The Art of Noise

I have had a busy week with my pupils. Yes, I have disciples who want to be just like me... Well, they would like to play drums just like me. Select students of mine were involved in a recital on Saturday. Another music teacher and I collaborated together and brought about sixty pianists, guitarists, keyboard players, bass players and singers together to play a bunch of contemporary music. I am happy to say that my pupils performed well, and I am proud of what they have accomplished in a few short months. They even surprised me, executing patterns that I had not shown them. It was a great end to a few months of hard work and dedication. I believe that they may become true drummers after all.

One of my pupils often brings me samples of music that he enjoys, and he would like to learn. Most of what he brings is in the indie-rock persuasion, full of raw emotional energy. Some of it I have found to be very intriguing to listen to. Some of it is rather predictable, others are rather boring, and even others border on being unlistenable. I have to thank him in many respects, as I had been going through a (long) period where I have felt that the new music of this decade is un-groundbreaking, untalented, and unlistenable.

At his lesson last night, this particular student brought in his usual arsenal of compact discs. This particular one -- a band from Toronto in pursuit of the elusive record deal, he was quite excited about. When I put in the short EP, I was assaulted by heavy machine-gun guitars, playing no more than two chords, aggressive drumming played as loud and as fast as possible, and a vocalist whom I could not tell whether he was in pain or on meth. Every lyric was unintelligibly screamed at the top of the vocalists' mouth; I could not even tell if he was in key -- or if he knew what "in key" meant. After a few moments I turned off the aural assault, and asked if he had anything else to show me.

To say I did not enjoy the above artist would be an understatement -- and it's not due to the aggression of the music. In fact, I do enjoy a great deal of aggressive music, just refer to my last post. It is something that goes a little deeper, something that hits me in a certain way that says that the music band "x" makes is worth listening to rather than band "y".

Take for instance, what I call the "new rock". This is the music that has been dominating the airwaves for the last five years or so. The guitars are often tuned down to "d", the production is slick, and the sound is groovy, loud, penetrating and full. Artists like Creed and Nickelback could be considered pioneers of this genre. Since these two artists have achieved international success, literally hundreds of other bands have tried to copy this style in order to achieve stardom. The thing is, that these clone bands do not have the same attitude, potential, or talent as the pioneers. Unfortunately, when a sound like this is capitalized by the recording industry (largely the ones to blame for the homogenization of popular music), my admiration of the genre of music is tarnished. I find it difficult to admire the pioneers, as well as the clones. The music just does not move me on that personal level.

The reason why I have a difficult time supporting (and admiring) even the pioneers of "new rock" is that they become victims of their own demise. Even though they originally started this new trend in popular music, they are inevitably a part of the system, and the system dictates to all their artists what is expected of them. Nickelback is unfortunately forced to write sequels to "How You Remind Me", because their record label forces them to write what sells. This creates dissention between the artists and record companies, as the recording industry is more interested in making huge profits, rather than being conduits for artistic expression. So given this above situation, it could be argued that the record companies are wholly to blame for the lack of original and artistically compelling music that is otherwise absent from the airwaves. I could blame the recording industry for the massive homogenization and marketing of manufactured artists that sell millions of records due to multi-million dollar marketing, and not due to artistic merit. I could even say that it is entirely due to the recording industry that the majority of my music purchases are from recordings made between 1969 and 1989. I could rant on this subject for endless paragraphs, but this isn't what I wanted to discuss in the first place.

What I wanted to talk about stems from this no-name artist my student played for me. After some careful thought on the subject, I concluded the reason why I did not like this particular band, was that they were not making music. Now music is of course a subjective term, but from what I know about music, it has a few commonalities between all genres.

First, music is supposed to have three integral components: melody, harmony and rhythm. Music is also meant to tell a story. It must have a beginning, a development, and an end. Much a like a piece of literature, music must be able to take the listener on a journey of sorts. If a song is just a alternation between a verse and a chorus, there is little development, it just moves from one musical statement to another without and conclusions being made. Endless techno dance mixes fall into the above category.

What was played for me the last evening did not fit into my definition of music. It had no melody, nor harmony. The rhythm itself was predictable for music of the indie-punk persuasion. And for musical development, there was none. I found myself extremely bored while listening to this barrage of heavy guitar, frantic drumming and tortured singing. If there was any musical development, I found it to be very predictable. So what I heard was definitely not music, but my pupil seemed to enjoy what he heard.

I thought about this for some time and came to some conclusions. Perhaps he had been able to decipher the lyrics, and there was a message that the singer communicated that he could identify with. I know music of the punk genre often preaches political and sociological reform -- a mandate I wholly commend. As for the music being loud and aggressive, I can appreciate. Punk music is largely about attitude rather than glamour and fashion. Punk is usually against the homogenization of culture and society, for which I can appreciate (a homogenized culture is often a socialist one).

So then, what was it, that my student enjoyed, and I missed completely? Though I felt that this particular band did not make music, I can firmly say that what they did make was art. Art of course, is closely related to music but one does not make the other. To say it another way, music can be classified as art, but art does not necessarily have to be music. Art has the potential of instigating sociological change, some find it offensive, and others just don't understand it, period. Art done well can expose a fundamental flaw in the values of our culture.

Art is a form revolution. Art is a form of rebellion. Art is beautiful. Art is not ever to be censored. To censor art is to deny our fundamental human rights of expression, belief and opinion.

People often forget that art is not always pretty. Art is sometimes disturbing, and classified as offensive, sacrilegious, gory, pornographic, or morbid. True art, by its' definition is meant to make us think; for us to question or values and beliefs, conversely it may be meant to reinforce them. Of all the advanced civilizations that have been documented in our great history, all of them shared art and music. Both forms of expression must have had impact on the values and beliefs of the cultures that had existed. When we reflect on the art of the Ancient Greeks, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians, etc., we are often dazzled by it's beauty and marvel at the greatness of these ancient civilizations. To deny and censor art of all genres and civilizations would be to deny the greatness of ours.