What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Pop culture and the lure of Platonism

Richard%20Weaver.jpg

On Richard Weaver, Plato, and Aristotle, culture, conservatism, and Christianity. All in about five minutes. Over at my own blog.

Comments (25)

All this because Weaver doesn't like jazz?
I think the problem with jazz has been the demise, or nearly so, of the melodic line. Rachmaninoff when asked why he had not composed in so long replied, "without melody I cannot compose".
I must have missed the emphasis of Weaver's Platonic component, I don't think the continuing slide into the muck of artlessness, mindless emotion, and at best, semi-literacy, speak for gaseous Platonic day dreams.
Snobbishness isn't the problem,the abandonment of standards and discipline, an adherence to past lessons and guidance is.
An unfettered ego, an untutored mind, an overly adventurous libido, pose more pressing & lasting problems.
Problems which both Plato & Aristotle, in different ways, would see.

Wandering into Notre Dame one night while in Paris I was witness to such organ music as would wake & terrify the dead. Perhaps others in the name of tolerance would approve.

I think the problem with jazz has been the demise, or nearly so, of the melodic line.

??????

Masked Chicken, meaning that a line or theme of melody has given way to ad hoc, free form improvisation, usually disjointed and apparently, given the decline of jazz acceptance, even jarring.
Try it like this, we have come a long way from Benny Goodman.
Note comment on Rachmaninoff.

meaning that a line or theme of melody has given way to ad hoc, free form improvisation, usually disjointed and apparently, given the decline of jazz acceptance, even jarring.

Free-form jazz is only a small part of modern jazz and in no way defines the genre, just as aleotoric music does not define symphonic literature. The Wikipedia article give a modest introduction to some of the different types. People like Wynton Marsalis are examples of people who still play melody-driven jazz, although the "I've got to be me," culture has made in-roads, to be sure.

The Chicken

All this because Weaver doesn't like jazz?

No, all this because Weaver seems to think jazz and modern popular culture in general are inherently bad -- a rather bold claim, and one which is surely consequential enough to merit a blog post, no?

the abandonment of standards and discipline, an adherence to past lessons and guidance is.

Do you mean to say that this is true of jazz as such? That's absurd. But that's probably not what you meant, since you go on to say:

Try it like this, we have come a long way from Benny Goodman.

OK, so you think that contemporary jazz, or jazz since some particular point in its history, is bad. But that's a different question. Weaver is critical of the very form itself. (He was writing in the 40s, and speaks of jazz in general -- I hardly think he meant to exempt Benny Goodman from his criticisms!)

Mr Feser, I gather you like jazz, I gather as well that you link that with the culture in general and Weaver's criticism, which you also link to Platonism, of which Weaver was at least ambiguous. If you wish to extrapolate may I do so as well, absent your fusing of one statement of mine on the general culture with another on jazz.
Granted I started out on jazz but it seems you did as well, or is it that only one can play.
Your meshing of the two sentences was clumsy, Aristotle would never approve. As for "modern popular culture", it is bad, maybe even "inherently".

EF - It's certainly unfair to claim that jazz, as such, represents "the abandonment of standards and discipline" *tout court*. But isn't johnt getting at something important, here? Isn't there a profound difference between what Rachmaninov is doing in, say, the G minor prelude Op 23 No 5...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Qb7AS1yxg

...and what even the jazziest jazz musicians are doing? And if we're not to characterize that difference in terms of "standards and discipline," then how shall we characterize it?

addendum - playing successfully with a group of others in a spontaneous "jam session" obviously requires a great deal of skill & discipline. But isn't it more like the kind of skill & discipline that's involved in sports like basketball, soccer, etc., than the sort of skill & discipline that's involved in creating a genuinely great work of art?

Steve,

Sure, of course. But when did I assert anything remotely close to a denial that there is a profound difference between jazz and Rachmaninov?

All I was addressing was Weaver's claim -- apparently endorsed by one or two people in the combox to my post on Thelonious Monk -- that jazz is somehow inherently corrupt. One can hold that Weaver was wrong about that without denying (as I certainly would not deny) that there are forms of music that are superior to jazz in a number of respects (aesthetic, moral, etc.), and without even liking jazz.

johnt,

Your meshing of the two sentences was clumsy

In light of that semi-intelligible last post of yours, I'm wondering if you should be calling the kettle black.

As for "modern popular culture", it is bad, maybe even "inherently".

Well, there's rigor for you. Can't compete with that, so I won't bother trying.

Try this one on, everyone:

There is nothing inherently wrong with drinking Coca Cola.

Now here come the penetrating criticisms:

"Are you denying there is a profound difference between a can of Coca Cola and a glass of fine wine?!"

"Are you suggesting that it would be appropriate to use Coca Cola instead of wine
during the sacrifice of the Mass?!"

"Are you denying that drinking too much Coca Cola is bad for your teeth?!"

"Are you denying that people should try to broaden their tastes beyond soda pop?!"

"Are you suggesting that everyone should like Coca Cola?!"

"Haven't you considered that liking Coca Cola requires immersion in a particular socio-cultural context?"

"Maybe the original formula was OK, but things have gone downhill since. Consider New Coke..."

"Mr. Feser, I gather you like Coca Cola..."

Etc.

My response: Actually, all I was suggesting is that there is nothing inherently wrong with drinking Coca Cola.

Bro-ther.

EF @ 6:57 - fair enough, you never said anything of the sort. But maybe you should have! It's an interesting question.

Let's just say that reading & teaching the Euthyphro, the Apology, & the Crito, for the last few weeks, has put me in a contrarian mood. Socrates always does that to me.

Ed,

While your post was directed at Richard Weaver, I kept thinking of Allan Bloom and his classic "Closing of the American Mind". I think your criticism and argument applies to Bloom's attack in that book on popular culture, for the very reasons you elucidate in your argument against Weaver.

Great post.

Mr Feser, I stand both somewhat corrected and chastised, though I retain a doubt about the "snobbery" part of your post. It is possible that we could have used more of it rather then less, but so be it. A closer reading of your link was required. Haste may not make waste but it can make embarrassment.


Ed, what do you think of E. Michael Jones's critique of modern popular music? Does he fall prey to the same or to a similar error, in your opinion, that Weaver does?

My argument against jazz and rock is rooted in the ascetic: I've come to believe that they are, generally speaking, not good for you, thus should be enjoyed sparingly, if at all. If you can do without them you should. I myself haven't gotten to that place yet; there are some bands I like for sentimental reasons (I grew up with them) and others that strike me as having an element of beauty and/or honesty in their music. But these are few and far between. Over the past 7 or 8 years I've narrowed an 800+ CD collection down to about 40 discs I listen to somewhat regularly. My classical CDs on the other hand have increased from about 30 to somewhere around 250.

I would recommend that folks give classical music a go, and also the traditional folk musics of Western cultures.

My argument against jazz and rock is rooted in the ascetic: I've come to believe that they are, generally speaking, not good for you, thus should be enjoyed sparingly, if at all. If you can do without them you should. I myself haven't gotten to that place yet;

You need to be much more specific. Jazz is a form of traditional folk music, derived from the Negro Spiritual in one of its branches.

There is a certain creeping sensuality in some jazz and most Rock that is unhealthy, but there are many jazz groups who have raised jazz to a high art. In fact, if Mozart were alive, today, I have no doubt he would have written some jazz compositions. I say this because he was an absolute genius at improvisation.

What exactly do you find wrong with jazz?

The Chicken

Steve,

No problemo. I know well the effect teaching Socrates can have!

johnt,

No problemo. And I'm all for snobbery in moderation!

Jeff,

Thanks! I've always thought there is something right in Bloom's position, but also something wrong, and as you say, it's pretty much the same thing as what is wrong with Weaver's.

Rob,

I haven't read Jones's critique, but I'll look for it. Anyway, I certainly agree that people should give classical music a go -- much more than a go, in fact -- and that a diet of nothing but rock or even the best jazz is far from ideal.

(Here's a little secret: I sometimes listen to things other than jazz! Really! I would even 'fess up in public to being something of a Wagnerian, if it weren't for the fact that that too will peg me as a rank modernist in the eyes of some more-traditional-than-thou folks, so let's just keep that part between us.)

Ed, I love your summary of the criticisms. That's a great list, great wit.

How about this one: What you are calling "Coca Cola" looks a lot like real food (or real drink), but it is really a near-cousin that has some slow-acting poisons and such. It is similar to food, and has a distinctive taste that some people enjoy, but that similarity just disguises the reality.

Again, I don't necessarily think Monk's music is bad. I do think you are not giving real weight to the problem of where to draw the line, or WHOSE sense of hearing/art is trustworthy: The early rock lover said about hard rock that it was bad music, a degenerative form of rock. But the hard rock lover said no way, I like it. The hard rock lover said the same about acid rock, but there are acid rock lovers. Then punk rock lovers. Then rap lovers. There is ALWAYS somebody who professes to LOVE the crap. So, unless we are all wrong and there is no line to be drawn, SOMEBODY's sense of music is wrong, SOMEBODY's sensibilities are warped. On what grounds do you decide whose it is?

I think that Rob G is right about jazz and about rock in general: they are valid but lower forms of music, and should be used sparingly. But rap and some other forms are more like drugs: they should not be used at all. If free jazz is like heroin, is Monk more like pot, or like a huge snickers bar?

Gee, I can't help wondering what y'all think about bluegrass.

And where does Bela Fleck playing classical music on the banjo fit into the scale?

Tony,

I don't deny the need to draw a line. But I don't think that an appeal to what conservative-minded people at the time tended to think is by itself all that impressive. Conservative people will naturally tend to be suspicious of any innovation even when it's good. Naturally, as a conservative, I don't think that that counts against conservatism. Being slow to accept innovations is a better attitude to have than being quick to embrace them; that is to say, having a conservative sensibility is better than having a liberal one. But a conservative sensibility, qua sensibility, is nevertheless not infallible.

For example, when Aristotelianism was re-introduced wholesale into Western Christian intellectual life, lots of people were horrified by it and saw it as a stepping stone to materialism and atheism; it was anything but conservative. There are people today who still think that -- who think that the move from Platonism to Aristotelianism, rather than the nominalist turn, was the real break that led to the characteristic errors of modernity. (Remember, some of Aquinas's own propositions were condemned back in the day.) As I don't need to tell readers of this blog, there are even people who think that the earlier turn to Platonism, or to any philosophical system at all, was a mark of decline within Christendom. This is all silly, and that's the point.

It does not for a moment follow that "anything goes," and that any theological novelty can be justified by saying "Well, you know, some people used to think Aristotelianism was dangerous!" Nor am I making the ludicrous suggestion that rejecting jazz is like rejecting Aristotelianism. The point, again, is just that saying "But look what conservatives at the time thought!" is by itself not a very strong argument. What we need is a serious philosophical investigation of some innovation, not an appeal to conservative sentiment. In the case of Aristotelianism, it turned out that such investigation showed that Aristotelianism was perfectly compatible with Christianity, and that the sensibilities of those who thought otherwise were just wrong -- Aquinas proved it, and the Church ended up embracing his synthesis.

Lydia,

Hmm, now I think I know where to draw the line Tony is asking for. ;-)

Seriously, though, I have never been able to get into bluegrass, country-Western, or related forms of music. Too much of a city boy, I guess. But that is, I think, purely a matter of personal taste, and I don't for a moment think that my dislike reflects any sort of profound philosophical objection.

"What we need is a serious philosophical investigation. . ."

Substitute "theological" for "philosophical" and you'd be exactly right.

And where does Bela Fleck playing classical music on the banjo fit into the scale?

If you can't get into Bluegrass, I highly recommend one recording: Strength in Numbers. The song, One Winter's Night is haunting.

The Chicken

"Jazz is a form of traditional folk music, derived from the Negro Spiritual in one of its branches."

Jazz may have had its roots in the Spiritual, but it's not traditional because it didn't arise organically, so to speak, from the tradition, and is no more "traditional" than is rock and roll. As Weaver states, jazz was born "in the dives of New Orleans." It is a result of the encounter between traditional rural Negro musical culture and White urban modernism. The whites of the period adopted it as the music of liberation from traditional cultural and moral norms, as from the beginning it was associated with alcohol, drugs, and free love. The myth that the Negro was more organic, more passionate, less inhibited, etc., (as Jones says, the KKK mentality in reverse) fed into the the desire for decadent Whites to embrace this ostensibly more "earthy" music, while the appeal of drinking, doping, and screwing associated with it didn't lessen the appeal any.

Of course Weaver didn't go into much detail in his critique of jazz -- it covers only three pages of I.H.C -- but I can't help thinking that his complaints are rooted less in his Platonism than in his cultural observations and what might be called his "modernist radar," which I'd say is equally available to the Aristotelian/Thomist (e.g, my college professor friend).

Note that this is not a racist critique; jazz isn't criticized because it's black. It's criticized because of the amorality in which it has its root, which has no racial component whatsoever.

It's instructive to read Jones's Dionysos Rising, where he spends a good deal of time on this, as opposed to Weaver's three pages. Granted, Jones can be a bit of a crank at times; as one of my friends puts it, he occasionally connects dots where no dots are. But still the overall point of his discussion seems to be born out by the facts.

"I have never been able to get into bluegrass, country-Western, or related forms of music."

I came to like bluegrass and American folk via the backdoor of Celtic traditional music, with which it shares common roots and a lot of similarities. I still don't like country much, however, especially modern country, which is simply pop-rock with a twang.

Well, MC, since I don't have too much trouble getting into ordinary bluegrass, "One Winter's Night" (which I just listened to) is a bit rarefied for my taste, but I liked the dobro section.

I also really enjoy the whole album _Perpetual Motion_. Can't seem to find any actual clips quickly on-line, though.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.