開首的 ＜Intro＞清新可愛，然後拖慢，好像太陽落幕，天空漸漸進入黃昏的景況。聽嘎調時總會聯想起一點點 Yo La Tengo，
記得他們的口頭禪「我們手牽手的走，當世界擴張龐大」，嘎調同樣有這種魅力。第二cut＜愛，
終將把青春遺漏＞便為今次EP開盡馬力，00:17秒的結他聲把我們帶到更廣闊的世界。＜火車＞對我來說是一首很「中國」的歌曲，我想每一隊樂隊都要為自
己國家的「火車」作首歌，那些寂靜的晚上，看著窗外風景的變化，為我們慢慢適應世界上一切人和事的變動而默哀，帶來了傷感，也同時把傷感帶走。＜空洞＞盡
顯嘎調的建構能力，整首歌凝聚力很強，三種樂器已經融為一體。尾曲＜六月＞是一首純音樂，與＜Intro＞互相呼應，全首歌主要分三個段落，這個月份總令
人想起一些我們依然耿耿於懷的東西，同是三個段落，但是我們卻不能像The Beatles一般，唱著Happiness is a warm gun。
Forget the G是一隊 post rock、experimental 的樂隊。Post
rock，便是摒棄傳統流行音樂格式的一群。樂曲不再是正歌-過門-副歌-正歌-副歌的編排，人聲成為了樂器的一部份而不是歌曲的主導，取而代之是更富空
間感的演繹，我喜歡的有Explosions in the sky、Mogwai、Sigur
Ros等。Experimental，顧名思義就是實驗 – 就是樂手製造出來的聲音及讓其自由發展與演變 – Sonic
Youth的Thurston Moore如是說。
Forget the G新專輯名稱「我看你看我」，便好像一個人走在街上，與每一名陌生人眼神上的接觸，那一剎的交流、互動，不期而遇，那感覺往往是最純粹，可能Forget the G這次便是希望表達這純粹的感覺。
專輯是他們在十個小時之內的一個實驗、嘗試。如果將他們的音樂風格與這次專輯的製作過程結合來看的話，便不難發現其中的一致和呼應。樂隊帶領聆聽者
進入他們的世界後，以幽暗低佪的氣氛把我們留在那兒。開首的＜困＞，平緩的三分半鐘為我們暖身，歌曲遊走在悅耳和突兀之間，擾人耳朵的失真結他塑造長長的
聽距，聲音在你的後腦、耳朵來回不定，緊繃著你。到正正三分半鐘那一擊結他和弦，我暗自說一聲﹕「來了」！那失真的結他聲把我深深地吸引著，low-
fi、fuzzy、phaser，相信那是陳述 Forget the G音樂理念最適合的聲音，背後的鍵琴總是在適當的時候出現，為歌曲帶來一份淒美。
〈1978〉第一時間便想到Smashing Pumpkins的〈1979〉。很喜歡它的結他intro，再看他們的music
video，辛辣的結他與鼓在過門的安排，配上影像，充滿心思，於城市中穿插的感覺應渾而生。節奏明快的〈如果就這樣離開這世界好嗎？〉表現樂隊的灑脫，
結尾各人加強馬力，與主題呼應；很laid
back的〈電影人生〉，相信唱出不少在這個城市堅持自己，努力一群的人的心弦處。最心儀的〈性句號〉背後的聲效非常點題，而〈Be True To
Your
Heart〉用了英文唱出來，這群措辭巧妙的獨立搖滾客真的有趣詼諧，當中那夾band的心態，點滴共嗚。我聽到Grungy、點點的Dinosaur
J.R，同時間帶有Built to Spill的悅耳。
經歷前作《甜蜜與殺害》，博宣(前低音結他手)退出了樂隊，《甜》是一張比較幽暗的專輯，當中對青春不害羞的表達也顯得內斂起來，把新作《Sun
Fun
Gun》形容為刺猬重新出發的一張專輯絕不為過。現任低音結他手何一帆為樂隊注入新的原素，fun本身也是一帆的併音，可能子健(主唱兼結他手)和阿童木
(鼓手)都希望表達對一帆的感激，他不多也不少，跳脫的低音結他把樂隊青蔥，活力和尖鋒的一面連繫起來。高興的是他們回歸《白日夢藍》時期那快樂，同時重
拾那毫不吝啬地去表達自己的激情。開始＜燃燒的心＞已經讓人的腎上腺素不斷提升，「燒，不停地燒，我想燒光小人與無賴，背後捅刀與政治腐敗」，那是中國搖
滾獨有的味道，是紅太陽賜給孩子們的聲音；＜和鯊魚一起衝浪＞的自我諷刺，自諷為壞孩子，生錯了地方，當中非常
grungy的結他十分對味；＜黑吻＞表現了阿童木對自身樂器 –
敲擊音樂的了解，富形態的打擊，配合搖鈴把整首歌都襯托起來，末段的悠長結他音牆把歌曲拉闊了，營造一貫spacy、shoegaze、
psychedelic的效果。
最喜歡還是＜夥計們真搖滾，那天我也在
D22＞，說穿了實為舊作＜２４小時搖滾聚會＞，這首記述的是已成歷史遺跡的北京獨立音樂表演場地D22，每次聽我也會聯想起紐約的
CBGB，它代表著紐約朋克與電子音樂的發源地。 LCD Soundsystem在 ＜Losing my edge＞也唱道︰「I was the
first guy playing Daft Punk to the rock kids，I played it at
CBGB。」而刺猬的＜24小時搖滾聚會＞已經成為一首屬於北京獨立音樂的史詩，他們裝載著音樂浪潮的歷史，讓我感受人與人之間只有亳米般的距離，那是搖
滾樂最原始的激情。
Here is a room full of cool bands
If you want to see them please come in
Here are groups without rules
Here has what you want ,please join in
This time load this time out
You feel good you feel so well
Why you come here to see us?
What will we show you?
We will show you a jam
首次認識 Feist, 是從加拿大樂團 Broken Social Scene 找到她的足跡, 當時 Feist 是這十多人大團的其中一人, 但是她那獨特的嗓音已經突出非常. 後來她離開 BBS 過著單飛的日子. 分別於
Interscope 推出了三張大碟, Let it die (2004), Open season
(2006) 及 Reminder (2007). 2007年 Reminder 裡的單曲 “1234" 為她帶來商業的成功. Feist 的名字在獨立音樂界裡也開始打出名堂.
Feist 的新專輯 Metals 便正好證明她如何將她那天賦的美與特質表現出來,
以及打破音樂工業一路以來給她的框架. Feist 接受 Uncut 雜誌訪問時說, " 1234 isn’t on my setlists anymore. There’s
no reason for it to be – it doesn’t belong, so it’s not invited to the party”. 可見 Feist
已厭倦了製作另一首 easy-listening, chess-sy 的單曲.
開首的 The bad in each other, Feist 滲透出她的浪漫, 灑脫, 唱出The good man and good woman/ can’t find the good in each other, 好像只有 Feist 她那擁有女性的細膩觸感, 同時男性的剛烈, 才可以把這種複雜的感覺輕易道出來; Graveyard 淡淡表現了全碟暗鬱的一面, 因為
Metals 大部份的歌曲也是 Feist 在 2010年間, 她的祖母去世其間作的; Feist 也承認把專輯名為 Metals 是因她 “feeling grave”; 我最喜愛的是 The circle married the line, 這首歌將 Feist 獨特的嗓音表露無遺, 那搖搖欲墜, 甜蜜, 帶有活力, 生氣而且強而有力的聲線, 是自己一路對她鍾愛的主要原因. 相信
Feist 是現今甚少可以準確把個人的音樂理念用自己的聲線表達出來的女藝術家之一, 同時, 這聲線很難會令人聽得腻.
是態度, 使人百聽不厭. 其他的不多說了, 就如Feist 所講, “ Let the songs speak for itself.”
We have the so called Internet Hong Kong
Basic Law Article 23 which shall be (and will be) regulated very soon. I want
to ask one thing first, “What is completely original?”
Starting from the late 60’s, there was a
scene, which came across between art scene and pop music. For instance, Andy
Warhol and Rolling Stones, Velvet Underground; The Beatles and Richard
Hamilton, Peter Blake; Gustav Metzger and The Who; Malcolm McLaren and the Sex
Pistols, just to name a few. The most popular one should be the “Campbell
soups”, “Mao Zedong portraits”, which were produced by Andy Warhol’s production
line “Factory”. Nowadays people call it “cross-over”, in popular sense, it is “appropriation”.
It sparked creativity since artists from both fields, the visual and musical
side, could exchange ideas and thoughts. I propose to quote one of my previous
work to illustrate how “appropriation” works by using the representation
of the album – Sgt. Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band in 1967. The album was
a great outcome from The Beatles and the artist Peter Blake.
We do not need to talk about who is The
Beatles I guess, and Peter Blake, he studied at the Royal College of Art from
1953–1956. He was typically interested in rhythm and blues music as a pop fan.
Compare with most of the Pop Art artist in the sixties, he was not interested
in commercial techniques, or idioms; nor the supercharged style of the
Hollywood show business world. He was a folk artist, with traditional sense,
infused with a degree of both nostalgia and sentimentalism - as befits his
English heritage.
Quote starts:
One of the significant phenomena inside
the 1960’s pop music, was that the artists in art and music scene came
together. They influenced each other from the collaboration. Sgt. Pepper was
designed by Blake with the help of his then wife Jann Haworth. According to a
book ‘Summer of love: psychedelic art, social crisis and counterculture in the
1960s’ (2005), the album’s sleeve was supposed to be a Dutch collective’s
design known as The Fool. This would have been a psychedelic design. Yet,
Robert Fraser, an art dealer and friend of The Fab Four, recommended that the
group did not take the psychedelic approach, and instead, introduced them to
Blake for the design. The final version was emblematic of the close personal
connections among the artists: art dealers (Robert Fraser); photographers
(Michael Cooper); designers (Peter Blake); musicians (The Beatles). As an
artist, both The Fab Four (John Lennon) and Blake shared the same background.
They had a common direction towards the album’s concept: Appropriation.
The format of the sleeve Sgt. Pepper was a collage - a technique of putting
materials together to create a new scene. In order to give a quick
understanding between appropriation and collage, it was worth quoting
Blake’s own words: ‘collage can encompass anything where something is attached
to something else. It is a very board definition that includes work in both two
and three dimensions: embroidery, books, furniture and clothing, even
television and music’ The technique signified a concept of appropriation.
The album cover evoked another world which consisted of the cultural heroes,
mentors and friends of The Beatles, Blake and Fraser: such as Mae West, Marlene
Dietrich, Max Miller, Dion and the Belmonts, Bob Dylan, etc. This kind of
Surrealist image making, was commonly adopted by the art school students during
the 1960’s. Blake applied it on the album sleeves successfully. As a result, it
explored a new horizon towards the aesthetics of album cover.
George Melly, a jazz musician as well as
a critic stated that the previous album sleeves before Sgt. Peppers had ‘no
life on their own’. George Martin, a classical music composer as well as
producer of The Fab Four also asserted that, ‘the art of the vinyl album did
not have much a life before the Beatles’. It did not aim to argue that album
sleeves before Sgt. Peppers are trivial, but it was believed that the Sgt.
Peppers cover sleeves created a new aesthetics value of an album as a whole. It
was the first cover to specify itself as an object for overt investigation ad
analysis by identifying the figures. The album sleeves offered a dynamic
communication between musicians and listeners (Inside the record’s sleeve a
separate sheet of card was supplied featuring a picture of the fictional Sgt.
Peppers, plus moustaches, badges and stripes. All the items could be cut out).
Given that the basic roles of an album cover was to protect, to advertise the
record, as well as serving a function of accompaniment (including lyrics and
proper information about the artists and crews), the album sleeve of Sgt.
Pepper, not only served the above functions but also stood as a work of art on
its own.
To call it a work of art, it has to be
discussed from the original concept of the album - appropriation. The
‘cross over’ between The Fab Four (John Lennon), and Blake was reflected, not
only on the visual side, but also on the musical side. Both the music and the
record sleeve, worked under the concept of appropriation. They resonated
with each other, in that the musical approach taken by The Beatles on the
album, was echoed visually on the cover. The two shared a coherent thought,
like the collaboration among the artists. With the assistance of the multi
tracks recording techniques, The Fab Four sampled a range of sounds such as
church bell, looping, clock alarm, etc. The layers of sounds and the visual
collage signified each other. The recording techniques became part of the
instruments inside the studio. The interpretation of studio worked as an
artistic endeavor became more focused following the Sgt. Pepper album.
It had been mentioned that the record’s
sleeve created another world by Surrealism collage, The Beatles invited
listeners to participate in order to match the theme. The Beatles reinvented
and introduced themselves on the album’s opening track not as The Beatles, but
the members of Sgt. Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band. The cover art confirmed the
new identities. Both the album sleeves and music invited audiences to
re-evaluate their assumptions about who they are. The cover weaved together
images from nostalgia, psychedelic and popular culture. The album sleeves
encouraged listeners to take part into imagination of the scenario in which The
Beatles and Blake created. In addition, psychedelic elements inside ‘Lucy in
the Sky with Diamonds’ and ‘A Day in the Life’; and the mystical Eastern
elements in, ‘Within You, Without You’, echoed the magical world Blake had
created through the cover. All in all, the album sleeve served as the semblance
of sounds, and vice versa. The record’s sleeves and the music required
audiences to adopt sophisticated skills to understand the symbolism. It
involved a more active participation on the reception side, and thus the
communication between them was enhanced. Also, Sgt. Pepper worked as a vehicle
to deliver art to the public. It transcended the boundaries between pop and
art, making art reach a broader audiences inside the commercial world.
As Melly said, ‘1960s has always been the
mark time of the popular culture’ The British art schools played a decisive
role inside the decade. Institutionally speaking, they gave birth to an
artistic atmosphere, whilst the individuals who emerged from them brought what
they had learnt to the music industry when they became professional musicians.
They explored new horizons towards visual representation and music making since
both artforms resonated with each other. To examine it in a deeper sense, they
transcended the boundaries between them as an artist and the listeners as an
audience. It was the moment when art met pop, as well as a diminishing of the
gap between the two.
Quote ends.
We have a brief picture now on how
appropriations worked. OK, I think no one denies the fact that The Beatles work
is popular art, Andy Warhol T-shirt you wear is popular art, but for the Hong
Kong government’s way of thinking (notice I said here is “thinking”, but not
“practical” implementation, or laws or whatever, that is the "system"
we need to challenge, but no any person), all the things we do, the music, the
graphic, the image, the video, the words… everything, on the Internet, could be
and would be a copyright issue. Internet should be something that makes mind
and matter become more open. Why do we degenerate now? Messing up concept
between appropriation and copyright really scares me. The things
annoying me is that being a Chinese, is always being etherized on one hand,
being a “perfect” person; on the other hand, for political use. That is stupid.
The government advertisements told us “knowledge is power”, but they never show
the implication is that, “knowledge is never outside power”. We always call for
truth, but we are only within the “regime of truth”. The knowledge we acquire
is not “independent” enough. Like what we were taught inside an ancient Chinese
culture, study hard, and then be an official. The premise is wrong, what do you
expect at the next?
When you
go into an old store and pay charges, the cash till rings and you hear its
sound. Then you walk out of the store, put your CD-player on and listen to the
introduction of the Pink Floyd song, ‘Money’. Both sonic experiences are
identical, yet one would define the noises emanating from the cash till as
purely ‘sound’. Meanwhile, the introduction to the Pink Floyd’s song is
considered ‘music’. Obviously, the definition of ‘music’ is not solely
determined by ‘sound’. If it were, we would experience music every second of
our life through the ambient sounds of our environs. There are four main
arguments I aim to point out. To consider music as ‘sound’ alone relies on a
sense of ‘individualism’ (Machin, 2010) too much. Rather than being a product
of ‘individualism’, music relies upon modes of consensus - it exists within
social groups as a shared culture. In this way, music generates discourses.
Those discourses generated from music contain different aspects, which are not
products of ‘sound’ alone. Music is ‘sound’ sonically, but the production and
reception of music is not just a factor of ‘sound’. It involves a music text. Music incorporates numerous
aspects and therefore defining music by ‘sound’ alone, is insufficient to
understanding music. However, one must be mindful not to neglect the importance
of music as ‘sound’. The following content shall investigate music from a more
comprehensive perspective, exploring the implications which lie beneath. In the
context of this essay, the word ‘music’ will refer to the popular music we hear
on television, radio, Internet, CD etc. Specifically, the essay shall examine
the music of a very popular British band named ‘Oasis’, whilst works from
different scholars will be introduced to illustrate some of the main points.
First of all, to consider music
as ‘sound’ alone relies on a sense of ‘individualism’ too much. Machin (2010)
argues that people hope to demystify the self, as well as to connect themselves
with the creativity the artist experiences. There is nothing ‘objective’ about
this form of musical interpretation. As music ‘fans’ we are happy to accept
this is the way we enjoy the music. We believe that the sounds connect with our
souls. The music is taking away our sorrow, or transporting us to a warm, safe
place. However, it is not a constant and persuasive standpoint. Feeling or
intuitive perception are constantly changing. They are affected by the
environment and the situation of which one is experiencing. Therefore, it is
necessary to put a sense of ‘individualism’ aside in order to define music in a
broader aspect. At the same time it doesn’t mean this sense of individualism is
meaningless. On the contrary, it marks the starting point of the arguments
below. An enthusiasm towards the sounds generates a culture - a discourse of
how we talk, listen, play and even think about our life through music.
Secondly, music lives inside our
common shared society as culture. It is a cultural text and carries cultural
meaning rather than ‘sound’ alone. According to Machin, ‘Music too is about
cultural definitions as people come to create meaningful worlds in which to
live’. (Machin,p2) Music is employed as a tool to shape the meaning of the
world in which people live. There is a set of conventions and repertories,
which governs the ways of communication. Machin indicates that these
conventions and repertories are the reason why the artists and listeners behave
in a specific way. They can be revealed from through the means of production
and reception of music. For example, Oasis is defined as a rock band because of
their use of traditional rock instruments, such as distorted electric guitar,
bass and drums. At the same time, a listener to Oasis might enjoy their music
with a high volume to capture a large social space. The definition of Oasis’
music type as rock, and our ways of listening to it, seem so compatible. It is
almost taken for granted. However, if we examine it with a deeper thought, we
will find that there are reasons why these conventions and repertories take
place.
This leads us to the third point. Music generates discourses. These
discourses generated from music contain different aspects, not just related to
‘sound’ alone. When we consider how we talk about music, we find that the focus
does not always rely on the sounds. We can refer to what Frith talks about,
when he discusses the meaning of a piece of music. He claims that to: ‘grasp the meaning of a piece of music is to hear something
not simply present to the ear. It is to understand a musical culture, to have
“a scheme of interpretation”’. (Frith, 1996 p.249) The ‘scheme of
interpretation’ refers to the discourses on how we understand a piece of music.
Wall (Wall, 2003) puts it further in his exploration of ‘music cultural
influences’. Music cultural influences connote certain kinds of hidden agenda
that constitute discourse - a complex matrix which in Wall’s words involves,
‘the whole way of playing, listening and moving to, talking and thinking about
music’. (Wall, 2003 p.21) Popular music is circulated inside our everyday
discourse.
Finally, to define music comprehensively we have to
bear in mind that music is a ‘music text’, which is also a commodity, or a
product. Music is only ‘sounds’ sonically, but the production and reception of
music involves so much more than just ‘sound‘. The music text itself is a production, whilst the reception of
music is consumption. The music text
is a product of an encoding and decoding process. In an analysis of the
fundamentals of popular music production, Wall (2003) stresses that the
receiver is simultaneously a listener, a consumer and a sense-maker. The
following paragraphs shall aim to examine the albums sleeves, the visuals
elements, and the sounds of Oasis to connect all arguments together.
Oasis is a British five-piece rock band that
emerged from Manchester in the early 1990s. They have never dressed like a
good-looking boy band, but instead have worn the clothes of the blue-collar
working class - wearing jeans and t-shirts. They have not had professional
musical training. Their image connotes the locality of Manchester, an
industrialized city with a large working class population. This image almost
magically brings people a sense of belonging to their music. The vocalist, Liam
Gallagher always wears a pair of ‘John Lennon’ circular glasses, which helps to
connote the roots of their music - including the influence of The Beatles, a
sense of British-ness, and a connection with the working-classes of the
northern England. The record sleeves of their early albums (Definitely Maybe in 1994, What’s the Story Morning Glory in 1995
and Be Here Now in 1997), are good
examples of how the group connote such an identity.
The background of all three records sleeves are
taken in typically English settings. They are either on the street, or in a
house/flat in England. In relation to Definitely
Maybe, Machin (2010) points out that the red wine and polished wooden floor
connote sophistication and taste, whilst the poses of the group members suggest
complete informality. This juxtaposition indicates Oasis’ success and their
acceptance of status, whilst simultaneously inferring a retention of working-class
attitudes. Also, Noel Gallagher plays a guitar on the sofa, and an electric
guitar is situated in the middle of the flat. They imply a reinvention of
1960’s guitar-based British music. From Be
Here Now, we can see a clock, calendar, and phonograph. It gives out a
sense of ‘retro’ - a presence of the ‘good old times’ that consolidates a
collective memory among the people, for who they are and where they belong.
Apart
from visuals, words and sounds also contribute to communicate the discourses on
location and identity. Frequently within interviews, Noel openly admits that he
is a ‘big fan’ of Manchester City football club. Also, his pro-Labour political
stand connects him to his working-class roots and a shared value with the local
people. We can find clues about their provenance by referring to one of their
songs: ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’, from What’s
The Story Morning Glory. The introduction rhythm is the same as the verse
of John Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’. One of the lyrics is, ‘I’m gonna start the
revolution from my bed’. Interestingly, it seems to refer to what John Lennon,
and his wife Yoko, did in the late 1960s, through their ‘bed-in for peace’
movement. The song evokes nostalgia, British-ness, and makes people believe
that their music is able to transcend generation.
All in
all, there is no such thing as an exact definition of ‘music’. My objective, as a huge ‘music fan’, is to examine music
in a broader sense, rather than to enjoy music solely on a level of
‘individualism’. The importance of music as ‘sound’ is so significant, since it
is what comes to our ears in the first place. However, there is much more scope
for exploration if we can put the sense of ‘individualism’ aside and understand
music more comprehensively. Once we position music onto cultural and
communicative stages we can find that music is more than just ‘sound’, it is
culture, discourse and a commodity/product. It is part of our everyday life.
References:
Machin, D. 2010. Analysing Popular Music image, sound, text. London:
SAGE
Frith, S. 1996. Performing Rites On the Value of Popular Music.
New York: Oxford University Press
Wall, T. 2003. Studying
Popular Music Culture. London: Arnold
Few weeks before I heard about a tragedy
from one of my friend, I did not feel well, and I could only think of one thing
that could be able to help me out, from this sorrow, listening to the Guns N’
Roses, Rocket Queen.
The song grows with me, as well
as I grow up. It proves, I try not to give reasons, I could give hundreds
reason of why they are good, and it is not so necessary. The thing is history
could not deny itself, and you could not deny history, it is my personal
listening experience; and feeling could never be deceptive. But, I tried to ask
why, and the song embodied the feeling, without answer. There are thousands
songs out there, but I could only think of this one, at that moment. Music
shapes memories, and when we talk about memories, we need time; when we talk
about time, we need music. The more I learn about popular music in an
analytical way, somehow it creates distance between you and the music. I think this
is the challenges, the things you love, the one you love, always challenge. It
challenges you the way in which you do not question anymore, you just go
straight to provide answers. Finally, the answers are there, you did not raise
a single question. Sometimes we have to be “back to the basic”, to trust for
the feeling before giving any answers. The love of a piece of music could never
be deceptive, to love something, to love someone is to question, is to
struggle; unless you question, unless you struggle, nothing lasts forever. Unless you love, time is slipping faster than ever you could imagine. We
seek “truth” by questioning, we struggle for ideal, we capture time by music, too.
I see you standing
Standing on your own
It's such a lonely place for you
For you to be
If you need a shoulder
Or if you need a friend
I'll be here standing
Until the bitter end
No one needs the sorrow
No one needs the pain
I hate to see you
Walking out there
Out in the rain
So don't chastise me
Or think I, I mean you harm
Of those that take you
Leave you strung out
Much too far
Baby-yeah
Don't ever leave me
Say you'll always be there
All I ever wanted
Was for you
To know that I care
Why do some songs stop somewhere?
Or a song must stop somewhere?
Before that, it is worth to talk
about the use of music in everyday life. I purpose to focus on the use of music
on a receptive aspect, in other words, as a listener. Music talk is a discourse,
we talk about music, about bands, clothes, lyrics, artists, equipment etc, just
to name a few. The discourse of music is about taste, talking preference, but
naming taste, as a personal reference does not answer any question, whilst it
creates more questions in the contrary. As a result, the use of music is a
creation as well as construction. We create and construct by talking about
them, using them socially. Yet, how do we use music? According to Frith’s
article, “Towards an aesthetic of popular music”, he argued that the
social use of popular music could be examined from four aspects:
First, building up of identity.
For instance, it could be originated from the sub-cultural scene of England
over the period of 60’s to 70’s, those teddy boys, mods, punk, they apply
different semiotics elements to construct their identity. It could be seen from
their clothes, accessories, hairstyle, and music. In the meantime, to identify
with something means that they dis-identify with another. “It is what it is not”.
The tribes gathered together with people with alike mind, clothes, hairstyle
and listening to the same kind of music. Another noticeable example is the hippies
during the later 60’s in United States, they dress alike, act alike with some
utopian dreams, as well as listening to psychedelic music, in order to explore
their mind. The acid trip shared by every hippies is very much the most
significant example of how they construct the identity, at least, it is beyond
words something can be explained even till now. The use of music is an
important element to construct one’s own identity.
Second, private and public use of
music. Frith emphasizes that a song does not reflect people sentiment, but
serves as an “embodiment” for people to put sentiment with. Take for example,
we always find that it is difficult to articulate our feeling by words,
instead, we use a song to speak for ourselves. For the private use of music, I
love her so I sing a love song; I hate her so I sing a hatred song; inside
wedding, you choose to play particular songs; inside funeral, you choose to
play particular song; For the public use, let’s say, inside a horror screenplay
of a film, you are expected to hear some particular music; inside a happy
ending of a comedy, you are expected to hear some other. Again, it is “pre-digested”,
the system served as an embodiment for people to put sentiment with. No matter
it is private use (you have been through a “heart-breaking” relationship), or a
public use (inside coffee shop, restaurant or cinema) Therefore, to say a song
reflects you, from a Marxist point of view, it is “pseudo-individualization”, like you are attending a
concert and looking at the artists on stage, when he/she said “I love you”, you
think that you are the receiver, or only receiver of the message.
Third, popular music shapes
popular memory. It is something about nostalgia. Do you have this kind of
experience? Let’s say, you grow up by loving one band, but the more you grow,
the lesser you are likely to love another band, even if it is very similar to
the one you love. It is not about loving Blur or Oasis, there is nothing to do
with fans loyalty; it is about a 50 years old man loving Janis Joplin or Florence
and the machine. (putting the good or bad judgment aside), it is about nostalgia.
Good music is able to “stop” time, it is like a moment is frozen when you meet
the love of your life, no matter who comes next, you are not able to find
another one who can do the same, since the moment is frozen, and it is frozen
forever.
Finally, the function of popular
music is “something possessed”, by metaphor, it is to say “this is my song”. It
is pretty much a cohesive form of the above three functions. Popular music
shapes your identity, your private and public soundtracks and your memories. We
feel like we own the song, it transcends the boundaries between the producers
and the listeners, since we have already thought the music, is ours.
To return to my question at the
beginning, why do some songs stop somewhere? Or a song must stop somewhere?
Some songs stop somewhere because they did not grow up with you, I did not mean
to say they are not good, they just stop; And, a song has to stop somewhere because
we all grow up, nothing can stop the time, in the meantime, a very good song is
able to stop “time”, to remind you your identity, your private soundtracks and
your memories, and finally, it makes you believe the song is yours. The song
(or songs) grows up with you. The more we grow, the lesser we use music. But it
does not mean that we forget the good music, we never forget the good music, it
should be the feeling we could never forget, feeling could never lie.
They are functions, but it is
with much sentiment if someone chooses to talk about the functions of music
while being part of the function itself.
To quote Keith Richard:
“Music is something I grow up with, and
I am trying to see if it grows up with me now.”
One of the biggest questions that
twist me while studying popular music is that, the standpoint towards some of
the most popular artists in the world nowadays, just to name a few, Lady gaga,
Justin Bieber, etc. With no doubt, they are very popular, yet, I do not like them at all. I am happy to say
that it is my personal preference as a listener, they are no good. Again, I lay
on a belief that we have something to protect in life, but not disliking
something you like. If everyone says Lady gaga is bad, but I think it is good,
I would have the obligation to argue. But now the case is that, a lot of people think
they are good, whilst I do not think so, should I do so by convincing others
something I do not like in the first place? By convincing other not liking something
in which they like? It is not necessary. Therefore, I think what is important
here is the argument, what are the reasons for not liking them. They are
my reasons, only.
Popular music embodies different
fields and genres, no matter it is mainstream, alternative, indie; or pop,
metal, jazz… etc. For popular music, I propose to follow Adorno’s argument and
give some brief words, for him, popular music is “standardized.” “Standardization”
serves as a framework to distinguish between classical music and popular music. The concept of classical music and popular music cannot be distinguished by “simple
and complex”, “naïve and sophisticated” in binary fashion. The framework of analysis
should rely on the concept of “standardization”. Popular music is a “pre-digested”
form of music according to Adorno. (For example, the song title, the dress, the
language, the accent, “pre-digest” the way in which you perceive the music), even the improvising
elements from the artists as well as the “mis-scale” inside the song, in Adorno’s
words, is “pseudo-individualization”. Use standardized music to fill
standardized life, get bored, get music and get bored again, get new music and get bored, and so on. The center of his
argument is that, the audiences are passive but not a active reader. It may
mainly due to the fact that the time of his work was during the period of 40’s
or 50’s. The degree of communication between people as well as the frequency of
information flow cannot be compared with nowadays globalizing world. However, the Marx’s
perspective is still valid and provide insight for the development of popular
music. For the standardization of popular music, it still happens
nowadays, what is different is only the amount of money and time which are
generated inside the process.
So, if the capitalist system
still remains the same, as an artists, I think they have the obligation to
fight against something, but not prevailing something. I think that is the
talent for every true artist, to tell the world as well as its people something
they don’t realize in life, by arts. I think that is a particular function of
art, John Berger said, “life first gets lost, and re-found with deliberation.”
This is what I saw as “dignity”. We all need some “forms” to think of, in order
to find the inner self. It is the dignity of a man. Someone chooses music, someone painting, architect, dancing
or whatever. Whatever forms are; What I mean to say “fight against something”
is revealed from their attitude towards the music industry as a whole, it
relates to what I propose to say by “prevailing”. We all understand that the
capitalist system of the music industry is in no way to break, we do not have to
break it, because it is ideological as well as reality, the only thing
different between 1950’s and 2000”s popular music is the amount of money spent
as well as the scale of the industry. What remains the same is we still
consume, from 3pounds a festival to 100pounds nowadays. What is different is that, we have much more songs and artists, and every different "song and artist" should make a "different" for the system. For an artist, and his/her music, it has
been a old story, practicing instruments, sending demos, get fame, what is
important is what you do after getting famous, still prevailing the whole
system and making money, a lot more money? Or choose to return to your inner
self and tell the world the good of music. It takes a lot of time, as well as a
lot of efforts and wisdom. I look at this by “longevity.” No one should blame
the artist for not making a great debut, but on the other hand, it should be
blamed if an artist is not innovating himself/herself and pursue for another
great album. The standpoint here is “innovation”, in other words, it is “change”.
To change himself/herself as well as hoping to change the overall industrial atmosphere,
for the sake of music, to tell people what is good and what is no good, you do
not have to be critical since innovation has been the best form of critical
thinking. They should be a resistance force that exists and fights against the
main ideology, the hegemony in our society. That is why I like Neil Young so much. Never "sold" himself and his music out, this is "dignity", and "longevity".
Maybe it returns to the argument
of “what is good music?” I never mean to say the music of Lady Gaga, or Bieber
is bad, yet, they are no good. Honestly, few of us evaluate music as good or
bad purely musical, especially on popular music. For instance, you wont
listen to a song by saying “the scale here does not meet with the tempo, or the
diminishing chords are not supposed to use here… etc. We evaluate the goodness
of badness of the song by the social use of them, in an emotional sense. Let’s say, a
heavy metal song used in the coffee shop can turn the good song to bad; a very
rough and unprofessional players, who are your friends, play music at your
wedding could be seen as very good music, because there is lot more sentimental
meanings. The only thing bad leads you to say “turn the music off”, everything is bad, the outlook of the artist is bad, the sound is bad, the venue is bad, the weather is bad, however, we listen to the song although it is no good, but not "bad". We often do not listen to the song which is bad, we choose not to listen to it. To say something bad is maybe, by practice, to turn this off immediately. Some music is no good, and it
always involves in the perspective of the use of music.
All in all, the authentic
of music correlate to artists, as well as the listeners. If artist side is
something we can hardly in control with, should we be a active listener, or a
passive listener?
I remember the Thai food in
Kowloon City is very good, many years ago. However, the quality of Thai food in
Kowloon City is getting worse and worse. Should we blame the restaurants of not
keeping quality? Or should we blame the long queue outside the restaurants even
the food is bad? Or should we blame the system behind? Like the magazines who praise
every restaurant in Kowloon City even the food is bad, in order to boost sells
and mobilize people to consume, under the same pattern? They all should be
blamed, yet, nothing is necessary to be blamed at all, because the choice is
yours, you can choose not to go there.
The music culture is bad in Hong
Kong, should we blame the people who is making bad music? Should we blame the people
still choose to listen to the bad music even it is bad? Finally, should we
blame the whole music industry system behind to treat music only as a consumption
and leisure, but not for the sake of music? I always wish the people love music
like the way I do, the degree of loving music. Honestly, I treat music as consumption
and leisure more than anyone does, that is why I buy records, t-shirts, musical
instruments and equipment, spending all my money to study popular music
culture. The thing I want to make a moan is the popular music I love is not
popular enough here. The level of getting unpopular is that it doesn’t happen
the way in which it makes you consume, at least getting a record in CD shop.
Maybe we can look at a little bit broader to see music as a commodity in the
whole industry. For instance, we don’t buy records nowadays, but we do buy a
lot of Apple device and listen to music through them. In the meantime, the industry
adjusts the sells pattern because of the emergence of the MP3 player. The unit
of calculating sells is not measured by records unit now, it is now measured by
“track” units. I do not see anything wrong with it, if a band could make 12
units of good songs, people should be willing to buy all 12 tracks no matter
they buy them from “track to track” or a whole album. The better the case is
the consumption would be duplicated, like you buy some tracks and discover the
whole album actually is very good, then you buy the whole album. Society is
changing as well as the technology. We leave the room for the future great
artists here. Yet, the underlying problems here are, is popular music “popular”
enough? Or the only thing popular is the word “popular” but not the music?
I do hope it is not so critical, just hoping a little
critical for the sake of music. I understand Hong Kong has its own pattern of
music industry, but most of the pop songs are generated from the 1920’s Tan Pan
Alley pattern of making music. Is it good for music? To ask again, is it our “own”
pattern of music making at all?
What is
good music? Generally a song follows a scale, or a sequence inside the music
theory, d-r-m-f-s-l-t-d, and a batch of noise in combination of silence, fast
and slow, loud and low, every popular song follows this, just the difference in
degree. If so, what is good music?
Good
music, should be not badly produced, played and listened. To put this concept a
little bit further, it is to ask what is "not good" music, in the meantime, it is to ask what is bad music. Should we define something
as bad of we like? It is not so necessary, however, somehow we have to do it
for the sake of “music itself”. A song, if no one says it is good, actually we
should not have to define it as bad; on the other hand, if everyone says it is
bad but you think it is good, I believe we have the obligation to defend as
well as to protect something you believe in. It is to like something, not
disliking the music you like.
Therefore, I lay on the
belief that good music is a completely personal preference first. It could be
whatever reason you like a song or an artist. For instance, the singer looks
cool, the music connected with your soul, remind of you something sweet, bitter or bittersweet, make you love your parents and friends and life after
you listen to the song or look at the artists. To say a piece of music is not good music, again, it is a completely personal preference like what good music is. The thing which is more
important should be, what is bad music, again, I lie on the belief that we have
something to protect in life. When everyone says the song is bad and I think it
is good, it is the perspective that how bad should we says a song is “bad”.
From the previous, good music is not badly produced, played and listened, thus,
bad music is badly produced, played and listened. The responsibility of making
a music bad is crossing different aspects, production and reception side, as
well as the processing in between these two. Bad music, is produced by someone
who can’t produced, played by someone who can’t played, as well as listened by
people who are not probably listened. In between these three aspects,
authenticity is an important concept transcend them. Authentic music should be
authentically produced, it is by appropriation but not by “copy” (it is
difficult to distinguish between copying and appropriating, but I think it
should be accorded by your own listening experience, like the concept of
copy-right, it is regarded as copying if you listen to the song you seem to
copy before you produce your own song. Therefore, the case here is, if you
listen to Eric Clapton at your ages of 80, in which you never listen to Jimi
Hendrix before, Eric Clapton’s guitar is not copying in your own term, and he
should not be seen as “a thief” from any black music, fair enough); Authentic
music should be authentically played, it is by a real communicative process as
a player as well as a listener of “the player” in his/her own history; finally,
Authentic music should be probably listened/played(as a reception side), it is
not determined by the technical equipment, like how much the hi-fi system you
have, or how much the earphones you have; or it is vinyl, cassette-player,
MD-player, CD-player, MP3 player or whatever, they are just about media
channels. It should be, listened and played at the right place in sociological
term, we listen to the music but not “ripping off” the music, should we play Metallica’s
Sad but true at a wedding? Or we play “Tell Laura I love her” when you propose to
Mary? They are dry wit, and they are interesting to put some thoughts on.
First of all, I want to provide an divergent meanings of these two phrases. As a youth who studied popular music in a cultural and popular sense, as well as a music maker at my free-time; Making music, I think that is the most instant communication between you and your instrument, music; and Making music is more or less like making your music a communicative text, to reach other people (of course yourself). Both of them are a communicative process, in the meantime, a creative process. There is no any ethical, or good/bad judgment in distinguishes, however, what I purposed to talk about is the way in which a song or music should be perceived. Popular music is in all time by determination on how it represents the people who listen to it, like a broken-heart song seems to "talk" to the people who lost their love, experiencing an end of relationship; however in academic music it is to see the things another way round, it is to see how the people listen to a certain song and how they use them. For example, in semiotic analysis red could be seen as dangerous but at the same time it could be seen as "lucky" or fortune in Chinese New Years festival. One signifier could be able to have thousands of signified. To apply this concept onto popular music, we always forget the fact that the song or artist you feel connected to is only someone's else song and artist in which he/she feel connected to. The author is dead, like what Roland Barthes said, and interpretation is our best revenge towards a sign, like what Susan Sontag stated. I never forget liking a song or admiring an artist is a feeling, the thing is liking a song or admiring an artist is a emotional response, but at the same time it is an ideological response as well. People have reason on loving or hating a song, we said some song is good while some other is bad, but we don't usually say some song is right while some other is wrong, it is about the taste and judgment, which is built up historically, in a sociological, cultural and historical aspects, and I believe it much relates to how a song is perceived by music lover, like you and me.
