23, is it original? if not for Michael Jordan

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?

What is completely original? May I ask again.

Music, not merely as sounds

 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

Folk Jam - Pavement

Rocket queen

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

RIP

Why do some songs stop somewhere? Or a song must stop somewhere?

For Kurt.

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.”

Perspective 3-

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?

On Popular Music (Theodor W. Adorno, 1941)