As a musician, I would be glad to discuss the basis on which
>such determinations can and should be made, but, rather than bore you
all,
>why don't I just enumerate some of the more telling signs of fascism in
>music. First is loudness. Second, a relentless beat. Third, a
remorseless
>bass, which together with the aforementioned beat, I like to call the
"iron
>boot." These two reflect the brutishness of fascism to an astonishing
>degree. Fourth, let's not forget the glorification of folkish cultural
>streams (such as the blues, in the American instance).
>
>I had much reason to think about fascist music during my days in
showbiz. I
>wondered why so much fascist music was coming out of the ghetto. I
wondered
>why I liked it so much.
This reminds me of John Cage, about whom Brian Sandstrom, a bassist I've played with in Chicago, related an anecdote to me: that Cage was at some performance of a piece that was loud and structurally oppressive to him, I forget the composer just now, and he called the music fascist. There's another anecdote about Cage at some loud rockish show, spending the whole time with his ear at the speaker. But then in an interview with John Corbett in Corbett's _Extended Play: Sounding off from John Cage to Dr. Funkenstein_, Cage also suggests that the inner-city phenomenon of the "ghetto blaster" is fascist too. All those fascist African-Americans in the inner city, you know, while Cage was in the upper-crust Manhattan art scene. I think one should consider the social and cultural context in each case.
But by your criteria, why isn't John Adams' music fascist, because it's not loud enough? What about serialism: couldn't one argue it's a structural "iron boot"? Also, shouldn't one consider the mechanical reproduction, through which music is consumed most often? Then the question of loudness is up to the listener.
Just a few thoughts from a fellow musician.
-Alec
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com