Postcard 2 e1623335161759

Musicians Can Be Like Family

We are the music makers,

And we are the dreamers of dreams. . .

                                                   -Arthur O’Shaughnessy

B flat major

As a person accumulates time on this planet, and if they are among the “sound- centrics”* who crave music in their lives, they are likely to experience a unique kind of mourning when a favorite musician dies. The feeling mimics the kind of response we might expect with the passing of a family member.  To be sure, the act of grieving for a performer is likely to be more parasocial than communal. But it replicates the same sense of loss we experience with someone we know.  Because a person’s music can have such a hold on their identity, and because their music obviously remains alive on recordings, their passing can be an unwelcome disruption of a ‘relationship’ we cherished. The residuals of feeling easily expand to include musicians with whom we shared an expressive history.  As it often works out, the sense of loss we may be ours alone within our immediate circle.

Time travel with a musician is unique to the phenomenology of the self.

There are reasons for this effect. Musicians have a privileged relationship with members of their audiences.  The curve of success for influential musicians often parallels our own intense musical awakenings in youth: a pattern that means that performers and their admirers may be traveling the same timeline of the life-cycle. Even in this one-way relationship musicians can become familiar media “friends,” even more so because our key life experiences are accompanied by soundtracks that they have created. It should hardly be a surprise when their deaths cut deeper than we might have expected.

B flat majorEvery music lover would have their own list of singers, songwriters and players who have been granted a kind of permanent immortality. When they are suddenly gone, we notice and care. At least that is how it felt to me on learning recently of the deaths of singer Tony Bennett and Canadian musicians Gordon Lightfoot, Ian Tyson, and The Band’s Robbie Robertson (below).** The music world lost all of them recently.  An extended period for this novel kind of mourning tends to lengthen as we reclaim their presence through videos and recordings.

Like mine, any person’s list of recent losses will be personal and idiosyncratic, and as expandable as an old accordion. It speaks to our individuality that no two individuals would likely claim the same musical placeholders that we keep for our inner selves. Time travel with a musician and their work is unique to the phenomenology of the self.

It was not always so. Victorians especially struggled to comprehend what it meant to be listening to a recording of a deceased singer. A ghost from the past, many thought. Some were unsettled by the act of bringing the very breath of a singer back to life. Did this violate the natural order of things? Or had we finally tapped a way to hear the angels? After all, before recording, sound was the most precious of phenomena: at once transient, but extremely effecting.

The power of recorded sound to defeat aging and death makes it a kind of time machine of the psyche: a portal to a past we recognize and often want to relive. Songs of the deceased offer the chance to reinterrogate the identities we once owned, envied, and perhaps abandoned. All of this evocative power makes it easy to understand why the lives of musicians are among the most enduring social markers.

______________________

*As noted in The Sonic Imperative (2021), this inexact but useful characterization is meant to identify the millions of individuals among us who are consistently constantly seek fulfillment in the creation or consumption of auditory media: mostly music, but not exclusively so.

**Robbie Robertson leading off his song, The Weight, with a world of musicians contributing.

black bar

cropped Revised square logo

flag ukraine

red and black bar

Will the Indictments Refuel Chaos Voters?

The 2024 election will be a chance to see whether the republic we have is–as Ben Franklin wondered–something that we can keep.

This site has invested in the idea that our political disfunction is increasingly fueled by a sizable portion of the public that welcomes the chance to oppose big and sometimes small American Institutions. Opposition is its own reward. In recent years more voters have been interested in challenging the motives of national and sometimes local cornerstone organizations: everything from the FBI and Presidency, all the way down to the local library. As we have seen, the impulse to intervene even extends to local school districts, with some parents seeking to upend professional curriculum planning, library acquisition standards, and even the plays their drama coach is planning to mount.  Rhetorically, these frustrated Americans engage in a Rhetoric of No, using some of the same tropes—if not the script—of sixties radicals on the left who sought to defy official power. (Think of the turmoil of the left unleashed at the 1968 Democratic Convention.)

The current urge at the other end of the political spectrum seems to be motivated by a sense of powerlessness, as well as a loss of meaningful connections to local groups or institutions. Social media feed these feelings of isolation without providing functional ways to curb them.

2000px Vertical United States Flag.svg By now, anyone still grounded in the observable world must understand that Donald Trump was and is an outlier. There can be little question even among most members of his party that he has bent the norms (and, presumably, laws) that usually govern presidential behavior. There are the obvious character issues: cheating others out of payment for their services, sexual predation, playing the victim, lying, and long bouts of narcissist rhetoric.  And then there is the stale but vivid verbal abuse of federal and state officials, members of his party, and even his own vice president.  Only fascism can use ad hominem attacks  on others as a pathway to leadership.

The federal and state indictments documenting improper intimidation of election officials are yet to be proven in court, but seem hard to deny. As most know, he is on tape asking Georgia officials to “find” more votes that would allow him to reverse his loss.  And he has shamelessly accused election officials in his own party of improperly adding or withholding votes. We now know that–against the odds–the election process in 2020 was generally well run. It makes the blanket accusation that the current indictments are “witch hunts” seem increasingly hallow.

The wildcard here is the boomerang effect: the catch-all idea  that persuasion theorists reserve to describe individuals who grow more antagonistic in the face of evidence that should convince them. It happens more than we might think. We can ask people to accept a clear truth.  But we can’t make them accept it. Perhaps people do not want to appear to change while under the thumb of another’s compelling case.

This counterintuitive effect  seems to be happening with each new indictment of the President.  The maelstrom of this news asks supporters to simply affirm deeply held views.

But. . . 

Persuasion is typically an incremental process.  Most of us need time to change our attitudes. In the meantime, there may be a fair amount of  cognitive dissonance attached to the act of continuing to support a flawed idea or candidate. In time, that dissonance may be relieved  with attitude realignments that can be face-saving.

The coming election will be a test of whether the nation can collectively handle what the indictments of Trump administration imply.  Americans still live in very different rhetorical realities. But can that diversity occur while we acknowledge what is true and known about this whole sordid period of our political life? The 2024 election is a chance to see whether the republic we have is–and Ben Franklin noted–something that we can keep.

black bar

Revised square logo

flag ukraine