Bring the Noise

[malgosia askanas]

Ralph wrote:

> First of all, when did aesthetics, musical ability or quality disappear from
> any consideration of the value of an art form? 

I am groping in the dark here, so these are just random and probably clueless
thoughts.  First of all, they obviously never disappeared from considerations
of the value of "high" music.  Performances of Chopin continue to be judged 
from considerations of aesthetics, musical ability and quality.  So what we are
talking about is the disappearance of these standards from considerations
of "popular" music.

Was popular music ever explicitly judged by these standards?  In other words,
was there ever a developed body of writing that considered popular music
from the viewpoint of the "high" musical aesthetics?  It seems to me that
most of the "high" writing did not stoop to such critical analyses of
popular music, and would either disregard it or dismiss it as worthless.

It is true, I think, that in the past popular music would in some sense
_implicitly_ incorporate the standards of "high" music; it was, to a degree,
modeled on it.  And there was also, to a degree, the inverse movement, where
things from popular music percolated into the "high" stuff.  So there was
a de-facto circulation.

It seems to me that it is this kind of circulation that has now broken down.
This breakdown, I think, has to do with the immense development of the 
recording and broadcasting industry as the de-facto creator of popular
culture.  So that popular culture has become an artifact of an industry
which is capable of massive propagation of an aesthetic which is not 
in continuous traffic with the traditional "high" aesthetic.  This is not
one-sided, of course: the "high" aesthetic, too, has become more insular. 

Under these circumstances, traditional aesthetic standards find themselves
in a pickle, because they no longer can tacitly assume some kind of
inherited validity for popular culture.  One's aesthetics are very much
shaped by what they one is exposed to from early on.  In a society where
a small bunch of people is exposed to Chopin and a large majority derives
their aesthetics from muzak and Bruce Springstein, the small bunch would
have to take a very militant stance for -- what?  Massive aestethic regulation
of popular culture?  -- if they wanted to effect any change.  On what grounds
would they make such demands, take such a stance?  One can scientifically
prove the harmful effects of asbestos in walls, but can one scientifically
prove the harmful effects of elevator music?  

Of course, one might say: you don't have to have scientific proof to
know, viscerally, that elevator music is harmful.  Well, this "visceral"
knowledge, however, is not the kind of knowledge that one would happily
carry a banner for.  It is hard to understand how one can carry such 
a banner without the whole thing simply degenerating into an impotent rant.  
Which, I think, is part of the question you're asking.   I know you'll
correct me if I'm wrong. 


-m