After his lecture on Montesquieu, a professor at Hillsdale College posed the belief of Montesuieu's that the aristocracy is a bastion of culture- and that with commercialism, the aristocracy disappears along with its "high culture." He pointed to modern entertainment, with television as an example, to show that a wealthy society always tends toward a culture of volgarity, profanity and general immorality. One brave soul pointed to the welfare state for aiding in the destruction of family, but the professor placed more blame on a lack of "aristocratic literature," and thus the progress of society.
So what is to blame for the vulgar culture we live in today- assuming it is vulgar? Is it wealth? Is it progress? Is it the welfare state? Or a combination of factors?
Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly. -Ludwig von Mises
I highly recommend the lecture series by Paul Cantor for insights into this subject: Commerce and Culture. IIRC he concludes that aristocratic patronage of the arts is preferable to state subsidies, but that free mass markets are best of all.
Truth and Liberty
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Dondoolee:This perception is probably a myth. It is much easier for the common person to have access to the high brow than it was a century ago. I would also wager there is a greater number of people per capita who appreciate higher browed things, I unfortunately know of no study to back that statement up though.
I agree with you here. I am actually in the music business, I manage a few music venues in Brooklyn, the mear number of acts and types of music that I deal with on a day to day basis still astonishes me. There are so many folks making a living at this and creating music that appeals to them. You hear some of it on select radio stations (NPR, Satellite) but for the most part they remain underground.. yet I see people show up in droves willing to purchase a $20 dollar ticket and drink $6 beers just to see this band.
The market has allowed this to exist, In a big city like New York, or London, or even smaller niche markets like New Orleans, there are endless amount of culture. With the internet the possibilities are limitless, pick something you like and I bet there is an entire sub-culture dedicated to just that. I just don't even understand how you can define culture like this anymore, its too limited, there is so much going on out there its mind boggling.
Heres an example, this is what the three establishments I work for have on tap in the next 24-48 hours: I have a big brass band playing, later there is a sort of goth burlesque show, then there is a band from Sweden and a band from the UK playing. ANother venue I work with is celebrating Oktoberfest with steins et all, then the following morning will have the british soccer games on with fan clubs for each team showing up to support. Not to mention a rockabilly bbq later in the day on, on top of all that there is about 3-4 local brooklyn bands playing shows... I mean this is 2 square miles of brooklyn between 3 establishments and its impressive no?
I don't know if any of this qualifies as "high brow" but it certainly doesnt seem vulgar to me (with the exception of maybe the burlesque show!) The point is how easily accesible it all is.
Solarist: Dondoolee:This perception is probably a myth. It is much easier for the common person to have access to the high brow than it was a century ago. I would also wager there is a greater number of people per capita who appreciate higher browed things, I unfortunately know of no study to back that statement up though. I agree with you here. I am actually in the music business, I manage a few music venues in Brooklyn, the mear number of acts and types of music that I deal with on a day to day basis still astonishes me. There are so many folks making a living at this and creating music that appeals to them. You hear some of it on select radio stations (NPR, Satellite) but for the most part they remain underground.. yet I see people show up in droves willing to purchase a $20 dollar ticket and drink $6 beers just to see this band. The market has allowed this to exist, In a big city like New York, or London, or even smaller niche markets like New Orleans, there are endless amount of culture. With the internet the possibilities are limitless, pick something you like and I bet there is an entire sub-culture dedicated to just that. I just don't even understand how you can define culture like this anymore, its too limited, there is so much going on out there its mind boggling. Heres an example, this is what the three establishments I work for have on tap in the next 24-48 hours: I have a big brass band playing, later there is a sort of goth burlesque show, then there is a band from Sweden and a band from the UK playing. ANother venue I work with is celebrating Oktoberfest with steins et all, then the following morning will have the british soccer games on with fan clubs for each team showing up to support. Not to mention a rockabilly bbq later in the day on, on top of all that there is about 3-4 local brooklyn bands playing shows... I mean this is 2 square miles of brooklyn between 3 establishments and its impressive no? I don't know if any of this qualifies as "high brow" but it certainly doesnt seem vulgar to me (with the exception of maybe the burlesque show!) The point is how easily accesible it all is.
Good points on music. I actually am part of the underground music scene, the sad thing is most musician's are still hopelessly anti-free market even though they tend to stand for everything a free market is for by the way they carry about their business and practicle philosophy. That goes to show how deep the propaganda of socialism is within the art scene.
While I don't think I would consider the vast majority of underground music "high brow", it is certainly a hundred steps above the mainstream. Of the people I know some may be somewhat familiar with Jazz but they tend to have little interest and a lack of knowledege in more composed pieces from European schools of thought. I think it would be a fascinating study to show the rise of more independant music in culture with a free market perspective. On the other hand, classical music has become more subsidised and more government dependant, that may be an interesting study as well.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Dondoolee: I think it would be a fascinating study to show the rise of more independant music in culture with a free market perspective
I've thought about this, but I'm not sure how interesting it might be from a free market perspective. My consumption of music and activity on various torrent sites dropped considerably about two years ago (anybody guess what this coincides with?) so I don't really know much about the rise of indepedant music. But I just see it as filling a niche than mainstream music hasn't, just like one gets various hip coffee shops that that fill a niche (somebody bad analogy, but there you go).
Although, I wonder if on the one hand IP laws don't unintentionally give an advantage to small independant music producers.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I am a composer and musicologist, so this is a subject that I care deeply about.
In a capitalist system the market will supply what is demanded by the consumer. Those who do not produce what is readily demanded by the masses will be marginalized, if not removed from business. This is the fundamental nature of the market, and of profit and loss. So once we determine that the tastes of the masses are not compatible with some desired cultural plateau, we can very well assume that our desired level of culture will not be reached outside of a fundamental shift in consumer demand.
I would contend, based upon my own observations, that the shift towards understanding music will never occur within a majority of humanity. This is for two reasons:
1) The majority of people are not directly concerned with the properties of music. The masses don't care whether you play a flatted fifth or parallel elevenths.
2) Those not interested in music for it's own sake - rely heavily on rhythm as the driving factor in music. Whereas classical and jazz composers realized that harmony and tonality are as fundamental, if not more demanding, to the various facets of music.
----
It is in this way that musical reverts like Chuck Berry and the plethora of 'culturally significant' rock bands did nothing to further music but supplied the demands of the consumer (the 'riff' from Johnny B. Goode was nothing new or exciting to jazz musicians - there is only so much you can do with only basic triads and a single five note scale) - whereas Shostakovitch worked to further voice leading as a integral part of the expansion of harmonic intervals but is not known at all outside of a relatively small number.
The general culture is what the majority demand, which is a good thing. But we can in no way equate popularity with advancement. I would also like to second Fred by restating that "musicians usually find a way to flourish either because, or in spite of state sponsorship or censorship." But, I would like to add that musicians also find a way to flourish in spite of the masses, not because of them.
Thanks everybody. I was against the aristocratic argument to begin with, but now i feel better about the position. In no way did I intend to smear the professor nor Hillsdale College- they hold Ludwig von Mises' entire library collection and have very intelligent Austrian economics professors. I think the original point was that without a "cultured aritsocracy," no more "high culture" could be produced or written or played, etc. Someone countered that this "high culture" was purely subject, but then that brought us to the whole moral relativism realm. It just seems hard to believe that Harry Potter or Bart Simpson could become classics someday... again, subjectivity...
JackSkylark: I am a composer and musicologist, so this is a subject that I care deeply about. In a capitalist system the market will supply what is demanded by the consumer. Those who do not produce what is readily demanded by the masses will be marginalized, if not removed from business. This is the fundamental nature of the market, and of profit and loss. So once we determine that the tastes of the masses are not compatible with some desired cultural plateau, we can very well assume that our desired level of culture will not be reached outside of a fundamental shift in consumer demand. I would contend, based upon my own observations, that the shift towards understanding music will never occur within a majority of humanity. This is for two reasons: 1) The majority of people are not directly concerned with the properties of music. The masses don't care whether you play a flatted fifth or parallel elevenths. 2) Those not interested in music for it's own sake - rely heavily on rhythm as the driving factor in music. Whereas classical and jazz composers realized that harmony and tonality are as fundamental, if not more demanding, to the various facets of music. ---- It is in this way that musical reverts like Chuck Berry and the plethora of 'culturally significant' rock bands did nothing to further music but supplied the demands of the consumer (the 'riff' from Johnny B. Goode was nothing new or exciting to jazz musicians - there is only so much you can do with only basic triads and a single five note scale) - whereas Shostakovitch worked to further voice leading as a integral part of the expansion of harmonic intervals but is not known at all outside of a relatively small number. The general culture is what the majority demand, which is a good thing. But we can in no way equate popularity with advancement. I would also like to second Fred by restating that "musicians usually find a way to flourish either because, or in spite of state sponsorship or censorship." But, I would like to add that musicians also find a way to flourish in spite of the masses, not because of them.
The thing is that music goes beyond music. And I wouldnt say that the masses are always against innovation. Beatles and Led Zeppelin were bands that innovated a lot on the recording techniques and managed to be extremely popular (Jimmy Page is an awesome producer, listen to how incredible Bonham drums sound in The Levee's Gonna Break). And there is always the human factor, I cant imagine a person not enjoying the melody of Hide Your Love Away or Black Bird, and they are both quite simple.
And Im quite grateful that we dont care if the song has a "flatted fifth or parallel elevenths". Oh, and I play bass (badly) and enjoy some musical theory, but in the end we all know that what matters is to music...sound musical! I can enjoy Chromatic Fantasy by Jaco Pastorius, but in the end of the way, is the London Calling bassline that hooks me.
And lyrics wise, the last 50 years have been quite great I dare say. Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Bossa Nova...all of them packed with high quality poetry.
GilesStratton: Dondoolee: I think it would be a fascinating study to show the rise of more independant music in culture with a free market perspective I've thought about this, but I'm not sure how interesting it might be from a free market perspective. My consumption of music and activity on various torrent sites dropped considerably about two years ago (anybody guess what this coincides with?) so I don't really know much about the rise of indepedant music. But I just see it as filling a niche than mainstream music hasn't, just like one gets various hip coffee shops that that fill a niche (somebody bad analogy, but there you go). Although, I wonder if on the one hand IP laws don't unintentionally give an advantage to small independant music producers.
I think in regards to the options musicians and music consumers have had throughout the decades in correlation with more open markets and more accumulated wealth would be interesting to look at. I can say with almost certainty it is much easier in almost every way for your generic garage rock band today than it would have been 10 yrs ago. It is also easier for your average consumer to be exposed to a wider variety of music than 10 yrs ago. I would wager that the options to consumers has had a somewhat of a measurable impact.
But I just see it as filling a niche than mainstream music hasn't, just like one gets various hip coffee shops that that fill a niche
Of course this is true. I think the artist or connoisseur should expect this, I don't know what else they could reasonably expect. It would be the same with food, wine, or anything in the market for that matter.
I can't think how IP favors smaller independent labels off the top of my head, you would have to elaborate or link an article to me on this.
Other things of interest to me when thinking about music and markets
1) The number of active classical musicians and composers now vs then (it is obviously way more now, but there may be a sophisticated way to measure the growth rate and see how it compares to more popular forms of music)
2) How subsidies have effected classical music vs more open marketed folk/pop music.
3) The number of people interested and exposed to classical music or jazz now vs then
These are purposefully extraordinarily basic and broad thoughts, as I have not yet thought about this with any seriousness.
Why I find this so interesting is due to artists usually irreconcilably hostile attitude towards markets
Dondoolee: Why I find this so interesting is due to artists usually irreconcilably hostile attitude towards markets
They hate markets because they are too useless to be anything more than janitors in it.
I find adulation of the Victorian-era "aristocracy" disgusting. It reeks of elitism and hatred of the poor. "Aristocracy" can only exist with colonialism and chattel slavery to feed the masters' gullets.
To answer your question about what causes "vulgar culture", I would argue that rather than the lack of "aristocratic literature", it is the lack of the Christian religion, particularly the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Most of Europe's brightest minds were Christian. When Christian morality is thrown out the window, there is plenty of vices and sins that can fill the void. That is why the divorce rate is as high as it is, the illegitimacy rate is as high as it is, the crime rate is as high as it is....
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Caley McKibbin: Dondoolee: Why I find this so interesting is due to artists usually irreconcilably hostile attitude towards markets They hate markets because they are too useless to be anything more than janitors in it.
Umm, what?
ama gi: I find adulation of the Victorian-era "aristocracy" disgusting. It reeks of elitism and hatred of the poor. "Aristocracy" can only exist with colonialism and chattel slavery to feed the masters' gullets. To answer your question about what causes "vulgar culture", I would argue that rather than the lack of "aristocratic literature", it is the lack of the Christian religion, particularly the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Most of Europe's brightest minds were Christian. When Christian morality is thrown out the window, there is plenty of vices and sins that can fill the void. That is why the divorce rate is as high as it is, the illegitimacy rate is as high as it is, the crime rate is as high as it is....
Well, I am not sure about the divorce rate, but I am sure that the crime rate is as high as it is on purpose. Mind you that 60% of all inhabitants of prisons are sentenced for a drug crime -this does not include drug related crimes like theft robbery etc to get drugs. The crime rate is high because the state criminalizes victimless crimes, and, to be sure, because high crime rates cater to a big industry.
I mentioned Plato in this thread already. He was no christian but he used the same argument of deminishing mores against the "vulgarities" of the greek drama, which we today adore as the ultimate artist expression and not as vulgar at all.
Art seems to be a bit like old cheese. You have to have it ripen for a long time to make it real tasty for the gourmets. The rest of the common people meanwhile eat white cheese, as it is easier to digest.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Truth and Liberty: I highly recommend the lecture series by Paul Cantor for insights into this subject: Commerce and Culture. IIRC he concludes that aristocratic patronage of the arts is preferable to state subsidies, but that free mass markets are best of all.
Actually that is the best lecture I ever heard about the subject.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap