The Social Music Phenomenon and Counter Culture - Coursework Example

?The social music phenomenon recognizes that music is not just personal, but contributes greatly to the social fabric of society. Music implicates culture, subcultures, taste cultures and counterculture, as well as implicating collective identity. The first of these implications that will be examined will be that of culture, and how culture impacts music and music impacts culture. Culture is a general term for how an individual finds meaning and collectively make sense of their world (Cushman, 1996, p. 7). It is how participants interpret events and communication to understand the modern world. Culture is the outcome of concrete experiences of the individual social actors in their social world. People make culture, and culture makes them. Through making culture, individual and collective identities are formed (Cushman, 1996, p. 7). The construction of cultural institutions reflect “commonsense beliefs about human behavior” (Bruner, 1990, p. 38) Take the case of the men playing in a hobby band. The descriptive terms that one uses for these men and their vocation, such as “playing”, “audience” and “instrument” are all cultural meanings, and these cultural meanings control how we act. An individual’s experiences and acts are shaped by his intentional states, and these states are ”realized only through participation in the symbolic systems of culture” (Bruner, 1990, p. 33). It is only through cultural interpretations of one’s personal autobiography that this story becomes understandable. Through this cultural mediation, meaning becomes communal and public, as opposed to private. The difference between culture and biological inheritance is that the latter does not necessarily shape human experience and action, but, rather, constrains action in a modifiable way. Culture shapes the human mind and life by giving “meaning to action by situating its underlying intentional states in an interpretive system.” (Bruner, 1990, p. 34). The way that culture shapes the human life and mind is by imposing the inherent patterns of culture’s symbolic systems – the logical and narrative forms, the patterns that are formed by communal life, and the discourse and language modes. The self’s growth is not independent of the social world, but is dependent upon social constructs, such as images, social bonds and meanings for growth (Bruner, 1990, p. 42). Culture externalizes internal feelings, states of consciousness and thoughts into concrete forms that are shared by individuals. These concrete forms, such as music, are viewed as cultural objects (Cushman, 1996, p. 90). How music functions in any culture depends on how that culture operates socially, and these circumstances vary between one culture and another. Listeners responds to popular music physically, by singing along, dancing, clapping, etc.; emotional, by feeling the music, reminiscing or romanticizing; and cognitive, by learning, stimulating thought, processing information, and framing perceptions, etc (Lull, 1987, p. 141). Related to the concepts of culture, as it relates to the dominant culture, are countercultures and taste culture. Counterculture is the result of engaging in alternative forms of communication among social actors who are collectively pursuing alternative ways of living (Cushman, 1996, p. 8). The base of knowledge amongst the social actors in the counterculture runs counter to the dominant culture. Rock music counterculture means a group of individuals who are committed to disseminate rock music that is neither overtly nor covertly influenced by the dominant culture. Countercultures are often formed around music, due to music’s ability to communicate and mediate common experiences. For instance, the 1960s were marked by the Vietnam War, which gave birth to the activists and hippies, two examples of 1960's countercultures. The youth of those times, influenced by the Vietnam War and a general feeling of unrest, basically made war on their elders, and this was a world-wide phenomenon, even in the countries were Vietnam was not a factor. The youth just wanted to rebel during those times, no matter the reason. (Gould, 2007, pp. 458-461). These times influenced how society reacted to, received and demanded musical works. The youth became interested in hard-edged rock, listening to angry, slashing, piercing blues of British and American guitar heroes. (Szatmary, 2000, p. 175). The blues became a phenomenon, owing in no small part to the fact that the blues were the music of an oppressed people, and the youth identified with this feeling of oppression. Jimi Hendrix sprung up during this period with his brand of psychedelic blues. Hendrix explained his appeal – “Lots of young people now feel they're not getting a fair deal. So they revert to something loud, harsh, almost verging on violence; if they didn't go to a concert, they might be going to a riot.” (Szatmary, 2000, p. 176). Other hard-edged blues artists who became popular include Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Jeff Beck, Janis Joplin and Ginger Baker. Taste cultures represent another sub-set of culture. Taste culture theorists state that individuals are drawn to a certain style of music by choice, as opposed to access. For instance, American punk audiences were drawn to punk not necessarily because of social class, but because they had an interest in contemporary music. The Sex Pistols' audience was drawn from a high socioeconomic strata, despite the lower socioeconomic roots of the music itself. This shows that taste cultures form around the interest in the music, not from common socioeconomic backgrounds (Lull, 1987 p. 160). Taste culture theorists state that an audience chooses the cultural materials that they like, and these choices cannot be explained by external factors such as social status. Subculture theory is another explanation for the phenomenon that is being studied. Subcultures, which exist in contrast to the mainstream culture, have their own rule-governed behaviour patterns that characterize and define the particular group. However, just because one is a member of a subculture does not mean that the music is received in a homogeneous way. Since the audience and fans are able to contextualize the songs that they hear, and use music in different ways and imbue the songs and lyrics with their own meanings and values (Wicke, 1987, p. 80). Subcultures produce complex meanings that are linked with “profane materials of everyday life” – such as music. Just because mass culture provides music that is consumed by the masses does not mean that each individual uses music in the same way, in contrast to the notion that all members of a given culture imbue the same music with the same meaning (Wicke, 1987, p. 79). . One's membership in a subculture may encompass ones entire identity, or just one aspect of it. Examples of the latter would be a businessman who is into playing in a punk-rock band, and is into the punk rock subculture in this way. Examples of the former is a youth who lives and breathes the punk subculture's lifestyle, from the mode of dress, jewelry, attitude and hairstyle. One is totally immersed in the subculture, the other is straddling between mainstream culture and subculture (Lull, 1987, p. 164). Subcultures are the result of cultural differentiation, and they are common in capitalistic societies and are often the result of experiences of age and class categories of individuals. These class and age related experiences are the basis for subcultures. Despite the criticism that rock music is used by all members of a class in the same way, rock music really caters to these differentiated sub-cultures who share the particular rock band or genre’s values and beliefs. Through the band and the music, members of a particular sub-culture are able to “live out” their experiences (Wicke, 1987, p. 81). There are two kinds of subcultures - aesthetic would be genres of music that are appreciated for its aesthetic qualities, and does not have an element of politics or collective emotion. Examples of this are classical, jazz and ethnic music, such as salsa, polka and flamenco. The music is on the margins of the main culture, but beloved by its devotees. The groupings might have socioeconomic factors in common, but not politics. The second kind of subculture is organized around politics and is oppositional (Lull, 1987, p. 165). The music of these subcultures have a purpose that transcends the aesthetics, and represents music that resists mainstream social practices and institutions. The music of these subcultures confirm the members' political positions, and legitimizes the political and social ideologies of the group by reinforcing the groups' alternative actions and values. While the fans coalesce around certain genres and bands because of an affinity with these bands and genres, bands cater to these subcultures as well. An example of a band who catered to a subculture is the Who. The Who’s “My Generation” was aimed not at the broad generation in general, but at a small group of British youth called the mods. There was a symbiotic relationship between The Who and The Mods, as The Who embodied “their” style of music, while The Who was influenced by The Mods by modeling their overall appearance to fit with The Mods, so that their music was not the only cultural object for this group, but the group itself was too. Pete Townsend expressed this sentiment when he stated that “What the Mods taught us in the band was to how to lead by following.” (Wicke, 1987, p. 76). This is just one example in which a group provides not just their songs as cultural objects, but the overall look and feel of a particular band, in their styles of dress, codes of behaviours, gestures and objects are modeled after the particular subset of culture to whom the group is catering. Because of this, there is a thought that, when dealing with subcultures who are avid followers of certain genres and bands, these groups are exploiting their audience by a conscious manipulation of the bands image that squares with culture of the target audience (Wicke, 1987, p. 79). Music also plays a large part in shaping one’s identity. Identity may be individual or collective. Since music is most related to shaping collective identity, this is the identity that will be examined here. Gender, ethnicity and kinship are examples of collectivity. (Jenkins, 2004, p. 80). An excellent example of collective identity is fandom, in which the act of sharing the love of a certain artist, like Bruce Springsteen, with other fans build a collective identity between the artist’s fans. The collective in fandom transcends age, gender, socioeconomic background and education. The collective fandom of Bruce Springsteen also had a slight us against them mentality, in that they indicated that non-fans did not understand their fandom and thought them weird, therefore they became a part of the Springsteen fan community partly because of the rejection from those outside of the community. (Cavicchi, 1998, pp. 158-160). Music also plays a large part in shaping group identity. Styles of dress, acceptable behaviors and modes of social interaction (especially regarding women in the rock and roll culture), dancing or not dancing, and drug/alcohol use may all be influenced by the individual songs or by the overall culture of rock and roll. The power of the music to influence these outward appearances and internal levels of acceptance is firmly grounded in the context of rock and roll; the culture exists as a subset of another culture and has its own rules and norms. It remains a subculture despite and perhaps because of its opposition to the dominant culture. “Its power lies not in what it says or means but in what it does within its culture” (Grossberg, 1983, p. 108). An academic’s search for the Meaning of Rock and Roll will come up short if performed on a purely textual or theoretical basis; the culture creates the meaning, and the culture influences the narrative stories of its participants. There are three aspects of how an audience is involved in music. First, there is exposure, which is just that a person has had contact with the music. Second is consumption, which is what is learned or remembered from the exposure, and this is where an audience can pick up values, emotions, feelings and information from a certain musical piece. Use is the third way that an audience is involved in music, and this refers to social and personal opportunities, gratifications and applications of the music. In this way, music constructs cultural and social life. Other ways that music constructs the cultural and social life of the individual is by speaking to one another about music; and using music as a proud emblem of who one is, by displaying a certain group or musician on bumper stickers, clothing and posters (Lull, 1987, p. 143). While the above describes how music affects identity and shapes cultures, subcultures, counter-cultures and taste cultures, there is a concern for how authentic the music is, and this is another aspect that should be examined. Distribution of music, which is a concern for the cultural sociologist, has an impact on how authentic music is, and has inspired great debate about this, a debate that is echoed in the critiques of Stuart Hall, Pierre Bordieu, Simon Frith, Lawrence Grossberg and Theodore Adorno. For Hall and Adorno, authentic music is contrasted with music that is created for mass consumption. For Hall, there is sharp distinction between the popular artist and the art of mass media - he states that the popular artist has talent and quality, and the art of mass media consists of second-rate hacks who produce art only for the fast buck. (Hall, 1964, p. 68) According to Hall, the popular artist is comparable to a high artist, as he can lose himself in the material, while in mass art the artist does not have this ability to lose himself. The element of manipulation in mass media art is high, and there is not man within the work. Mass art relies upon formula, and is an escape from originality, as opposed to being a means to original work (Hall, 1964, pp. 69-70). Likewise, Adorno recognized the power of mass communication's power as far as its effect on culture, having witnessed, first-hand, the power of mass communication in Nazi Germany. To Adorno, mass media has the power to shape taste and degrade the individual, and has the power to make the culture mass, that is, undifferentiated (Adorno, 2002, p. 342). Adorno (2002) also worried about the artist becoming obedient and subordinate to the plain people and the majority. Adorno believed that the artist should guard against the “leveling trend of the machinery,” and not adapt to the market, yet not engage in non-adaptation that is too spectacular. The artist must have a degree of inner consistency, as the art must be a realization of the artists basic intentions. Artistry must be ready to challenge the dictates of the status quo. (Adorno, 2002, p. 387). Simon Frith has also weighed in on this debate, stating that mass culture corrupts real musical emotions, which make pop songs banal and trite (Frith, 1988, pp. 108-109). Frith states that there is a popular notion that most pop songs touch upon surface emotions, but go no deeper, which creates the illusion that the artist emotions go no further than the surface. This may be contrasted with the typical blues lyrics, which explore problems and issues within relationships, as opposed to portraying love relationships as all hearts and rainbows. Also, according to some critics, lyrics are not authentic unless they do not support dominant ideology, such as sentimentalizing traditional views of love, family and marriage. Producing lyrics in line with the dominant ideology is, for these critics, is a sure sign that an artist has “sold out”, and are making music for the masses and the dominant ideology, as opposed to composing lyrics that are authentic to oneself. (Frith, 1988, p. 112). Bourdieu sees the argument between the authentic and imitation in art, with its corollaries of mass verses popular culture as being a part of a game and an illusion that the cultural object has an absolute value, when it actuality the seemingly opposing cultural axioms exist through each other and it is “the relation, or rather, the objective collaboration of their respective production apparatuses and clients which produces the value of culture and the need to possess it” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 250). It is through the struggle between these opponents that cultural values are realized. Moreover, according to Bourdieu, goods production is the matching of the production field with the consumption field. Through this, tastes are realized, for the system of goods that are produced for the masses dictates taste, and a change in this system will produce a change in taste. Conversely, a change in taste that is the result of a change in the societal conditions influences production, as those who can produce cultural objects to suit the changing taste will be more successful than those who do not (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 231). Therefore, music may be inauthentic or authentic, and, presumably, the more authentic the music is, the more likely the music will influence individuals and groups, and all the different kinds of cultures. After all, if music is authentic, then it is more likely to have something important to say, because the music is more personal to the artist. The inauthentic music is the result of artists who are selling out to the popular culture, according to the prevailing theory. Yet, this might not be true. For instance, the gay subculture tends to coalesce around popular music – Madonna, Cher, and Lady Gaga are all gay icons, and Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson are all considered to be rising gay icons (BC Culture.com). All of these icons would be said to contributing to the gay collective identity as well. None of these individuals are making what might be said to be culturally important music - the familiar songs are about love, breaking up, sex, etc., all topics which might be considered by Simon Frith to be banal topics for pop music. Therefore, there is not necessarily a nexus between music authenticity and how well music influences collectivity and culture. Bibliography Adorno, T. 2002. Essays on Music. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cushman, Thomas . 1995. Notes from Underground: Rock Music Counterculture in Russia. Albany: State University of New York Press. Frith, S. 1988. Music for Pleasure. New York, NY: Routledge. Gould, Jonathan. 2007. Can’t Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America. New York: Harmony Publishers. Grossberg, L. 1983. The politics of youth culture: Some observations on Rock and Roll in American culture. Social Text, 8: 104-126. Hall, S. 1964. Popular Arts. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Jenkins, R. 2004. Social Identity. New York: Routledge. Lull, James. 1987. Popular Music and Communication. New York: Sage Publications. Szatmary, David. 2000. Rockin’ In Time: A Social History of Rock and Roll. New York: Prentice Hall. London: Oxford University Press. Wicke, P. 1987. Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Read More