Motti Regev (1994) wrote;
“Cultural forms gain artistic recognition when their producers of meaning "prove" that they (a) contain "serious" meanings and aesthetic genuineness; (b) they are produced by a definable creative entity and (c) the creative entity is autonomous, producing its works for their own sake. Since the 1960's, critics have claimed artistic recognition for rock music. They have done so by stressing the "subversive" meaning of rock, [and] by identifying the rock-group and the rock individual-musician as autonomous creative entities”.
Popular music is usually recognised by its mass production, profit seeking characteristics and has been “regarded by the dominant forces in the cultural field as an antithesis of artistry and relegated to the inferior position of ‘entertainment’, ‘show business’ or ‘mass culture’” (Regev, 1994). Further more, Adorno (in Regev, 1994) states “it is thus impossible for popular music to contain the redeeming power of art, as a negation of existing reality and as social critique”. This may be true of some forms of popular music – but not rock (well, not all rock at least). Rock adheres to what Regev (1994) calls the “ideology of autonomous art”. The notion that a work is considered art if it’s meaning, production and sound were independently created by the individual or the group - not music created with profits or industry expectations in mind – it is art for the sake of art.
It was around the 1960s that groups and enthusiasts began to realize the difference between the usual popular music (pop) and rock; and as a result the push to have rock recognised as an art form began. Rock was seen to be very true to the ‘ideology of autonomous art’, and furthermore it was founded by an era of musicians who were using their music “as a negation of existing reality and as social critique” (Adorno in Regev, 1994) – much to Adorno’s disappointment, I’m sure.
One of the first signs that rock was seen as different to pop music in the 1960s was with the onset of the F.M. radio station. It, unlike its A.M. counterpart, did not play commercially successful, top 40 style music. Instead, F.M. radio music editors were given much more autonomy over their music selection and were dedicated to rock. Around this time there was also an emergence of publications that treated rock music as a serious journalistic venture, it was no longer written about as simple entertainment (a very famous example of this would be the Rolling Stone magazine).
While rock has been largely influenced by the production and sound methods used to produce popular music, this has not deemed the music void of meaning, emotion and ‘truth’. As Regev (1994) explains, “Components of popular music - lyrics, amplification, recording technology, assemblage, stylistic eclecticism - have been interpreted in the rock context as aesthetic means for expressing rebellion and subversiveness, thus discovering in rock music aesthetic genuineness and serious meanings”. Rock has escaped the criticism afforded to other popular music. Its message is heard irrespective of the electric instruments, recording studios, etc. The lyrics are still read in many cases as poetry (for instance Bob Dylan or Jim Morrison). The imperfection of voices and melodies are considered part and parcel of the beauty that is rock. The often associated antisocial behaviour is the epitome of undermining the dominant societal structures and offering a social critique. It is so much more than just popular music because rock music is “grassroot popular music, it grows from below, from the daily reality of its musicians and audiences, it is the music of the urban era - the sound of the city (Gillett in Regev, 1994). Well said, Gillett, well said.
References
Regev, Motti 1994, ‘Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, (Feb, 1994), pp. 85-102.
“Cultural forms gain artistic recognition when their producers of meaning "prove" that they (a) contain "serious" meanings and aesthetic genuineness; (b) they are produced by a definable creative entity and (c) the creative entity is autonomous, producing its works for their own sake. Since the 1960's, critics have claimed artistic recognition for rock music. They have done so by stressing the "subversive" meaning of rock, [and] by identifying the rock-group and the rock individual-musician as autonomous creative entities”.
Popular music is usually recognised by its mass production, profit seeking characteristics and has been “regarded by the dominant forces in the cultural field as an antithesis of artistry and relegated to the inferior position of ‘entertainment’, ‘show business’ or ‘mass culture’” (Regev, 1994). Further more, Adorno (in Regev, 1994) states “it is thus impossible for popular music to contain the redeeming power of art, as a negation of existing reality and as social critique”. This may be true of some forms of popular music – but not rock (well, not all rock at least). Rock adheres to what Regev (1994) calls the “ideology of autonomous art”. The notion that a work is considered art if it’s meaning, production and sound were independently created by the individual or the group - not music created with profits or industry expectations in mind – it is art for the sake of art.
It was around the 1960s that groups and enthusiasts began to realize the difference between the usual popular music (pop) and rock; and as a result the push to have rock recognised as an art form began. Rock was seen to be very true to the ‘ideology of autonomous art’, and furthermore it was founded by an era of musicians who were using their music “as a negation of existing reality and as social critique” (Adorno in Regev, 1994) – much to Adorno’s disappointment, I’m sure.
One of the first signs that rock was seen as different to pop music in the 1960s was with the onset of the F.M. radio station. It, unlike its A.M. counterpart, did not play commercially successful, top 40 style music. Instead, F.M. radio music editors were given much more autonomy over their music selection and were dedicated to rock. Around this time there was also an emergence of publications that treated rock music as a serious journalistic venture, it was no longer written about as simple entertainment (a very famous example of this would be the Rolling Stone magazine).
While rock has been largely influenced by the production and sound methods used to produce popular music, this has not deemed the music void of meaning, emotion and ‘truth’. As Regev (1994) explains, “Components of popular music - lyrics, amplification, recording technology, assemblage, stylistic eclecticism - have been interpreted in the rock context as aesthetic means for expressing rebellion and subversiveness, thus discovering in rock music aesthetic genuineness and serious meanings”. Rock has escaped the criticism afforded to other popular music. Its message is heard irrespective of the electric instruments, recording studios, etc. The lyrics are still read in many cases as poetry (for instance Bob Dylan or Jim Morrison). The imperfection of voices and melodies are considered part and parcel of the beauty that is rock. The often associated antisocial behaviour is the epitome of undermining the dominant societal structures and offering a social critique. It is so much more than just popular music because rock music is “grassroot popular music, it grows from below, from the daily reality of its musicians and audiences, it is the music of the urban era - the sound of the city (Gillett in Regev, 1994). Well said, Gillett, well said.
References
Regev, Motti 1994, ‘Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, (Feb, 1994), pp. 85-102.
No comments:
Post a Comment