Question
 

Is the production of music strictly dictated by social changes (technological,economical, political etc) or does it press for some social changes itself? It might seem like quite a naive question, but I'm curious to hear what you think. Personally I think that all art is a manifestation of what's going on around us, but I'm sure that opinions can be quite contrasting, especially if they come from the artists themselves.

Probably weighing more towards "dictated" by social changes, I feel, in the sense of (as you say) reflecting the world around us. There are anomalies such as Crass of course, who were didactic pretty much from the start, and the Christian hymns of the US Civil Rights movement....

I made the crucial mistake of writing 'most' music, when in fact I think that every single note is played as a consequence of the material (and consequently spiritual) condition of the artist. Edited.

All music reflects its time in some way or another. It can't avoid it. The most interesting music is, I suppose, that which reflects upon it, too.

Of course, postmodernists would tell you that the latter is impossible. But wadda THEY know?

Most music is purely a reflection of the experiences of the artist. This can be either social political, or relationships, or some such shit.
Howvere, there are a good number of musical artists that take that shit and then completely invert it or deny it or decide to do something which many call "experimental" which really just means "it has not been done before"
These artists (Beatles, Big Black, Butthole Surfers, The stooges, sonic youth, etc, etc) exist in rarefied air. they, by virtue of basing their art and songs on personal criteria, and not on societal criteria, refelct society but at the same time they shine a light into a new corner of music or performance that has remained obscure, which focuses the rest of the music world (the ones mentioned above) to take a gander at it. without these few artists nothing woudl progress, nothing would seem fresh.

Even 10-20 or 30 year s after the fact, even after all of music has caught up and passed by, these artists remain somehow vital. something about being the first to head down a particular musical path imbues one;s music with a charge, and energy, that never leaves, and which keeps affecting music itslef long after all their contemporaries have been dismissed.

just an opinion. good question though saramkrop

not exactly social change but i think an influence is had, in fashion, in drug culture, in cinema, it's bound to affect patches of society.

Porkie, do you mind if I don't weigh in on this one?

I've been reading a lot of European literature lately, especially about during WWI and post war activities and it always surprises me how much art has sprung from it. obviously it was a big event, but there is some truly underappreciated works of art that stems from it that I think musicians draw from in general. And I think that's cool that music is coming from a more "literate" crowd rather than the self destruction of some of the artists that happen to permiate popular culture in the 80s and 90s. Life eez good.

well that's interesting you bring that up because at the same time (first half of 20th C) the russian formalists were creating art that was produced in order to consciously avoid any parallels with political/social/economic/whatever context. they believed that art (specifically literature) has a history of itself and therefore references to the context of the period should be limited. an audience should focus themselves on analysing the art itself (ie. the language, in this case).
a difficult theory to put into practise, and is obviously only relevant to a tiny proportion of art produced, as it can be argued that context plays a part (consciously or subconsciously) in all of art that is made, as even the russian formalists were influenced by the context around them, that is, the context of being a member of the russian formalists! so by willfully trying to limit any contextual influence they are actually using the movement to shape and craft their work.

racehorse brings up a good point about forcibly trying to isolate it self from the world around them,

after the last few posts, it occurs to me going back to 2002 to present there has been a very conscious effort by an artist to make music that embraces relevancy to the world situation especially of the presidential variety, i personally find much of is rather forced, saying for the sake of saying, and the.......well lets use 'sonic nurse' under the spotlight you have two very different political songs on there "peace attack" by Thurston which is blatant, overly so even, then 'Paper Cup Exit' which is more subtle and it seems the song is formed around the words, and not the other way around like with the former

i think music and art is dictated by the world atmosphere, but it seems when it strive to push for change itself it there is outside influence always dictating it, it's kinda cyclic, but i think is the beginning,

or maybe i am wrong and i don't understand the question which for some reason i feel

this is the most intelligent thread in years

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that forms of explicitely 'political' art can stand outside of influence, I'm not sure that I agree. Political art can criticise the society of which it is a part, but only via an intellectual framework that helped spawn that very society. Bands like SY attack government policy, but not those key Western liberal ideas that ultimately determine both them AND Bush.

i think i mean that every thing is influenced by something however insignificant it is, i don't think art can ever push for social change without an influx of influences

i was kinda going into a previous post about the Russian formalists and how they strived to be completed uninfluenced by the times, where as now a lot of bands have an opinion about something and go out of their way to make it known, unrelated to the thing you quoted by me, i was just kinda rambling i think

When I posted that the production of art is strictly dictated by social changes, I also meant that all methods of production of its tools are crucial to its outlook and incisivity. This makes it impossible for the artist to completely detach him/herself from the rest of the world. Unless someone retires on top of a mountain and becomes a hermit, but total lack of interaction with other human beings doesn't make for any relevant or interesting art at all, unless you are totally detached from the modern world yourself.