Clueless Uncle In Pieces?
Nov. 22nd, 2007 08:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbotRemember when we all used to listen to Conway Twitty?
In case you didn't see this piece by David Brooks in the NY Times, it's nothing extraordinary. Even he says the fragmentation of music listening is an old story, but he says it continues on apace.
I like David Brooks a lot of the time. He's like a clueless but friendly and curious uncle. And he takes "hairstyle" seriously ("hairstyle" is my shorthand both for culture that is considered frivolous and for cultural differences).
Actually, in real life I'm a clueless but friendly and curious uncle too. Just clueless on slightly different matters.
So, here's my question. Is this "fragmentation" in fact occurring? If it is occurring, why do we call it "fragmentation" rather than "diversity"? (Steve Kiviat asked this question when we were discussing this issue 15 years ago in Swellsville.)
Here are some hypotheses:
Interconnectedness and knowledge generally increasing in "advanced" nations. General actual differences among different societies decreasing. Knowledge of other cultures increasing. People able to identify with groups outside their immediate face-to-face environment much more. Within that face-to-face environment this can give the appearance of greater "diversity" or "fragmentation," but this doesn't mean that the world overall is getting more socially fragmented.
Music is something of an odd case anyway, where a particular low-status local music of the early 20th century - black and white music of the United States' southeast - absorbed and changed the general popular music it was coming into contact with and created hybrids that swept a good deal of the world. With the rise of this music came the decline of the idea of a stable cultural center, given that this music (1) was made by people who legitimately felt themselves to be outsiders, (2) seemed to be coming from the "outside" to people who hadn't been the primary audience for r&b or country, (3) seemed to be coming from the "outside" to people who still felt themselves to be the primary audience for r&b and country.
My own experience is that it was possible to be a white teenage music fanatic in the 1960s and not know of Conway Twitty's existence, barely know of James Brown's existence, never have heard classics like Little Richard and Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry except for a few cover versions, to have only heard occasional bits of Elvis Presley and to assume that his impact was long over, to have no idea what was happening in contemporary "serious" "classical" music, and so forth.
Other than the ignorance of "classical" music, which continues for later generations, I don't think it's possible for the equivalent teenager (an endlessly curious music fanatic) to be so ignorant of recent and contemporary music that wasn't quite in his neighborhood - this is because other musics would penetrate his neighborhood far more. Where he or she is ignorant, this would be because there is simply far more available to know, not because of "fragmentation" that is restricting access, and not because of any indifference on his or her part.
What do you think?
In case you didn't see this piece by David Brooks in the NY Times, it's nothing extraordinary. Even he says the fragmentation of music listening is an old story, but he says it continues on apace.
I like David Brooks a lot of the time. He's like a clueless but friendly and curious uncle. And he takes "hairstyle" seriously ("hairstyle" is my shorthand both for culture that is considered frivolous and for cultural differences).
Actually, in real life I'm a clueless but friendly and curious uncle too. Just clueless on slightly different matters.
So, here's my question. Is this "fragmentation" in fact occurring? If it is occurring, why do we call it "fragmentation" rather than "diversity"? (Steve Kiviat asked this question when we were discussing this issue 15 years ago in Swellsville.)
Here are some hypotheses:
Interconnectedness and knowledge generally increasing in "advanced" nations. General actual differences among different societies decreasing. Knowledge of other cultures increasing. People able to identify with groups outside their immediate face-to-face environment much more. Within that face-to-face environment this can give the appearance of greater "diversity" or "fragmentation," but this doesn't mean that the world overall is getting more socially fragmented.
Music is something of an odd case anyway, where a particular low-status local music of the early 20th century - black and white music of the United States' southeast - absorbed and changed the general popular music it was coming into contact with and created hybrids that swept a good deal of the world. With the rise of this music came the decline of the idea of a stable cultural center, given that this music (1) was made by people who legitimately felt themselves to be outsiders, (2) seemed to be coming from the "outside" to people who hadn't been the primary audience for r&b or country, (3) seemed to be coming from the "outside" to people who still felt themselves to be the primary audience for r&b and country.
My own experience is that it was possible to be a white teenage music fanatic in the 1960s and not know of Conway Twitty's existence, barely know of James Brown's existence, never have heard classics like Little Richard and Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry except for a few cover versions, to have only heard occasional bits of Elvis Presley and to assume that his impact was long over, to have no idea what was happening in contemporary "serious" "classical" music, and so forth.
Other than the ignorance of "classical" music, which continues for later generations, I don't think it's possible for the equivalent teenager (an endlessly curious music fanatic) to be so ignorant of recent and contemporary music that wasn't quite in his neighborhood - this is because other musics would penetrate his neighborhood far more. Where he or she is ignorant, this would be because there is simply far more available to know, not because of "fragmentation" that is restricting access, and not because of any indifference on his or her part.
What do you think?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 04:20 pm (UTC)Is your third sentence related to your first, or is it a new subject? I don't see the relationship between my discussion above of supposed fragmentation, and your saying the idea of the "unified" work has collapsed. Also, I don't know which idea of "the unified work" you are saying has collapsed; if you make your criteria for unity extremely stringent then "unity" will always be found to have "collapsed," but that's only if you make your criteria pathologically extreme in the first place. In any event, songs do not have to be tightly unified to be songs, nor artists to be artists, and neither have to be vastly vastly autonomous, and I have no idea what this discussion is about.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 05:08 pm (UTC)i feel that there is a relationship between fragmentation of "the social" and fragmentation of "the work" (by "artist" i meant "oovre" really) -- i will see if i can flesh this out and be a bit precise er some time (remind me)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-25 07:38 pm (UTC)Of course, this isn't totally distant from my own view, except that your word "everything" makes your own idea dysfunctional; what I said in "Superwords Revisited," if you set your standard for autonomy at absolute zero, then nothing is autonomous, but all that does is take "autonomy" out of the language, so your word "argument" no longer has any meaning either (it applying to everything, just as "autonomy" applies to nothing). The word "Superword" is useless if all words are Superwords, since that would just make "window" as much a Superword as "punk." (Except this is the discussion that you and Alex consistently refuse to have with me, and I have no idea if you've ever comprehended my objection, since you've never responded to it.)
In any event, I still don't see the connection between thinking that in the '00s people are more likely to hop from genre to genre in their listening than they were in the '60s and your saying that everything is an argument, given that, if everything is an argument, then everything was an argument in the '60s, too.