Music cannot change the world, says Neil Young

[Garritan]

I'm not sure if disillusionment is a sign of our times. Neil Young was regarded as a voice of hope back in the 60's. Now he is singing a different tune. Breitbart reports: (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080208160230.p2cyq6q1&show_article=1)

"We just don't have to go and spread democracy around the world." Canadian folk rock legend Neil Young said he has lost all hope that music can change the world, as he presented a documentary about his 2006 anti-war concert tour at the Berlin film festival on Friday.

"I know that the time when music could change the world is past. I really doubt that a single song can make a difference. It is a reality," Young told reporters.
Do you think music can still change the world?

[bigears]

I believe music can profoundly affect people. And people can change the world, it is just a slow, difficult process. I'm surprised to hear that Neil Young is so disenchanted, he has been involved in many causes like FarmAid.
Regards, John

[etLux]

Well that's just silly.

Of course music can change the world.

We just need to massage a few of our leaders
with 2x4's to get them to listen up.

David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

[JonFairhurst]

Music can introduce ideas - and so can anybody with a platform. It is ideas that can change the world.

MLK may have been assassinated, but his ideas live on. His platform didn't include music, but there are songs that help to keep his ideas alive.

[rbowser-]

Borrowing from Oscar Wilde, whose writings I'm rather in tune with because of studies which led to my musical stage adaptation of "The Picture of Dorian Gray"--

--All art is useless.

When an artist becomes polemic, trying to Make A Statement - his output ceases to be Art.

No book, no piece of music, no painting, no play - no piece of Art ever Changed The World.

The love and appreciation of music and all art elevates its participants, --and:

--People who are busily engaged truly loving art are too busy with that activity to even think about starting wars, (or artificially prolonging them), or of engaging in any kind of strife with his fellow creatures.

Change comes about in individuals, not in masses of people simultaneously.

Neil is right - It was a naive, immature notion that "music can change the world" - But music Does change individuals. It rearranges their molecules into more open, humanistic, sensitive creatures - on a one-by-one basis.

Politically conservative artists are so rare that I haven't actually ever met one in Real Life.

The bigger picture, which moves from the naive, to the realistic, and beyond, into the spiritual--is that while music cannot literally change the world, it Can change us on an individual basis, and the cumulative effect, is that Then the world changes--after sufficient eons have passed.

---But composers, writers, painters cannot spend their time hoping to cause Change. If that's what they want to do, they would more effectively be writing religious or philosophical pamphlets to pass out on street corners. They have to simply be One with the rhythm of life, of existence, and then communicate and pass on what is given to them from their Higher Selves--and trust that their creations won't fall on deaf ears.

If "Change" is brought about by anything an artist does - that's perhaps a Bonus--but that isn't the purpose of creating art.

Randy B.

[SeanHannifin]

I'm not so familiar with Oscar Wilde's works or philosophies, but I'd say if art is useless, it's not art! Art can never be useless. By it's nature, it exists for something, whether to please the ear or to delight the eyes or to say a message. And I'm sure Oscar had something to say with his art... otherwise he wouldn't have created it! So I'm not sure what Oscar meant by "all art is useless", but by itself sounds completely wrong. :D

In the education thread, not too long ago, I said that no matter how much "quality education" everyone gets, we're still not all going to agree on everything, politically or religiously.

Same with music, and all art. It's not useless, and it can change the world (every piece of art changes at least a piece of the world), but it is naive to believe that any piece of art would ever make everyone suddenly share the same political or religious viewpoint. Maybe it's human nature for almost everyone to have that belief in the back of their mind, like the hope that someday they'll be rich famous... and most of us realize that that probably (or definitely) won't be the case, no matter how hard we work. But perhaps Neil just had that dream, that he could get everyone to agree on something, and now realizes the truth of the matter. (On a side note, if your message is something like "war is evil and bad" or "love is good" ... well, duh! Those are not the roots of the issues...)

It sort of reminds me of some young hopeful singer dreaming that they can please Simon Cowell, and then crying out of the auditioning room wondering how his or her rejection can be real... :confused: (Stop including other people's reactions in your dreams! You'll be far less disappointed!)

Well, at least Neil Young is already more famous than most. :D

Still, even if you don't achieve fame and riches, and even if you don't unite all religions and political parties with a love ballad, I still believe in the butterfly effect, and that every little thing you do makes a big (though perhaps undetectable) change in the world. So always choose the path you believe is right and do the best you can...

Everything you do matters. :)

(Watch out, this post is gonna change the world!)

[Pingu]

Of course music can change the world. The problem is that the days when a sizable body of musicians wanted to change the world are gone.

[rbowser-]

Hello there, Sean!--We've been playing Tag in some interesting threads recently!

It's a paradoxical thing Wilde posited when he said in the preface, and then in the text of "Dorian Gray" that "all art is quite useless." It was a capsulization of the "Art for Art's Sake" movement of the late 19th Century. And it's still worthy of discussion, because it's still a deep and challenging concept.

I loved reading your reply, and I offer that it's written from the same view point which Neil Young is now trying to explain as something he's matured out of.

In the theatre realm, it's long been observed that plays which have A Statement, a big Point to make--are the least successful pieces in terms of artistry. Theatre at its most pure form simply explores the Human Condition--without making judgments about the topics it explores. That doesn't always equate to the most Pop(ular) theatre, but theatre which has that pure intent of simply exploring the complexities of what it means to be human always turn out to be the most immortal works--hence the way Shakespeare's works are still held up as the best plays ever written. He doesn't make judgments about his characters, he explores them, and through their tragedies illuminates many profound things about the Human Condition.

Wilde is held in higher esteem as a writer and thinker Now than ever before, because he wasn't simplistic in his thinking.

When said that Art is Useless, he was also saying that it's no more useful than a flower--as the character Lord Henry says in "Dorian" says, it gives a moment of joy when we smell it. What more profound effect can we ask of Anything?

To insist that the experience of smelling a flower, or hearing a piece of music, or reading a novel Should have a specific meaning and purpose beyond the mere experiencing of those things on their own--is to reduce the possibilities of Art to the predictabilities of putting a jig-saw puzzle together.

As soon as creative people think they can convey a Message--they become preachers, "pamphleteers"--and their creative output becomes propaganda for a given cause.

Pure Art is profound and meaningful on its own terms, not because it illustrates a moral lesson, or is a hymn sung by a religious congregation, or is an Anthem of any sort to anything beyond what it Is itself.

Music, prose, --any kind of art form which comes full circle, which is perfectly explicable to everyone--is no longer actual Art--it's an advertisement. It's a product, a predicable formula which may be successful today but will, I guarantee you, forgotten tomorrow.

I fully and rather passionately feel exactly what Wilde was talking about - that when Art becomes "useful" in the sense of being instructive, it instantly is no longer Art.

Everything you do matters because you're either adding to the propaganda of various causes, which is motivated by a desire to Change people (never an honorable goal)--or you are simply reflecting the glory of creation which has no other Purpose than to say "Isn't life amazing?"

All art is QUite useless--and therein lies its glory.

Randy B.

[fastlane]

Time changes the world, it changes you and it changes me.


Time comes slinking like a whore,

falls wanking to the floor.

It's trick is you and me.




Phil

[Nickie Fønshauge]

Music can introduce ideas - and so can anybody with a platform.

Nonsense. Music itself doesn't introduce any ideas except purely musical ideas and they hardly change anything. It's the people behind the music, that may advocate ideas and they do it with words. Music just gives them a pr-platform to speak out their mind and be heard.

[rpearl]

Change the world? Probably not. Make it a better place? Certainly. Oh wait - isn't making something better a change?

We have to think in small steps. Anytime you help one person, whether through music or another means, you have changed the world. We just can't change it all, or all at once. We all want to play that piece, hit that home run, throw that pass that will change everything/win the game; but rarely,if ever does it work like that. The world is connected and fluid, so what I do here, and you do there - if we keep at it - can make a difference. Whether we will see it, or know it is another matter...

[efiebke]

My 2 cents worth. . . .

Music, by itself, won't change the world. But, I believe, it significantly helps.

One of the things I learned during my "music college for film composition" days (oh so long ago) was how STRONG a role music played in "creating a mood". There's a reason why the whole concept of film composition exists. There's a reason why companies pay big $$$$'s bucks to have a song "sell" their products. Heck there's a reason why songs of the late-1960's helped motive a generation of American citizens to call for an end of a war. To this day, there is a reason why John McCain used the tune "My Country" to help motivate his political base during his presidential campaign. (Interestingly, when his campaign advisors found out that "My Country" was written by composer and liberal John Melloncamp, they stopped playing his tune during McCain's rallies. HA! LOL!)

Music works!! It's effective!!!

I can appreciate Neil Young feeling down in the dumps. The political world seems to look pretty ugly sometimes. No. Music will not directly save the planet. But it can, and most probably will, play a significant role if the world is to ever be changed.


Oh yea. . . . music is just as effective for "the other side". Hitler used music effectively during his rein of terror. It just goes to demonstrate just how powerful a role music "plays" in creating "that mood" and motivating people. It also demonstrates that music is an effective tool for anyone to use.

[bmpsound]

Do you think music can still change the world?

I think the difference between today and the 60's is that more musicians were involved in working towards peace through music - not just Neil Young and John Lennon. It was a large-scale movement.

I don't think people care any less today, however, writing protest songs just aren't at the top of everybody's list!

It is a shame. Music can change the world.

Steve

[SeanHannifin]

I know I might getting off topic here, Randy, but I think it's a very interesting discussion!


Hello there, Sean!--We've been playing Tag in some interesting threads recently!

It's a paradoxical thing Wilde posited when he said in the preface, and then in the text of "Dorian Gray" that "all art is quite useless." It was a capsulization of the "Art for Art's Sake" movement of the late 19th Century. And it's still worthy of discussion, because it's still a deep and challenging concept.

So is Wilde's "Dorian Gray" not a piece of art because it had that message in it? :D


To insist that the experience of smelling a flower, or hearing a piece of music, or reading a novel Should have a specific meaning and purpose beyond the mere experiencing of those things on their own--is to reduce the possibilities of Art to the predictabilities of putting a jig-saw puzzle together.

I agree, I would never insist that every piece of art must have some objective meaning to be "art", that would be ridiculous, and just about impossible with something like music. But I'd say smelling a flower for the experience of joy makes the flower "useful". So maybe I just disagree with Wilde's wording of his idea. Though I vehemently disagree with this:


As soon as creative people think they can convey a Message--they become preachers, "pamphleteers"--and their creative output becomes propaganda for a given cause.

That's ridiculous! I do not think that "art" and "propaganda" must be different things.


Pure Art is profound and meaningful on its own terms, not because it illustrates a moral lesson, or is a hymn sung by a religious congregation, or is an Anthem of any sort to anything beyond what it Is itself.

How can it be "meaningful" if it illustrates nothing and thus has no meaning?

Perhaps you're talking about a certain "degree of meaning"... many books would be absolutely boring if they had no meaning at all; they might as well be random words. But on the other hand, we often don't like reading books that preach very specifically about issues, indeed you might as well read a pamphlet. But I think most books out there (at least character-oriented books) do have obvious, though general, moral messages, even if the message is as general as "good is better than evil."

I think there are only two things that can ever be desired for their own sake: pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Everything else is done for the sake of one of these two. So I agree that art can be sought merely for the sake of pleasure. ("Art for the sake of art" makes no sense.) "Pure music" (music without lyrics) exists almost entirely for pleasure.


Music, prose, --any kind of art form which comes full circle, which is perfectly explicable to everyone--is no longer actual Art--it's an advertisement. It's a product, a predicable formula which may be successful today but will, I guarantee you, forgotten tomorrow.

But, again, I think ads can definitely be works of art, even if they are not presented as such.

And I don't think the longevity or success of art (however "success" is defined) has anything to do with it. Something isn't "art" because it will be forgotten?


Everything you do matters because you're either adding to the propaganda of various causes, which is motivated by a desire to Change people (never an honorable goal)--or you are simply reflecting the glory of creation which has no other Purpose than to say "Isn't life amazing?"

Changing people is not an honorable goal?! I would agree that it would be dishonorable to try to shove your beliefs down someone's throat (which never works), but "changing" can be much more subtle. In fact, I'd say one is "changed" with every piece of art he experiences, whether he agrees with a certain message or not. Even so, propaganda isn't always meant just to change people's viewpoints radically (when does that ever happen?), it encourages or teaches people who already have a certain mindset. Otherwise it sounds like you're saying that advertising in general is evil. :D


All art is QUite useless--and therein lies its glory.

:eek: Uselessness is never glorious! Though, again, a flower of wonderful scent or a serenade of joy does not seem useless to me, even if they lack objective meaningful messages.

I guess this discussion really gets into the question of what exactly is "art"? It would seem to me that anything that is looked at as being "art" is "art", meanings and usefulness be darned. :D Which I guess makes the question subjective to the observer and justifies your view, though I'd still argue that the distinction between art and non-art being the nature of its perceived message is ... silly? :o

[jmpaquette]

Quite a thread, this one. Potent (as in "filled with potential").

I'm biting back an impulse to "drop" one (or more!) of my poems in here. It seems to me that most of the people on this planet do try, in some way or another, to change others. The forms these efforts take are incredibly varied, and often subtle and unconscious. We put forth an opinion, express our viewpoint on something, and want others to--at the very least--understand our "take" on things. And in our heart of hearts, don't we want others to agree with us, at least in significant part? Or we act in certain ways, hoping to model our behaviors for others. I assert that there is merely an issue of degree in any of this.

When it comes to Art, have we departed from these "parenting" patterns?

Randy posited Wilde's assertion that "art is useless." That might be paraphrased as "purposeless," as in non-utilitarian . . . which, by the way, was the social trend (utilitarianism) Wilde and many of his contemporaries railed against. I see Wilde's statement as a defense of art, as a way of saying that art was separate and distinct from those forms of expression being harnessed by social architects. Art was being asserted as an effort to express what lived within, in "pure" form, exempt from socio-political agendas.

Can we agree on what Art is? I think not. I recall a thread some time back where people were bandying the term "classical" music so loosely that I felt compelled to seek clarity. I had to don my fire-retardant overcoat. (I wish I'd had Sean's subscript then: "serious music" ... as if the rest of us are just kidding.) I anticipate it as a given that there would be as many different views of what Art is as there are posters to opine. Moreover, I think all "opiners" would be right.

I haven't seen Young's film. I have scanty knowledge of what he has asserted. Yet from what I've seen and heard, and what it sounds as though he's saying, I believe he's right. I believe he's commenting on the passing of the phenomenon of the sixties--when music concerts would galvanize large numbers of people, and unify them around a social cause. It seems as though his lament is that there is no longer the domino effect of one concert with a social theme engendering another, and yet another, etc., until it developed into a groundswell of protest against something or other.

Aside from that, to the question of music changing the world I would cite every post above me as an affirmative answer in one way or another. It changes me, and I'm part of this world.:)

Joe

[buckshead]

I'm afraid that we are now up against a dark force that would, if left unchecked result in the destruction and eradication of much of western art and philosophy. We must resist this, 40 years ago we thought music and song, amongst other things, could make a better world. Our generation has spent too much time in discussion and not enough in action. When people like Neil Young give up the time has come to wake up, or at least wake up our children, it may be too late for some of us, we're now too old. If music doesn't change the world I fear that the world may destroy it.

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Any man who doesn't resist, submits

[marce]

"Music cannot change the world"

Well, at least, can it change the life of one or two people? im wondering.

[jmpaquette]

I'm afraid that we are now up against a dark force that would, if left unchecked result in the destruction and eradication of much of western art and philosophy. We must resist this, 40 years ago we thought music and song, amongst other things, could make a better world. Our generation has spent too much time in discussion and not enough in action. When people like Neil Young give up the time has come to wake up, or at least wake up our children, it may be too late for some of us, we're now too old. If music doesn't change the world I fear that the world may destroy it.

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Any man who doesn't resist, submits

Buckshead -

You raise a real concern, but I don't know that it's new. I seem to recall that we expressed these same concerns in the sixties, and it motivated many of us to action -- whether in protest marches, political organizing, or otherwise. Western art and philosophy seems still intact, if somewhat wrinkled. I, on the other hand, am weathered and worn out.

Another aspect of this is the nature of rebellion: the sixties youth who were active were rejecting anything the "adults" seemed to want. The same might be said of the current generation--if not of any generation. We see different things depending on where we look from. Around me I see many young people (of all ethnicities) embracing hip-hop music and ghetto dress practices (young men with over-sized pants drooping down over their "butt," for instance). This is "music changing the world," or at least some portion of it. The kids blast this music into their ears through their MP3 players (loud enough that I can hear it from across the street, by the way), and repeat the lyrics out loud. Should I say "Young man (lady), would you care to listen to Stan Getz, or the Philadelphia Philharmonic Orchestra?"

Should we recognize this as the inevitable change that takes place in all cultures, all societies, all lands, and resign ourselves to it?

Should we embrace all of the other young people who are allowing themselves to experience some of the more traditional forms of music, including (especially?) those who get involved in choirs, choruses, bands and other musical groups?

What else might we do? And what are the implications of any "doing" of anything?

Interestingly, I find myself in agreement with every post above, and find no inconsistency there. What it takes is for artists to create whatever they create, and each seed will blossom into whatever it will become for every listener. If we have a preference for one genre or another, that's where we should go - and each individual audience will make of it what they will. Protest song is a specific genre; protest singers have a wide palette to work from. Audiences, too, are entitled to their own artistic freedom: the right to hear whatever it is they hear.

Ern pointed out something earlier: Neil Young's performance can still communicate something (whatever it was Ern heard in it). If we think of the skill of the artist as the ability to communicate something within themselves we might also think of the counterpart, that is, the ability of a listener to glean something from what they hear/see/read/taste, or whatever.

Coming back to the preservation of Western Art and Philosophy I'd like to point out that this is truly a hot potato. The topic might want its own thread in the O.T. Forum. If it shows up there I'd engage the theme . . . but not here.:)

Joe

[Paul Blankenau]

When an artist becomes polemic, trying to Make A Statement - his output ceases to be Art.


Randy B.

I know the determination of Art is subjective, but like many others, I consider Beethoven's "Eminent Domain Reform" as the greatest artistic political statement of all time.

[KeithW]

Do you think music can still change the world?

Paul David Hewson (aka Bono) certainly is trying to change the world. But his music is doing it indirectly. It's his fame (and fortune) that has allowed his "bully pulpit" in which he is attempting to change the world.

There was also a singing group that came to our Church recently made up of African orphans. They were called "Watoto." They certainly didn't change the whole world, but they are trying to change their small part of it...

So yes, music can change the world, a little bit at a time.

Keith Walls

[Leaf]

Intresting discussion, Sean and Randy and everyone!

Maybe Neil's genre isn't the one making the most influence, where it used to be the most influential.

I gave this girl a ride to school when their car wasn't working. I told her to change the station on the radio on whatever she likes and she chose rap. I couldn't believe it, it was totally insane lyrics. Actually i like one of the songs on that station, but that's beside the point that i guess rap is what the young are listening to, and that's kinda scary because there wasn't a very good message in most of those.

I agree somewhat with what Oscar W. said, Randy. It was Stalin i think who maybe wasn't the first, but the most influential, in promoting the idea that the only art that was worthy was that which propogates change, and he ridiculed the old master's paintings as just being pretty pictures and therefore worthless.

I'm not quoting, but paraphrasing the best i can from memory, a long time since i studied it, could have been Lenin lol, but whichever one started that art school that produced all the crazy looking red and black posters. There was some in Boston, writers, with similar veiws, but i don't think they bulit art schools or forced their way or moved their ideas on such a large scale like he did.

In my opinion, before this idea was imported everywhere, there was probably not much attempt to make art into propaganda or propaganda into art, and art was an expression of appreciation of beauty or meaning, but others disagree and see the early religious art as propaganda.

They could be right i don't know but i don't think so, i look farther back at the cave painting and don't think they were intentionally propagating hunting as much as they were celebrating the hunt. Even more i think they were just doing what humans do, creating from their impulse to create, creating art. They were probably expressing the beauty and power they saw in those tasty mammals and the experience of the hunt.

So i lean toward the religious art being expressions of what the artists were in to while they were creating, expressions of their experience, where they found beauty and meaning, and the experience of what moved them. I know they were propagating as well, but not so sure they were intending their art to be an important funtioning element to that end, as much as they were just expressing what moved them.

Now if we switch out the word art for the word music, i believe music is best when it is the notes or notes and lyrics that are created for the sake of creativity and expression, what moves us. If it has a message, as words or lyrics always have, is it a message from me to you to stimulate you, so that you share this experience that moves me, or is it intended to sway you into agreement with me?

That's basically the way i see it. but admit I'm not well enough versed in art history or various movements or 19th century. I mostly agree with what I think I understand is Randy's position. I disagree somewhat with the way you see it Sean, "I do not think that "art" and "propaganda" must be different things" To me, i think intent is what can make it into propaganda and that makes it no longer art, or not just an expression of creative flow, but has an entirely different purpose.

[SeanHannifin]

I disagree somewhat with the way you see it Sean, "I do not think that "art" and "propaganda" must be different things" To me, i think intent is what can make it into propaganda and that makes it no longer art, or not just an expression of creative flow, but has an entirely different purpose.

It's interesting you bring up "intent" ... I was going to write a paragraph about that in my last post, but I suppose forgot.

My trouble with "intent" is that you can never really know what it is, especially today, when the artist might be unknown, or dead, or a liar, or a poor communicator. To determine whether or not something is "art" with "intent", you'd have to depend on someone else's word, which just doesn't seem right to me. :D On the other hand, you can always know what you think, and if a piece of propaganda emotionally effects you like any other piece of art, what's the difference? Likewise, if we found a secret letter written by Mozart saying that "The Magic Flute" was intended as flute manufacturer propaganda, would the opera suddenly cease to be art? (Lame example, I know. :D )

Argh... David Cope (programmer of the world's best algorithmic music composer) had some very interesting quotes about artistic intentions in one of his books called Virtual Music, but I returned it to the library. :( Since he programs the computer to write music, one of the complaints he hears often is that the computer lacks "intent" so that any music it produces will automatically be less "valid" or "worth" less (perhaps even not "art"?), which of course I think is a silly notion. :D That kind of strays from the "art vs propaganda" issue, but I think it's an interesting related issue at least.

EDIT: P.S. When I was in high school, after taking the bus to school I'd take another bus (for "Governor's School" classes)... one day I missed that second bus and the assistant principal had to drive me there... and guess what was on her car radio?! :wow:

[Pingu]

To insist that the experience of smelling a flower, or hearing a piece of music, or reading a novel Should have a specific meaning and purpose beyond the mere experiencing of those things on their own--is to reduce the possibilities of Art to the predictabilities of putting a jig-saw puzzle together.

Pure Art is profound and meaningful on its own terms, not because it illustrates a moral lesson, or is a hymn sung by a religious congregation, or is an Anthem of any sort to anything beyond what it Is itself.


I get where this is coming from, and largely agree with you Randy, but I think it's a more complex issue than this. I would argue that even the most abstract of art has specific meaning, but that meaning is a reflection of what is in the beholder. We cannot help slapping meaning on everything - and by meaning I don't necessarily imply anything as crude as a meaning that can be expressed in words. If you ever read any of the academic research into music therapy, and why it works, the more sensible, less gushy, writers have put forward theories that 'meaning' at some deep, very powerful, level is expressed in - well actually it's hard to express exactly what; something like the mental traces of physical motions. These 'meanings' are triggered directly by our emotions, and also by arts that exist in time, such as music and dance. So we can hear a piece of Beethoven, and a particular 'swelling' motion in the music might have a 'meaning' within us. Doesn't mean we can then say, 'Ah, that means......' and certainly doesn't mean that Beethoven put the meaning there. But, in many ways, this level of meaning is more powerful than the cognitive layers above it.

So a piece of Beethoven will never change the world - not even if we could orchestrate some bizarre experiment where everyone in the world was played the same piece every day - because this layer of meaning is different for everyone, depending on how you made sense of the world before you had language. On the other hand, pieces of abstract music are often used to effect huge changes in some patients, which can't possibly happen without there being meaning at some level.



Pure Art is profound and meaningful on its own terms, not because it illustrates a moral lesson, or is a hymn sung by a religious congregation, or is an Anthem of any sort to anything beyond what it Is itself.


I guess this is the sentence I should have quoted, since it's really the part of your post that I would qualify. I don't think art is meaningful on its own terms at all. I think it only has meaning that is within the beholder.

[Ranger]

When the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show the police recorded the lowest lost crime rate that night . So Neil Young your wrong. Go to any religious gathering what to you hear music. How about politics music . How about the National anthem. Music gets people excited and motivates them. Its endless

[Paul Stutt]

Surely, when music affects people, then the people change the world - not the music.

I believe that music on it's own is just music. How people interpret music and the actions they take after are a completely different thing. In the same way that a computer without input is a dumb machine.

[imagegod]

Do you think music can still change the world?

In a physical Universe, change is constant and necessary. Powerful systems create powerful change...less powerful systems, less powerful change.

Individuals need power in order to turn what they want into what they have. Pursue the passion of powerful music and powerfully change the world.

Have fun...make change...be powerful.

[suspenlute]

To paraphrase John Rambo: "Without guns, you won't change anything."

-Chris Plorán

[Leaf]

On the other hand, you can always know what you think, and if a piece of propaganda emotionally effects you like any other piece of art, what's the difference? Likewise, if we found a secret letter written by Mozart saying that "The Magic Flute" was intended as flute manufacturer propaganda, would the opera suddenly cease to be art? (Lame example, I know. :D )Yeah kinda lame but amusing and makes the point well enough that i may modify my position.

Maybe there is a point where the message begins to weigh too heavily and ends up killing the ability of the the art to move someone. I remember seeing many movies that were probably well written and then well damaged by the directors or producers, because they were preaching their message to the point where it was no longer enjoyable to watch.

They would break their own rule of an economy of words, the rule to say nothing that does not have to be said, to say nothing that does not move the story forward, and often they were placing added messages so clumsily it didn't even fit in the scene.

I'm sure that just like the biases at news orgs it is always more noticed or more irritating when it is a message you dissagree with, but in movies and television shows it is so awkward and out of place, it seems like anyone would notice it and see it as departure from the telling a story. If it was the story or a needed element to tell the story, it wouldn't diminish the story or detract from it.

More recently anti-war movies are not faring well at the box office, because people tend to not want to go to the movies to be fed propaganda, they go to see a story told by a great storyteller and that is what can move someone.

Some of the old antiwar songs did well, but i'm sure the ones that did were not doing well because they were anti-war, but because they were good musically and compositionally, with beautiful lyrics by someone who was great at writing lyrics.

There was some very bad ones, apparently promoted just because they were antiwar songs, but several of them were quite good. So i think you are probably right.

I think the anti-war themes are currently not being embraced even by those who are opposed to this war or have some disagreement on at least some of it. It may not yet be common knowledge, but probably much more widely known now, because of the passing of time and helped by the proliferation of info and internet, that the music isn't just what moved a generation, although it was certainly an important and powerful element in a much larger antiwar propaganda effort known as the peace movement, and that the peace movement was started and funded by the communists, which coincidentally was with who we were at war.

Many were heartfelt in their quest to just give peace a chance, their motives were certainly in the right place, world peace, but at the top of the chain the movement was being funded and promoted by those who desired that we didn't prevail in a war to quell the advancement of world communism. So i think there is the distrust now, and probably a generation who has more of those who look more deeply below the surface, wishing not to be told what to think.

[Leaf]

I get where this is coming from, and largely agree with you Randy, but I think it's a more complex issue than this. I would argue that even the most abstract of art has specific meaning, but that meaning is a reflection of what is in the beholder. We cannot help slapping meaning on everything - and by meaning I don't necessarily imply anything as crude as a meaning that can be expressed in words. If you ever read any of the academic research into music therapy, and why it works, the more sensible, less gushy, writers have put forward theories that 'meaning' at some deep, very powerful, level is expressed in - well actually it's hard to express exactly what; something like the mental traces of physical motions. These 'meanings' are triggered directly by our emotions, and also by arts that exist in time, such as music and dance. So we can hear a piece of Beethoven, and a particular 'swelling' motion in the music might have a 'meaning' within us. Doesn't mean we can then say, 'Ah, that means......' and certainly doesn't mean that Beethoven put the meaning there. But, in many ways, this level of meaning is more powerful than the cognitive layers above it.

So a piece of Beethoven will never change the world - not even if we could orchestrate some bizarre experiment where everyone in the world was played the same piece every day - because this layer of meaning is different for everyone, depending on how you made sense of the world before you had language. On the other hand, pieces of abstract music are often used to effect huge changes in some patients, which can't possibly happen without there being meaning at some level.



I guess this is the sentence I should have quoted, since it's really the part of your post that I would qualify. I don't think art is meaningful on its own terms at all. I think it only has meaning that is within the beholder.

Very good post! I think i know what this is you describe, or I should say instead that I have experienced it. I have had music effect me that way, reaching a place within that can't be described, causing a new experience. Maybe it is within the spirit or the soul that this meaning is realized, rather than the mind, so it can't be spoken or described, or understood at the cognitive layer. This may sound crazy, but i wonder if it passes through the mind to get there, or if it needs to go around it... or maybe the meaning was already there, but not replying until something spoke to it.

[Styxx]

First step is to get rid of "Elevator Music"! After that ... Gary for President. :D

[henrymorris]

... fortunately the world is too busy dancing to even hear our debates