andrewducker | The Grim Professional Future

The Grim Professional Future

I was at a party a few years ago where the people split into two groups - the ones who were happily singing around a piano and the ones who were hiding in the kitchen, aghast that people would sing, in public, for fun. The split was clearly generational in nature - the older folks had clearly grown up singing together, the younger ones considered singing to be something that was done by musicians.

And despite theoretically belonging to the second group I've generally felt that this was a bad thing. My parents used to sing on long car journeys, entertaining us when we were little, and it always seemed like a lot of fun. I can trace the point where I lost any interest in it to my first choir lesson in school, where we all lined up in rows and sang through something vaguely religious - and then afterwards the choirmaster told me that I should just mime along. This would have been twenty six years ago, but the memory still sticks with me.

The idea that a pupil who wasn't good at something should be told to just _stop_ is something that shocks me in retrospect - it's a massive failure on the behalf of any teacher. And the idea that singing is something that should be done only by the trained - rather than a natural expression of our humanity is also something that bothers me deeply.

There does seem to have been a resurgence recently - things like YouTube and Singstar/Rock Band seem to have encouraged people to put their own voice out there in the same way that blogs encouraged people to write. But I doubt very much that we're going to end up back at the point where sing-songs around the piano are common place again.

Mind you - a lot of this is probably down to the fact that playing Grand Theft Auto is a more distracting and, dare I say it, fun way of spending the evening :->

All of this triggered by a quote here in an article on the long history of articles decrying technical progress in the "content industry" - starting with Sousa (the composer) worrying about the player piano and the gramophone:

"Under such conditions, the tide of amateurism cannot but recede until there will be left only the mechanical device and the professional executant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

a lot of this is probably down to the fact that playing Grand Theft Auto is a more distracting and, dare I say it, fun way of spending the evening

Have you ever played Sing Star?
With a group of non judgmental friends it is great fun.
Better than GTA, but harder to organise on a tuesday evening when everyone has work the next day.

It is sad. We recently got a clavinova, and often after dinner parties Robert plays, and we have a jolly sing of Flanders & Swan, G&S, Tom Lehrer, and that sort of thing. I'm startlingly aware of how unusual that is these days, and how lucky I am.

Sousa was right to be worried. At the time he was writing, the English were famous for singing in fields as they worked (and in factories and on ships). That's all gone now, replaced by radios in many workplaces and by a sort of wave of distant tapping noises in mine. It's clear that for many people, making music is something that is done by children and professionals. And I do think that that is terribly sad, not least because a little ability at singing and an instrument enriches your enjoyment of the music you hear. (Actually, I think even a bit of Guitar Hero or Rock Band can do that, too).

On the other hand, amateurism does appear to be making a bit of a comeback, fuelled by YouTube and by the wondrous ability of the Internet as an instruction tool (I learnt to knit last year entirely off the internet, for example).

I play lots of video games (including rhythm games of course). But I also run a session (2nd Tuesday, Plough Inn, Walthamstow), and making music with other people, for no purpose but your own entertainment, is a fine, fine way to spend an evening.

I have always sung, am generally held to be quite good at it and am currently in 2 rock covers bands. So I sing well enough for a real live audience to appreciate :-)

I have tried the SingStar/Rockband/GHIII singing and find it all just totally unenjoyable. It's *nothing* like real singing - a decent performance will often score very badly (and vice versa!). Only one of them (forget which) is tolerant of harmonising. I only really do well in the "freestyle" bits!

I listened to a little girl (about 10 or 11) play and whilst she scored well,what came out was pretty horrible to listen to due to the limited set of notes allowed by the level she was playing. She had a decent voice and I thought it sad that she wasn't just singing songs. I shudder to think what happens when all the people who score well in the games think that they can therefore sing and try it with a band (or a talent contest!).Ouch. Still, I can hope they can hear the difference and it inspires them to sing for real.

The guys at the last party I went to who were in bands seemed to have a similar attitude to the instrumental parts of such games.

Some folks put LOADS of effort and time into these games - almost as much as you'd need to practice a real instrument. I don't understand it but I guess the getting an actual *score* might be important. A rating that you can compare with your friends to settle the question of who is the best....

It's an ease thing - you can be up and running at a basic level in Rock Band in less than an hour - and be getting a decent sense of satsifaction for completing songs that you love.. I've spent several hours attempting to get somewhere with an actual guitar and can't get as far as even a simple song.

Beatles Rockband and from what i can gather the party mode in GH5 is instant fun. OK, 15 minutes being roadie first, but we have done this twice recently.

I suspect the only part of the Rock Band style games that can actually teach you anything even close to a real instrument is the drumming. If you've never drummed before it will get you up and running with the hand/foot co-ordination and a basic 4/4 beat. The rest is, it seems to me, just pushing buttons to play a game. Fun for some I'm sure, but it all leaves me cold.

I think GH has lost its way (it's now too easy to score points for playing something that bears no resemblance to the right notes at the right time), but the earlier GH games and Rock Band can teach you quite a lot for any instrument about rhythm and precision, and about 'keeping going after you make a mistake', a major difficulty for most learners. My main 'proper instrument' is melodeon (button accordion), and it's a lot like Guitar Hero guitar really (also like typing).

It would be wonderful if we could find a way for real instruments to give you the same sense of achievement as a beginner that the starter levels of rhythm bands do.

Agreed, actually - I've played piano accordion, and I agree that the left hand is about as close to playing GH as any instrument.

it's now too easy to score points for playing something that bears no resemblance to the right notes at the right time

How so? I've noticed that the difficulty levels vary slightly between incarnations, but you still don't get points if you don't hit the right notes, surely?

I haven't played the later ones at the lower difficulty levels so I'm interested in how that works.

In all of the Guitar Hero games it's possible to 5 star a song while turning in an incredibly ropey performance. But in GH3, I really noticed that I'd be massively mistiming the solos, and the music would play anyway. I just think they relaxed what you had to do to score a note as 'correct' to the point where my disbelief suspenders snapped.

Oh yes,leaves me cold too - I am not a games fan at all.

hmm, drummers seem to disagree :-)

In case of any doubt, I wasn't suggesting RB etc were any good at getting skills for a real instrument(indeed quite the opposite),but that it took as much time to get good at as getting passable at an instrument does.

But I spent my childhood singing and playing instruments - I suppose those who played games might well find the opposite.

The only reason I mentioned the drums is I know a couple of folk who had never drummed before and can now sit behind a kit and play a basic boom-smack 4/4 beat

hmm, drummers seem to disagree :-)

My drummer, who is nothing short of brilliant at what he does, couldn't pass songs at easy or medium, but once on expert, on a track he knew he just played the beat he knew as a drummer, without watching the screen, and aced it.

As a dedicated musician and avid GH/RB fan, I find the attitude most musicians I know have towards the games to be narrow-minded and elitist.

And believe me when I say I'm plenty narrow-minded and elitist already.

It's true that you're limited slightly when you're singing in these games, because you need to hit each note in the correct pitch, and if you insert any character into the song - some artistic gravelly voice for example or a bit of glissando around the edges, you tend to lower your score. However, if you don't care about the score and are just playing for fun, you'll still pass the song as long as you've sung more or less correctly, particularly on the easy levels where you just have to hit the right note at some point along the way.

The Beatles Rock Band has the facility for three mics, allowing for (in some cases quite complicated) three-part harmony - you can even mix and match what you sing throughout the song as long as one of you's on the tune at any given point. I've done this with a mic on a stand in front of me while I played an instrument part at the same time, and I can tell you, it's both challenging and requiring of musical ability.

The big drawback of the singing part is that even at its highest levels what the game wants is for you to exactly reproduce the original artist's performance, not give your own take - but then, if you sing in a cover band, that's presumably an aspect of your own aim too?

The big bonus of the singing part is that, particularly at the highest levels, it will expect you to be perfectly on pitch (assuming the original performer was of course), and this cannot be entirely useless to the training singer or one who's wondering if they have any ability to hold a tune in a bucket.

When I personally sing in these games I'm not really going for a high score though, so I'll admit that I imagine listening to a points-getting performance might well be boring.

As to the other instruments, I play drums well enough to know that from the Hard level up, you are playing an actual drum beat. You could move from Hard on GH/RB to a real live kit and walk straight in and pass Standard Grade (age 16 exams) music performance at Credit level.

The guitar part is almost nothing like playing guitar. Even then, though, only almost - although the left hand fingering is nothing like hold chord shapes, the basic principle of how it works (hold down correct button/collection of buttons (as opposed to string/collection of strings), then strum to create note) is the same. The strumming is the same - to the extent that my strumming on a real guitar has actually improved. There is no doubt that your hand-eye coordination, and your ability to hear and understand cross-rhythms (even if most people don't know that's what they're hearing/playing) is improved by playing the game, even though you obviously couldn't then move straight to a real guitar.

I intended no elitism - I am useless at games but can appreciate the skills of those who are good, no doubt.

"The big bonus of the singing part is that, particularly at the highest levels, it will expect you to be perfectly on pitch (assuming the original performer was of course), and this cannot be entirely useless to the training singer or one who's wondering if they have any ability to hold a tune in a bucket."

But at the lower levels, singing the right note rather than what they have simplified it to seems to lose you points? At least so it seems to me. Which would be not much use.

I wonder what they do about songs that were off pitch on the record? (e.g. Highway to Hell, or You Really Got Me where the whole thing is about 1/4 tone out...)

I use a program called Sing and See to check my pitching when practicing - great bit of software.

"The big drawback of the singing part is that even at its highest levels what the game wants is for you to exactly reproduce the original artist's performance, not give your own take"

I meant to say that. That's what I dislike. Particularly that they are unforgiving on timing tweaks.

" - but then, if you sing in a cover band, that's presumably an aspect of your own aim too?"

Nope, not in the slightest. A tribute band would, but all the bands I know make efforts to make the songs their own. I mean, I do The Beatles,Stones,ACDC,Oasis, Free,Sex Pistols... etc etc. One obvious difference is that I'm female - though we don't all that often repitch anything, it still sounds very different.

But at the lower levels, singing the right note rather than what they have simplified it to seems to lose you points? At least so it seems to me.
As far as I know this is wrong - you're still expected to sing the song, they just expect less of you - you needn't be perfectly in pitch and if you don't get all the words right it probably won't notice - it's way less picky. That being said the simple remedy if there's something one doesn't like on easy is to play on hard.

I wonder what they do about songs that were off pitch on the record?
Again this is from my experience, but it has seemed to me that you get points for being the same as the original artist. If you sing it in key, you'll probably still pass because you're barely out, but you'll only get a perfect on harder levels if you sing slightly flat when they want you to. So it seemed to me when I sang Heart Shaped Box anyway.

I use a program called Sing and See to check my pitching when practicing
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that RB/GH would be the ideal sitch to practice - just that it wasn't useless.

I meant to say that. That's what I dislike.
Well, in that case karaoke machines are cheaper anyway :-) I find reproducing a performance to be an interesting challenge in and of itself. It's a different skill, and both are valuable in their own way.

Particularly that they are unforgiving on timing tweaks.
That really depends how far out you are - even the upper levels, you won't fail. Which, if you don't care about points, is all that matters.

but all the bands I know make efforts to make the songs their own
Personally, generally from a cover band I look for straight covers, otherwise they're probably missing out what made the original songs fun to listen to. But I guess maybe that's a personal taste thing since in reality I just don't really like cover bands at all. If I want to hear those songs I'd rather hear the originals DJd in a club. Indeed, I think perhaps the same way you do about GH/RB - you say: "If you're going to produce music do it on real instruments, don't pretend on plastic ones." I say: "If you're going to play an instrument in public, write your own material, don't just repeat other people's."

Now, in contrast, a band whose material is mostly original, when they do a cover I like to hear it in their own style. But they have license to because people are there to hear them, not a bunch of well-loved classics.

(See? I totally am a narrow-minded elitist)

I am referring here to rock/metal bands, of course. Jazz is a different world altogether, and is all about making well-loved classics your own. But it's a very, very different era and mentality to my mind.

"Personally, generally from a cover band I look for straight covers, otherwise they're probably missing out what made the original songs fun to listen to."

Your opinion and you are entitled to it - but why is jazz an exception (as you say later) and rock not? Rock is full of bands covering older songs - not to mention blues songs, and *that* very much is tradition as far as rock goes.... And folk for that matter - in fact every form of music that I can think of has a strong tradition of re-interpretation of existing material, up to and including very modern stuff (remixes, samples etc.)

"If you're going to play an instrument in public, write your own material, don't just repeat other people's."

Oh, I have done once or twice. And I am also in a project doing just that - but in general it's not what people want to hear (especially from a bunch of middle aged dudes). *Audiences generally want to hear stuff they know* - has been said to me many times,by both audience and bands that have tried it and I have observed the effect myself. Maybe people like the familiar so they can sing along :-)

I was drawing a distinction between the days of the Hit Parade, when the house band would play whatever song was big right now, and it was the writer as well as the performer who was lauded, and the advent of the 'rock band' as an entity in itself - their sound, their personalities, their voice, being the object of focus more than the song itself.

Absolutely, rock bands covered earlier material same as anyone else - but not exclusively, and the adaptation was only interesting because the band are already respected and enjoyed for their own sound - their original material.

Take the example of Metallica, who in the later years of their career released an album of covers of NWBHM tracks. The album was interesting because all of those songs were done 'in the style of' Metallica - but that was only interesting because Metallica were by this time a well-respected and easily recognisable band in their own right, for their original material.

Contrast that with your average pub cover band and you see the difference - they don't have a 'sound' because they don't have original material. There's no personality there to be imprinted on the rendering I'm hearing. Now, there are exceptions, of course, when it comes to bands that do everything in a certain style - say a band who render goth tracks on recorder quintet or somesuch (or a cello quartet performing Metallica, perhaps), and get their identity that way, but it's basically a novelty, and for all the skill and talent involved it will only ever really be a novelty.

Audiences generally want to hear stuff they know.

Screw the audience - who asked them anyway? Besides, this is self-evidently not the case. Yes, it's harder to grab attention with original material, but that's part of the challenge, part of the attraction. If you're pursuing music as a casual hobby, well, fair enough, no one's forcing you to put the time and effort into original material. But I can tell you, if you do put in the effort, the feeling you get when you see people singing along to something you wrote... that's worth a whole set of covers, any day of the week.

So where do songs specially written for a band or artist fit in? Someone else writes it,but they are the first to perform/record it?

Absolutely, rock bands covered earlier material same as anyone else - but not exclusively, and the adaptation was only interesting because the band are already respected and enjoyed for their own sound - their original material.

Many bands get their "training" serve their apprenticeship, as it were, playing at least a percentage of non-original material. The obvious example being The Beatles who did a lot of that in Germany in particular.

Screw the audience - who asked them anyway

Sorry but I have to disagree with that one. Performance is for the audience's benefit, not mine. I can write and record songs or sing them on my own for my own pleasure, but a gig is, to my mind, entertainment,and enjoy myself though we may - we are there to provide the audience with enjoyment.

the feeling you get when you see people singing along to something you wrote... that's worth a whole set of covers, any day of the week

I don't deny it would be. I have had people dancing to a song of mine (the only number they danced to all night)

Personally, I would have to say that if I hadn't been asked to sing the songs I have, then my own stuff would have been written in a more restricted range - just one e.g. doing "Highway to Hell" got me extensive practice in that awkward Bb4-E5 area which I'd never have put myself through as thoroughly purely as exercises - and that expands my range of options for composition. Singing a lot of male-voiced songs gets me more power down low that sort of thing. Else I'd just come up with bluesy rock in a nice safe central octave and a half.

Now, I suppose what I really need to do is get some properly high stuff in >:-)

Contrast that with your average pub cover band and you see the difference - they don't have a 'sound' because they don't have original material. There's no personality there to be imprinted on the rendering I'm hearing

I would beg to differ. Some of the covers bands that I see regularly do have a definite personality. I'd be pretty sure that the ones I am in do - in one case due to having 3 guitarists including a 12 string which tends to give us a very distictive sound. But maybe I am biased :-)

Some of the tracks on Garage Inc. dated back to 1984 and 1987 EPs - in the case of the 84 stuff (Am I Evil, Blitzkrieg) I don't know if Metallica would have been more famous than Diamond Head.

Minor pedantic point...

*nods* One of the two discs was entirely tracks recorded in the eighties. But the important point here is that their release in a full double CD album came long after their iconic sound was established.

Also, in the US almost no one Metallica played to in their early gigs knew that they were hearing covers, because very few people over there were listening to NWBHM - even Diamond Head. Or so the sleeve notes say, anyway.

I suspect that the a large part of Garage Inc's being released was that it was cheap and easy to repackage all those old covers; that and they had lost quite a bit of credibility with the Load and Reload diptych.

That few in the US were familiar with Diamond Head raises another interesting point: Did Metallica succeed where Diamond Head didn't because they were better, luckier, or just had the benefit of having a wider potential market by being from the US rather than the UK?

Finally, look at it from the POV of why folk - any folk - play video games.

- I know people who enjoy playing beat-em-ups, presumably because a part of them likes picturing themselves as a fit, strong, fast fighter while they bash buttons in a specific order.
- I know people who enjoy playing FPS games - presumably a part of them likes to picture them as a hard-as-nails dude/chick with a gun/axe/chainsaw while they bash buttons in a specific order.
- I know people who enjoy racing games, picturing themselves in a sexy car while they... well, you get the picture - it's all just bashing buttons in the end.

In my case, while I bash buttons in a specific order, I like my buttons bashes not to kill sprites, knock them out, or win a race, but to produce music, and while I do it I can imagine myself rocking out on a stage.

The fact that I have the facility and opportunity to rock out on a stage for real from time to time (there's a reason my preferred sprite looks, dresses and behaves exactly like, well, me) does not lessen this simple enjoyment, nor does it lessen my enjoyment and appreciation for the music in question - indeed, it introduces me to new music, engenders in me a respect I might not otherwise have had for music I don't like so much, and only cements my love for the music I already enjoy.

I don't think anyone who already loves music and/or wants to be/is a musician is going to play RB/GH in preference to playing a real instrument - they'll probably do both. The games will at worst give some folk who'll never do either the chance to pretend they can, and at best, maybe even mean that a few folk who'd never thought about it go on to try it for real.

Maybe you have hit the nail on the head there on two counts. I don't much like games because I'm just not into pretending. Does nothing much for me. So I suppose I don't much understand why anyone would want to play *any* game, not just RB/GH. So maybe my comments are not all that useful.

One of the things I do hope is that these games do get people more interested in making music for real.

Anecdotal evidence, someone should write a song about it.

I made a living in the late 80's early 90's setting up music studios based around Atari STs and Cubase or Notator. Now if I'm based in Edinburgh and easily setup over a hundred small to medium studios in schools, disabled centres, community centres and the majority in bedrooms how many others were doing this in Brum, Manchester, Leeds, London? Nevermind in mainland Europe and America.

Technology can and does empower creativity. Then it was musicians, at the moment everyone and their dog is now a photographer, before both of these it was the home computing - bedroom games revolution. And fit in the point where everyones kids were web designers.

In my opinion what has killed of the music creativity is the so called Music Industry. The death of the single, the near impossibility for talent to shine through the X-Manufactured dross of cover songs and the madness behind suing fans.

What we need is a good depression to bring forth the musical talent. This revolution is cyclic. Already as we hit this financial blip look at the amount of live music on your doorstep. Don't decry the use of technology, walk away from it and see some live music.

Setting up schools with music centres is hardly new though - is it? Schools have always taught music.

I'm not convinced that more people sing nowadays than sang before it was possible to get music at the touch of a button. There was a fantastic documentary short I saw recently from Russia, showing a horrible, cheap, nasty commuter train, full of people heading home in the evening. And there was music _everywhere_. People played instruments, and others joined in to sing along to the songs. I don't remember that ever happening on any train I've been on, or in pubs nowadays - whereas that used to be very common.

I agree with this. Concert tickets can cost £30 or more now. Or you can go down a pub near you, say to a folk club or an open mic night, and see a great band for a fiver or so (Walthamstow Folk Club has a moderately well-known act most weeks, together with a dozen or so floor spots ranging from fantastic to adequate, all for six pounds; that's typical, and there are also similar clubs in Islington, Camden, Waltham Abbey, Euston and Clerkenwell, and that's just folk) and drink good beer at pub prices too. The session I run is free, though I encourage people to buy a couple of drinks from the bar, and we have a raffle. Instruments are expensive, mind, though as entertainment they are very cheap per hour.

Agree totally with tech helping to create music, not stifling it. I'm seeing more bands live these days than I ever did and there are entire genres that wouldn't exist without the tech. The only problem, as you said, is the utter dross being chucked out by the music industry that makes the signal-to-noise ratio so low. There are more good bands than ever out there, just there are a lot more manufactured clones than ever too.

Stiff Little Fingers summed it up just about perfectly in my opinion.

But "bands" are the professionalism I'm talking about...

Yeah, I know I drifted off your point a little and wa more commenting on Roy's about it not being the fault of the tech.

Even so, more folks are singing/playing (although not in your context) and tech didn't stop it happening. A fair chunk of the bands I'm seeing are amateur bands playing local clubs (as well as the bigger professional bands). I think the point I was driving at was that tech hasn't stopped people creating music, or that it's just rock band now. It's just changed the way it's done so that it's thousands of amateur bands rather than sing-songs round the piano that people use to give themsleves a voice now.

and whilst the sing-song may be a dying breed, the change is neither a good thing nor bad thing - it's just different...

Well, any judgement of good/bad is going to be purely personal. It just seems a tad sad.

Not fair; a lot of bands are only 'professional' in that their fee covers their petrol, beer money and perhaps practice space. This is part of what amateurism looks like these days. I think a lot of small software developers are working this way as well (my favourite iPhone app, for example, has a developer whose express intention is to cover the cost of being in the Apple Store).

It was more that you go to _most_ concerts to watch someone play music rather than to sing songs yourself. You might end up singing along occasionally, but it's not the point of being there. Whereas old fashioned singalongs are all about the singing along.

I think I would be part of the 2nd group in the kitchen too. It's not that I dislike people singing, it is just usually in my social group those that like to break out a guitar and sing along don't share the same music tastes as myself.

Oh and please give Saints Row 2 some of your time if you are enjoying GTA. So much more fun, and no bloody "Heeeeey Cousin!" phonecalls :D

I'm not actually much of a GTA fan, to be honest - I was just grabbing something popular :->

Yay. I really love singing-parties and sing-songs round the piano. I don't get to do it very often because none of my immediate circle of friends plays the piano (although occasionally we'll do carol-singing a capella, or even just sing in the car).

I'm not a good singer either, and I really love (and still find it hard to believe) that people get together to sing and have fun and it doesn't matter if you're nto very good.

IME, I don't see it as a generational thing, or at least not that way round. My family never did, or do, anything like that. The people who do are all 20- and 30-somethings in my extended circle of friends. I can't think of any middle-ages acquaintances who do.

Interestingly, the major complaint from a lot of professional musicians - I heard one at a party the other week - at the moment seems to be that there are so many talented amateur groups it's nearly impossible to compete, because the amateurs don't care about making a living.

Similar conditions apply in a lot of the film world - the unions HATE people who will work for less or for free. And in the book world, most authors don't make anything like a living wage.

In the book world, what proportion of books are written by academics for others within their discipline, as an implicit part of what they are being paid to do anyway?

I was referring to fiction there, so a very low percentage! Non-fiction is a different, and frequently better-paid, kettle of fish.

sing-songs around a guitar are perhaps more likely ... ?

Really?
At Pad's last birthday quite a few non-musicians had a singalong in her room.

I say the real problem is pubs don't have pianos any more. Find me a pub with a piano and I will take requests.

Our SU has a piano. I have yet to see anyone go anywhere near it, but I love that it's there.

Interesting... is it in the bar for singalongs, or somewhere good for practice?

Our pub has a piano -- it used to be in the back room where the folk club is, but now it's out front (to increase the door limit on the back room). We have a notion of sorting out occasional East End Knees Up nights there, because the pub used to be famed for them.

Which pub's that then? Let me know when you have something organized!

There is also the question of how many people can play the piano?

Ekatarina, who *loves* singing at the drop of a hat and encourages others to do the same.

The trouble is that not only do people feel embarrassed and self conscious around informal live musical performance - lots of us have lost the skills and confidence to take part. The idea for most people of remembering the words to a song all the way through is quite strange but in the past lots of people knew not just one but many songs - we've also moved away from a repertoire of songs that have chorus parts for everybody to join in with. We need to move towards singing and music being a part of everday life - a friend of mine who taught folk songs to children, said that her aim was that the songs and singing them was regarded as "normal"...in that it was a totally accepted activity just like TV, Football and play-stations....

The great thing about singing socially, is that it's completely free - we don't need any speial equipment , all we need is somebody who knows a song that has a good chorus - The thing is, this doesn't sit very well in a consumer society, where our success is measured by the expense of our possessions and the cost of our leisure time activities - there is no money to be made from social singing, so it does not have a value in the consumer society. In the consumer society, we are also made to view society as a hierarchy, so an activity that we can all take part in on a equal basis which offers no scope for class distinction or elitism is also not going to be held up or supported.

Lets break the mould, have some friends over for food, drinks, a good chat and a sing song - It's the ultimate anti-capitalist pursuit!!!

I agree with your analysis to a degree, but wonder if singing songs with good choruses would also mean that music was thereby limited to simple structures that could be picked up easily. Also, I wonder where such songs would come from, as this is what capitalism has historically been good at.

Maybe a somewhat mangled Frankfurt School type argument, of Second Viennese School vs Tin Pan Alley and "jazz", modified by Bourdieu's analysis of hierarchy of taste?

One thing about Sousa's quote that is interesting to me is the role of technology: Conlon Nancarrow wrote music for the player piano that exploited its ability, as a mechanical device, to do things that would be very difficult if not impossible for a human pianist. It's the same now with the likes of glitch techno and grindcore that uses drum machines to play 1000BPM blast beats.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Grim Professional Future

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

Re: part 1 of 2

part 2 of 2

Re: part 2 of 2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

The ultimate anti-capitalist pursuit

Re: The ultimate anti-capitalist pursuit

no subject