In the 1960s many groups dedicated to collective free improvisation arose in the US and Europe. One idea that circulated, and that still circulates, among idealists is that the structure of such groups provides a model for society. That is, that people can contribute according to their ability in the process of creating an inclusive and communal entity. There are a couple problems with that.

First, such groups still need leaders. Who gets to be leader? Do we take turns or elect someone? And who decides THAT? Second, even if we can agree on some basic structure, there needs to be thoughtful listening. The musicians have to listen, adjust, know when to bow out and return, how to let others share the stage. And everyone has to be fair, or it doesn't work, it just becomes a shouting match. Finally, is there an audience? Music serves several functions--ritual, entertainment, preservation of culture, and the like--but almost none of the functions we can assign to music remove the aspect of music that it is to be performed in a context. It serves some larger purpose within society. It is a catalyst, a focal point. It requires doers and perceivers. Society on the other hand is the sum total of all actions of a people, none of whom are strictly speaking the "audience." What kind of music is it if everyone performs? The aesthetic of specialness disappears. There is no awe, only competition. In other words collectively improvised music does not constitute any model of society because it relies on an insider/outsider paradigm that if adhered to in society must by definiton exclude someone, or if subverted by including everyone, become something besides music.

What is the Cause?

We're inclined to view cultural changes and innovations in terms of influences. We are interested in trying to describe the causes of musical and artistic drifts and breakages. However, this model presumes the effectiveness of cause and effect relationships, something that the maxim "correlation does not mean causation" should caution us against. Rather, as observers of culture, we should in my opinion focus our attention on every element in the environment. What are the resources, the institutions, the trends expressed in other arts?

Of course, there is the other approach, the non-approach. If John Cage is still relevant, then we can simply turn off all our judgments and queries and simply observe, listen and participate (or not).

Inaugural Blog

Having decided to pursue the lure of global recognition through blogging, I here present the first of many ramblings and musings about the role of art and music in culture.

My purpose, I believe, is not to rehash what has already been written but to keep a written journal of my own experiences of art and music, paying particular attention to my own instinctive reactions with regard to whatever accepted notions I may be carrying around. While I hesitate to state that I have any confidence that my own point of view resonates with the overall Zeitgeist of our times, I believe that any reader of this blog may be find it interesting to be challenged on the one hand, or justified on the other.

Stay alert and stay tuned!