What if I don't like communist music

[¿Que?]

What if musicians can play music and not be exploited, but it turns out all the music they produce is crap. Is it worth it?

[khad]

Since mainstream corporate music sucks anyway, it wouldn't be much of a loss.

[son of man]

I don't think that the form of government that a populace is governed by ultimately influences the art that people produce whether to render it crap or not.

"Crap" is a subjective term. Take for instance how some people like Lady Gaga. They might think that Lady Gaga is absolutely neato whereas I think taht she sucks farts from low-flying ducks with a straw.

[Robocommie]

I mean, really, it's not like musicians couldn't do anything under Communism that corporate music could. If anything they'll be free from the constraints of what will sell well, so there will likely be more experimentation and more creative freedom.

[¿Que?]

Well, let me up the ante for a second. What if the party in power was centralist. How would they decide which music to support?

[Robocommie]

That'd only be an issue under socialism. But it's one reason I'm not so hot on hardcore centralized planning. Personally I'm more a fan of syndicalism loosely guided by a central coordinating body.

[Revy]

It won't be "communist music". When communism is achieved, there will be no need to agitate for communism because it will already be there. Music will be in fact much less political than before because left-wing political art is about trying to change things about an exploitative and oppressive capitalist system. If you live in a communist society, what exactly are you going to rail against? Unless you're right-wing.....then you'll have plenty.

[jake williams]

Even under socialism music doesn't have to be an economic activity as such. It's perfectly possible that most music which exists would be outside the direct purview of central economic planning, much as most music produced today has a tenuous relationship to capitalism. At any rate, depending of course who we're talking about, I'd trust a socialist society to support better music than I would a capitalist one.

Moreover, I think a good policy for music under a socialist society would be to democratize music production - the "plan" for music would not be that everyone listens to a certain selected 3 bands, but musical instruments, education and recording studios are made accessible to everyone. In a socialist society it's much more possible for ordinary people to have the time and energy to produce music without having it as their sole occupation, without needing significant allocations of social resources to the task. It's true that there's still a need or a want for some professions within the music industry, including for professional performers, but I don't know if the questions to be raised about that are any different from any other - you could equally ask what would happen if you didn't like the clothes, or the food, etc. produced by a socialist society, in fact you could ask these questions to a much greater extent because a socialist society would produce a greater variety of music. These aren't trivial questions, but they're hardly deeply troubling. The fact is that a socialist society is one where we actually have a democratic say in what is produced, in direct contradiction to the society we live in now. That's the whole point.

[S.Artesian]

What if musicians can play music and not be exploited, but it turns out all the music they produce is crap. Is it worth it?


This means human beings can only make good music, great music when its commercially successful?

Bollocks.

Blues was commercially unsuccessful for generations of great musicians, still is. Likewise jazz.

Here's the problem. You've got musicians making music as an exchange value, in order to make money; when the point of making the music is supposed to be the music, and what the musician needs is satisfaction of material needs, access to the history of composition, and time.

Unless of course, good music can only come through intense social suffering. That's not Marxism, that's Christianity.

[¿Que?]

That's not Marxism, that's Christianity.
This is a good point. However, there would be suffering in a communist society. Suffering is inevitable. And I don't even know where to begin on the quantifiability of suffering. Sure, you could probably operationalize some variables, but ultimately you can never really measure suffering.

But in communism, I suppose there would be various types of music, a lot of it regional...hell I'll probably get purged anyway, what do I care.

[Muzk]

How can you not like our music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOgtmn81m8A

[Blake's Baby]

This is a good point. However, there would be suffering in a communist society. Suffering is inevitable. And I don't even know where to begin on the quantifiability of suffering. Sure, you could probably operationalize some variables, but ultimately you can never really measure suffering.

But in communism, I suppose there would be various types of music, a lot of it regional...hell I'll probably get purged anyway, what do I care.

I don't buy it. I don't see why there'd be that much suffering. Sure, some people would get toothache, and perhaps people would still get hung up about relationships, but I think as we get more used to the idea of other people not being possessions we'd get less bitter about that; but I don't hold that great music has to come from suffering anyway. I mean, that's like saying that the only good art is 15th century Spanish crucifixes and anything else is too fluffy to be authentic.

I don't see why you'd get purged. If you don't like 'communist music' (whatever that means, as if all we have now is 'capitalist music') all you have to do is what any 17 year old who's dissatisfied with the music around him/her does, start a band.

[Robocommie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61mJwLg2Us&feature=related

[Robocommie]

I don't buy it. I don't see why there'd be that much suffering. Sure, some people would get toothache, and perhaps people would still get hung up about relationships, but I think as we get more used to the idea of other people not being possessions we'd get less bitter about that; but I don't hold that great music has to come from suffering anyway. I mean, that's like saying that the only good art is 15th century Spanish crucifixes and anything else is too fluffy to be authentic.


Passion arises from pain, empathy arises from shared understanding of pain. But I think he's right, we can't ever be rid of suffering. Suffering is a part of life, we can't ever eliminate every single source of it. What we can do is work to remove the material sources of suffering though, and let mankind find their own way to answering all the rest.

[son of man]

Well, let me up the ante for a second. What if the party in power was centralist. How would they decide which music to support?

No censorship.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, let me up the ante for a second. What if the party in power was centralist. How would they decide which music to support?

If there is a 'party in power' it's not communism, it's a dictaorship (and not dictatorship of the proletariat either). The party is not the proletariat; it's the proletariat's job to take power. Whether a party is 'centralist' (not quite sure what you mean here, surely by definition a 'party' is 'centralised', if it's not 'centralised' it's something else, maybe a network or federation) is not an issue. Whether it takes power is.

@ Robocommie, I agree, material conditions will improve; but also as life becomes more 'human' after the revolution we will be able to take a different view of certain things. I think, I really do before someone thinks I'm making it up, that with the ending of the shit we put up with in capitalism we will all (yes all) become wiser and more humane, more philosophical about life's ups and downs - which will still exist; but we'll cope with them more easily.