Who should I interview?
Possibilities —
Dave Elkins – Mae; Shawna Potter – War on Women; Hutch Harris – The Thermals; Chris Hannah – Propagandhi; Sulynn – Propagandhi; Mike Herrara – MxPx, Cameron Murdoch – solo hip hop, Dariel Clark – solo;
From David Harvey’s “Limits of Capital”
“Marx will, in this vein, make much of the idea that productivity in relation to human wants and needs is very different from productivity in relation to the creation of surplus value. And finally, only when we fully comprehend the social meaning and social purpose will we be able to understand why certain technologies are chosen rather than others; why certain mental conceptions of the world take precedence over others. It is the relation between the productive forces, social relations of production and mental conceptions of the world, all expressed within a single unique labor process, that counts in the end.” – (p. 102)
I’m pulling this excerpt because the pursuit and realization of creative ambitions (i.e., productivity in relation to human wants and needs) occurs within our contemporary culture industries (the base and superstructure, so to speak) and is facilitated and shaped by digital media technologies. As such, I’m interested in how the more romanticized conception of art and music is maintained within an industrial environment and culture that is counter to those conceptions — what forms do those conceptions take? What modifications/rationalizations are necessary for its sustainability? I need to argue how this particular era or epoch is critically distinct from previous eras because capital and technology are not unique characteristics of it – but these forces evolve, and culture with it.
(refer to The Spotify Takedown when it discusses created “mood” playlists and how our relationship to music becomes task-oriented, as well as Hemondhalgh and Meier’s “What the digitalisation of music tells us about capitalism, culture and the power of the information technology sector” (2018).
From David Hesmondhalgh and Leslie M. Meier — “What the digitalisation of music tells us about capitalism, culture and the power of the information technology sector”
“Of course, the economic weakness of record companies compared with other sectors does not mean that music itself is culturally marginal. On the contrary, there are reasons to think that the commodification of music in the twentieth century, combined with sociocultural changes of the kind we have been discussing in this article (individualisation, new forms of mobility, etc.), led to a new cultural centrality for music. But the cost may have been to render music in some respects instrumental.”
I want to note their emphasis on the end-oriented aspect of music brought about by the imperatives of IT technologies and market dynamics, i.e., the instrumentalization of music prioritized by market demands and shifting technologies. As such, this could be easily understood as anathema to the romanticized notions of artistic creation (e.g. “selling out” and “authenticity”); notions which do bear upon artist subjectivities when it comes to their creative motivations and ambitions.
This connects to my larger questions about how our contemporary environment impacts artist subjectivities and larger connections between music and social change. Even if explicit protest music is written and produced, do the channels of consumption undermine radical potential? On this point, it is necessary to consider the work of scholars like Paulo Gerbaudo, Zeynep Tufecki, etc., to understand social media’s relationship to revolutionary movements.
My goal is to develop a particular understanding of the contemporary musician as it relates to the practices and rationalizations that inform their motivations, challenges, and musicking in general. More specifically, the questions I want to ask are foundationally rooted in a presumption that music can not be understood apart from its sociality. While this is not meant to dismiss the subjective processes of creativity, i.e. those external inspirations/stimuli that are mediated and shaped through an individual’s creative ambitions, it is to emphasize the understanding that music is never not social. Music is always informed by its contexts – it is always the instantiated culmination and reflection of particular and varied histories. The meanings we attach to music, both creating and consuming, can’t be productively understood outside of its historical context.
Thus, the understanding I want to develop is done through a centering of the social which means that I am interested in music’s relationship to questions of social change within a historical moment contextualized by neoliberalism and digital media. Or, to put it another way, how do neoliberalism, modes of production, industrial imperatives, and consumer expectations impact the ways in which musicians understand their function and role as an artist, as a “creative,” as a laborer? What is the impact of the dynamic tension that exists between the algorithm and a more romanticized ethos of artistic motivation and goals? How do the demands associated with professional ambition impact exist alongside a radical politics that recognizes the reifying impact of those demands? How does the quantification of the creative process impact the artistic subjectivities? I want to explore the resentments artists have expressed toward the obligations of social media platforms, fan/artist communication, constant presence, and the continued necessity to develop skills and culture required of each platform.
Importantly, the “sociality” I presume is not a neutral presence – it’s not simply a matter of an unmotivated “context.” The sociality of music includes its political dimension, and thus, its political potential. As such, the understanding of music employed here borrows from Simon Frith, Angela Davis, Jacques Attali, Janet Wolff, etc. I borrow from the Frankfurt School’s emphasis on art’s relationship to fascism and revolution. All that to say, I draw from, and hope to contribute to, a discourse that recognizes music’s relationship to revolutionary struggle…to social change. Further, it should be emphasized that this understanding is not uncommon, but it is often expressed apolitically. That is, music, and art more generally, is often rhetorically characterized as a romantic pursuit, something transcendent, something universal and indiscriminate in its impacts, but also simultaneously personal and private — something magical or mythic, spiritual. I do not mean to evict these characteristics, but I do want to bookmark their counter-revolutionary functions. As such, I would not be surprised if some might respond critically to my emphasis on music’s political dimension as it is described here. It might be possible to affirm music’s sociality without recognizing its necessary relationship to the political. It might be possible to affirm music’s force to bring about individual change while also affirming and finding particular value in music’s ability to exist above politics.
It is also important to take serious consideration of neoliberal’s ideological impact on cultural and industrial practices (e.g. D.I.Y), and how these impacts bear upon the creative process and conceptions of the artist. I think a case can be made neoliberalism has had specific impacts on how musicians conceive of their role, but I also want to discuss how neoliberalism has transformed the space in which musicians must exist, the conditions imposed upon them.
As such, my questions presume an imposition that impacts artist subjectivities and production. It extends grace to the artist in that I do not presume an artist that willfully goes along with the neoliberal contracting of the political, but an artist that wishes against and negotiates imposing imperatives.
fragile ambition 