The Tyranny of Pop Music

[Lat-Literal]

Oh, God, not b****y Strictly again!...


What, simultaneously? Not only that, dancing and making love all day does sound to be a potentially hazardous exercise...


If you fell in love with him, why did you do this? - and how do you know either that he was afriad of either or will thank you when he awakes?


Lots of places have plenty of sky, although I've never previously encountered them being measured in antediluvian acres. Who needs snakes? He could in any case have moved to the coutryside of his own volition without external encouragement had he so desired, surely?


How did you get the first of these? And if you don't need a man, why fall in love with one?


Who are you trying to kid (apart from yourself)?


Wouldn't a vigil do?


Then why is he your boyfriend?


Then someone needs to rush him back to the city for an urgent course of psychotherapy.


Not if it's in a place where that sort of thing is illegal, persumably...


While watching Strictly, one hopes.


If you don't need one, why so?


Then for pity's sake hug a tree, why don't you?

If that's "savvy", I shudder to think what's not; it certainly wasn't written by Roger Scruton.

If that's McColl you can think to quote in the context of this thread, then God help both you and the thread!

The only Kirsty for me, by the way, is Scottish - and she is not Old...

Back to the thread as rapidly as possible, mehopes!

Wow.

Erm, lyrics aren't poetry and require a different skill. The example isn't, quote, McColl (sic) in the sense that the name would unwisely be truncated as that from the music critics' perspective would inevitably be dad Ewan MacColl, a poet of sorts. Beyonce, a product - I use the word advisedly - is a black woman who has become extremely rich by complying with a cynical ostensibly white male American record industry which ploughs a furrow for its own profit. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear - not that I needed to - that the example of modernism I chose had nothing to do with gender. Nor is it indeed about background per se. It is a social attitude that applies across the board because people have been encouraged commercially in that way. A Scruton might want a society in which men return from fox hunting every Sunday with fox blood on their hands to a roast produced lovingly in pinafore dress. I don't know but the key distinction concerns warmth and connection, not necessarily without humour and critique, and cold aggro-driven stereotypes.

Incidentally, it has struck me it is not a coincidence that "Us Amazonians" if shortened is the good 'ole US of A. It's full of irony. They used to say what happens there is in Britain in five years. Now we are an American state, that theory is less applicable. Take out piped music from Morrisons. Expect it to be replaced by its patrons liberally smoking cannabis.

[ahinton]

Wow.

Erm, lyrics aren't poetry and require a different skill.

In the particular context, this might be taken to mean that poetry requires skill and lyrics require none.

That isn't McColl (sic) in the sense that the name would be unwisely truncated as that would inevitably from the music critics' perspective be father Ewan MacColl who was a poet of sorts.[/quote
Indeed; my mistake; I had not taken her to be related to Ewan of not quite the same ilk, though apart from that I don't think it could alter any part of my response.

Beyonce[/quote]
Beyoncé, shurely? Anyway...

a product - and I use that word advisedly - is a black woman who has become extremely rich by complying with a cynical ostensibly white male American record industry which ploughs a furrow for its own profit. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear - not that I needed to - that the example of modernism

Which examples of "modernism" was that? And how does it fit into or otherwise relate to the Tyranny of Pop piece?

had nothing to do with gender per se or indeed racial background. It is a social attitude that applies across the board because people have been encouraged commercially in that way.

I fail to see the point that you are seeking to make in the context of the thread topic - sorry!

A Scruton might want a society in which men return from fox hunting every Sunday with fox blood on their hands to a roast produced ever so lovingly in pinafore dress

"Might", indeed; have you actually asked him if this is indeed what he advocates or has he confirmed in his writings that he does so? I don't think that many men would risk doing what you describe here today, given the provisions of the law and, even if any of them were to do so, one would hope that, as upper-class tawffs, they'd wawsh their hends before tucking into that roast beef of old England (where else?). For the record, I find foxhunting loathsome, whatever Mr Scruton may or may not think of it; the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible it undoubtedly is, but where the inScrutable comes into it I cannot be sure. The pinafore refeence also escapes me.

The piece of doggerel (if I can call it that without unwittingly risking insult to the canine fraternity) comes from a 15-year-old album entitled Tropical Brainstorm, which might explain a lot about its origins in the author's personal experience and perhaps tells the reader all that he/she didn't want to know, though it excuses it not one jot, to my mind...

You have still not convinced me of the relevance of all of this to the thread topic, I'm afraid!

[ahinton]

Fewer people were travelling to work at 5am in the morning simply to thunder along at 70mph on 30mph roads

There is no "5am" in the afternoon; 5am comes but once daily, which is way more frequently than I'd care to encounter bouts of MacColleywobbles.

And young people even of Carnaby Street appearance had the opportunity to bob elegantly if purposefully to background muzak (and intrigued older film crew) around Harrods:

Horst Jankowski - "A Walk In The Black Forest" (1965) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS15ACUhTww

"Bob" or "bop"?

The principal purpose of muzak / piped music in public places / call it what you will is not, however, to invite or encourage people to bob or bop to it and that's not what usually happens either. In any case, whatever the Black Forest might bring forth (and Jankowski's well known Walk therein was not designed to be piped background music), there seems to be no reference to such aural intrusion in the Amazon rainforest about which you posted next.

[Lat-Literal]

Well, academically, it just screams of prejudice and a lack of both subtlety and nuance.

All of it.

That has been proven by the fundamentalist silence on very many points I have made:

That some people find it is helpful to negotiating social situations healthily and some employees prefer it.
That it may have a role when used appropriately in calming problem customers.
That officially these places are private premises and managers should be able to decide.
That they keep detailed records of what works or doesn't work commercially and will be aware of the pluses as well as any minuses.
That a lot of human behaviour is more of a racket and an imposition - sometimes deliberate - on fellow customers than background music.
That there is a distinction between such places and areas in which people have to pay by law because the latter is a required contract.
That in the latter case people should have some direct leverage on what they are getting for their required payment.
That people have alternative options and are not obstructed from undertaking any routine activity by music .
That there is a distinct difference between different types of music and what they are designed to do, appropriately or inappropriately.
That historically oppressors reduce the breadth of accessible music rather than force it on people.
That jukeboxes have gone and that traffic noise has multiplied six-fold from which there is less escape.
That unlike the obsessional news agenda which can undermine confidence, piped music isn't a potential threat to national security.

And much more.

These things are important. It is the difference between a valid positioning of FoR3 which I fully support and seeking to curtail other people's freedoms where they are in charge and twisting it round a little selfishly and even perversely to say that it is customers who are the ones imposed on. I reiterate that I agree with Jean's points about "The Celts".

But given the absence of any direct comment by other people on the other parts, I am choosing random discussion as I would do in terms of extreme Islamists in Mali.

[ahinton]

Mind you, it could be worse. Some might be tempted to throw the captain overboard if they piped some Brahms?

I couldn't say, but at least Brahms was a pipe smoker - and don't let's forget the old cliché that he (or she) who pays the piper would probably rather hear said piper playing than have to listen to piped music...

[ahinton]

Well, academically, it just screams of prejudice and a lack of subtlety and nuance. All of it.

What does? If the subject does, then let's at least try to repair this "fundamentalist silence on very many points (that you) have made by addressing them one by one.

"That some people find it is helpful to negotiating social situations healthily"
How? What proportion of people? How do you know this and how can you prove it? What kind of "social situation" and in what ways does it assist their "healthy" negotiation?

"That some employees prefer it"
To what? Silence? Conversation? Again, where's the statistical data to prove this?

"That it may have a role when used appropriately in calming problem customers"
How is its "approriate" use in such circumstances determined? Again, where's the evidence and how might it do this? What about situations in which it's played when there are no "customers" present? (elevators, for example). Why should others have to listen to it just because nearby customers might need calming?

"That officially these places are private premises and managers should be able to decide"
Some are (hotels and the like) but others are not and much of the discussion has centred on piped music in public places.

"That they keep detailed records of what works or doesn't work commercially and will be aware of the pluses as well as any minuses"
Who does this and where's the data evidence?

"That a lot of human behaviour in such places is more of a racket and an imposition - sometimes deliberate - on fellow customers than soft music in the background."
Again, customers are not always present and, whilst some would agree with your first point (no doubt including those who deprecate clapping between movements!), to what extent would you surmise that two wrongs, even if one greater than the other, make a right?

"That there is a distinction between such places and areas in which people have to pay by law."
What places? What distinction? Piped music is relayed in some privately owned space as well as in some public spaces where those present either do or do not have to pay to be there.

"That the latter should have some direct leverage on what they are getting for their required payment"
Payment is by no means always involved.

"That people have alternative options"
Yes; go somewhere else. Is that in itself a justification?

"That there is a distinct difference between different types of music and what they are designed to do, appropriately or inappropriately"
At last something on which I can agree with you, although I don't quite see how that helps such cause as you may have here.

"That historically oppressors reduce the breadth of accessible music rather than force it on people"
Some have indeed done so, but that's a quite different point, since wilfully reducing accessibility to music is a far cry from foisting a certain type of it on those who have not actually asked for it.

Well, at least I've made the effort!

[Lat-Literal]

What does? If the subject does, then let's at least try to repair this "fundamentalist silence on very many points (that you) have made by addressing them one by one.

"That some people find it is helpful to negotiating social situations healthily"
How? What proportion of people? How do you know this and how can you prove it? What kind of "social situation" and in what ways does it assist their "healthy" negotiation?

"That some employees prefer it"
To what? Silence? Conversation? Again, where's the statistical data to prove this?

"That it may have a role when used appropriately in calming problem customers"
How is its "approriate" use in such circumstances determined? Again, where's the evidence and how might it do this? What about situations in which it's played when there are no "customers" present? (elevators, for example). Why should others have to listen to it just because nearby customers might need calming?

"That officially these places are private premises and managers should be able to decide"
Some are (hotels and the like) but others are not and much of the discussion has centred on piped music in public places.

"That they keep detailed records of what works or doesn't work commercially and will be aware of the pluses as well as any minuses"
Who does this and where's the data evidence?

"That a lot of human behaviour in such places is more of a racket and an imposition - sometimes deliberate - on fellow customers than soft music in the background."
Again, customers are not always present and, whilst some would agree with your first point (no doubt including those who deprecate clapping between movements!), to what extent would you surmise that two wrongs, even if one greater than the other, make a right?

"That there is a distinction between such places and areas in which people have to pay by law."
What places? What distinction? Piped music is relayed in some privately owned space as well as in some public spaces where those present either do or do not have to pay to be there.

"That the latter should have some direct leverage on what they are getting for their required payment"
Payment is by no means always involved.

"That people have alternative options"
Yes; go somewhere else. Is that in itself a justification?

"That there is a distinct difference between different types of music and what they are designed to do, appropriately or inappropriately"
At least something on which I can agree with you, although I don;t quite see how that helps such cause as you may have here.

"That historically oppressors reduce the breadth of accessible music rather than force it on people"
Some have indeed done so, but that's a quite different point, since wilfully reducing accessibility to music is a far cry from foisting a certain type of it on those who have not actually asked for it.

Well, at least I've made the effort!

Well, thank you, but may I gently suggest that you read some of my earlier posts because a lot of answers to your questions have been attempted there.

[ahinton]

Well, thank you, but may I gently suggest that you read some of my earlier posts because a lot of answers to your questions have been attempted there.

You may indeed suggest it but, since the purpose of my post above was to try to address your own points which you appear to feel have yet to be addressed in this thread, that would sound rather like putting the cart before the horse, if I may say so!

[Lat-Literal]

You may indeed suggest it but, since the purpose of my post above was to try to address your own points which you appear to feel have yet to be addressed in this thread, that would sound rather like putting the cart before the horse, if I may say so!

It has been very interesting.

I think I am sensing not for the first time a huge gap between the social liberal and the economic libertarian.

Anyways, best wishes to you.

Funnily enough, you are probably less small "c" conservative in instinct than I am and more a sort of radical!

[teamsaint]

I haven't followed this in detail, but Lat does make some interesting points.

Very important to realise that there are others out there who function differently from ourselves, as i discovered when bemoaning automated tills on this forum, and was advised of some very real benefits for certain people.

[french frank]

a valid positioning of FoR3

Could I point out that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with FoR3: we host this website for the use of the public and the homepage has a disclaimer:

"This is NOT the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3: contributors are members of the public with an interest in Radio 3. [ … ] Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of members of the public, not of the forum administration or of FoR3."

Just one point (my own contribution):

That historically oppressors reduce the breadth of accessible music rather than force it on people.

I can think of examples where oppressors have forced music on people as a form of torture.

[Lat-Literal]

Could I point out that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with FoR3: we host this website for the use of the public and the homepage has a disclaimer:

"This is NOT the official messageboard of Friends of Radio 3: contributors are members of the public with an interest in Radio 3. [ … ] Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of members of the public, not of the forum administration or of FoR3."

Just one point (my own contribution):



I can think of examples where oppressors have forced music on people as a form of torture.

On the first point, I accept it and respect your wish to mention it but you will appreciate that I never said that there was a direct link not that you suggested I did. It was essentially a point about the objectives I share with FoR3 and support for any forum members who share those objectives broadly. On the torture point, this was raised by a couple of people earlier - 1. Torture as in being applied to people who have no freedom of movement, 2. Torture as in ideas of punishment and 3. Torture as in not being psychologically in line with unusual non-western perspectives and practices, especially in terms of an espousal of liberty, hence not as or in the music per se but rather what it can represent to those people.

Here's a point.

Would I prefer to do my shopping just in the noise and hubbub of often rather too robust Joe and Josephine Public or to the backdrop of children or adults from Nordoff Robbins who to our ears are not musical per se attempting to sing or bang drums or listening with excited chatter to music of whatever kind. I take the latter. It is closely linked to humanity.

I guess it might be tyranny to some.

Also, I fully accept Beyonce in Morrisons. I accept that loads of Beyonce in Morrisons might lead to me moving from by far and away my favourite cheaper priced supermarket to another one. I accept that other people like Beyonce. I accept that while I feel she's a siren of cynical private enterprise and all that has gone wrong with popular music that other people don't feel like I do and they enjoy what she does and what she says. I accept that she can't in sound terms be defined in any way other than music although I can barely hear any music in her product. I accept these things because I have plenty of alternative options. I accept them because I believe so strongly in music as a positive force that I would rather people engaged with it and her if necessary as often as they can even if the lyrics aren't what I would choose for wider society. And I also believe that the national broadcaster should improve its standard so that there is access to the widest range of good quality music while the rest of the mixed economy does whatever it decides to do.

[NatBalance]

I believe that you have missed the point here, which is tht piped music does not only have to be at a limited volume but also consist of largely bland and unchallenging material more likely (and doubtless intended) to dull that excite the senses; accordingly, your "suggestion that any music can be turned into muzak just by turning its volume down sufficiently" is patently untrue and would be demonstrated to be so if the piped music played at any audible volume in a public place happened to be Erwartung or Die Soldaten, for example and I would hope that this would not have to be put to the practical test in order for you to accept this. Piped "background music" is by definition unobtrusive by virtue of the nature of its content, however obtrusive it may be by its mere ubiquitous presence.

Oh I do not deny that piped music is best composed as such, and if people do not like certain music they still will not like it even if its on quietly, but the quieter it gets the less intrusive it gets the less impact it has whether you like or disslike the piece. I cannot see that as being incorrect because the further away music sounds, the less you are hearing.

Your response to the assertion that "volume has no affect[sic] on the emotional impact of a piece of music" is likewise largely unfounded, as long as the music concerned is sufficiently audible to evoke such responses in listeners who are concentrating on it. Upping it by, say, 5 or 10 decibels will make no material difference to that impact beyond the possibility of eliciting the listener response that it is louder than the composer probably intended; imagine, for example, those places in Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony marked pppppp being notched up to ppp...

Actually, if I did not continually keep adjusting the volumes on Radio 3, such big musical forces as orchestras and choral music would sound like piped music to me. I tried it earlier, I had the presenter at a nice volume so that I could hear her clearly, then when a big orchestral piece came on I did not turn the volume up and I just could not hear it properly. I could hear the loud parts, but they had no power, and the quiet passages, although audible were just too quiet to have as much impact. The nuances of each individual instrument when playing solo as part of the orchestral piece was lost to me, I wanted to hear that violin properly, not just hear it, but hear it as clearly as I could hear the presenter's voice.

I'll overlook your spelling of the Wagner...

Oh ta very much, and I will overlook you missing out the capitals in your proper name …. AHinton.

[MrGongGong]

Actually, if I did not continually keep adjusting the volumes on Radio 3, such big musical forces as orchestras and choral music would sound like piped music to me. I tried it earlier, I had the presenter at a nice volume so that I could hear her clearly, then when a big orchestral piece came on I did not turn the volume up and I just could not hear it properly. I could hear the loud parts, but they had no power, and the quiet passages, although audible were just too quiet to have as much impact. The nuances of each individual instrument when playing solo as part of the orchestral piece was lost to me, I wanted to hear that violin properly, not just hear it, but hear it as clearly as I could hear the presenter's voice.
.

What are you listening on?
I know you probably don't think it matters, BUT there can be a huge difference in the ears ability to discriminate between different frequency bands dependent on the equipment you are using to move the air into different patterns.

[P. G. Tipps]

I can think of examples where oppressors have forced music on people as a form of torture.

Indeed, and judging by the information contained in the article Metallica may well have been used as one of the main torture instruments.