types of relations. What content these modes are applied to wasnt an issue.

The "degree" of one's manipulation/despotism is not determined by a future evaluation of its physical effects, scale or scope, but the essence of how one operates manipulatively/despotically. For example, the degree of despotism in a father who beats and lords over every aspect of his family can be much greater than a politician, even though the latter's actions may affect millions. The politician may have only signed a piece of paper, made an abstract decision, uttered decisive words. The abusive father, on the other hand, must manipulate, intimidate, and use violent language and force constantly to maintain his order (unlike the government, where power is diffused over a huge bureaucracy, the abusive father functions as a monolithic, and very tangible, authority/power figure.)

You misunderstood what I said. My point was that people like to do what they have the power to do.

 

[Justin S.]

You misunderstood what I said. My point was that people like to do what they have the power to do.

OK...?

Then why refute my statement on the nature of manipulation/despotism?

You said this:

No, the farmer and plant worker are not nearly as manipulative and despotic as the politician, because the farmer and plant worker do not have the money or power to get away with money laundering, bribes, and a whole assortment of retarted crimes.
If you had enough money to pay everyone around you not to touch you, would you go drug dealing, money laundering, and all those other crimes?

(bold/underline mine)

In your own words you refute my statement and claim that the degree of manipulation/despotism is a function of the scope or impact of the act, rather than its relationality.

How have i misunderstood you?

 

[Horus]

Here's something I should've thought of before. Tell me if you've ever heard this saying:

"Money is the root of all evil."

 

[Justin S.]

mmm, doesnt ring a bell.

 

[Horus]

You really haven't heard that? I'm sure somebody else here has heard that saying!!

 

[Justin S.]

Ive heard "mo' money mo' problems" but thats it.

 

[Cythraul]

 

[entanglement]

Yeah, musical taste does influence the media, but if the media wants to sell what they like, what better way to do it than shoving it down peoples' throats? Seriously. If people weren't spending every minute of their lives watching people get their rides pimped, or watching tv shows about how cool celebrities are because they're rich anorexics who don't know how to do anything other than party, do you think people would want to be like that if the media wasn't constantly saying "These people are cool."? If they weren't doing that, than too many people would like too different things and they wouldn't be able to sell their stuff to as many people. So they get everybody to like one thing, and they sell that one thing to everybody.

Its not a question of 'how' they sell what they want to. Its a question of "if" they even want to sell anything at all. A question if they want to give people what they want or paint the picture of what people want themselves.

Like someone mentioned, dont consider the media and the government as one entity. Their motives may follow through similar tunnels but where they both lead to are seperate locations. You can refer to them as 'they' when you say 'they will make you listen to what they want to', but who exactly are you referring to? The guy who sits at radio stations changing tracks? Or the guy who sits on the chair and appoints the track-changers?

I'd rather look at the 'media' as people who give people what they want. They want to hear who won the final of the world cup, they get it. They want to see who the president sleeps with is? They get it. They want to see celebrities without clothes? They get it. Media gives people what they want, and people in turn pay them for those services. As far as the government is concerned, long gone are the days when the radio was under the rulers (though its still the same in india). These days its under people who wanna earn money... what other way to do so than give people what they want.

 

[Demilich]

"The media" is a pretty broad (global, one might say) term. How long can we go on attempting to uncover a singular motivating force that drives it?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Here's something I should've thought of before. Tell me if you've ever heard this saying:

"Money is the root of all evil."

It's from the bible. And it's "the LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

 

[Mormagil]

It's still exceedingly trite and untrue.