[NewMusic] no one cares

[Matthew Goodheart]

Lots of good thoughts today. . .

> Sarah - 21 Grand wrote:
> - - -    But I don't see "marketplace" and "subculture" as being in  
> opposition to one another at this point in history.


This is what I think is a problem. The focus of a marketplace is  
commerce and profit; the focus of a subculture is community, whatever  
that means, is sustenance and meeting needs. To refer back to  
Slusser's post - the memorial concert for Toyoji was, for me, not a  
"concert" at all in a traditional sense; it was a community of people  
mourning together through music. The money for the concert was pretty  
irrelevant; I'm sure it didn't raise that much. Secondly, I didn't  
even feel that the music at the event should be judged in the way one  
might judge another concert; "quality" wasn't the issue, but personal  
connection is. It's like judging the quality of a speaker at a  
memorial service; while you might appreciate someone who has a way  
with words, someone who does "not have way" can be just as moving  
because it's about something other than oratory.

> more Sarah :  Well, why are so many people invested in having an  
> identity as artists? Why are there so many social programs that, for  
> lack of a better word,
> attempt to rehabilitate or improve, the "have-nots" through creative  
> activities: the mentally disabled, prisoners, and everyone's  
> favorite, underprivileged children from historically oppressed  
> ethnic minority backgrounds?

I think they are interconnected, but also quite different things. The  
former may have roots in dilettantism, though again in different  
communities the meaning of "artist" would be different. Personally,  
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the term.  The latter, rather, has to do  
with more complex issues than identification, but rather the valuation  
of one's expression, connection to community, and/or the cognitive  
capacities involved in the creation of art. There's plenty of  
information about the way music in particular unifies areas of the  
brain, can aid in cognitive development, and may even be essential to  
creating a sense of community. Some mentally disabled people,  
alzheimer's patients, etc. can function musically in a way they can't  
on any other level; its about what is effective.

I've spent a good chunk of my time for the past couple decades working  
with "underprivileged children from historically oppressed ethnic  
minority backgrounds."  My goal was never to turn these kids into  
"artists," unless that's what they want;  its usually addressing basic  
skills, helping them develop learning strategies, helping them set  
goals and achieve them, how to analyze problems, etc. The "art" part  
is pretty irrelevant, and most of it is the same shit I work on with  
well off kids whose parents pay me three times as much.  Music is a  
good way to develop these skills, which they can then carry into  
whatever else they do with their lives; the "programs" are there to  
give them the access to individual instruction and experiences that  
would otherwise be out of their reach economically.

> George:
> And the American in me would certainly love to hear somebody do  
> something 'original' with the tabla, instead of the same old  
> 'tradition' that I've heard a zillion times.

Yet there's also the issue of superficial "newness" through the co- 
option of the "exotic" instruments of other cultures. Perhaps the  
"exoticism" would be expunged if no one knew what they were hearing  
was a tabla. . .

> But this emphasis on individuality is a problem: it often creates  
> competition and rivalry among artists, not community.


A thought here - Cage is cited as being one of the "mavericks," yet  
the stated goal of much of his work was to remove the personality and  
intentionality of the composer from the work.  Of course, if he really  
wanted to do that, perhaps he wouldn't have put his name on any of his  
compositions? Even there it is impossible to cite the work itself over  
the personality of its author.

> Thus, for me, the central paradox of being a post-modern,  
> politically and historically aware artist: am I really just working  
> with ideas that are actually the base ideas of a system and a  
> society that I am direct opposition to?


Hey, at least we don't have "Black Man Toothpaste" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie 
 >

Ooops, I take that back <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Indians>

> The political side of me loathes much contemporary avant garde art  
> as a meaningless bourgeoise exercise (Matthew Barney comes to mind)  
> but the artist side of me loathes most political art as didactic and  
> boring, and most folk art as just plain boring.

There's the notion that all art is folk art, it's just for different  
folks. . . not sure if I always agree with that, though. The question  
comes down to, again, what is the work for? It's a question I find  
myself struggling with more and more- what if the needs of the work  
are in opposition to the assumptions of the medium? One is, in such a  
case, rather prevented from making certain kinds of complex  
explorations statements, aesthetic or otherwise; particularly in an  
environment that feigns openness yet is so heavily indoctrinated. . .  
or perhaps that is merely a reflection of my "self". . .

> It's 'piquing' your interest .


I actually knew that, I just. . .  epeakulated prematurely.


Matthew Goodheart
composer ~ improviser ~ pianist
matthew at matthewgoodheart.com
http://matthewgoodheart.com
http://myspace.com/matthewgoodheart