Musical Stratification
‘In every healthy society there are three types which condition each other and gravitate differently physiologically: each has its own hygiene, its own field of work, its own sense of perfection and mastery. Nature, not man distinguishes the pre-eminently spiritual ones, those who are pre-eminently strong in muscle and the temperament and those, the third type, who excel neither in one respect nor the other, the mediocre ones – the last the great majority, the first as the elite’.
Nietzsche (1886)
Nietzsche’s statements with regards to his critical, acerbic summary of culture, it can be argued, retain an element of relevancy today. As a precursor to the following discussion, it is important to concede that ‘there is no such thing as a human nature independent of culture’ (Geertz:1965). Furthermore, the consideration that culture is ‘notoriously ambiguous concept’ must be taken into account; Nietzsche summarises culture according to his modes of perception and will be met with equal levels of concession and objection (Hebdige:1979).
Returning to Nietzsche’s definition, he implies a Marxist paradigm of elitist hegemony; the bourgeoisie spiritual over the strong in muscle and temperament proletariat and the mediocre; the ones unfit for the purpose of production; the elderly, the infirm, the antagonists. Furthermore, the use of the word Nature implies that such hegemony is a privilege of hereditary power and status; cultural capital and therefore, subordinate spheres shall never attain such spiritual plains. Furthermore, Bourdieu’s concept of cultural reproduction - ‘differentiated and stratified, socialisation practices, in combination with the system of education, function to discriminate positively in favour of these members of society who, by virtue of their location with the class system are the natural inheritors of cultural capital’ - would certainly support this postulation (Jenks:2004).
If such a Marxist structure of society is adopted it can be suggested an individual will, indeed, embrace or be at the mercy of a particular hereditary Conceptual System – ‘caught within a linguistic system that does not relate to external reality in the way we expect’ contributing to the perpetual motion of elitism (Butler:2002). Interestingly, such linguistic systems can be to the detriment of all spheres as they can only offer only ‘partial interpretation and often uses metaphor when it thinks it’s being literal’ in which ‘we live, not inside reality, but inside our representations of it’ (ibid1) (ibid2). Only by conceding a reflexive ideology will achieve the perspective that ‘we can see that the world, its social systems, human identity even, are not givens, somehow guaranteed by a language which corresponds to reality, but are constructed by us in language, in ways that can never be justified by the claim that this is the way that such things really are’ (ibid3). Such sentiments of compromise are shared by Hoggart (1966) who states; ‘first without appreciating good literature, no one will really understand the nature of society, second, literary critical analysis can be applied to certain social phenomena other than academically respectable literature (for example, popular arts, mass communications) so as to illuminate their meanings for individuals and their societies’.
Indeed, this piece will focus upon a facet of the popular arts; contemporary popular music and an analysis pertaining to whether Nietzsche’s summary of society can be transposed to relate to contemporary music spheres.
For instance, the natural assumption dictates classical music attains the spiritual label which derives from Adorno’s critique; On Popular Music. Indeed, Adorno distinguished a serious and popular sphere of music - he demonstrates considerable bias towards serious music; particularly Beethoven – of which serious music assumed the hegemonic position. Furthermore, it is implied that the field of work within serious music is a major contributory factor towards such hegemony; ‘in Beethoven and in good serious music… the detail virtually contains the whole and leads to the exposition of the whole’ (Adorno:1941). Therefore, in good serious, classical music – it’s interesting Adorno concedes not all serious music is therefore spiritual – ‘every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece’ and ‘never of a mere enforcement of a musical scheme’ – although, ascertained by the aforementioned concession, the later statement is, indeed, a fallacy (ibid1) (ibid2). With this concession in mind, it can be suggested that such holistic musical construction is indeed the aesthetic sense of perfection and mastery.
‘In every healthy society there are three types which condition each other and gravitate differently physiologically: each has its own hygiene, its own field of work, its own sense of perfection and mastery. Nature, not man distinguishes the pre-eminently spiritual ones, those who are pre-eminently strong in muscle and the temperament and those, the third type, who excel neither in one respect nor the other, the mediocre ones – the last the great majority, the first as the elite’.
Nietzsche (1886)
Nietzsche’s statements with regards to his critical, acerbic summary of culture, it can be argued, retain an element of relevancy today. As a precursor to the following discussion, it is important to concede that ‘there is no such thing as a human nature independent of culture’ (Geertz:1965). Furthermore, the consideration that culture is ‘notoriously ambiguous concept’ must be taken into account; Nietzsche summarises culture according to his modes of perception and will be met with equal levels of concession and objection (Hebdige:1979).
Returning to Nietzsche’s definition, he implies a Marxist paradigm of elitist hegemony; the bourgeoisie spiritual over the strong in muscle and temperament proletariat and the mediocre; the ones unfit for the purpose of production; the elderly, the infirm, the antagonists. Furthermore, the use of the word Nature implies that such hegemony is a privilege of hereditary power and status; cultural capital and therefore, subordinate spheres shall never attain such spiritual plains. Furthermore, Bourdieu’s concept of cultural reproduction - ‘differentiated and stratified, socialisation practices, in combination with the system of education, function to discriminate positively in favour of these members of society who, by virtue of their location with the class system are the natural inheritors of cultural capital’ - would certainly support this postulation (Jenks:2004).
If such a Marxist structure of society is adopted it can be suggested an individual will, indeed, embrace or be at the mercy of a particular hereditary Conceptual System – ‘caught within a linguistic system that does not relate to external reality in the way we expect’ contributing to the perpetual motion of elitism (Butler:2002). Interestingly, such linguistic systems can be to the detriment of all spheres as they can only offer only ‘partial interpretation and often uses metaphor when it thinks it’s being literal’ in which ‘we live, not inside reality, but inside our representations of it’ (ibid1) (ibid2). Only by conceding a reflexive ideology will achieve the perspective that ‘we can see that the world, its social systems, human identity even, are not givens, somehow guaranteed by a language which corresponds to reality, but are constructed by us in language, in ways that can never be justified by the claim that this is the way that such things really are’ (ibid3). Such sentiments of compromise are shared by Hoggart (1966) who states; ‘first without appreciating good literature, no one will really understand the nature of society, second, literary critical analysis can be applied to certain social phenomena other than academically respectable literature (for example, popular arts, mass communications) so as to illuminate their meanings for individuals and their societies’.
Indeed, this piece will focus upon a facet of the popular arts; contemporary popular music and an analysis pertaining to whether Nietzsche’s summary of society can be transposed to relate to contemporary music spheres.
For instance, the natural assumption dictates classical music attains the spiritual label which derives from Adorno’s critique; On Popular Music. Indeed, Adorno distinguished a serious and popular sphere of music - he demonstrates considerable bias towards serious music; particularly Beethoven – of which serious music assumed the hegemonic position. Furthermore, it is implied that the field of work within serious music is a major contributory factor towards such hegemony; ‘in Beethoven and in good serious music… the detail virtually contains the whole and leads to the exposition of the whole’ (Adorno:1941). Therefore, in good serious, classical music – it’s interesting Adorno concedes not all serious music is therefore spiritual – ‘every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece’ and ‘never of a mere enforcement of a musical scheme’ – although, ascertained by the aforementioned concession, the later statement is, indeed, a fallacy (ibid1) (ibid2). With this concession in mind, it can be suggested that such holistic musical construction is indeed the aesthetic sense of perfection and mastery.
No comments:
Post a Comment