“Every major social rupture has been preceded by an essential mutation in the codes of music, in its mode of audition, and in its economy” (Attali, Noise 10).[1]
So I’ve been thinking more
about this idea of “transmission,” and I’ve come to the following question: If,
as people like Rancière and Attali assert, liberal/sovereign/juridical regimes
idealize the notion of “harmony,” is “transmission” or “frequency” a
particularly neoliberal/biopolitical ideal or paradigm? This question is
somewhat Attali-an itself, and I want to attempt an Attali-esque response. By
“Attali-an,” I mean that the question follows Jacques Attali’s claim in the
epigraph, i.e., that we can read the “codes of society” (norms, epistemes,
modes of power, hegemonies, etc.) in the “codes of music” (organization,
epistemology, political economy, aesthetics).[2]
“The code of music,” he
argues, “simulates the accepted rules of society” (Attali 29). So here I want to think about “harmony” and
“transmission” as both modes of social organization, and modes of musical
organization. I’m trying out the
argument that harmony:liberalism::transmission:neoliberal biopolitics (emphasis
on “trying out”—I’m not entirely sure it works. But it’s worth considering).
Back to the question: First,
what do I mean by “idealizing the notion of ‘harmony’”? I’m thinking of harmony
as a mode of measurement or distribution. A “harmonic” distribution is one
concerned with balance: everything is in its right place. These places
might not be “equal,” but everything is in the place appropriate to it: people
with copper in their soul do menial labor, and people with gold in their soul
are philosopher kings, for example. Plato explicitly calls this “harmony”—e.g.,
in Eryximachus’s speech in the Symposium. Rancière calls this a
“metapolitical” distribution of sensibility. In music, we might think of those
arguments over temperament as fitting this notion of “harmony.” The arguments
over temperament were really about how best to distribute or divide the octave
into whole- and half-steps for a total of 12 pitches. Jacques Attali also
explicitly identifies “harmony” as a paradigm for classical liberal political
philosophy. “The entire
history of tonal music, like that of classical political economy, amounts to an
attempt to make people believe in…the faith that there is harmony in order”
(Attali 46). This idea of order is one of “equilibrium” (Attali 59).
Equilibrium is not, importantly, mathematical equality. Equilibrium is not
treating everyone the same: it is putting everyone and everything in
hierarchical order.[3]
This hierarchical order positions apparently “different” phenomena in relation
to the central, hegemonic term (i.e., tonality organizes all pitches
functionally/hierarchically in relation to the tonic). As Attali explains:
An ideology of scientific harmony thus
imposes itself, the mask of a hierarchical organization from which dissonances
(conflicts and struggles) are forbidden, unless they are merely marginal and
highlight the quality of the channeling order” (Attali 61).
As in
political liberalism, difference is tolerated if and only if it can be
assimilated or expressed in terms of the centered, controlling, hegemonic term.
So, racial difference is “OK” as long as its diversity doesn’t decenter
whiteness, and in fact serves whiteness and white people. So in the same way
that liberal multiculturalism claims to be “harmony between divergent
interests,” (Attali, 65), but is actually completely intolerant to actual
difference, “harmonic” regimes generally accept only that which can be mapped
hierarchically in relation to the centered/hegemonic term. It is a
“combinatorics” (Attali 65) that can only “combine” that which has already been
placed in terms of the “common denominator.”
Interestingly,
Attali notes that “harmony” eventually “gives way to statistics,
macroeconomics, and probability” (65). An economist in the Mitterand
administration, Attali explains this new form of organization, administration,
and analysis not in the political terms of liberalism, but in economic
terms. So, while Foucault focuses on the
kind of power manifested in the use statistics and the human sciences to
administer populations, Attali focuses directly on the instruments used to perform this administration. He describes “the
probalist transcending of combinatorics,” (83), i.e., the neoliberal sublation
of classical liberal “harmony.” In this new actuarial regime of probability and
statistics, “power establish[es], on the basis of a technocratic language, a
more efficient channelization of the productions of the imaginary forming the
elements of a code of cybernetic repetition, a society without signification—a
repetitive society” (Attali, 83). Statistics are used to “cut the fat,” the
“fat” here being represented content. Power no longer has to produce spectacle
(as in sovereignty), nor does it have to concern itself with producing “truths”
for us to discover about ourselves (as in discipline). Foregoing mediation
through content, power can get straight down to the business of reproducing its
formal relations, i.e., its structural and institutional networks.
I think that
the regime Attali labels “repetition” is actually a regime of biopolitical
administration. It’s not the regime of mechanical reproduction, but the order
of the bell curve and the elimination of risk/aleatory instances. So, the
elimination of randomness may make it seem like everything is merely a
clone or repetition of everything else, but what Attali means by “repetition”
is not what we commonly think of as “repetition” (copying, looping, etc.).
Attali’s not actually talking about mass production; he’s talking about
biopolitics. What he means by “repetition” is “the existence of an
all-encompassing truth, of a society that desires to make its simple management the matrix of its meaning…the statistical organization of repetition”
(Attali 113/4; emphasis mine). Attalian repetition is not copying; it’s statistical
management. But what do statistics
“manage”? Outliers, whatever can’t be controlled for, whatever breaks the
curve—what Foucaultians call “aleatory events.” “the administrator in a
repetitive society” is tasked with “managing chance” (Attali 114). Of course,
Attali connects this “management of chance” to mid-century avant-garde
composers, like Glass (whom he cites) and Cage. Though the latter explicitly
focused his work on chance and aleatory processes, Attali notes that “even if
in appearance everything is a possibility for him, on average his behavior
obeys specifiable, abstract, ineluctable functional laws” (115). For example,
his I Ching pieces will never include a compositional event or structure
not already laid out by the matrix Cage made for the piece.[4]
Attali explains:
Instead
of toying with the limited nomenclature of the harmonic grid, he outlines
processes of composition, experiments with the arrangement of free sounds…instruments
no longer serve to produce the desired sound forms, conceived in thought before
written down, but to monitor unexpected
forms” (Attali 115; emphasis mine).
This
“monitoring unexpected forms” sounds a lot like what Foucault identifies as the
biopolitical management of risk. Attali even connects this form of statistical
management of the aleatory to the management of life (i.e., to biopolitics as
“the power over life” or the optimization of life for some, and the leaving of
others to die). In the regime of “repetition,”
Science
would no longer be the study of conflicts between representations, but rather
the analysis of processes of repetition.
After music, the biological sciences were the first to tackle this problem; the
study of the conditions of the
replication of life has led to a new scientific paradigm which, as we will
see, goes to the essence of the problems surrounding Western technology’s
transition from representation to repetition.
Biology replaces mechanics”
(Attali 89).
The study of
representations is the will to truth—the confessional logic that aims to find
the “truth” of one’s desire, identity, etc. The analysis of repetition, on the
other hand, studies “the conditions of the replication of life,” or, in more
Foucaultian terms, how a population reproduces itself. The shift from mechanics to biology is the shift from asking
“How do things work?” to “What are the conditions of life itself? How does life
make more life?” In biopolitics, power takes life as its object; thus, science
too must take life as its object. Foucault is well-known for noticing this.
Attali also notes this same shift: from spectacle to relations,
from truth to statistical organization, from prohibition and discipline to
administration, from punishment to the management of risk. What Attali
contributes to the theorization of biopolitics is this: his explanation of the
shift from sovereignty and panopticism to superpanopticism in terms of changing
paradigms of musical organization,
and his musical examples are clear and productive models for theorizing
how biopolitical administration relates to gender, sexuality, and race—in fact,
more clear than most of the models commonly used by feminist, queer, and
critical race theorists.
So, now, I want to explain “harmony” to “frequency” as systems of
musical organization. The differences between the two epistemes are evident in
the difference between LMFAO’s compositional practices and traditional, tonal
popular song structures. Traditional pop songs use tonal harmony to create a
teleological narrative-like structure where exposition leads to rising action,
climax, and denoument/resolution. The song progresses through lots of chord
changes; these chord changes build tension, which is then released at the “big
hit”. Kelly Clarkson’s “My Life Would Suck Without You” displays this nicely.
2:16-2:34 is a microcosm of the song’s entire harmonic development.
There is a slow build to a climax, which is represented by the full-on flares
from the floodlights in the background. In fact, you can literally see
the harmonic development in the use of these light banks. The verses don’t use
the lights at all—they are set in various domestic scenes; the verses function
only to develop the harmonic narrative. The lights make their first appearances
in the choruses, which are sort of mini-climaxes, each failing to achieve full
resolution, frustrating our desire for resolution, and thus making us crave it
even more intensely. The 2:16-2:34 “microcosm” occurs in the song’s break, and
this is the uber-climax: there’s the hit, which propels us to that moment of
full resolution at the end of the song (the “you” at 3:26). Here, the lights
flare at their greatest intensity, so we know this is the “money shot,” at
least harmonically speaking. The point in rehearsing this example is to show
how in traditional pop song structures, harmonic progressions provide the
“energy” or “drive” that gives the song a sense of forward motion. Harmony is
used to build tension and to pleasurably relase the tension at the song’s “big
hit.”
LMFAO don’t use harmonic development to build tension. There is some
very basic reliance on tonal functions (e.g., sol-do relationships), but the
main tension in the song is built and released through what Daniel Barrow has
called “The Soar,”[5]
and which I have written about here. They
use rhythmic and timbral intensities to build and release tension, to
propel the song forward toward its “money shot.” Let’s consider how they use
rhythmic and timbral intensities to structure their two recent singles, “Party
Rock Anthem” and “Sexy and I Know It”.
“Party Rock Anthem” is probably their most well-known track, so I’ll
start with it:
The music starts at 1:25 with
a drum track. At 1:40, some treble synths come in. The drum loop and the synth
loop, along with another loop introduced in the first verse, are the basis for
the entire song; the repetition of these elements (and not the progression
among chords) gives it its structure. The intro is a mini-build to the first
verse. The song starts with a drum track, and then shifts to a synth loop; at
1:54, they add vocals to the synth loop. At 2:09, they repeat from 1:54, but
this time with a clap track. At 2:13, they add a synth sound that “soars”
upward in pitch, sort of like the sound of a plane taking off. This is where
the main build begins. We build to 2:22, at which point there is a pause, and
then the main hit at 2:23, which is the start of the first verse. Here new
lyrics and a new synth loop are introduced, and the drum track from the
beginning returns. This build to the first verse is achieved by increasing
timbral (the plane-launch synth) and rhythmic (handclap) intensity. The hit
itself is marked by a change in timbre, melody, and rhythm. This same strategy
is used in the build to the main climax in the break. For the sake of brevity,
I’ll break this down into bullet points:
3:10-3:25 first repetition of chorus—this establishes
the “base” from which the big build launches, or intensity = 0
3:25-3;40 second repetition of chorus—repetition effects
a slight sense of tension, but not a lot
3:40 break
3:40-3:49 two
repetitions of main melodic motive (in the treble synth) at “low” pitch
3:49-3:56 two
repetitions of main melodic motive at higher pitch—both repetition and raise in
pitch increases intensity/builds tension; “shuffilin, shuffilin” vocal at end
of last phrase creates sense of “incomplete” resolution, which also builds
tension
3:56-4:10 repetition
of 3:40-3:56—repetition builds more tension
4:11 shift
in instrumentals, entrance of male vocals. The inst. track is the basis on
which the big “soar” happens
4:11-4:18 rapping
a la the verses before 3:10, antecedent phrase to 4:18-25
4:18-4:25 rapping
a la verses, consequent phrase to 4:11-18, but with addition of the
instrumentals that will be used in the big build; this is more or less the “pivot”
phrase into the big “soar”
Build really starts at 4:25,
when the female vocals enter, along with hand claps.
4:25-4:33 first
repetition of female vocals (two repetitions of the same line, “get up get down
put your hands up to the sound,” each repetition coinciding with the main
melodic motive in the synth); also, introduction of handclaps on each beat. Basic
rate of repetition and intensity is established (e.g., quarter notes).
4:33-4:41 second
repetition of female vocals, this time with a bass drum hit at the beginning of
every other measure in the antecedent phrase; the consequent phrase doubletimes
the “put your hands up to the sound”. SO, intensity is built rhythmically by
upping the number of repetitions in a given amount of time.
4:41-4:47 doubletimes “get up, get up” in vocals, also
adds descant synth from 3:40; adds ascending mid-voice synth in consequent
phrase
4:47-4:55 this is the real build, the “soar” so to
speak. There is:
·
the
continuation of the pitch and volume crechendo in that ascending synth from the
previous section
·
the
exponential double-timing of the snare synth: eightnotes, to sixteenths, to
thirty-secnds, to a roll
·
repeated
“woo”s on the quarter notes
·
continuation
of the main high-pitched synth hook, but bled “into the red”
4:55 climax
and
deflation-- that ascending synth now descends; repetitions happen, but elements/layers
either stay the same or drop out, rather than being added; distance introduced
between repetitions rather than shortened.
Their song “Sexy and I Know
It” uses the same strategy to build and climax, only this time the climax
happens much earlier in the track:
0:30-0:36 first repetition of chorus, with
antecedent and consequent phrases
0:37-0:43 second repetition
0:44-0:50 beginning of build; introduction of
eight-note snares, and in last
few seconds,
the synth hook is distorted a little, and a sort of “air” or “static” sound is
introduced, which is carried over into:
0:51-0:54, where the snares go into 16thnotes, and
pitches/sound quality of
melodic elements pushed further into red
0:55-0:57 vocals repeat short line “know it, know
it”
0:58-10:59 pause,
statement of lyrical hook “I’m sexy and I know it<’ after which is the main
“hit,” the climax (something similar happens at 1:43)
Both of these tracks “tweak” and modify the timbre, both of specific
synth sounds and by changing among different synth sounds. They layer more and
more sounds on top of one another, and they intensify rhythms and the
repetition of phrases in the lyrics. They build tension by increasing the
“intensity” of timbres, rhythms, and repetitions, bringing these to an
asymtope, dropping everything into a moment of silence, and then resolving
everything with a big “hit.” This is not “development” to climax, but asymptotic
intensification. As composers and producers, LMFAO rely on a paradigm of
“frequency,” i.e., of “intensification or de-intensification.” This paradigm
measures or “register[s] larger or smaller numbers of events in a given time”
(Puar, Terrorist Assemblages xxi).[6] Instead of progressing
through hierarchically-organized functions (i.e., chords), LMFAO organize their
song using techniques whereby “relationships between speed (how fast or slow
time feels) pace (the
tempo, rate, or intervals of registering events within time), and duration (the
length of time within which these events are registered) alter or are altered”
(Puar xxi). I’m citing from Jasbir Puar’s discussion of superpanoptic
“assemblages” because I want to make absolutely clear the parallels between
LMFAO’s style of musical organization and her understanding of the organization
of race and sexuality as assemblages. If assemblages are characteristically
“superpanoptic” because they are grounded in biopolitical regimes of
“frequencies” and “intensifications,” and if LMFAO’s compositional strategies are
grounded in the very same notions of “frequency” and “intensity,” then it
follows that these compositional strategies are themselves characteristically
superpanoptic. Or, more simply: “the soar”—the use of rhythmic and timbral
intensity to build a song’s arc—is part of the broader “biopolitical” episteme.
I analyze music to point out the key features of “harmony” and
“frequency” as regimes of power or political organization. Listening to them
play out as systems of musical organization clarifies, IMHO, how exactly they
work, and are distinct, as regimes of power-knowledge. Here is a really
under-developed list of some things this harmony/frequency distinction helps us
do/theorize/understand:
1 Frequency doesn’t need hierarchies, but harmony does.2. Limiting agent or type of relationship structure:a. In harmony, the hierarchy is the limiting agent: everything is arranged hierarchically around the tonic, which is the “centered” or “hegemonic” term, the centripetal point or common denominator in terms of which everything is expressed. So, hierarchy is the form relationships take in “harmonic” orders.b. In frequency, signals limit other signals. This is how analog synths work. This is how digital synths work (e.g., the signal from the trackpad, and also the limits of the trackpad, determine the range of alterations/effects that can be performed to a pitch, loop, etc.). There is not necessarily one central signal. So, the relationships are more obviously “networked.”i. But you can’t do anything that’s not on the sine wave/bell curve. The other limit is the literal mathematical limit: the asymtope. You can take the cowbell or handclap track and doubletime, quadrupletime, octuple time, whatever time it, following Zeno’s paradox down to the mathematical limit. SO, relationships can approach, but never reach zero. Perhaps this is a way of expressing the idea that one is never outside or without power.3 20th century music is all about management of the aleatory.a. Cage and chance.b. Tweaking and modulation as management of deviance: Cage’s prepared pianos, Moog’s synthesizers, Flash’s scratching, Korg’s KAOS pads, Cher’s and T-Pain’s AutoTuning, etc. So its not about achieving balance according to one measure/scale, but of producing acceptable, comprehensible “deviances” from whatever norm one is referencing (re: pitch, timbre, voice leading, etc.).c. IMHO Shannon Winnubsts’ work on the biopolitics of cool works out this idea of “acceptable deviances.” To be “cool” one needs to be just deviant enough to be avant-garde, but not too deviant (i.e., not kooky or weird).4 Conditions of replication:a. millennial and post-millennial music technology, IP law, and industry practices are all about the management and replication of data/data profiles.b. I think we also need to think about the story in the “Party Rock” video—it’s based on zombie narratives (Walking Dead, 28 Days Later), and turns on the idea that a song’s hook can “infect” people like a virus, turning everyone into “shufflin” drones (sorta like Thriller, in a way). So there’s something about “infection” to be theorized—Puar does some of this with her idea of “contagion.”5 Value judgments (aesthetics, ethics):a. So the fine art/craft distinction is a hierarchical one, as is the serious/pop one. This is a “harmonic” model of aesthetic judgment.b. How would we make aesthetic judgments about “intensities”? Or “frequencies”? Do we need to think in terms of muting and intensification? In terms of degree of modulation? Is this perhaps what theorists of “remix culture” are trying to get at?
SOOO, yeah,
that’s a LOT of stuff I just threw at you. It’s all very, VERY ROUGH. I need to
think through all this a lot more carefully, and if you have any thoughts or
comments, I’d really appreciate them! I have the sense I may be on to
something, but then I may well not be.
[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=OHe7AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
[2] By reading Attali
with/through Foucault, I’m arguing that perhaps there’s more to Attali than
others, such as Steven Shaviro, suggest: http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=397
[3] “Difference is the
principle for order” (Attali 62)
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Changes
[6]http://books.google.com/books?id=_v8tbxwv7y0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
No comments:
Post a Comment