Join Together with the Band
So, growing up, it was mostly Pink Floyd and Van Halen battling for supremacy over my musical soul. (Pink Floyd had a real setback around ninth grade when I thought that the devil was talking to me through the album Animals. But that’s a story for another time, I suppose.) It’s funny; the very first instrument I learned was actually the trumpet, since that’s one you can learn in school, even though I had a heart for rock n’ roll. Neither Pink Floyd, nor Van Halen had a trumpet player in their band. And let’s face it, there’s not a single band instrument that can touch the coolness inherent in an electric guitar. Not even the clarinet. Can you imagine some long-hair strutting around, ready to shred on a tuba?No, of course not. Because it’s not cool. (Incidentally, there is a band on Ani Difranco’s label called Drums and Tuba that attempt to refute my theory, but only partially succeed. I'm pretty sure that they are only “cool” to music-geeks like me. But I digress.)
The fact is, around seventh grade, the trumpet was not only an instrument of farty-type noises. It would also prove to be the instrument of my social doom. I still have not recovered from the depths of uncoolness that playing the trumpet in band brought me. To try to put it simply, band kids, I mean the ones who really like being in band, sort of live in an alternate reality- just barely removed from everyone else’s reality. It probably has to do with all that time dressed in wool with a giant feather sticking out of your hat.
So there it is. Being in band either: 1) made me a nerd, 2) helped express the inner nerd that was there all the time, or 3) a little of both.
Since I’m concerned with the development of people’s relationship to music, particularly my own, I will now set aside all of the social humiliation that comes about from being a “band geek” or “orch dork,” (and I’ve actually had a foot in both of those worlds.)
For the overwhelming truth is that learning to play musical instruments and the focused study of all that, had more of an influence on my aesthetic assumptions than any “great albums” or “great songs” I heard growing up.
I remember the revelation in fifth grade band class when I realized that not everybody was always playing the same notes. “What?! Only chaos can result!” my orderly little absolutist mind recoiled. I was besieged by a genuinely worried feeling over the prospect. “If everyone’s not playing the same notes, how does each person know if they’re right?” (Oh, man! the grown-up lessons that could be taught from that simple little thought. Ideas like trust, intuition, self-awareness, the other. You could even use that as a stepping-off point for a discussion on ethics: “how do I know I’m playing my part right? Amidst all these other people and their own notes?”)If my 28, soon-to-be-29 year old self could have somehow been around at the time of my fifth grade self, I would have given myself a kiss on the head for that concerned question.
Anyway, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life learning the rules of music: from how to play a D below the staff in tune on a trumpet to how to write 4-part harmony so that each part is smooth. How to play a diminished chord on the guitar to memorizing the notes of a harmonic minor scale. And there’s still so much to learn and listen to. I know that I tend to listen to music in a manner so as to put this head-knowledge to use. And so my nature is to pick apart music that I hear. I am almost obsessed with trying to articulate what exactly it is that strikes me about a piece or a song that I like. I approach music in a very heady way.
But, as you can see from the beginnings of this blog, there are other times when the value of music comes more from externals, like where I was at the time, or what I was feeling, etc.
This all raises some pretty big questions I would appreciate some discussion on: Does music or art have any intrinsic value other than what we bring to it? For instance, does Beck’s Sea Change have any value separate from the fact that I heard it one time in the middle of the desert and was moved? If not,why the consistency among different kinds of people's pleasure over a certain piece of art or music? Or is there something “in the notes themselves?”
Are artists more equipped to appreciate art than other people?
posted by Mike @ 3:18 PM
4 Comments:
I think what makes an artist is someone who can tune into the vibe of its culture and age. I think that overall there is a general understanding of life based on our history and condition that most people of a given age are a part of. So many people like the same things because we have experienced so much of the same thing. Look at our pop music/art today. So much of it is based off of the media culture that WE are a part of. So much of the comedy, is comment and satire on the world WE grew up in.
We could say that we are trained to like it for the same reason. We are manipulated by our media to believe certain things, to cheer for certain things, to love certain things. I would say the same thing for an artist trained traditionally. It may be more structured, but whether they like it or not, they are trained to define good art, or good music based on certain rules created by those who came before us. So everything we make becomes either like these traditions, or a reaction to it. We would like to say that those who react to it become the true artists/most beloved...i am not sure that is always the case....I would say that I think that which is most popular is something which has taken what people like (what has come before) and changed it SLIGHTLY....appearing on the forefront of what culture is feeling. Culture changes gradually. You can look at music and see its slow evolution from pleasure taken in harmony to dissonance and watch how slowly it moves. Beethoven was considered very different and very dissonance, but today the average person will lump him into the same sentence as Bach. It is those artists who create a jolt with their medium that are not liked, and often are called a person before their time. Although maybe saying something very important, they are not understood. It is too unfamiliar. And who knows...may be total quatsch in the long run too.
I could go on on this topic forever....and i almost already have. myabe i will post something about it in my own blog.....
One thing i love about music is that it has different values for everyone...my experience with beck sea change is a lot different from yours but it hits a certian place in my mind/heart when i hear it...and it is something totally different for beck himself...i think this is the beauty of music...and art in general...you can take art and make it your own...i agree with littledeutschgirl that a lot of what people "like" today is marketed to us...whatever sells is what is popular...whoever is the most beautiful musician is the most popular...but i think that is mostly to the common public...take elliott smith...very great musician but he wrote music beyond what most people can understand, it isn't really marketable to the general public...but you will find that "artist" understand the beauty behind his music and want to keep it alive...i think the same thing goes with the flaming lips...very popular band but will never be heard on everyday radio because people just don't get it...i believe artist are more open to different things and understand things in a different way...we can look beyond the surface of music and art and make it our own...I don't think everyone can do this...it's probably because we have the knowledge of how these things are made (all that for this last line : )
long comment that probably only makes sense to me : )
is it better to be an orch dork or band nerd : )
Jenn-
It is better to be a band nerd than an orch dork because of the band's association with football. Everyone knows that football is cool and so the band is at least in the VICINITY of cool.
i will agree with that : )
Post a Comment
<< Home