Before there was pop music and before there was even harmony, music was entirely mathematical. For the first hundred or so years of music, artistry and ingenuity meant next to nothing to composers. The priority of the day was, first and foremost, the numerical structure of a piece's progression. The 'rules of music' were seen as gifts from God, and seeing as the only people who could read or write music were members of the clergy, very little deviation was allowed or even considered. The intense neurological effects of musical cadences were (like many things at the time) attributed mainly to the majesty and beauty of God's universe, and (for a little while) music was simply a tool of praise. And even after music became more secular, a similar attitude remained; it isn't what you play, its how closely you stick to the rules.
Thankfully, over time this outlook dissipated. Throughout the Baroque and Classical eras, the rules of tonality and music began to expand - and as such, dilute. By the Romantic era, adherence to music's basic principals was no longer a concern. Composers embraced the artistic and emotional aspects of their art, writing pieces that resolved to irregular cadences and inventing new techniques (secondary dominance, Neapolitan chords, et al) to satisfy their desires to make music as pleasing to the ear and to the heart as possible.
What's more, by the turn of the century, many composers rejected tonality altogether - these early 20th century writers embraced the Avant-garde, and with it, dissonance. From that point, music become wholly an art form. John Cage and a few Polish and French composers (Penderecki, Messiaen, to name a few) began experimenting with Serialism, 'texturing' their instruments, and other really out there techniques. Music, it seemed, had come full circle - from championing the order of tonality to flat out rejecting it.
But then, rock n' roll happened, and the world of music started all over.
Abandoning almost everything of its jazz roots, rock music was inordinately simple - just as the extremely alienating music of the early 20th century borrowed thematically from Anarchy, rock n roll was wholeheartedly populist. It offered to its listener a directly understandable, processable product that anyone could understand. It was only proper, then, that rock music of the time offered little lyrical depth.
And let's not forget that rock n roll's first wave of popularity (the 1950s) marked (in America, anyway) a sharp increase in attention by corporations towards the teenager. The teenager is easily swayable, self serious, and entirely shallow. It was easy for the music business to pick up on upcoming trends within this demographic, and capitalize for a big buck. The music which became popular reflected the stereotypes of its market audience - shallow, vapid, fun to dance to but lacking of any artistry or sincerity.
And then, three things happened that had extensive and direct roles in the subject of this essay, all of which were directly related.
1) The 1960s happened
The 60s marked intense social change across the world. The stereotyped pop songs of the 50s were no longer successful, as the teens of the world became more diverse, opinionated, and involved in scenes both musical and otherwise that the corporate world was unable to keep up.
2) Bob Dylan happened
Bob Dylan was the first real and recognizable artist in pop music. He wrote songs with real depth, with social and political ramifications unheard of in pop. Dylan's music referenced blues and country, yet sounded fresh and new.
and 3) The Velvet Underground happened
These folks were the start of it all. (Well, them and The Fugs, actually.) The Velvet Underground embraced the Advant-Garde, and were one of the first bands EVER to incorporate that beautiful, horrifying technique into pop.
The technique I'm talking about is, of course, dissonance; when a musician plays two tones together that startle our brain - when notes that conventionally don't belong together are made to sound with one another, held together to create intense waves of tension, repulsion. Exposure to this sort of music leads the mind to an inescapable conclusion; that nothing can be taken for granted. That every rule it's ever been taught can be reversed - can be obliterated, ignored, and replaced. In the Velvet Underground's debut album, this technique was first introduced to the world; with it, the seeds for Punk were lain.
It's not pretty - it's anti-beauty, if anything. It doesn't resolve, it doesn't lend the ear peace of mind and clarity, or calm (as music was expected to do for several thousand years). It doesn't affirm God's beauty or majesty, or validate any pretense of conventionality. It undermines all of those things. When generated by a feedbacking guitar, it undermines the conventionality of rock music, as well. Dissonance knows no rules or boundaries - it is pure unmitigated anarchy. With its ear shattering volume and intensity, dissonant music (noise rock and its various cousins) drives a stake into the heart of all things pedestrian and ordinary.
And what, I ask, could be more artistic than that?
i have to disagree with what you said about 50s rock and roll and being marketed toward teens. yes, that did happen but that only really surfaced when rock and roll shifted to white culture. at first, it was an expression of black frustration, pulling lots of elements from jazz and R&B (although one can argue that R&B came after rock), channeled toward whoever would listen. when elvis entered the picture, that's when we experienced a huge target shift. suddenly, rock wasn't "negro music." it was popular music. sure, you can argue that 50s rock and roll was shallow etc. etc. but for the first half of the 60s it was shallow too. even the beatles sucked for a while.
ReplyDeletebut if what you want to discuss is "ugliness," then yes, 50s rock was entirely bland. that's because the subject of ugliness hadn't been breached yet and it wasn't until you so correctly concluded that bob dylan gave ugly a place in music (or at least his voice did).
i'm gonna stop talking now.