MUSIC IN AN AGE OF TRANSITION
Like art
and literature in the twentieth century, music has reflected a wide variety of
approaches and styles, making for an eclecticism
virtually unprecedented in the entire history of its evolution. Never before have so many different types of
composer existed simultaneously or contemporaneously in the Western world and
provided the interested public with such a wealth of heterogeneous material
from which to choose. One is confronted
by composers as far apart as Berkeley and Stockhausen, Martinu
and Schoenberg, Elgar and Varèse,
Walton and Cage. That in itself should
be sufficient to excite ambivalence, confusion, and scepticism in anyone's
head, were it not also for the fact that, in addition to the marked differences
between different types of so-called serious composer, one is confronted by the
vast differences which accrue to the domain of jazz, both traditional and
modern, and obliged to confess that much of what passes here, to the average
philistine, for a form of light entertainment is in fact a highly-sophisticated,
progressive music which is entitled to be taken seriously and treated as a
viable alternative to certain other types of serious composition. But in addition to an outpouring of
heterogeneous Western music this century, one is confronted by musical styles
from all other parts of the world - from places as far apart as
Yet we live in an age of transition
between two distinct developments in the history of Western evolution, that is
to say, between the Christian dualistic and the transcendental
post-dualistic. According to Arnold J.
Toynbee's historical classifications, the latter has been referred to as the
post-modern and corresponds to an era dating from the last two decades of the
nineteenth century, when the iconoclastic and prophetic Nietzsche gave voice to
the assertion that 'God is dead', thereby proclaiming the end of the Christian
era. In theory, such an assertion is doubtless
justified, having long been common knowledge among the various intelligentsia
of the Western world. In practice,
however, we in the West are still officially living under the institutional
influence of Christianity and cannot therefore speak of the transcendental, or
post-modern, age as officially existing.
There are, of course, many aspects of this most recent development in
the history of human evolution which are patently manifest in the Western
world, not least of all in the arts. But
although that virtually goes without saying, the official acknowledgement of a
transcendental age has yet to come about.
Consequently we have a right to speak of an age of transition, whether
this is taken to imply a gradual shift away from dualistic into post-dualistic
criteria or, as a possible climax to this gradualism, the subsequent
revolutionary overthrow of Western civilization, with particular reference to
its Christian and democratic traditions.
To speak of a post-modern age as already officially existing would be to
overlook the glaring facts of contemporary Western life which point to the
contrary!
Granted, then, that we are in transition
from one development in the history of Western evolution to another, it becomes
less surprising that there are so many different types of composer in existence,
or that their compositions reflect a wide variety of styles. The age is not homogeneous but decidedly
heterogeneous in its constitution, which is why such unprecedented variety
currently exists. However, I am not
saying this is a good thing; goodness isn't a word that can be applied
here. Rather, it marks a stage of
Western evolution, whether or not we approve of the fact.
A tradition in the arts reaches a climax
whilst, simultaneously, a new development begins to get under way. Roughly, the twentieth century reflects the
transition from acoustic classical music to electronic avant-garde music, from
the modern, in Toynbee's terminology, to the post-modern, from the dualistic to
the post-dualistic, from egocentricity, in subconscious/superconscious
balance, to post-egocentricity, reflecting a superconscious
bias. We are tending, all the while,
towards a more artificial civilization, a civilization composed of a much
greater degree of superconscious bias than is
currently the case. The fact, however,
of our being in transition means that much of what pertains to the
subconscious, and hence to an egocentric viewpoint, still prevails and will
doubtless continue to do so for some time to-come. We aren't exactly on the point of dispensing
with the large modern orchestra and completely going over to electronics;
though the rising costs of maintaining orchestras may well prove a contributory
element in their eventual demise.
Another element, however, will undoubtedly be our preference for
artificial over naturalistic modes of sound reproduction - a preference which
is already significantly evident among the general and higher proletariat who,
as a rule, prefer electric to acoustic instrumentalists. On the other hand, the Western bourgeoisie
and their middle-class or professional equivalents in totalitarian countries
are the people primarily responsible for maintaining an interest in acoustic
music, as evidenced by bourgeois adherence to the orchestra.
It has often been said that the People are
closer to God. What, exactly, does this
mean? Or, rather, how can it be
interpreted in a truly contemporary sense?
It can be interpreted, I believe, by reference to my Gnostic/Manichean Weltanshauung, in which evolution proceeds from
A - Z, as it were, in accordance with an aspiration towards a supreme level of
being, otherwise more conventionally regarded as the Supreme Being. Evolution begins in the Manifold, as
manifested by the diabolic stars, and aspires, through man, towards the One, as
will be manifested in the Holy Ghost.
One might speak, echoing Teilhard de Chardin, that great Catholic theologian and man of science,
of a convergence to the Omega Point, a convergence from the Devil to God. Provided one doesn't fall into the trap of
his theology, but rejects all belief in an already-existing Omega Point
composed, as it were, of the transcendent spirit of the Risen Christ, as
derived from Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, one will be in a position to
adopt a logical, long-term view concerning this convergence to omega, which is
compatible with an aspiration towards the creation of supreme being, and
therefore with a contemporary atheism.
To treat the Resurrection of Christ at face-value, as a literal fact, on
the other hand, would be to fall into an anthropomorphic stance relative to the
Christian myth, rather than to take a stance compatible with a scientific
transcendentalism, such as the age increasingly requires. When it is understood that evolution proceeds
from A - Z, one won't ascribe supernatural significance to a simple carpenter
who lived two-thousand years ago and had no access to an advanced technology -
in other words, to a technology which, by supplanting the natural body with an
artificial support-and-sustain system for the brain, would ultimately make
transcendence possible. On the contrary,
one will endorse the contemporary view that attainment to the transcendental
Beyond is dependent on our will and ability to create it in due course, in
accordance with civilized progress.
Thus the Supreme Being will be regarded as
the furthermost development of which ascending life is capable, and therefore
as the culmination of evolution in the distant future. For supreme beingfulness
can only be the outcome of evolution, not its initiator! To conceive of the Supreme Being, or supreme
level of being, having created the lowest of the low, the most agonized doing
of the stars, is simply madness.
Evolution doesn't begin at the end but works forwards, ever so slowly
and painfully while the going is particularly tough, as it must be the more we
live under nature's dominion. Our goal,
however, is the supernatural, or that which lies above and beyond nature and is
accordingly the most artificial of outcomes to life. It is in this sense of consummate
artificiality that the 'super' of Nietzsche's superman should be understood,
not in any muscular sense of brute strength.
For musclemen are, by and large, a thing of the past - certainly so far
as any serious claim to true superiority is concerned!
Given these aspects of my revolutionary
philosophy, it should be apparent that when we say that the People are closer
to God than, for example, the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie, we are implying a
greater approximation on their part not only to Oneness, to the ultimate
spiritual unity which the Supreme Being would signify, but also to a more
artificial state-of-affairs which can be presumed to exist to a greater extent
among them than among their historical class enemies and/or commercial exploiters. Traditionally, the view that the People are
closer to God was of course associated with their comparative poverty in
relation to the wealth and materialistic opulence of the ruling classes. As transcendent spirit, God is if not at the
furthest possible remove from wealthy property-owning men, then
certainly at a sufficiently far remove from them to grant credence to the
theory that the poor are closer. To some
extent, this theory still holds true; for even in this day and age the People
aren't, generally speaking, wealthy property-owning individuals, but tenanted
rent-payers. They may be materially
better off, on the whole, than their less-fortunate predecessors, but they are
still far from wealthy! However,
progress does not require that the People become wealthy in due course; for
that would simply lead to a spiritual regression on their part. On the contrary, it requires that they become
ever more spiritual and therefore less under the influence of materialism and sensuality. This will doubtless eventually be put into
effect through the assistance of technology.
But, in the short term, it requires the assistance of socialism in order
to ensure moderate means for all in equalitarianism, as opposed to the
perpetuation or resurrection of extremities in elitism.
Returning to the contemporary light thrown
by my philosophy on the relationship of the People to God, one can posit a
closer approximation on their part to the projected Oneness of our hypothetical
supreme level of being on the basis of the fact that they generally live in
closer proximity to one another in bed-sitters, flats, terraced houses, etc.,
rather than distant from one another in detached houses, country houses,
mansions, etc., like the bourgeoisie and aristocracy generally do. This is far from saying, of course, that such
a cramped arrangement isn't at times a form of hell on earth for most of those
who are obliged to experience it; but simply to point out that the enforcement
of such a cramped context of living gives rise to a closer approximation to the
future Beyond (of ultimate spiritual unity) than does the prevalence, in
middle-class suburbs, of detached housing, which necessarily reflects
individualistic separateness. The
People, then, are obliged to live closer to the envisaged climax of evolution
than the bourgeoisie. Whether this gives
rise to pleasure or pain is fundamentally irrelevant.
The other aspect of the People being
closer to God has to do, as already intimated, with
the artificial and its relationship to the supernatural. The average bourgeois lives, you will recall,
in a suburban context of complacency in a partly natural environment. He isn't cut off from nature in an urban
context, like the proletariat, but is free to cultivate his garden and take
pleasure in the gardens belonging to his neighbours, as well, of course, as in
the areas - sometimes quite extensive - of public land accessible to him. He wouldn't greatly relish the prospect of
having to live in an area of the nearest big city where there was very little
verdure, but is only content in the semi-rural/semi-urban setting which is
suburbia. By contrast, the proletariat
do not, in their bed-sitters, flats, terraced houses, etc., have regular access
to all that much land, but are confined to a largely artificial
environment. This is another reason why
they are closer to God than the bourgeoisie; for the Supreme Being would be the
most artificial and supernatural of all existences, having nothing whatsoever
to do with nature. Now the People are
less under nature's sway. Consequently,
they are more susceptible to the artificial, as fostered by the anti-natural
essence of an urban environment, and so aspire, whether consciously or
unconsciously, towards the Supreme Being, in accordance with evolutionary
pressures. Of course, they aren't highly
artificial at this juncture in time; for evolution still has a long way to go
before it attains, through man, to a supernatural climax. But they are certainly in the requisite environmental
context for the furtherance of evolutionary progress in due course. They portend a continuous development.
So what, you may wonder, does all this
have to do with music, the subject with which we began our essay? The answer to this is frankly that it has a
lot to do with music. For only by
grasping the significance of urbanization in relation to the artificial ... can
one begin to understand the revolutionary break with the past which the rise of
electric music, of one type or another, signifies, and why it is therefore
plausible for me to contend that electric music, or music dependent on
electricity, signifies a superior development to acoustic music, and is, by
dint of its greater artificiality, closer to God. Paradoxically, one is forced to admit that
the leading jazz or rock guitarists' wailing electric sounds, so dear to the
People, are a step nearer to God than the acoustic sounds so dear to the
bourgeoisie, which necessarily reflect a more natural state-of-affairs. The electric sounds, by contrast, reflect a
higher stage of civilization.
When one understands that nature stems
from the diabolical solar roots of the Universe, one will hardly be surprised
by the fact that the use of natural means won't make for a particularly close
approximation to the Divine. On the
contrary, one will see only too clearly that wood, ivory, sheep's gut,
horsehair, etc., no matter how well-shaped or refined upon in the process of
transformation, partly or entirely, into a musical instrument, inevitably preclude
the achievement of a truly transcendental potential in sound, and thereby
restrict music to the relatively humble level of a semi-artificial
achievement. The instruments - violins,
cellos, pianos, organs, etc. - may be beautifully made, but they won't be able
to escape the influence of their materials, which stem from nature. Only through the development of synthetic
materials, coupled to the assistance of electricity, can one hope to create
music with a truly transcendental potential, a music which reflects the
influence not of nature but of civilization in a more artificial mode, and is
thus closer to the supremely transcendent climax of evolution in the
supernatural. Only by replacing wood
with such man-made materials as plastic, plexiglas,
fibreglass, perspex, steel, etc., is one likely to
achieve a significant musical aspiration towards the transcendental Beyond, an
aspiration powered, so to speak, by the man-made miracle of electricity. The musicians who perform on synthetic
instruments would stand at a higher level of evolution than those who don't,
creating sounds which could only be described as more civilized, i.e.
indicative of a greater degree of artificiality. Such musicians would be in the best possible
instrumental position to create a spiritual rather than a sensual music, a
transcendental rather than a mundane sound.
And, of course, we have witnessed, with our music-prone ears, plenty of
highly-talented musicians, including Frank Zappa, John McLaughlin, Jean-Luc Ponty, Chick Corea, Jan Hammer,
and Carlos Santana, who have created such music, such a sound
in recent decades, to the greater glory of the age. They have created this music not, as a rule,
through naturalistic means, but through electric guitars, violins, and
keyboards. Some musicians, including Herbie Hancock and Patrick Moraz,
have even taken to putting their voice through a synthesizer and thereby
transmuted it, rendering it less natural to the artificially-inclined ears of
their musical admirers. Who is to say
that this doesn't result in a more civilized order of singing than purely
natural singing? Clearly, the use of
artificial means must have some bearing on the quality or status of the sound
being produced. It isn't simply a
question of volume, but also of timbre, tone, resonance. And where volume and its relation to size is
concerned, one might note that the convergence from the Manifold to the One,
from the Devil to God, is aptly illustrated by the preference of electric musicians
for small groups rather than large orchestral-type ensembles. If there is a reflection of diabolic
influence on life about a large orchestra, then there is certainly something
divine about the handful of musicians in a group whose concerted and finely-integrated
electronic sound signifies a greater approximation to ultimate Oneness. The People, clearly, are closer to God!
