"Music is prophecy"

[V Knid esq]

or so says Jacques Attali. "it's styles and economic organization are ahead of the rest of society because it explores, much faster than material reality can, the entire range of possibilities in a given code. It makes audible the new world that will gradually become visible; it is not only the image of things, but the transcending of the everyday, the herald of the future. For this reason, musicians, even when they are officially recognized, are dangerous, disturbing and subversive."

I really want to believe this.
What do you reckon?
Who is Jacques Attali anyway? I found the quote in Jon Savage's 'England's Dreaming'.

hey im the first voter! musicians suck, its the good looking people of the world that are prophetic.

[Loz]

Aphex Twin prophesied the death of capitalism, you know.

Echo & The Bunnymen prophesied the birth of Thatcher.

The Beatles prophesied the coming of Christ.

Pink Floyd prophesied snow.

For this reason, musicians, even when they are officially recognized, are dangerous, disturbing and subversive."

[V Knid esq]

well sting is definitely disturbing.

[CV]

this was an interesting thread until Sting inevitably turned up...

or so says Jacques Attali. "it's styles and economic organization are ahead of the rest of society because it explores, much faster than material reality can, the entire range of possibilities in a given code. It makes audible the new world that will gradually become visible; it is not only the image of things, but the transcending of the everyday, the herald of the future. For this reason, musicians, even when they are officially recognized, are dangerous, disturbing and subversive."

Certainly worth a bit more discussion no?

[lucid rinehead]

i don't mean to sound like a miserable cunt, but i think music is a distraction, a bit like...well....everything else, i suppose. most music rotates around romantic, idealistic sorts of notions...like our happy community here (which i value a lot), ...but it doesn't do much about the general kippleisation of everything. on a smaller scale i think that quote makes a lot of sense, but its back to front - its a trancendent release but its looking back, or more likely diagonally sideways somewhere. it deflects society sideways a bit, but not so as you'd really notice.

ah, i'm just a miserable cunt.

[lucid rinehead]

ah that was unclear as usual, never mind, you get the gist of it

[V Knid esq]

The question is not about whether music changes the world or makes things better (one of my favourite lyrics is by Pianomagic: "won't save you from heartbreak/ won't save you from violence/ music won't save you from anything except silence") - but about whether music can be prophetic: whether the multifaceted representations that it is possible to construct in music somehow manifest ideas that are still only latent in the dominant verbal/visual culture... Perhaps somewhat akin to Burroughs and Gysin's idea that art forms that rely on the unconscious mind - e.g. cut-up writing - can "allow the future to seep through". This is not an idealistic notion - sometimes knowing the future can be a scary and sad thing, especially if no-one believes the Prophet (Cassandra complex). I found the original Atalli quote in a quite wonderful book about punk and the Sex Pistols, which suggested that the theatrical aggression and love of trash in early punk was a premonition of the complete breakdown of UK society that took place 2-3 years later (racist violence, mass strikes, rubbish on the streets, Thatcher elected etc) - by looking at the past and present and reacting hard against them, the protagonists were able to pre-empt an inevitable mass movement of society (and maybe, just maybe, by acting out the breakdown in adavance, created ways for individuals to escape the worst pressures of the mass movement when the wave eventually did break)...

[deccard]

music can be the same way phrophetic as a newspaper can be.
i mean it´s nonsense discussion if music can be prophetic. people make the music.
so in the end it´s just a discussion about people and about metaphyics/believe etc.
how we see/hear the world.
it´s not the future that counts. nor the past. it´s the now.



damn the second beer was too much yesterday....so have to snip some shit out of yesterdays post hehe
*snip*
...
*snip*

[nothinghere]

I think that quote is from his book "Noise" (which is quite good by the way). I agree is some ways with him, but you can never know the future. I believe he is leaning more toward how djing for example is a was a new way of making music. It is very POMO(I hate this term), a little of this a little of that, all put in the mix to make something new. This was and is a new way of making and experiancing music. We can see evidance of this kind of approach in architecture. POMO archetecture was an exageration of this approach, a little of this a little of that. Make any sence???

[deccard]

POMO?
POMO!


is POMO a term or something like POstMOdern?
never heard that. and whose book "noise"?

[nothinghere]

Yes, POMO (postmodern) is the way all the "cool" people say it around here.

Noise-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...590739-3282366

[V Knid esq]

I am fed up with the constant acceleration of the postmodern world reducing everything to a blur of digital dust, as described by Baudrillard... I am going to campaign for a new school of Slo-mo Po-mo.

[Lady E]

if you watch the filth and the fury [FUCKING AMAZING FILM]then julian temple posits punk (1976 onwards, really) as a reaction to the utter breakdown of society, winter of discontent etc. thatch and race riots etc came later.i dont think it was a premonition of what was to come, even in an abstract way. it was what was actually happening. why did it happen the way it did? loads of reasons. we cant ignore the american influence, UK punk would never have happened as it did without the dolls, ramones, wayne county, richard hell etc - the trash aesthetic was strong with them dont you think?

UK punk became more resonant culturally because of the dub / reggae element

i havent read Jon Savage's england's dreaming and im sure i should. have you read Lipstick Traces by Greil marcus?

[c s]

Originally posted by nothinghere
[b]Yes, POMO (postmodern) is the way all the "cool" people say it around here.

ridiculous...

[zombie ritual]

Yeah, "the filth and the fury" is a really good movie! And also "England's dreaming" by Jon Savage is a book I read with great pleasure, although it was only the german edition which is said to be abbreviated compared to the original. Savage has put in loads of knowledge. Of the - very few, as I must admit - books concerning pop culture that I have read this is probably the best and the most carefully investigated one.

[arar]

Nice to see Richard Hell mentioned...I dont think music is prophetic, the whole punk thing viewed from then as prophetic by some would have predicted, as is said, everything falling apart.. (which) it hasnt...and just think off all the wonky wobbly techno that is loved on this board...what the hell would that be predicting?,

..."new day, same shit" is always a good stand by in terms of prophecy, as is "The more things change the more they stay the same"

[deccard]

think off all the wonky wobbly techno that is loved on this board...what the hell would that be predicting?

it´s predicting that you gonna move your butt.

your fuckin hilarious decca!

[Sheridan]

I don't even believe in prophecy. there is no way to accurately
predict anything. if we could we would all be millionaires. we live
in a chaotic environment. every second a new factor is introduced,
thus making the results infinte. there is no such thing as future music.
all art is contemporary art when it is first created. then it becomes retro.
I think in the end the answer is a lot more simple than people really want
to hear. thats why you get all this pomo crap. what the fuck is post modern
suposed to really mean anyway? sounds like some coffee art house crap.
just appreciate what you experience through strong art, literature, and song.
it is the interaction that is the most important. the meaning is lost as soon
as you begin to analyze it; over thinking over analyzing seperates the body
from the mind.....quote more tool, blah, blah you get the picture.
have a great weekend.

[V Knid esq]

Originally posted by Sheridan
I don't even believe in prophecy. there is no way to accurately
predict anything. if we could we would all be millionaires. we live
in a chaotic environment. every second a new factor is introduced,
thus making the results infinte. there is no such thing as future music.

ok - the human timescale is a complex, turbulent and multiplicitous thing, not a straight line from past-present-future... however there are certain forces, trends, movements that are going in certain directions... could it not be that by entering into processes that blur chaos and control, such as music making, we can escape the strait-jacket of analytical thinking and use our built in senses to spot the flow of those movements... to see a small part of the way that society or the evolution of a part of the species or whatever is going?

all art is contemporary art when it is first created. then it becomes retro.
I think in the end the answer is a lot more simple than people really want
to hear. thats why you get all this pomo crap. what the fuck is post modern
suposed to really mean anyway? sounds like some coffee art house crap.
just appreciate what you experience through strong art, literature, and song.
it is the interaction that is the most important. the meaning is lost as soon
as you begin to analyze it; over thinking over analyzing seperates the body
from the mind.....quote more tool, blah, blah you get the picture.
have a great weekend.

Is the answer simple? Is there an answer? Is 'pomo' supposed to 'mean' anything? To me, 'pomo' is a one-word signpost pointing towards MILLIONS of words written by some of the most dedicated and analytical thinkers of recent years... if it means anything it means what they mean... Michel Foucault, one of the writers most commonly referred to as 'post-modern' said something along the lines of "stop analysing, just observe a thing and say quietly to yourself 'this is good, this isn't good; I like this, I don't like that'". Well, I like ranting. I don't think it's separating mind from body - most of the time my fingers type faster than my poor broken brain can verbalise.

Damn I've got the bit between my teeth on this one, and I don't even know what I'm on about!

Aah, fuck it *glugs more booze and drugs and has a great weekend*

[JE:5]

Post modernism renaissance classics, out now in a store near you!
God I'm hammered!!

your fuckin hilarious knid!

[arar]

Originally posted by deccard


it´s predicting that you gonna move your butt.

Thats not a prediction, its causal!

To preface, I would like to point out the danger of understanding the following concepts too quickly. That kind of understanding, according to Heidegger, is a mere semblance, and not the real grasp that comes from struggling with something in order to make it one’s own.

In my opinion then, "Idle Talk" is one of the most critical points we have come to thus far since it speaks directly to the process of our own dialogue; to the possibility of our own self deceptions; and to our mutual covering-over. The concept of "Idle Talk" asks us to wonder whether any of this is what is seems, or at least, what we are naming it together.

In the section on "Idle Talk", Heidegger refers back to his discussion from the section on understanding, discourse, and assertion. Throughout the section on "Idle Talk" and despite his preface of not being "disparaging", he positions himself firmly from the perspective of favoring a certain type of understanding, a certain type of Being: Being whose understanding is "grounded" in one’s own experience in the world. Understanding that seeks to find the primordial source; the ‘about’ which brings one to a meaningful grasp of entities and contexts. In contrast, "Idle Talk" is posed as a "groundless" discourse concerning the topical ‘about’: a dialogue which presumes and represents itself as understanding, yet whose "understanding" one can never call "mine", since it merely refers to and in this way hides behind the belief that someone at some point understood this, so therefore it must be true.

This perspective seems to me to be accurate and valuable in reference to one engaged in phenomenological (or perhaps any rigorous) inquiry. But I wonder if this is the best or only perspective from which to explore the phenomenon of "publicness". In fact, Heidegger establishes early on that his discussion of "Idle Talk" is oriented toward understanding Dasein in its mode of "everydayness" and its "publicness". And although Heidegger seems to favor the private, non-ordinary, "authentic" modes of Dasein’s being, to his credit he hints at a critical direction, which I would like to pursue further.

But before that, I will say a few words to clarify how I understand his usage of "positive" versus "negative" phenomena. Heidegger describes "Idle Talk" as a "positive phenomenon" of Being. I am wary of the tendency to read this distinction of positive/negative as good/bad. In contrast, I am certain that Heidegger intends to denote something like ‘present/absent’. Hence, a "positive phenomenon" means "a demonstration of"--in this case, Being. Or in other words, "Idle Talk" is one way of Being, or a way that Being shows itself.

In the midst of a discussion about the concept of "Idle Talk", I think it will be helpful to define "idle". "Idle" refers to a state of inactivity. In usage, there is an implication of latency (defined as present or potential, but not manifest) or potentiality; not engaged, but could be at a moment’s notice.

As in, "the engine is idling": the engine is on, but not in gear--a slight shift will set the whole thing in motion.

As in, "idle hands are the devil’s playground": there is the sense that hands would otherwise be occupied, and even are given over to occupation--they won’t stay idle, but will eventually be taken up by some activity.

But getting back to my main point, and jump starting with a quotation from Heidegger’s section on "Being-there and Discourse. Language":

"Dasein-with is already essentially manifest in a co-state of mind and a co- understanding. In discourse, Being-with becomes ‘explicitly’ shared, that is to say, it is already, but it is unshared as something that has not been taken hold of and appropriated."

Incidentally, I find myself wondering about the use of the value-laden term, explicit? Explicit means expressed with precision; clearly defined; specific. Isn’t such specificity of definition an obstacle to possibility? Is an explicit discourse about Being-with (i.e. process dialogue) preferable? Is it likely to occur without slipping into presence-at-hand? What essentially distinguishes idle-talk from authentic discourse: authorship, presence, responsiveness?

Uhhh!

[amble]

me thinks that this Foucault quote has strong parallels to this music-prophecy discussion.
humans are allways willing to analyze things as exact as possible, at least in these days. but you can't analyze music from a certain point on (i just say 3/4 thread), just because you can't analyze the emotions related. music spreads its message in a very sublime way (well good music does...). i think that leads to a situation where there's less room for analyzation thus more room for interpretation.

so music/art is maybe not prophetic at all but can be pretty good interpreted in various directions some time after? and this is maybe po-mo then?

lina, your post made my sphincter hurt.

[Sheridan]

I'm not really in the mood to really respond to the current
threads right now, maybe tomorrow. but I will try and add
maybe a few cents worth. I guess when I really look at it
I just don't see music as being prophetic because I see it
more as being about now, or that particular moment.
yes maybe the artist had the future in mind when creating
their piece but I really don't see any corelation between
an artistic expression and the movement of time. I think
that an artists style or expressions can dictate other peoples
style and fashion, most definitely. look at any major musical
style, there was always an originator. but any other kind of
foreshadowing would be minimal at best. this thread really
intrigues me and I think I will bring it up in conversation tonight
with a friend of mine that has many interesting view points
on topics such as this. off with the booze hounds!

lina, your post made my sphincter hurt.

ooops sorry for that sir...ah spinal glant will not do it again!