Morals, politics, crime and music

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

There’s an argument that the work a musician does is separate from him himself and that, no matter how bad a person may be, that work can stand by itself. Although I can understand that view, it’s not one I share.

Turk Mauro is a tenor player I liked a lot, and bought all four of his albums. But when I found he had been arrested for assaulting a singer, and had to be restrained from hitting her with a chair when she was on the floor, I went right off him.

On the other hand, Don Drummond, the trombonist in the sixties with the Skatalites, committed suicide in prison after murdering his girl friend. There’s a general consensus that Don was off his head and needed treatment. I find I can live with the many Skatalites albums from that period and my enjoyment of them is not diminished by thoughts of Don.

The case of the Mandinke big bands from Guinea is rather different. They were required by President Sekou Toure to update the traditional music of the Mandinke by bringing in modern instruments. And Toure created a nationwide system of competitions and government sponsorship for the bands. The best bands became salaried civil servants, their instruments, uniforms and transport provided. In return, they were expected, as traditional musicians there have always been expected, to support the government through their music. (But the role of support traditionally also included rebuke and satire when their aristocratic patrons were seen to be wrong.) In point of fact, Sekou Toure was using this music system to bolster his scheme of ensuring that the Mandinke were the ethnic group on top of things in Guinea. It seems clear that the musicians knew this was going on. (But it was going on, and is still going on, throughout Africa, so how much can be expected of people?)

The Toure regime became very unpopular and, towards the end, was virtually at war with the people. Political opponents were imprisoned and subjected to the Toure special diet – no food, no water. It is NOT clear that most of the musicians were aware of this, though Miriam Makeba seems to have been. Politically much better connected, she stopped recording for the government record company and resigned her position as roving ambassador.

The music is great and, as you see, I kind of make excuses for the musicians. It does worry me, though.

Please discuss.

MG

[Van Basten II]

In France we had a similar thing happening with the leader of left wing rock group Noir Désir Bernard Cantat being imprisonned for murdering in a fit of passion his girlfriend Marie Trintignant (well known actress and daughter of Jean-Louis Trintignant)

The question i ask myself when those moral dilemnas occur is whether the music they have done has been "corrupted" by their actions. Was it done after they did their crime, do they glorify their actions in the music is the music a byproduct of those actions ? Overall i don't expect musicians to be role models especially in their personal life, so i actually would have no problem listening to the first two examples you gave.

Actually the third case with musicians involved in working with a politically corrupted government is the one i would have a hard time still enjoying it. If it was proven that they did take advantage of their position or knowlegedly let some illegal action going on without doing the right thing or at least do everything to separate yourself from these actions.

[BillF]

Jazz, ethics and politics come together in a book by Penny M Von Eschen called Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War, which tells the story of the State Department-sponsored jazz tours of the 1950s. It's fascinating to read how musicians like Dizzy Gillespie and Benny Goodman responded quite differently to the US government's policy of using them to promote national interests abroad; e.g. by falsely depicting the US as a racially harmonious society.

[Tom Storer]

I can understand that knowledge of a musician's sins might make it impossible for you to listen to the music without thinking of the badness of the musician, or alternatively, that you might want to personally boycott a musician on account of the musician's badness, even if the music still moved you, in order to side with Good against Evil.

But I don't feel that way myself. People are capable of good things and bad. In the case of a musician who makes beautiful music but is a hateful person, should the bad cancel out the good? I don't think so. The good--artistic beauty in this case--is what we need and should value in this world, and it seems paradoxical to negate the good in the name of condemning the bad. They both exist, each to be judged for itself. All of us have done things we're not proud of, things to be ashamed of. Does that mean the good things we do don't count? (That viewpoint doesn't really encourage evildoers to have a change of heart! You've been bad, so forget it, no point creating beauty for others--you're barred.)

Nobody's all good or all bad. That works both ways--you don't have to forgive the hate or the compromise in order to love the good, just as you don't have to reject the beauty in order to condemn the ugliness, when all are part of the same person's life.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I can understand that knowledge of a musician's sins might make it impossible for you to listen to the music without thinking of the badness of the musician, or alternatively, that you might want to personally boycott a musician on account of the musician's badness, even if the music still moved you, in order to side with Good against Evil.

But I don't feel that way myself. People are capable of good things and bad. In the case of a musician who makes beautiful music but is a hateful person, should the bad cancel out the good? I don't think so. The good--artistic beauty in this case--is what we need and should value in this world, and it seems paradoxical to negate the good in the name of condemning the bad. They both exist, each to be judged for itself. All of us have done things we're not proud of, things to be ashamed of. Does that mean the good things we do don't count? (That viewpoint doesn't really encourage evildoers to have a change of heart! You've been bad, so forget it, no point creating beauty for others--you're barred.)

Nobody's all good or all bad. That works both ways--you don't have to forgive the hate or the compromise in order to love the good, just as you don't have to reject the beauty in order to condemn the ugliness, when all are part of the same person's life.

I do agree with much of what you say, Tom, but I think it's this bit

The good--artistic beauty in this case--is what we need and should value in this world,

that I don't agree with. It seems to treat all these things as being of equal weight. I think we place far too much emphasis on artistic beauty - much more than it's really worth in society. The social benefits that musicians are supposed to provide for society are important but, it seems to me, only in terms of supporting other, more vital, facets of society, such as community unity of purpose, catharsis etc. All this stuff like aesthetics has, I feel, been made up as a result of the dominance of societies almost everywhere in the world by ruling classes, in order to bolster their sense of self-importance and their superiority over those ruled.

So I feel that people who are violent or criminal provide social disbenefits that are entirely disproportionate to any benefits their music might provide.

MG

[papsrus]

Not an easy question, but if the music can be experienced as something that takes place or was created in a larger social context -- whether it gives voice to the oppressed or oppressor -- that might add interest for the dispassionate listener, rather than detract from the music. Though I'm far from an expert, Wagner comes immediately to mind. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about the social and political context of his music).

And the personal failings of individuals, whether they be musicians or not, might not necessarily detract from the other things in their lives (their music, in the case of musicians). It's difficult to judge the personal demons of someone else, particularly through the prism of pop culture or mass media.

In the end, I suppose I tend to separate the music from the musician, the artwork from the artist. Although the back stories are intriguing and morally complex, they tend not to influence my enjoyment of the music.

Edited June 15, 2008 by papsrus

[seeline]

It really is a difficult question.

For me, Miles Davis was the dealbreaker. I found it very hard to listen to his music while he was still living, due to 2 things -

1. his long history of domestic violence

2. the unqualified adulation that he received from so many jazz fans (regardless of whether they knew about his abuse of women or not).

After he died, I found myself wanting to listen to a lot of his work - for me, the ghost had been laid to rest, but I suspect that might not be true if I had experienced domestic violence myself. Even now, there's that shadow in the back of my mind, along with the awareness that he did copyright some other peoples' compositions under his own name, etc. etc.

I have little sympathy or tolerance for him as a person, but I do like a lot of his music. The thing is - his tender interpretations of many ballads can make me cringe a bit at times.

I guess some of the more prominent artists who were Nazi collaborators strike me in much the same way.

And so on...

Though I'm far from an expert, Wagner comes immediately to mind. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about the social and political context of his music).

No, you're absolutely right. I once tried to read his Judaism in Music and after scanning the opening graphs, threw the book across the room, hard. (I've put the link here so that you can get a sense of how truly awful he could be.)

But yet, I have this strong bent toward the kinds of German Romanticism (in painting, movies and books) that were later taken over and exploited by the Nazis... so I'm in conflict, too. I guess the bottom line is that the stuff prior to Nazi influence was OK in and of itself, but what they did with it is another thing entirely.

Edited to add: I have no desire to listen to Art Pepper, or Chet Baker, or Frank Sinatra - but Bird and Bill Evans and a slew of other people who did questionable things don't bother me. Maybe it's because Pepper wrote that book...

Edited June 15, 2008 by seeline

[seeline]

There’s an argument that the work a musician does is separate from him himself and that, no matter how bad a person may be, that work can stand by itself. Although I can understand that view, it’s not one I share.

The case of the Mandinke big bands from Guinea is rather different. They were required by President Sekou Toure to update the traditional music of the Mandinke by bringing in modern instruments. And Toure created a nationwide system of competitions and government sponsorship for the bands. The best bands became salaried civil servants, their instruments, uniforms and transport provided. In return, they were expected, as traditional musicians there have always been expected, to support the government through their music. (But the role of support traditionally also included rebuke and satire when their aristocratic patrons were seen to be wrong.) In point of fact, Sekou Toure was using this music system to bolster his scheme of ensuring that the Mandinke were the ethnic group on top of things in Guinea. It seems clear that the musicians knew this was going on. (But it was going on, and is still going on, throughout Africa, so how much can be expected of people?)

The Toure regime became very unpopular and, towards the end, was virtually at war with the people. Political opponents were imprisoned and subjected to the Toure special diet – no food, no water. It is NOT clear that most of the musicians were aware of this, though Miriam Makeba seems to have been. Politically much better connected, she stopped recording for the government record company and resigned her position as roving ambassador.

The music is great and, as you see, I kind of make excuses for the musicians. It does worry me, though.

This is a really tough one, too - and I have to admit to having very mixed feelings about artists who persist in praising Toure. (Salif Keita still performs "Mandjou," which is about Toure, even though most of his friends and colleagues feel diffferently...)

Recently I've found myself struggling with this once more, due to the fact that i'm taking lessons in Guinea-style percussion (djembe/dundun ensemble). Some of the Guinean teachers who've emigrated to the US and Europe are still heaping adulation on him for founding national folkloric dance/drum ensembles during the early part of his regime. They never seem to mention why they - or their friends and families - had cause to leave Guinea, or when.

I think Miriam Makeba got disgusted with Toure, but her ex (Stokeley Carmichael) was very cozy with him, as far as I've read, anyway....

Edited June 15, 2008 by seeline

[JSngry]

Not difficult at all, really. Truth And Beauty are qualities. People are merely (among) the vessels that deliver them. Just like a really ugly vase can hold some beautiful flowers, and vice-versa. And what might it mean if the same hand that created the vase also is that which filled it with weeds?

Maybe it don't mean shit except that, hey, there it is.

And shit, by the way, makes for excellent fertilizer.

And so it goes.

[JSngry]

And as for Turk Mauro, a fellow for whose playing considerations of Truth And Beauty might be a little...."lofty", hey, he's a fucked-up dude who's a good tenor player.

Happens all the time, in all walks of life.

[Tom Storer]

I do agree with much of what you say, Tom, but I think it's this bit

The good--artistic beauty in this case--is what we need and should value in this world,

that I don't agree with. It seems to treat all these things as being of equal weight. I think we place far too much emphasis on artistic beauty - much more than it's really worth in society. The social benefits that musicians are supposed to provide for society are important but, it seems to me, only in terms of supporting other, more vital, facets of society, such as community unity of purpose, catharsis etc. All this stuff like aesthetics has, I feel, been made up as a result of the dominance of societies almost everywhere in the world by ruling classes, in order to bolster their sense of self-importance and their superiority over those ruled.

So I feel that people who are violent or criminal provide social disbenefits that are entirely disproportionate to any benefits their music might provide.

But I'm not talking about what art is "worth in society." That emphasis, and the implication of the phrase "the social benefits that musicians are supposed to provide for society" (supposed by whom?) is what leads, at its logical conclusion, to government-enforced "socialist realism," etc. Are artists motivated by "providing social benefits"? Not always, that's for sure. I'm not sure how to reconcile the notion that "stuff like aesthetics" is a ruling-class plot with the superb aesthetic mastery of so many artists who are not members of the ruling class--or rather, whose membership or non-membership in the ruling class does not determine their talent.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Tom Storer

[A Lark Ascending]

Taking up the side-shoot...

I think we place far too much emphasis on artistic beauty - much more than it's really worth in society. The social benefits that musicians are supposed to provide for society are important but, it seems to me, only in terms of supporting other, more vital, facets of society, such as community unity of purpose, catharsis etc. All this stuff like aesthetics has, I feel, been made up as a result of the dominance of societies almost everywhere in the world by ruling classes, in order to bolster their sense of self-importance and their superiority over those ruled.

This is how I see it too.

I wonder if there might be a cross-Atlantic divide here. Over the years I've noticed that it's American posters who are more likely to make statements about the importance of 'art', more likely to differentiate between art and not art. I wonder if this is because we've had centuries of it in Europe and have just got jaded. Whereas 'art' recognised internationally as distinctive is hardly a century old in the States.

Or maybe it is just so associated with the upper classes in Europe (or at least Britain which has a deeply rooted suspicion of intellectualism outside those classes). The main promotional bodies here are still dominated by that social elite.

There's a book by John Carey called 'The Intellectuals and the Masses, 1880-1939' that puts a very convincing case (to me at least) that much of modernism was a deliberate attempt to put a distance between the elite and the masses at a time when mass education threatened to see the masses catch up. By creating 'art' that was deliberately obscure they could still retain their sense of superiority. I've not read the book but the TV programme a year or so back certainly played to my prejudices.

There's a synopsis here:

http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2005/...and-masses.html

Quite a few of the early 20thC literary giants come across as people with extremely unpleasant political and social ideas. D.H. Lawrence in a 1908 letter about the old, sick and suffering - ‘If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace’ (which returns to the main theme of the thread).

Edited June 15, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[seeline]

I think there's a big divide here between "art" and what's perceived to be popular or mass culture.

And even though we've never had the kind of class system you've fought against, the arts are associated with wealthy people here, too... with those who have enough money to be patrons.

I doubt most blue-collar workers here in the States would see themselves attending ballet or opera performances. That said, ticket prices are horrendously high, and few can afford them.

The arts are great, and "art" is wonderful - for those who have the money.

Sometimes the breakdown goes like this:

1. Free performance

2. Must drive in due to interminable wait for subway/Metro + parking fees and fare

3. The parking garage fee for a gig starts at 15.00 and can go higher

4. I might have to take a shuttle from garage to, say, the Kennedy Center

5. I go to pick up my ticket and pay additional box office fees

- Even if the show is free (and many are), I've still spent something in the neighborhood of 30-50 USD for all of the above for just one gig.

And that's no bargain!

Edited June 15, 2008 by seeline

[A Lark Ascending]

And even though we've never had the kind of class system you've fought against

I think you'll find in Britain that even the middle classes have little interest in 'the arts' in the intellectual sense. One interesting change in the last ten years or so is that government ministers are more likely to seek photo opportunities at a football match than in an opera house. Given that elections are won and lost capturing the middle class vote, this seems to reflect the level of interest between the 'arts' and sport. The massive spending and attention devoted to the 2012 Olympics has no comparison in the fields of music, painting etc.

You won't find many voices in the UK speaking out for the centrality of 'the arts'.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Taking up the side-shoot...

I think we place far too much emphasis on artistic beauty - much more than it's really worth in society. The social benefits that musicians are supposed to provide for society are important but, it seems to me, only in terms of supporting other, more vital, facets of society, such as community unity of purpose, catharsis etc. All this stuff like aesthetics has, I feel, been made up as a result of the dominance of societies almost everywhere in the world by ruling classes, in order to bolster their sense of self-importance and their superiority over those ruled.

This is how I see it too.

I wonder if there might be a cross-Atlantic divide here. Over the years I've noticed that it's American posters who are more likely to make statements about the importance of 'art', more likely to differentiate between art and not art. I wonder if this is because we've had centuries of it in Europe and have just got jaded. Whereas 'art' recognised internationally as distinctive is hardly a century old in the States.

Or maybe it is just so associated with the upper classes in Europe (or at least Britain which has a deeply rooted suspicion of intellectualism outside those classes). The main promotional bodies here are still dominated by that social elite.

There's a book by John Carey called 'The Intellectuals and the Masses, 1880-1939' that puts a very convincing case (to me at least) that much of modernism was a deliberate attempt to put a distance between the elite and the masses at a time when mass education threatened to see the masses catch up. By creating 'art' that was deliberately obscure they could still retain their sense of superiority. I've not read the book but the TV programme a year or so back certainly played to my prejudices.

There's a synopsis here:

http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2005/...and-masses.html

Quite a few of the early 20thC literary giants come across as people with extremely unpleasant political and social ideas. D.H. Lawrence in a 1908 letter about the old, sick and suffering - ‘If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace’ (which returns to the main theme of the thread).

Thanks Bev, that looks like a very interesting book. Must get the local library on to it.

I used to go for all that stuff in the sixties (even Wyndham Lewis) but by the late sixties/early seventies I was definitely of the view that material produced for entertainment was of much greater value; in a different frame, that cowboy comedy films were more important to society than Ingmar Bergman's. (And yet, of course, we have also seen that the ruling classes can and, increasingly, do use popular culture as a tool for political repression. So it's not all one-sided.)

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

Thanks Bev, that looks like a very interesting book. Must get the local library on to it.

I used to go for all that stuff in the sixties (even Wyndham Lewis) but by the late sixties/early seventies I was definitely of the view that material produced for entertainment was of much greater value; in a different frame, that cowboy comedy films were more important to society than Ingmar Bergman's. (And yet, of course, we have also seen that the ruling classes can and, increasingly, do use popular culture as a tool for political repression. So it's not all one-sided.)

MG

Carey's programme really hit home with me, especially the Arnold Bennett section. I enjoyed a post-war Welfare State education that had been denied my parents and recall being fed these ideas of what was good for me at school. At Uni I had to read a Bennett book ('Anna of the Five Towns') which I thoroughly enjoyed. I then had to sit through a lecture where I was told why I shouldn't have enjoyed it. I started to smell a rat at that point.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Carey's programme really hit home with me, especially the Arnold Bennett section. I enjoyed a post-war Welfare State education that had been denied my parents and recall being fed these ideas of what was good for me at school. At Uni I had to read a Bennett book ('Anna of the Five Towns') which I thoroughly enjoyed. I then had to sit through a lecture where I was told why I shouldn't have enjoyed it. I started to smell a rat at that point.

Yes, you might well. I don't think I had anything so pointed as that at school, though I can't be sure because I routinely ignored most of it. It was just a slow process for me, I think.

MG

[JSngry]

I have as little use for "anti-intellectualism" as I do "intellectualism". Anybody who can seriously claim that there are no such things as "higher qualities" of humanity is just as full of shit as somebody who claims that "they" have an exclusive on same.

[A Lark Ascending]

I have as little use for "anti-intellectualism" as I do "intellectualism". Anybody who can seriously claim that there are no such things as "higher qualities" of humanity is just as full of shit as somebody who claims that "they" have an exclusive on same.

I wouldn't dispute that there are higher qualities - the St. Matthew Passion or Ellington 40s records clearly show people realising the fullest human potential.

It's the game playing that grates - where something that can perfectly convincingly be regarded as an example of high achievement gets rubbished as a way for the rubbisher to claim a higher standard of discrimination.

Music, painting, writing...the lot...exists for me in a sort of three dimensional spectrum. Dividing it into 'art' and 'not art' is purely arbitrary and more to do with tribe forming than anything else.

I've no problem...and I don't think British culture - actually has much problem with intellectualism (using the brain to create, investigate etc)! We're just very guarded when it comes to pseudo-intellectualism. We've grown up with it being used by some to maintain a sense of exclusiveness.

I don’t think Carey is being anti-intellectual. He’s challenging the abuse of intellectualism - the use of the intellect to create an exclusive zone rather than using it for the benefit of the community at large.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes to all that, Bev.

But it's not just "the fullest human potential" in my view. It's "their fullest human potential". Not everyone can be an Ellington. But everyone can give their honest best of themselves. Which is where I run into trouble over the "extra-curricular" stuff. Is a nasty character who can make sublime music being wholly honest?

MG

[Tom Storer]

If a person writes a great fugue or plays a wonderful saxophone solo and murders his grandmother, how can you tell which act is "honest"? Perhaps both are: when he wrote the fugue he was honestly expressing some beautiful emotion, when he murdered his grandmother he was honestly expressing his violent rage. How can you tell where the honesty is in such acts?

Also: why do you assume that nastiness and sublime art are contradictory? Perhaps someone could play a saxophone solo that expresses murderous rage and that impresses fans with its authenticity of feeling and beauty of form.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Tom Storer

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

If a person writes a great fugue or plays a wonderful saxophone solo and murders his grandmother, how can you tell which act is "honest"? Perhaps both are: when he wrote the fugue he was honestly expressing some beautiful emotion, when he murdered his grandmother he was honestly expressing his violent rage. How can you tell where the honesty is in such acts?

Indeed. That was the point of my using Don drummond as an example.

Also: why do you assume that nastiness and sublime art are contradictory? Perhaps someone could play a saxophone solo that expresses murderous rage and that impresses fans with its authenticity of feeling and beauty of form.

Hm...

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

I've found myself in the same situation that MG describes here and there.

If you really like the music you do tend to make excuses but it all has its limits.

I remember Allen Lowe had quite a bit to say about serious flaws in the character of Al Haig (a piano player I appreciate immensely), seemingly following the publication of a biography that gave some "insights" (that's putting it mildly, from what I've read here). It does disturb me too but I find myself making excuses in that most of what I really dig of his music are his 40s/50s recordings so maybe this was well before he developed this "nasty behavior". But am I right in thinking so? Do I want to find out? I don't know (yet).

Similarly, I remember another thread here that focused on the same topic, including one backstage incident involving Dizzy Gillespie who seems to have behaved like a jerk towards Valerie Wilmer (to the point of T-bone Walker knocking him flat). Hard to imagine, but do we know everything that happened? And what else happened?

On the other hand, there have been soooo many detailed accounts of the often downright cheap ways and manners of Benny Goodman (stating with reports on his cheap non-defense of Wardell Gray against racially motivated insults in his c.1951 band playing Vegas, going on with what Terry Gibbs had to say about "The Fog" in his autobiography, and up to the troubling and VERY detailed report of that 1962 Russia tour) that while I have no trouble enjoying his music for what it is I find it very, very hard to stand to see all that hero adulation that is showered upon him. Somebody who treated his fellow human beings like that through, it seems, most of his life just does not qualify for hero worshipping IMHO. A modicum of decency in everyday life is not something that hard to acquire. And if you don't have it, well, your music can still be enjoyed on its own terms, but elevating the PERSON on a pedestal? Nah! This is where I join Seeline in what he had to say about Miles Davis earlier in this thread.

Of course artists are only human too, and none of us are 100% perfect, but being in the limelight (for better or worse) places some kind of obligation on you to either behave at least halfways decently or ignore everything that might be considered "minimum standards of human coexistence" and face the consequences (as quite a few rock "stars" seem all out to do these days, maybe working on the principle that bad publicity is better than no publicity). But a jerk is a jerk, artist or not.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Big Beat Steve]

If a person writes a great fugue or plays a wonderful saxophone solo and murders his grandmother, how can you tell which act is "honest"? Perhaps both are: when he wrote the fugue he was honestly expressing some beautiful emotion, when he murdered his grandmother he was honestly expressing his violent rage. How can you tell where the honesty is in such acts?

Indeed. That was the point of my using Don drummond as an example.

This example IS troubling. I'd use Frank Rosolino as another example. As will be known he ended his days by killing himself after having killed his sons (that is, one died and the other survivied with severe injuries which left him blind). What are we to make of this, seeing that even his peers were unable to figure it out, wondering that something must have been SEVERELY amiss with him for a long time because he had been known as a joker and funny face all his life, but as one musician said, "there must be something deeply wrong if you keep cracking jokes at a rate of about two per minute day in, day out!"

I like his 50s and early 60s work a lot and have not really explored his much later work but admit in view of what happened I have little incentive exploring it deeply because I've asked myself the same question: How should I rate his music in the light of what happened soon after? Did he just play a role? Something must have been wrong for quite some time. While killing oneself is tragic enough (and not something we ought to try to judge), can excuses really be made for killing one's own children? I don't have the answer ...

[JSngry]

I have as little use for "anti-intellectualism" as I do "intellectualism". Anybody who can seriously claim that there are no such things as "higher qualities" of humanity is just as full of shit as somebody who claims that "they" have an exclusive on same.

I wouldn't dispute that there are higher qualities - the St. Matthew Passion or Ellington 40s records clearly show people realising the fullest human potential.

It's the game playing that grates - where something that can perfectly convincingly be regarded as an example of high achievement gets rubbished as a way for the rubbisher to claim a higher standard of discrimination.

Music, painting, writing...the lot...exists for me in a sort of three dimensional spectrum. Dividing it into 'art' and 'not art' is purely arbitrary and more to do with tribe forming than anything else.

I've no problem...and I don't think British culture - actually has much problem with intellectualism (using the brain to create, investigate etc)! We're just very guarded when it comes to pseudo-intellectualism. We've grown up with it being used by some to maintain a sense of exclusiveness.

I don’t think Carey is being anti-intellectual. He’s challenging the abuse of intellectualism - the use of the intellect to create an exclusive zone rather than using it for the benefit of the community at large.

Yes to all that, Bev.

But it's not just "the fullest human potential" in my view. It's "their fullest human potential". Not everyone can be an Ellington. But everyone can give their honest best of themselves. Which is where I run into trouble over the "extra-curricular" stuff. Is a nasty character who can make sublime music being wholly honest?

MG

Well, ok, the "problem" I have with all this is the poo-poo-ing of the notion of "art", which to me is nothing more than creating work which aspires to stimulate those "higher qualities", either in self, community, or, ideally, both. Now, sure, there's been games (mind, spiritual, money, you name it) over the what & whos & "ownerships" of these qualities, but since they have been framed in terms of the word "art", I myself feel both an entitlement and an obligation to hang on to the word on my terms and make it fully and honestly relevant to my world. Otherwise, I fear abandoning the word signals abandoning the concept, and therefore the idea(l), and then what do you have left? What are you signaling to your peers and your offspring, that there is no higher potential, no further possibilities, that imagination and the exhilaration it can produce are essentially elitist constructs of class-based enslavement? WTF kind of responsible role-modeling/guardianship is that?

No, the problem is not with "art" itself, it is how the notion has been used as a weapon. If y'all can come up with another, less..."tainted" word that doesn't sound like some sillyass wounded inner child psychobabble, hey, I'll go along, I guess. No, I take it back, I won't. The notion itself of "art" is quite fine, thank you, and it belongs to everybody, in what it is, how it can be made/found, and what it can inspire & stimulate. To argue against "art" because of the misuse to which it has been put is akin to arguing that since restricted voting rights were historically used to enslave and/or limit the potentials of people of color and women, that voting should be done away with altogether. Nonsense! The best weapon against elitism, the one that most effectively erases its vestiges is not destroying that which elitism seeks to keep for itself, it is to open the eyes of those to whom that thing has been denied/discouraged that it is every bit as much "theirs" as it is anybody else's, not just in terms of "entitlement" but also, especially, in terms of "source". I mean, hell, my Cut Of The Week was a freakin' Supremes record, for cryin' out loud. Hardly an "approved" source of "art", but damned if what that record stirred in me didn't have me thinking, reaching, living higher for a little bit. Anybody tells me that I'm wrong for that, hey, fuck'em. It's my "art" for that moment at that time, and damned if anybody else has the authority to proclaim otherwise.

And no, I don't think that people should be encouraged to "stay native" in where they go for art. That's enslavement of a different kind. But definitely start native, and add on from there if that's how it rolls for you. It's a big beautiful world, and it's an old one and a new one simultaneously. Plenty to be had at plenty of locations.

The biggest overall problem I see in the world today is a loss of optimism/vision/hope/whatever amongst "the masses". Sending out the message that things designed with "elevation" at their core are self-absorbed vanities, and that the seeking out of same is an elitist fallacy do nothing towards bettering this condition, and are every bit as harmful as those who actually do practice/espouse the elitism. Denigrating the language risks denigrating the concept itself, eventually destroying it,and the destruction of the concept of Truth And Beauty And Higher Potential most assuredly does not produce a world that reflects humanity's higher potentials. Agreed?

I mean, France is a beautiful country, but what was the goal when it was occupied by the Nazis, the destruction of the country or the ouster of those who held it captive?