Music for the Leisure Class

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In November's Wire there's a letter disagreeing with a Mats Gustafsson comment that free jazz/improv is a 'music of resistance.' The reader's view is that music of such a cerebral nature could only be made and appreciated by the leisure class in a wealthy society, by people with too much time and money. I don't think it's the first time I've heard this theory but it's been bugging me. I tend more to agree with Mats and think of free jazz/improv as 'folk music,' though not popular, essentially populist and inclusive, magnifying the connections between a modern worldview and early music, international folk musics of every stripe, and even popular music.

― mcd (mcd), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

What do you say?

― mcd (mcd), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

"Though not popular, essentially populist."

Uh...

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you're dead on. That kind of sound and ethos is only rendered iconolcastic by the Clear Channel climate. Otherwise, modern extensions of jazz are some of the most agreeable forms of music on the planet.

― Neil B, Thursday, 2 December 2004 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

"Though not popular, essentially populist."

Uh...

popÂ·uÂ·lar suitable to the majority: as a : adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority

popÂ·uÂ·list believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

― mcd (mcd), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

ÂuÂ

― LaRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think there's anything wrong with art that requires a certain amount of leisure to be appreciated. Ideally, a revolution would bring more leisure to more people. Whether that makes free jazz/improv. a "music if resistance" is another matter.

― LaRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 2 December 2004 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Cornelius Cardew to thread.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Thursday, 2 December 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, didn't it stem from a movement of popular culture, intertwining that with a more cerebral approach? I was initially going to say that this was a point in its favour, but then thought of perhaps the dance music -> IDM parallel, whereby that process becomes less inclusive, more exclusive. The fact that this is being argued out in The Wire, surely one of the most 'leisure class' magazines there is (I am a subscriber, of course), must strike someone else as being a bit odd, though?

Oh, and yes, I only made this post to show off about the fact that I am (fairly distantly) related to Cornelius Cardew.

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

There are a lot of problems with that statement but the biggest is the idea that political or cultural "resistance" is somehow antithetical to members of the leisure class with too much time and money.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Why does it matter? Does music become "bad" if it's appreciated by you + trustafarians rather than you + East London rudebwoys? It matters if its something like grime or hiphop because then the audience is part of its identity/energy in the first place, but free jazz has no real consituency beyond people who like free jazz. Maybe that's what bothers you?

I want to name a record "music for the leisure class"

― DougD, Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, how can you have "too much" time or money? Saying that people have too much time is a very puritan attitude

― DougD, Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Free jazz isn't necessarily cerebral; to me it's the most immediate, of the moment, un-calculated music there is. In that way it can be seen as a music of resistance, or at least action.

― 57 7th (calstars), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

When I think of popular/populist jazz these days as defined by what the masses listen to, I think of jazz-lite thrush Norah Jones. The main reason I think she’s the antichrist is because her whole raison d’etre is to lull the moneyed masses into thinking everything’s a-ok at a time when artists need to be screaming WAKE UP!

― mottdeterre (mottdeterre), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

All music is both revolutionary and reactionary. It's only sound from tubes and things, or plastic discs: it depends on how the listener uses it, I suppose. If you listen to the Lindsay Lohan album at the barricades it becomes the music of resistance.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, because of all those times when protest songs changed government policy. That bitch Norah's deliberately getting in the way of a FREE JAZZ REVOLUTION

― DougD, Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, if there is such a thing as the leisure class, I am probably in it, so I don't think it's too much of a terrible thing. Plus, if you are talking in purely revolutionary terms, the middle classes do frequently tend to realise that the world in which we live is unjust and thus we must take to the streets fighting - although this is rarely heeded as the middle classes are also a bunch of patronising wankers.

The idea that free jazz is immediate etc - yes, I kind of agree that it is, but I think it depends on your situation - if you are there, watching it happen in a live scenario, perhaps, and obviously if you are making it, yes, but to take it away and listen to it I find it takes you in a much more head-oriented than booty/heart-oriented direction.

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Have you ever seen Norah and Condaleeza together in the same room?

― mottdeterre (mottdeterre), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

The purpose of music as protest isn't to get the government to listen to it on 7", hear the lyrics and change their mind - it's entirely for the protesters/revolutionary class to talk to each other. It has safety advantages over writing pamphlets, and a song is memorable and easily communicated. Obviously that is less important now, but it has been important in the past. Music can be stirring and moving, it can keep spirits up and unite crowds of people. The people use music in any way they need to, and this has historically included revolution.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/041202/11/s0bh.html

re: what you just said Kevin

Of course, these guys chose hiphop has their medium

― DougD, Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's safe to say that the music of the Viet Nam era and the Civil Rights movement added certain fuel to the fire.

― mottdeterre (mottdeterre), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, I was considering mentioning the Ukraine, actually. People like the Last Poets, back to the Internationale, and much further to peasant revolts etc. have all used music to protest.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

That;s supposed to be 'very different' music to protest. Sigh.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 2 December 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.