Music and Artistic Integrity

I was watching TV earlier this night when a commercial for Phoenix University came on. I normally tune out commercials, but this one had something that caught my attention: the song playing in the background. The song was the chorus for "The Bleeding Heart Show" by the New Pornographers, a song that I instantly recognized. This got me thinking about artistic integrity. What would constitute a musician "selling out" their artistic integrity? Can musicians ever sell out their artistic integrity?

There are a couple actions that people view as signs of a musician losing their artistic integrity. For starters, many people think that a band selling a song license for use in a commercial would mean that the song or band has lost their artistic integrity. Another commonly considered act of selling out would be when a musician starts writing music for a specific audience in the hopes that they'll earn more money on it. Having someone else write music for you is also considered a way to lose artistic integrity.

Imagine your favorite song, the one that you consider most special to you. Now imagine this song trying to sell you a car. Something that is emotionally powerful and special is being used to peddle merchandise. Surely this is a breach of artistic integrity? Well, maybe not. The music is going to be the same, whether or not it is selling you Pepsi. Besides, what if your favorite musician is a literal "starving artiste" and needs the money to survive? What if it is a choice between letting their music sell a product or the musicians having to take a retail job and therefore have less energy to focus on music making? Wouldn't that be selling out?

What if an artist starts writing catchy popular tunes with no emotional value just so that they can make more money? Is this selling out? To give a real world example, the band Modest Mouse has been writing pop tunes that really lack a lot of the emotional qualities of their earlier work and they're becoming more mainstream and doubtlessly making more money because of it. But if writing your music to a larger audience so that you can make more money takes your artistic integrity away, then Mozart, Bach and almost every other classical composer has no artistic integrity. Pretty much everything they wrote was paid for by rich men or churches who wanted a specific song for a specific mood. Mozart wrote some tunes for some rich guys kids, tunes that are considered to be "art" by a large number of people. The same example can also be applied to architecture: the architect is getting paid to design a building in a specific way, but it is still considered art. Just because the composer wants to make a living off of music does not mean that it is not art.

Thirdly, there is the claim that if you have something written for you by someone else, it has no artistic integrity. I don't think that there is much to this claim. Dividing up the work of writing a song does not make the song less artistic. I like writing songs and poems, but I'm a bad singer. Does that mean that nobody can sing the songs I write? Or that if they do, those songs have no artistic value? I hope not. I still put a lot of time and effort into the songs, even if I can't sing them.

I think that for the first two claims - licensing and changing what you play - there is some validity. I think I'd feel sick and cry if any Neutral Milk Hotel songs were playing on a commercial. Those songs have a lot of meaning to me and, yeah, they're special to me. Context changes the song to some extent; music videos, for example, add new meaning to songs. I think the same would happen if a song is in a commercial, the context would be changed and whenever you heard the song you'd think "Pepsi." This is only a problem for some songs. I don't think it matters much for the New Pornographers song that was advertising a college. It's a good power pop song, but it doesn't mean much to me. It is only when the song has a meaning to the listener when it becomes a problem.

The second claim, that a musician changing what they write for the sake of money, has more weight to it. This is a case where a musician is willingly deciding to stop making "art" and to start making a product. The difference between a contemporary musician selling out and, say, Bach selling out is that there wasn't a concept of selling out a few hundred years ago. Isaac Brock of Modest Mouse can sell out because there is a concept of selling out, Bach couldn't because the norm was to make your art on commissions from rich noblemen.

So, while there is some validity to the claims that some musicians are selling out, I think that a lot of the arguments are weaker than they appear. A lot of the cases they should not even apply. With Modest Mouse, their older songs are darker and a lot more depressed while the newer ones are happier and more upbeat. Maybe Isaac Brock isn't selling out, maybe he's just happier? Or maybe he did just want more money. Maybe the folks in the New Pornographers needed the money to pay the rent or maybe they wanted a jacuzzi. There's really no way to know when a musician loses their artistic integrity except when their songs and the emotions they are trying to express ring hollow to you.

Properties of God

There are some problems with a completely atheistic view of the universe. For starters, how the heck did the universe come into existence in the first place? One of the common answers to this is "the universe didn't come into existence, it has always been here." There is a problem I can see in this argument. If the universe has been around for an infinite length of time, how could we ever get to the present? If you go infinitely far back into the past and then start going forward, you would never reach the present because it is an infinite distance away. Another common answer would be "the universe just came into existence." This doesn't work unless you find some sort or property that the universe has that would allow it to pop into existence. That sort of property, one that would allow something to appear out of nothing, would violate the first (?) law of thermodynamics which states that you can't add matter or energy to a system.

So, the universe being created by itself would violate one of its own rules. This is a problem, especially since it obviously has been created by something. What's a puzzler like myself supposed to do? Theorize some sort of answer, of course! Since the universe doesn't have an infinite past and because it has to have been created by something, I'm going to try to theorize what that something is. Since most cultures call that something God, I'll stick with that name. This isn't the Judeo-Christian God or the Muslim God or any of Hindu's many God's, just a general creator-type being.

The one property of this God that I've got here is that it is what created the universe. What does that mean for God? Well, it means that God isn't constrained by the natural laws of physics, for starters. God doesn't have to worry about adding or subtracting matter or energy from the universe since it can obviously do that already. That means that God's could everywhere at once or even nowhere. Also, time doesn't necessarily have to work with God the way it does with everything else. This makes theorizing about God's behavior really, really difficult.

I'm going to try really hard to post more of my beliefs about the world that really don't jive well with the scientific view. Possible subjects for the future include free will and the source of morality!

Some writing

I've got some new writing that I've been working on. This is mostly just a break for me; I wanted to write something without any idea of where I'm going with it and with no prior planning.
Without further delay, a random bit of writing!


There was a little cafe in the middle of everything. The huge everything swallowed whatever building was put into it, digested it for a decade and by the time it was spat back out. Whatever new and innovative architecture was originally there was erased under layers of graffiti and third-rate repairs. The cafe that was in the middle of everything somehow managed to avoid this curse. The walls were free from gang slogans and teenage love notes, the sidewalk in front of the building was somehow kept clean and all the lights inside worked. Last generations jazz hits softly slipped out of the speakers and filled up the room. A teenage barista served steaming espresso's to customers taking a moment out of their day to recharge their batteries. College students with Macbooks typed away at essays. In the corner of the room, two teenage boys quietly talked to each other.

"I feel like I'm drinking up her golden hair whenever I see her. I'm just swimming in it. Swimming in everything. She's beautiful."
"You, my friend, are completely and totally infatuated."
"No no, this is love, man!"
"Keep your voice down James or we'll get thrown out. I don't want to get thrown out of here because you're blabbering about your current crush and you've deluded yourself again into thinking this is some sort of love."
James took a bite out of his over-sized cookie. "No Dion, this is different from Alexandra. This time it's totally love."
"Chew swallow talk. Chew swallow talk. It's disgusting when you can't keep the order of things straight." Dion took a sip from his coffee and swallowed it loudly before continuing. "And what about Melinda? Didn't you love her?"
"Well, that's diff-"
"And Nadia?"
"That was just-"
"I've got a whole list of people that you've 'loved' and it is getting on my nerves that you keep deluding yourself into thinking that every girl you make out with is your one true love."
James glared at Dion. "You've got no sense of romance in you."
Dion finished his coffee and stood up. "No, I don't. Ready to go?"
James stuffed his half-eaten cookie into his mouth and nodded. "Yupth."
"Disgusting."

The city was everything to its inhabitants and everything was the city. The people were the city. The stores they shopped in, the food they ate, the salty water they drink, the air they breathed. It was all the city. Light flooded onto the streets from the cracks between skyscrapers. A beggar, fresh from the sewer, pleaded to every passerby for money so that she could survive another day. A well dressed man with a holy book held high shouted with a clear voice over the crowded streets.
"The bubble that shields you from the outside world will burst!" People ignored him. "Those who are saints shall be saved!" People rolled their eyes at him. "Those who are sinners shall drown in the flood!" People glared at him.

Dion and James flowed through the river of people. They gushed exuberantly around the shoppers with their empty pockets and filled bags. They trickled guiltily past the beggars. They bubbled mockingly at the man with the holy book.
"What about a turban?" James asked.
"Why would she like a turban? I mean, does she wear turbans, are they fashionable?"
"I dunno."
"Of course you don't! You're so totally in love with this chick, but you don't know anything about her!" Dion's left hand started shaking and he held onto it with his right one. "Stupid drunken whore..." he muttered.
"I know plenty about her!" James barely glanced at Dion's hand.
"I doubt this. Like what?"
"Like she's a great kisser."
Dion rolled his eyes.
"And she's got the moves, if you know what I mean." James thrusted his pelvis back and forth a few times.
"Please never do that again. You're polluting the fresh air." Dion's hand stopped shaking.
"You're starting to sound like preacher-man, buddy boy."
"Preacher-man says not to sin and while I say don't tell me about your sins. There are plenty of good reasons to ignore his advice - and I know you're so eager to list them but please don't - but I've got a large number of very detailed reasons why you shouldn't tell me about your bedroom adventures." Dion looked around at the tall buildings around him. "Where are we?"
James looked at the streets in front of him. "I've got no idea."
"I've never seen these buildings before. Shouldn't we have arrived by now? This... this must be part of the conspiracy!" Dion starred directly into James's eyes. "They're on to us."
James's pupils dilated and his eyes opened wide with fear. "They're on to us!? What are we going to do!" He spun around, waving his arms wildly. "What are we gonna do? What are we gonna do? What are we gonna do? Why are they on to us? What did we do? We're doomed, man, doomed!"
Dion had a look of contempt on his face. It was the special look that he only used when people were acting idiotically. "You're so easy. We overshot The Windmill, that's all. It's two blocks behind us."
James calmed down. "Oh."
"Come on, let's go."



The Windmill is definetly going to be some sort of Don Quixote reference, I just don't know what kind of reference.

Music of '06

Since everyone is making their "top 10 albums of 2006" lists, I thought I'd join in. The only problem is, I only got eleven albums from this year and two of them were local bands that didn't so much as publish their music as burn CDs and give them to people. That being said, I'll make a nice list of albums I like without conforming to any silly predetermined set of numbers!

1. "The Crane Wife" by The Decemberists. Three movement songs based on Japanese poems? Twelve minute long epics about kidnapping and murder on a mysterious island? Civil War songs with wordplay on Stonewall Jackson? Yes on all accounts! The Decemberists hop around genres more than they usually do in this album with usually good results. The best part about them is that they're almost the only band that has me rushing to the dictionary while listening to songs.

2. "Fox Confessor Brings The Flood" By Neko Case. This entire album is carried by Neko Case's voice. It's kind of alternative countryish and it isn't something that I would ever see myself liking a lot, but her voice is one of the best out there. She's an incredible singer and a pretty good songwriter. The instruments kind of sit in the background and provide atmosphere and beat, but the album does not need any catchy hooks or verse/chorus/verse structure. Everything seems to work even though it abandons a lot of the general song format.

3. "Return To The Sea" by Islands. Fun, quirky pop. Lots of catchy music with fun yet semi-morbid lyrics. Its all fun and games with Islands, even when they're singing about the end of humanity.

4. "IBM 1401 a User's Manual" by Johann Johannsson. A modern classical album? I'm not really sure what the exact genre for this kind of stuff is, but it has lots of strings and no backbeat. The album opens with a really mournful phrase that was recorded way back in the sixties or seventies on one of the earliest IBM computers (hence the title). The phrase continues throughout the first song while an orchestra build up the music around it. The songs here are really great and emotional, but the album is plagued by the composers need to have a minute or two before and after almost all the songs were the music slowly gets louder and then slowly fades away. Even if you don't listen to the album you really ought to check out "The Sun's Gone Dim And The Sky's Turned Black" which is a really moving piece of music.

That is it! My recommended music from the year 2006. There were a couple other albums that I liked from this year, but they weren't really all that great. 2007 looks like it will be a fun year, with new Deerhoof, Modest Mouse, Arcade Fire, the inevitable Fiery Furnaces, the probable Decemberists and the likely Animal Collective, the pretty likely Feist and the Explosions in the Sky albums! Plus new bands I've never heard of!

Somalia and militant Islamists

A brief bit of summing up: the United States and allies invades Afghanistan in order to destroy the extremists there - including the Taliban - and to set up a free and democratic government. So far there's been mixed results from there. The United States also invaded Iraq, with the horrible results that followed. Then there's Iran, which the United States has failed to deal with, mostly good ol' extremist Islamist Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions. My point for this is to show that the United States does not have a good record for dealing with militant Islamic extremists.

Now, to get more specific: In 1993, the United Nations started UNOSOM II; its task was "to assist in the reconstruction of economic, social and political life" of Somalia after it was ravaged by a civil war. A year later, after losing eighteen soldiers in Somalia's capitol of Mogadishu, the United States withdrew. Since then Somalia has basically been without any central government, there's lots of lawlessness and murder and all that bad stuff that goes along with being a poor African country torn apart by feuding warlords.

In early 2006, much of Somalia - Mogadishu included - was taken over by a group of militant Islamists. Tensions were risen, there was talk about Al-Qaeda opening up a new front there in the "war against western imperialists" (their wording) or the "war on terrorism" (ours). The United States didn't seem like they could do much of anything, what with being bogged down in Iraq, the United Nations wasn't ready to send anyone in and Somalia barely had a recognizable government of its own, let alone one that could defend itself. Then, December 24th of last year, Ethiopia launched an attack against the militants. By now, the militants are out of most of Somalia, out of Mogadishu and basically defeated. The government of Somalia is stepping up, showing its muscles and beginning to act like a government with some semblance of control over the situation. Just remember that Ethiopia - a country that couldn't afford to pay off its debt, who has an estimated fifty percent of its population below the poverty line - was able to pull this off.

What I've been wondering the entire time that this has played out is really a simple question: Why can't the United States do this? What happened here in Somalia that did not happen in Iraq? What did they do that we didn't do? Honestly, I can't wrap my head around this.