[LAU] re Subconscious Affecting Music
zettberlin at linuxuse.de
Mon Aug 30 10:39:52 UTC 2010
Am 30.08.2010 07:21, schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
> Hence I feel it is a worthwhile use of time, resources and energy to at
> least try to counter the damage being done by the affect of what is
> currently considered to be acceptable standards in pop music construction
> on the greater consciousness.
> For example IMO the song "Bang Bang Bang" by Mark Ronson with QTip and MDNR
> is a good attempt at a subversive attack on modern pop and the
> subconscious mind of the listener but I feel it misses the mark by being
> too well produced, having lyrics that are too abstract and complex and
> having performers who are too good at their art and not attractive enough
> for the market.
The song is nice, good OKayish pop that is welcome to me if played on
the radio. I do not find it too subversive though. People that are
conformist consumers can consume this as well. I do not understand the
lyrics too well and cannot find them as text so it may be, that they
make the tune really subversive in a way.
But I do not think, that you talk about the lyrics here. You mean, there
is something physical in the music that performs some influence on the
minds of the listeners.
Such effects are curiosities at best: nobody changes the way people
think using some frequencies or rhythm-patterns.
Music can change your mind as it is a way to communicate. It is a
language that has means to go beyond the capabilities of mere speech.
But the same as speech it relies on a socio-cultural context.
If a person living in a slum in Africa listenes to a song, he or she may
come to the decision: "Im not gonna take it anymore - see my children
die of curable deseases, being robbed by corrupt authorities. No more!"
Listening to the song can result in open rebellion,riots, revolution.
Communication amplified by music.
If you or I listen to the very same song, we may swing our hips a little
and I would say: OK another nice world-music tune, not my cup of coffe
anyway but nice...
It's economics, reccources, status - no frequency can change the social
conditions under wich you live.
> It's a delicate balance because it requires a complete commitment to
> selling out and producing what most artists would consider total crap.
> With the exception of having actually got into people heads directly and
> as efficiently as possible.
Music that can help to make people think about their lives must be
authentic. An artist that is willing to give his/her audience genuine
art can create a positive effect in a socio-cultural context. An artist,
that betrays his/her vision on art cannot create anything beyond a
consumable product that says and signifies nothing.
Frequencies and patterns are just tools. If a certain combination of
frequencies fits you vison, use them. If not: avoid them. Everything
else is abuse.
More information about the Linux-audio-user