Pantheism, Postmodernism, Pop, 4

Pantheism, Postmodernism, Pop, 1

Pantheism, Postmodernism, Pop, 2

Pantheism, Postmodernism, Pop, 3

As quintessentially expressed in the imaginative universe of rock music, the popular avant-garde, all the vague resentments towards organized religion, hierarchy, and privilege, all the secular cravings and dreams of earthly paradise that had been planted and fermented in the depth of Michelet’s People for centuries and perhaps millennia, are brought together.

The Beatles’ hippie anthem ‘All You Need Is Love’ may certainly have an undercurrent of cynicism, but no cynical rebounds of the often inevitable kind described in the romantic dialectic by Babbitt could stop the Rousseauan mission, and the basic message of the sixties’ neoromanticism was in a sense, in its own way, seriously meant. This is the kind of seriousness which rock shares with all romanticism. Few poems or other expressions of élite art or philosophy capture the whole credo of the empty, secular, immanentist, and utopian pantheism described by Pattison better than John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ – and no forced ironic quirks following his own vague perception of simplistic naiveté prevented his dreaming in this song from being accompanied by the most palpable activism.

But we have also seen that Pattison shows how among the traditional cultural categories and distinctions that pantheism dissolves is that of tragedy, [This is of course implied also in Lasserre’s criticism.] and that Peckham argues that with Nietzsche, romantic modernism moves “beyond the tragic vision”. In this state, which was the postmodern one where all objective distinctions of reality were suspended or dissolved in the pantheistic process, the whole content and meaning of art, which previously depended on these distinctions, is ultimately reduced, if not to sheer nonsense, at the very least to triviality.

Pattison argues that the efforts of middle-brow modernist avant-garde critics to “ennoble rock by discovering in it the direct influence of art music” is sabotaged by the deliberate, provocatively vulgar stance of the rock musicians themselves. The romantic origins are the same; “In its love of technological noise as in everything else, rock follows the Romantic avant-garde, and it is no accident that the appearance of rock coincided with the great age of experimental music in America, the 1950s. The theories of the experimentalists are shot through with a love of the primitive, with oriental mysticism, with insistence on feeling, and with a desire to relocate performance in self – the hallmarks of rock mythology as well. The experimentalists are the linear descendents of European Romanticism, and not only do they share a 1950s art geist with rock, but a common ancestry in Romantic theory.” Yet rock is a mirror image of art music, “identical but transposed…identical in makeup but opposite in charge. What reverses the two is vulgarity.” [Op.cit. 130-1.]

Thus Frank Zappa, the pupil of Varèse, insists, to the horror of some critics, on undercutting “any refined suggestion in his work by a crudity as evident in the titles as in the substance of his music”. But even this situation soon probably belongs to history. The avant-garde is itself being submerged in the waves of the pantheism which it promotes, and significantly, in Ben Watson’s Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play (1995), Adorno’s critical aesthetics is forced, with what is already perhaps only seemingly an ostentatious incongruity, into the service of the argument for the cultural relevance precisely of Zappa’s vulgarity.

Does it work? Is it not rather that today the remaining avant-garde, like romantic satanism, is reduced to mere entertainment? David Bowie says that “‘[p]eople like Lou Reed and I are probably predicting the end of an era…and I mean that catastrophically. Any society that allows people like Lou and I to become rampant is really pretty well lost.’” [Buckley, 214.] This may be true, but one has to ask what kind of revolution this is in reality. How serious is it? Does it really matter what Bowie says? Does anything matter in a thoroughly relativistic and nihilistic universe? Like Bowie, Mick Jagger and other surviving heroes of the sixties are shrewd businessmen. Rockers Mott the Hoople cite the romantic D. H. Lawrence: “If you make a revolution, make it for fun / Don’t make it in ghastly seriousness / Don’t do it in deadly earnest / Do it for fun.” [On the cover of the album Mott from 1973.]

Pantheism triumphs and takes Western culture beyond the tragic vision: “[R]ock chooses pantheism and says what Chuck Berry taught it to say: ‘Roll over, Beethoven…’”. Thus “the highest achievement of a rigorous pantheism like Whitman’s or rock’s is simply – ‘fun’”. Pattison shows how this difference between non-vulgar and vulgar romanticism is brought out in the – relatively complex – rock of Bob Dylan. “Fun” is

“the pleasure derived from a universe which is ourselves and which we cannot transcend because to know it is to be it…Chuck Berry’s is a universe that pivots on an untranscendent celebration of the energy I can extract from the present moment without recourse to anything but myself…The great rock song does not aim for permanence, insight, or rapture. Its virtues are transience, action, and feeling. Christopher Ricks cites Bob Dylan as evidence that ‘the best American poets convey the poignancy of there being nothing final’. He is right that Dylan’s rock stands in a vulgar American tradition of transience, but wrong that the effect of this tradition is poignancy, a word only a European would apply to American rock. Poignancy suggests a transcendent perch from which to mourn the impermanence of human existence. It is an emotion that high-toned poets deal in, not Bob Dylan, one of whose lyrical characters sings, ‘I might look like Robert Frost, but I feel just like Jesse James’. After the religious imagery of ‘I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine’ and the mystic allegory of ‘All Along the Watchtower’, Dylan ended his John Wesley Harding album with the apparently incongruous country-rock ballad, ‘I’ll Be Your Baby Tonight’…The troubles of the world enumerated in the lyrics of John Wesley Harding vanish in the rocker’s final commitment to the sensible present of tonight, and what Dylan tells his lover is what rock has to say to transcendental observers everywhere:

Close your eyes, close the door,

You don’t have to worry any more,

I’ll be your baby tonight.” [Op.cit. 197-8.]

4 Responses to “Pantheism, Postmodernism, Pop, 4”


  1. 1 Swedish Dissident September 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Har du möjligtvis lyssnat till Dead Can Dances tonkonst någon gång? Enligt min ringa uppfattning är det ett av senmodern tids allra mest framstående band, alla kategorier. Nya återföreningsalbumet “Anastatis” (2012) är riktigt bra och innehåller en del smått fantastiska stycken, som “Opium” och “Return of the She-King”, men framför allt är det sent 80-tal som är den australiensiska duons gyllene år. Delar av musken är som ett eko av europeisk högkultur, även om nu förvisso enstaka stycken närmar sig kitschig världsmusik och slätstruken goth pop.

    Hur DCD kan placeras i förhållande till postmodernism och panteism låter jag dock tills vidare vara osagt. En viss “eklekticism” talar visserligen för det förra, men i den banala meningen är väldigt mycket senmodern musik “postmodern” i åtminstone formavseende.

    • 2 Jan Olof Bengtsson November 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      Nej, inte tidigare, men har lyssnat lite nu på en del av det jag hittat på YouTube. Tack för tips, intressant. Är dock inte färdig med något omdöme än.

  2. 3 Jan Olof Bengtsson December 23, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Intressant som sagt. Jag får lyssna vidare. Prelminärt lutar jag nu åt omdömet att de är starka i stämningsuppbyggande och i användandet av ovanliga instrument, men mindre starka i kompositionell struktur och melodi.

  3. 4 Swedish Dissident December 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    Tack för dina kommentarer och nyanserade omdömen utifrån de egna uppfattningar som du hittills har skaffat dig om DCD.

    Jag upplever att det överlag finns många olika slags kompositionella strukturer och melodier som DCD använder sig av. Det enda huvudsakliga problemet, från mitt perspektiv, är att en del stycken helt enkelt är mindre framstående, eller rentav slätstrukna, i dessa såväl som andra avseenden. Styrkorna finns i min mening i, som du är inne på, inte minst stämningsuppbyggande och användandet av ovanliga instrument, men också i Lisa Gerrard och Brendan Perrys stämmor och hur de används inom ramarna för DCD (och i Gerrards fall också i solotappning och till Hans Zimmers Gladiator-soundtrack). När det brister kan det emellertid vara just melodierna och den kompositionella strukturen som fallerar helt eller delvis, så kanske är vi vid närmare eftertanke delvis överens.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Categories

Musae

Recent Comments

Kristo Ivanov on Ryszard Legutko: The Demon in…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Hegel och panteismen
Engelbrekt on Alice Teodorescu
Jan Olof Bengtsson on The Mythology Discussion
Krishna Kshetra Swam… on The Mythology Discussion
Tyrgils Saxlund on Hegel och van der Heeg
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Dylan och akademien
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Om förintelseförnekelse
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Om förintelseförnekelse
Non serviam! on Om förintelseförnekelse
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…
Andreas Bragd on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…
Johan on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…
Jan Olof Bengtsson on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…
mirotanien on Dharma Pravartaka Acharya…

Archives

All original writing © Jan Olof Bengtsson
"A Self-realized being cannot help benefiting the world. His very existence is the highest good."
Ramana Maharshi