#ryan mullen

[mont-ventoux]

some of my favourite photos of the season

bart lemmen, tour de france stage 20 // the velodrome, paris-roubaix // gianni vermeersch, tour de france stage 21 // stefan küng, paris-roubaix // mathieu van der poel, paris-roubaix // the peloton, ridelondon classique stage 3 // remco evenepoel, tour de france stage 21 // felix gall, tour de france stage 20 // ryan mullen, paris-roubaix // dušan rajović, paris-roubaix

[marcelskittels]

x

[marcelskittels]

Sam Bennett & Ryan Mullen ‹ Team Presentation - La Vuelta Holanda › 🎥 via tessadebergh & 📸 via joliendekoninck

[inrng]

Photo: A.S.O./Fabien Boukla

[digitalies]

The Begining of the End of Music as Art

Ok for those of you know me personally or notice my tweets about music you know how I feel about music. For those of you who are not aware. Hi I’m Ryan I like music.

Ok a few of the points that will be raised have been brewing for a little while and arose even more when I began critically studying music. I devised a research proposal into the effects the internet model is having on how music is being consumed and how this is effecting the industry and subsequently the artist. For now I will start at the basis of my thinking.

If you look at the work of Frankfurt School intellectual Theodore Adorno when talking about music he stated that it can be spilt into two groups: popular music and serious music. Popular music for Adorno is standardized. It has key characteristics that make it easy to absorb for the listener. Even the dirty notes or blues guitar riff that makes it sound unstandardized is there for that specific reason therefore reinforcing the standardization.  For Adorno the popular music of his time was generic and had no artistic credibility.

The serious music that he spoke about was music that totally embraces the detail like Beethoven’s 5th and 7th symphonies and must be consumed as a whole. Adorno’s Frankfurt School peer Walter Benjamin wrote “masses want distraction where art demands attention”. So serious music must be consumed in its entirety while paying undisturbed attention to its detail whereas popular music is merely for distraction/entertainment and not to be taken at all seriously or reflected upon like a serious piece of art.

So these points were raised when Adorno was devising his aesthetics of music/art/culture back in Nazi Germany. So pop music has certainly come a long way since then and how it is now perceived. Pop music in the 60’s moved away from being a social phenomenon into being an authentic piece of art. Musicians were seen as artists and their music right down to the album cover as art and the last thing anybody wanted to been seeing as doing was “selling out” because that’s not what artists do. That would highlight what the “artist” is really doing which is selling a commodity for mass organisation.

A true artist performs/creates his art because it is part of who they are. They don’t know why they do it they just do. Being an artist is not something that can be faked (or is it?). Roland Barthes coined the term “the grain in their voice” to define the sound of an authentic voice (sound). Now authenticity has nothing to do with pitch, scale, notes or tone (like Adorno’s serious music) and is something truly unique to that person and it cannot be faked. It is the very essence of that persons being and has nothing to do with money or appreciation. It is self-fulfilment.

So my view when looking at music is close to that of Adorno which is that music can be separated into two categories but not into popular music and serious music as Adorno suggested. Music for me can be split into two categories artistic and commodity. The artistic music is close in appreciation to the music that Adorno classifies as “serious” it demands attention like Benjamin states but not in the appreciation of it’s notes or tones or scale or chords but in the grain of its voice, the true essence of its sound. Artistic music can be of any genre and even popular and sold as a commodity but commodity music can never be artistic because of the nature of its creation. To be sold!

Commodity music for me is a combination of what Adorno seen as serious and popular, serious in terms that the notes, pitch, scales etc. may well be perfect but there is no grain in the voice of the music (like Barthes stated) and popular in the sense that it is produced for mass appeal. The music is standardized even if it has been strategically bastardized, the music is created not as art but as a commodity faults and all. The notes regardless of how perfect and complex that even Adorno would have classified as serious cannot be called art if created to be sold as a commodity.

The problem with this theory is who determines what is artistic music and what is commodity? As with all quests for authenticity I agree with critic Nat Hentoff that the authenticity of music/art/life/culture is in the ear/eyes/heart of the beholder. Nobody can tell you what is authentic especially when it comes to music. They can try and that’s what the music industry did from let’s say at least the emergence of the pop charts in the 1950s. They used a variety of different marketing, images, gimmicks, P.R, reviews in order for the listener to believe that that music was authentic the person who created/sings that song is an artist.

In the 1960’s as pop music became art did it do so because of the standard of music increased, cultural changes at the time or was it a very clever marketing by the record industry to convince music  listeners that music is more than a mere commodity it is art and is a way of life.

Fast forward to today music in my opinion the vast majority cannot be considered artistic music. About 95% of the music today especially that which gets mass exposure cannot be considered to be art. The real question is why? In the day of the internet and freedom of expression where any person with access to a computer record there music and distribute it around the world for free, so why is there so much music that sounds like clichéd commodity music when the music is being made by individuals free form the influence and pressure of record executives?

The internet should be freeing artist not enslaving them. The answer could be because now that everyone has the ability to record produce and distribute their music the market is now flooded with commodity music and the real artistic music has to fight twice as hard to be heard. But once the artistic music crosses the boundary of existing as a piece of art created in its own time and space into the world of need it can no ling be considered as art. Art does not beg to be heard. It demands attention from those who seek it. It is there to be sought after but never to seek praise. So in essence there may be even more artistic music being created but it can never be artistic music because the artist needs it to be heard.

The reason I started this blog on in the first place was because of the recent marketing stunt by English indie pop/rock band the Kaiser Chiefs. They have created 20 songs put them on line and the fan can then pick any ten design the album cover and therefore have created their own Kaiser Chiefs album which they have to pay £7.50 to download and when they do the album they created will be available for other consumers to buy and the creator will receive a £1 for each album sold. If the Kaiser Chiefs have put that much thought and effort into how to sell their music I can only imagine how much effort and thought they put into making their music sellable.

As a lover of marketing/P.R/advertising myself I thought this was a fantastic concept. The thinking behind it is incredible, everything about it is great from a marketing point of view. It is a fantastic innovative way to sell a commodity using new media. Well done marketing team, Job Done! I won’t go into the internet distribution model and the effects free music is having on music purchasing. You can read my essay “The future of the music distribution model” on this blog if you want more information/.

My problem lies with is this really the future of the music industry. I raised the point earlier about the transition of music being seen as a commodity/fad to a piece of art. That trend now seems to have we now gone full circle where the “artist” is very open that there music is there to be sold and for no other reason. The Kaiser Chiefs album can never be called art because in a sense they have not really created anything. They have not created an album and stood by and said yep this is ours take it or leave it. The only art that can be associated with this is the art of marketing/selling. The marketing team are the only true artists in this equation.

So now in the days where it is cliché to say “they have sold out” is it acceptable to just be honest and say yep we are selling this music, this is our job it is not art it is just a commodity. I understand what they are trying to do, which is engage with their consumer. Which I agree in today’s market is needed. When music is free to almost everybody with internet access how to you get consumers to spend their money. Well if this was there answer. I am certainly not buying into it. Maybe I’m an idealist but I always thought music was just so much purer.

[digitalies]

Kelvin

[digitalies]

Propaganda

[digitalies]

Landan!