Attali: just how bad is he?

not i, said mr. i-don't-have-a-strong-enough-grasp-on-alla-dis-music- as-philosophy-crud.

(btw, where was yr pithy follow up letter?)

He's not worth defending. Let's face it, this is a guy who quoted the cheesy 60s line about "when the mode of the music changes, the walls of the city fall" with a straight face. He's like some old West Coast hippy with a very tenuous grasp of poststructuralism. About time somebody pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.

Strangely enough though I had never heard of him before I was looking at this book at a store last night. What's wrong with him, Mark? (Like, summarize your article or something.)

Jess: my pithy follow-up letter had to be put on ice when it got longer than the published versh of the bangs vs attali, heh.

Josh: I have problems with summaries (see reply to Jess: "This precis is longer than the original and has all kinds of ideas and diversions which you introduced yourself, mark s!" "Those the things it would have said if the writer knew what they were talking about" "It's a precis!!" "I have problems with, er, precises")

I sorta plan to put Director's Cut on Radio Free Narnia, soonish. Ish.

Woo hoo. That would be good since it would help me know if I should be spending money on the book. ;)

yeah, i was gonna say post it here, but update yr damn blog instead!

(oh, like YOU'RE one to talk, jess. shut up.)

Attali summary

--there are four stages of musical history --first stage is some kind of idealized tribal community when we were all "equal," ritual was dominant mode of culture --second stage is "Western" "rationalism" incarnate in form of Johann Sebastien Bach; beginnings, ends, linearity --third stage I forget but I think it's something involving the homogenizing effects of mass distribution, industrial standardization, etc --fourth, soon come stage involves everyone becoming a composer, liberating effects of anarchic noise, etc

Problems

--Very shaky history; little attempt to ground four stages in any kind of concrete timeline despite grand periodizing claims of overall argument --Simplistic take on "western" "rationalism" as inherently oppressive structure of thought that has remained unchanged for millenia --Complimentary simplistic take on anything that exhibits no obvious signs of structure (ie free jazz), otherwise known as noise, as inherently revolutionary --Distressing tendency to say things like "Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix say more about the liberatory dream of the 60s than any theory of crisis" --All too familiar apocalyptic tone and habit of making gnomic pronouncements that sound good but tend to remain opaque under close analysis --Generally half-digested lumps of Adorno, Barthes, Bataille et al floating around in theory --Attali is longtime French government minister (of culture, I think), which undermines his radical cred somewhat

Nevertheless

--it is possible to interpret fourth mode of music as in some vague way gesturing towards current computer-enabled musical world of file sharing, sampling, laptop composing --idea that music can presage economic forms interesting if somewhat dubious reversal of normal relationship between, uh, base and superstructure --noise is cool

"dubious reversal of normal relationship between, uh, base and superstructure" = knock-off baudrillard (who i think is ja's main basic source)

Yes, Mr. Attali is a Bouleedeelaurd knock off, in the sense he follows postmodernist roots to specific ends.

The book "NOISE" does, whether or not you like his figurings, make sense. The business of music (i.e. record companies, the commodifcation and gentrification of music to societal groups, muzah, commericals) is what he is talking about.

If you take him in small clumps, and/or take out one or two lines that sollidify his point, it's good stuff. But like postmodernists, it goes on and on about weird shit before it gets to the meat.

sorry no go gage-o, there is no MEAT in that book whatever: and the smaller you go, the worse it gets; not a single musical judgment stretches beyond humdrum cliche and his knowledge or understanding of the music business at any stage in its history is precisely nil. It is not "about" commodification AT ALL, since he has not the slightest consequential thing to say about this: what he actually means by "commodification" is making records, and his botched metaphor about "stockpiling" simply proves how distant he is from his alleged subject.

It's true that you can snatch sentences here and there (out of context) and find a limited use in them. I seriously doubt it has helped anyone make better music; I'm sure it has helped people make bad music.

Mark- Can I pick up on the last sentence of that reply. Was this academic text an influence on many composers. Could you give an example of someone who has made bad music through it?

I've never read noise though I did read bangs' consumer guide. I read your article as well and wondered whether you could actually compare a two-page article with a book with as grand an aim as noise had?

Had a couple of questions but I can't remember now. Might get back to you on them.

Having just cruised past this site whilst looking up the Plato ' when the mode of the music changes ...' , The argument , as such , here seems to have missed any sort of theme :- , What is music for? Why have all cultures developed a form of music? What is bad music? Why do ppl enjoy music? . I have no immediate answers to any of these , but would be intersted in arguing out some sort of position. highest rgrds Jon H

julio just for you

happy birthday!!

Thanks mark.