Cotidiano de uma brasileira em Paris, comentarios sobre cultura, politica e besteiras em geral. Entre le faible et le fort c'est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui libère." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

On the relationship between music and violence

For the past few days I've been thinking about a possible link between music and violence.  Observing people I know and remembering people I knew and their idiosyncrasies, mannerisms, personalities, etc, I've noticed something that interests me very much.  I hope I don't disappoint anyone who might read this: this isn't about any correlations between rap&violence, punk&violence, sexism, gansta rap, etc etc. None of that in this post, so if you were hoping for it, you might as well stop reading now.

Starting from a cursory reflection about my own likes and dislikes, I'm tempted to make a few claims:



  • Music cuts through all the "white noise" which exists in our daily lives;
  • Musical affinity makes other types of understanding easier and quicker, like between two people who speak a foreign language that isn't their first one (i.e. a Spanish speaker and an Arabic speaker meet and must find a 3rd language in common if neither speaks the other's language);
  • People with acute sensibility to music have less patience for the mundane and those who take pleasure in mundane activities. If my opinion on this is at all well-founded, this is the most important part of the argument, because it informs one's reactions to the world;
  • Once music is on (and here the necessary presupposition is music which pleases the individual) one has no choice but to experience whatever feeling that piece of music will bring the listener.





I think this is what lies behind that hitherto incomprehesible (to me) practice authoritarian/totalitarian regimes had/have (esp USSR) of sending composers and musicians to camps or banning pieces of music without lyrics (!)---

These censors realized how music cuts through all the white noise, so to speak, how certain pieces have the power to awaken in some a most powerful, usually subconscious understanding of how so much that goes on around us is utterly meaningless.

Bureaucracy is the enemy of sublimation and beauty;  music as art, therefore, can act as a metaphysical experience, which removes us from our immediate physical "reality" -- and here I put reality in inverted commas precisely to highlight how it isn't an absolute but a temporary, physical reality, and not the essential reality of one's own intimate thoughts, feelings, and experiences, or even the reality of one's imagination and hopes for the future, which are necessarily of a better quality than one's present.  The clear inference is the present isn't good enough.
Claims about how "a certain type of music" alienates and "distracts" from The (insert your favorite one here) Struggle, then, begin to make sense to me, when viewed through this prism.

The violence with which the musical experience invades our being, that is, leaving absolutely no choice to the listener as to whether s/he wants to feel it or not, is seldom matched by other experiences, because it isn't painful as such.   It can be the vehicle or agent which brings other painful experiences to the foreground of one's immediate present, but it is done with sublimated violence; indeed, pleasurable violence.  Its effects are the opposite of those achieved with vulgar violence in that the "victim" is happier, more complete, more himself after having suffered music's brutality.

This sublimation is precisely what's lacking in the mundane, where objects/experiences are more similar to a billboard when compared to music, that's to say, in spite of their tangible aspect, they lack the depth and the power to transmit the v special feeling the idea of infinity gives us.  One looks at a billboard and knows, even if it is an expertly crafted one like trompe l'oeil can be, that there is nothing behind it, no depth, no 3rd dimension, much less a 4th one to be imagined or momentarily inhabited.  

So the very fact music is intangible makes it MORE three- or four-dimensional than any physical manifestation of the imagination and any interpretation of the real.  I'm willing to claim this quality is present in music and religious experiences, nowhere else.  Nothing else can produce this ambiguity between suffering and ecstasy, not even sex-- it lacks the sublime quality music and religion share.

Hence: music & religion are totalitarians' favorite bêtes noires.

Hilariously, I understand now how music can be more threatening to any power structure than a novel, than words.  Naturally I'm talking about music here, not lyrics; indeed, I am only talking about music without lyrics.

The violence contained in how music injects itself into a person is infinitely higher and more powerful than any other type of violence, because there is no resistance possible.  External, physical violence is the weapon of the impotent.

8 comments:

Tango3 said...

I clung tenatiously right to the last sentence and there lost my grip. External violence or physical violence may be the weapon of the impotent, but it is an effective tool and a perpetuation of self. No matter what your political persuasion, violence and intimidation work. I realize that last sentence wasn't the impetus of the piece. I realize that music does have a way of moving and inspiring; as do words, as does the threat of violence. Perhaps at different levels, with varying degrees of success and speed, but still the ability to move. After all, there are great composers and great orators and great writers; at least, there used to be. In that regard, I tend to lean toward the view that it depends on what moves the individual. Sometimes it's music, sometimes words, sometimes writing. Totalitarians seek to control and limit all of those. But the common thread among them is the mind. It is the mind that generates the notes, words, and speech that serve to inspire or promulgate violence. All have the same source, all have influence on others. Beyond that, I don't know. It's been that way since there have been at least 2 people on this planet and I can either accept or reject that reality as I please, it just doesn't change it. But there is nothing wrong with imagining something better and hoping for that day.

Bel said...

Oh I agree with you that violence works -- at least if the aim is to delay reaction and intimidate. What violence does not do is change someone's mind.

Now, the threat of violence is different, in my view. I agree with you here, again, and even think the threat of violence is more effective than violence itself, because once employed, it has the paradoxical effect of becoming less scary, for a simple reason: the imagination comes up with horrors seldom matched by reality.

Yes, all forms of art have the mind in common, but I claim that music's unique nature (that of not being anywhere in specific, like the air, and yet permeating all when it is played) differentiates it from the other forms; its plus is this intangibility.

In a very real way, music exists in the mind and soul in a way words do not. Before being on paper or on a screen, words are far more difficult to pin down and keep, as a product of one's being, than music. Words carry meaning, music does not, in any semantic or political sense, so it is different, again, from the other forms.

Anyway... I won't enumerate here all the differences lol.... when I say "violence" in the last sentence I do not mean so much an act of violence but the violence which is present in any act. Even an act of kindness can have a hint of violence in it.

thanks so much for your thoughtful comment.

much appreciated

x

Carl Johnson said...

I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that when when music has been banned it's been an expression of a dictator's taste, a comment on the composer's lifestyle or politics, or a search for ideological purity. Jazz was clearly degenerate, rock was clearly consumerist and individualistic. As I understand it Tchaikovsky, for instance, was still played in USSR, but with the references to the Tsarist national anthem edited out. Countries have banned the Marseillaise or the Internationale not just for the words but also for the historical associations.

This is not to say that you may not be right about the way music works- just that censors have more pressing issues to deal with than the Sublime. The engineering of the human soul may be a long term goal, and the engineers will need supervision, but the censor's job is to curtail the expression of political dissent. I don't think tango suffered during the Argentinian dictatorship. I believe it was the lyrics that the Brasilian censors objected to- I understand that in dictatorship Brasil even jazz musicians could still get by- if they knew to keep their mouths shut...

It takes a very special kind of censor to ban music because it's musical- it takes the Taliban.

Very interesting post.

Tango3 said...

Right you are Carl, I didn't.

Bel - I'm going to have cypher on that one a while...and I'm not sure even then I can say anything lucid. But if I do, I'm certain I will have to bore you with it!

Bel said...

Carl -- when you say "the censor's job is to curtail political dissent" I agree but think this statement is incomplete. That's the censor's job as well.

Any good ideological gatekeeper knows that if ideology is to survive at all, a certain framework has to be kept in place.

Music has the potential to remove one from concrete reality itself, from material existence, like religion.
If Joe can experience the relief of "living" in a plane where hunger, cold, and ugliness don't exist, at least for a few moments, he will no longer apply himself so much in the struggle toward the end of inequality.

etc

cheers

Tango3 said...

Ok. I've thought further on the matter and read the last post about censors. Contextually, this is purely my own sense of what is and isn't, for me. In that regard, music doesn't inspire or have the same meaning, or reverance. I realize that my tonal acuity isn't as sharp or refined as that of others. I like music, I've even been called a music snob, since I'm quite persnickety about what I listen to. I find it relaxing, even mood brigtening at times, but not inspiring to the point of overthrowing countries or toppling governments. Can it serve as the rallying cry or focal point for those activities? I suppose it could facilitate action in that regard. I accept too that censors, through their suppression, elevate the status of said musical work even higher. But the question in my mind is, is it because of the piece itself, or because promotion of and listening to is in direct defiance of the person or entity that says you can not?

Bel said...

TANGO: this is exactly my point. Music DOESNT inspire any political/social feelings/ideas. It CAN, combined with lyrics, but only music? No. You're entirely right, you fully got what I mean in this entry. Many thanks for taking the time to think about it, it makes me feel v good to know someone got what I mean without "actually" knowing me in "real life".

xx

Tango3 said...

Yes, well, sometimes it takes me a bit, being an American and all.