[Journal 2] Playing vs. Listening

    It was rather hard to wrap my head around what things exactly Barthes was trying to say in this section, but I think I got some of the general idea: what he leads with and concludes with is that modern music does not involve a tangible playing of music: "passive, receptive music, sound music, is become the music (that of concert, festival, record, radio)". 

    So, what he's saying here is that there are few composers left who compose for others to play - for generations to interact with and internalize. Thus, this music, experienced through listening only for the wider audience - has less to "give to do". No longer do audiences participate in the creation, writing, and interpretation of the music. He even proposes a future in which "...one can imagine the concert - later on ? - as exclusively a workshop, from which nothing spills over - no dream, no imaginary, in short, no 'soul' and where all the musical art is absorbed in a praxis with no remainder."

Well.

I raise you Bohemian Rhapsody. 

    In many ways I found this Barthes reading to be frustrating because not only does he seems to underestimate the lasting impact that modern musicians can leave on music as a whole - he seems to also fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the modern concert - as interactive, as a community experience, as one of participation. You cannot watch this video and see the future of modern music as being one lacking in imagination, longevity, and most importantly: soul. 

    What I adore so much about this particular example of the experience of modern music is that this was a Green Day concert. This was before the concert even began, and happened spontaneously in response to Bohemian Rhapsody being played over the speakers before the show started. It wasn't planned or orchestrated, but was in many ways inevitable. The legacy of Queen, while young when compared to the likes of Beethoven, has the potential to carry just as much weight. Part of the merit of these songs is that they are meant to be sung, to be participated in. Freddy Mercury created music, imbued with a "tangible intelligibility" that was meant to be played, just the same as Beethoven. 

    However, instead of dreaming of directing our own orchestra, to "forsake the amateur and... call on the new Romantic deity, the interpreter" - to dominate and control it in its entirety (the "impulse... becomes orchestral, thus escaping from the fetishism of a single element") - Queen embraces the amateur and recognizes and empowers their role as interpreter. And more often than not, that is exactly what audiences do - listeners will sing along, not concerned with being exact but with capturing the energy of the moment. Crowds will choreograph a dance routine that exists as entirely unique out of inexperience, yet they are filled with just as much passion as the conductor. By the nature of mob mentality, audiences are empowered by their fellows and by the musician(s) to create and participate more than they would have ever dreamed of before if they were sitting quietly in a concert hall. 

    In capturing the energy of the moment, however, is there then "no remainder" once it is all done? Since no one is recording the nuance of each individual voice singing slightly out-of-tune, or recording the series of dance moves to be recreated later, is it then, by its nature, temporary?

    I don't think so. Because this experience is fundamentally an interpretation of the original work, which exists as unique and unachievable, but has nevertheless left a monumental global footprint. The sentiment where musicians "are disappointed: who... can play Beethoven well?" echoes here - who can not only sing but preform Bohemian Rhapsody well? However, unlike with Beethoven, we are not disappointed by this fact - it contributes to the experience, to appreciating the chaos and joy of music and of being imperfect - uniting audiences through that shared human experience.

    It is not the case that the "amateur... is no longer anywhere to be found, touching off in us not satisfaction but desire, the desire to make that music". Not even mentioning the number of amateurs with little or no classical musical education who have left massive legacies (Jimi Hendrix, for one), the deep-set desire we have to make music is tied to much of Queen's greatest hits - part of the reason why the above video happened in the first place. Being an audience member in the modern day comes closer to the experience of 'playing' than of 'listening to' in the time of Beethoven. Modern musicians makes us want to participate in the music in tangible ways - to sing, to stomp and clap, and maybe, just maybe, to become rockstars ourselves.