Having done my graduate work on large scale music analysis, I read the entire article with great interest. The author makes great arguments, though they have not addressed one key topic – whether all this is causation or correlation, or perhaps reflection (causation in reverse.)
The author’s thesis is here: “The poets’ disregard for musical laws, provoked by their museless art, soon inspired in their audiences a contempt for all laws. This occurred because the poets engendered a skepticism toward the very idea of the good—precisely the kind of skepticism that results from the sophistry defined by Plato elsewhere.”
We can think about this from the perspective of two recent artistic movements – gangsta rap (think Wu Tang Clan, Biggie, Raekwon, Eminem) and melancholy pop (specifically, Lana del Rey.) Both are derided by civil society. In college (in the 1990s) there were plenty of debates on whether Rap even constituted music. Both are often pointed to as the cause for decline. Yet, both seem to the author to be either reflections or outcomes of civil decline.
Gangsta rap is the reflection of a society which progressed ahead, but left a sector of neighborhoods to decay, extracted from them, and celebrated success without acknowledging the costs. Gangsta rap, as violent and explicit as it may be, exposes this, comments on this, and brings the hypocrisy into full view for all to hear. Gangster rap was an outcome (not a cause) of purposeful policies which drove urban decay in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
On the opposite side, not all is well with the “successful” side of society. Lana del Rey reveals it well. The excesses and extreme freedoms are equally harmful within.
With Gangsta rap, the author sees people who had no voice, were disenfranchised from traditional media, and worked hard to establish their own voices and get their own stories out.
Also, the author notes “He did, however, condemn another kind of poet who had “native genius” but abused his talent to subvert order and harmony.” I wonder though – “order and harmony” for whom? Order and harmony often have winners and losers. The losers do not consider it harmony. As exemplified by Lana del Rey, even the winners may not consider it harmony.
The author points out: “Instead, they experimented with strange and unearthly sounds to arouse the excitement of the audience.” Could this be because the narrow confines of music – as the winners have described it – limit full freedoms of speech and expression. Could it be that the narrow confines might purposefully be narrow to only allow a set of specific narratives which perpetuate the status quo?
I’m glad the article notes “Such a hermeneutic of suspicion might have us believe that the mousikoi’s governance of the theater was no more than an exercise of power for power’s sake and that their laws were simply a set of arbitrary rules designed to control the masses.” But the author notes “Thus, harmony—understood not just as the momentary agreement of musical notes but as a complex unity born out of opposition and contrast—sustains the universe. Such a notion of harmony formed the criterion not only for good music but for the very idea of justice itself, defined by Plato as the flourishing of diverse individuals within a unified social body.” The key error is that Plato has defined Justice (as the article notes.) I wonder whether the slaves of ancient Greece agreed there was justice? Finally, the author highlights a line about bringing “audiences into communion with divine reason” yet I highly doubt there was true communion when a third to half of society were slaves.
Sorry, I see I copied a wrong quote with respect to the letter of my reply but it should be clear anyway:
decadence produces drives that increase decadence ("causation"); decadence is a multi-front attack and all its facilitators contribute (not simply "correlation").
The author’s thesis is here: “The poets’ disregard for musical laws, provoked by their museless art, soon inspired in their audiences a contempt for all laws. This occurred because the poets engendered a skepticism toward the very idea of the good—precisely the kind of skepticism that results from the sophistry defined by Plato elsewhere.”
We can think about this from the perspective of two recent artistic movements – gangsta rap (think Wu Tang Clan, Biggie, Raekwon, Eminem) and melancholy pop (specifically, Lana del Rey.) Both are derided by civil society. In college (in the 1990s) there were plenty of debates on whether Rap even constituted music. Both are often pointed to as the cause for decline. Yet, both seem to the author to be either reflections or outcomes of civil decline.
Gangsta rap is the reflection of a society which progressed ahead, but left a sector of neighborhoods to decay, extracted from them, and celebrated success without acknowledging the costs. Gangsta rap, as violent and explicit as it may be, exposes this, comments on this, and brings the hypocrisy into full view for all to hear. Gangster rap was an outcome (not a cause) of purposeful policies which drove urban decay in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
On the opposite side, not all is well with the “successful” side of society. Lana del Rey reveals it well. The excesses and extreme freedoms are equally harmful within.
With Gangsta rap, the author sees people who had no voice, were disenfranchised from traditional media, and worked hard to establish their own voices and get their own stories out.
Also, the author notes “He did, however, condemn another kind of poet who had “native genius” but abused his talent to subvert order and harmony.” I wonder though – “order and harmony” for whom? Order and harmony often have winners and losers. The losers do not consider it harmony. As exemplified by Lana del Rey, even the winners may not consider it harmony.
The author points out: “Instead, they experimented with strange and unearthly sounds to arouse the excitement of the audience.” Could this be because the narrow confines of music – as the winners have described it – limit full freedoms of speech and expression. Could it be that the narrow confines might purposefully be narrow to only allow a set of specific narratives which perpetuate the status quo?
I’m glad the article notes “Such a hermeneutic of suspicion might have us believe that the mousikoi’s governance of the theater was no more than an exercise of power for power’s sake and that their laws were simply a set of arbitrary rules designed to control the masses.” But the author notes “Thus, harmony—understood not just as the momentary agreement of musical notes but as a complex unity born out of opposition and contrast—sustains the universe. Such a notion of harmony formed the criterion not only for good music but for the very idea of justice itself, defined by Plato as the flourishing of diverse individuals within a unified social body.” The key error is that Plato has defined Justice (as the article notes.) I wonder whether the slaves of ancient Greece agreed there was justice? Finally, the author highlights a line about bringing “audiences into communion with divine reason” yet I highly doubt there was true communion when a third to half of society were slaves.