Answering All Questions

A great post, absolutely correct and heartbreaking.

The ramifications of the corporatization of America extend to every aspect of life whether it's enjoying music or theater, eating in a restaurant or voting for president.

The aim of the corporations is to level the playing field so that the consumer cannot distinguish between art and decoration, between real music and Brittany Spears, or for that matter between Harry Truman and George W Bush.

Once the ability to differentiate is gone, the corporation can focus entirely on profit with no concern for quality, substance or even legality.

Maybe something will change but it's not obvious to this observer how that will happen.

Kyle -

Although I enjoy many of writing entries I find this entry's criticism a little too broad.

First, commerce has supported some remarkable music making -- even in the late 20th century, although indirectly (eg Bell Labs, the development of Silicon Valley which stemmed in part from the government/corporate intelligence work in the 1940s and 1950s )

Also, governments which provide ample resources for the arts do not offer the individual greater room for expression or experimentation.

Also, corporations do provide new music sponsorship --- maybe not as liberal or as experimental as you would like but I attribute some of it to the simple fact that new music or classical music may not be their expertise --- Goldman Sachs or Credit Suisse strive to be experts at investment banking (and still fail, just as an excellent composer can still fail). Plus there is the issue of a balance sheet and the degree the government provides tax breaks

I view cronyism, greed, apathy and coveteousness as the enemies of institutions, large and small - arts and non-arts. When in collusion a large group -- that makes a dictatorship.

Finally some of the questions your group discussed stem two long-range currents which I see as unresolved:

1) The change in music making habits -- it has become for many a passive activity, wherein any involvemnet is somewhat unconscious or unstructured. This is fine but not if it is the exclusive encounter with music. Pauline Oliveras' Deep Listening addresses this and the increase in Improvisation offerings for non-musicians AND most amateur to professional CLASSICAL musicians is a hopeful development.
But in the history of music , these are in their infancy.

2) Our continued struggle determining the function of music in our society and its role in religious institutions. One reason commercial music or well-promoted music can sell comes from the discovery music does not have to have any assigned meaning - the meaning can come from the moment or the individual's sole interpretation (plus some psychoacoustical aspects of humans).
A reverse trend evinces it in the Christian church with the rise in popularity of Taize and return to pre-Vatican II rites competing with the emotionally charged music of more evangelical faiths. Both used entirely opposite approaches to establish meaning and context of religious music. The former, a conservative return to a music which shuns the visceral and pop/romantic-influence the latter integrating the popular and romantic music idioms both for the same purpose --- almost as if we are in an age wherein Palestrinian and Lutheran ideals are competing!

Kyle, will welcome a retort as I have some agreement that the distribution of musics is under corporate dictatorship --- but I wonder if this is more the dictatorship of the society -- something composers have always been subjectto ? For if we look to nature most "composition" is for survival purposes - attracting a mate, claiming territory. Only when an orgnaism has secured these well does it seem to spend time working on their "musics"

OK, I'll stop for I am getting way too general now!

KG replies: Bell Labs? That was 40 or 50 years ago. I'm referring solely to the post Reagan era.

Could you please expand on what you mean by the corporate behemoth?

KG replies: The New Media Group, which bought the Village Voice and fired everyone I knew there, just so they could hire new people at lower salaries, even though the paper was making record profits at the time; the corporate lawyers who are trying to push independent radio off the internet; the lobbyists who are trying to persuade congress to allow Rupert Murdoch to own as many newspapers and TV stations in a given city as he wants; the telecom companies that are seeking immunity for having made a ton of money from the government by spying on Americans; Time-Warner, Sony, Universal Music Group, and the record companies that have given up any idea of nurturing new talent in favor of instant profit; General Electric, which won't clean up the mess it's made of the Hudson River; Exxon; Lockheed Martin; and all the Republicans (and Democrats) who get wealthy by promoting the principle that a corporation has the same rights as a citizen, and in fact the right to screw us all over in the name of unfettered and unimaginable profit.

Kyle, this sounds fascinating, and I'm both persuaded and impressed by your ability to perceive the common thread underlying all those questions. I have just one small doubt about your post, which is the phrase "we used to have more of."

We did, really? When was that? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious what period you have in mind. The 1960s? The 1930s? The 1830s? The 16th century? And who was the "we" in each case -- did it include poor folks, women, people of color, etc. etc.?


You know this drill, probably better than most. "Everything was better in the old days" is a seductive trope that goes back as far as Hesiod and beyond. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it always bears examining.

KG replies: In the '60s and early '70s we were getting a lot more adventurous new music on major labels, for one thing. And yes, I believe that the world used to be more forward-looking, and corporations used to pay more lip service to social responsibility, before Reagan took over and movement conservatism took root. Just as I believe the world was a better place before Bush took up residence in the White House, and that we got more arts coverage before the Times and Voice cut their arts sections by 25 percent and then more. Is that mere nostalgia on my part?

I think that regardless of the path you choose through this 'maze', there is one thing that remains a common thread: connecting.

Whether that be connecting with your prospective audience, critics, "co-conspirators", record companies: the way you form these connections can take you a long way.

But I think you do need some clarity for yourself in deciding 'who you are', what your way in the world is. If only to know you're connecting with the right people. And to lead a fulfilling life, you'd also want to stay true to your own personality, but that is digressing from the music.

A final word (aahh, at last!): connecting also means listening!

Thanks for your analysis Kyle!

Very well said, Kyle. As you point out, it (corporatism) is a cancer that infects all levels and types of art and entertainment, because it doesn't allow for the existence of art, only entertainment.

KW