In my sociology of culture class, for the past few class periods, we have been discussing a book called Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs, by David Grazian. It has been an interesting read because Grazian interviews different musicians playing at the clubs, along with bar tenders, and customers. Everyone has a different idea of what they are hoping to get out of the night shows and everyone has a different idea of what authentic blues is. He mentiones that a lot of the performers just stick to the songs that people like to hear, in other words, they are crowd pleasers. They do not come up with their own stuff but are still very talented musicians playing the songs of other great artists. What caught my interest, as it relates to this topic of conformity and individuality, was one of the musicians whom Grazian talked to, named Louis. When talking about the music he plays and why he plays it he said this:
“Well, I’m not interested in playing traditional music—I’m more interested in creating my own style. Like what I do now, it’s not really blues, jazz, or R&B, but I call it “blusion,” and it’s my own thing, see? Music is all about metamorphosis and change. You know, it’s like if you listen to Charlie Parker or Miles… These guys created a new style, and some people said to them in the beginning, ‘Hey, what the hell are you doing?’ And I get that, I get bad feedback sometimes from owners because I don’t play in a traditional way… And you know, I don’t have a problem with that, because it’s business…but then I deal with the audience, and I try to win them over with it.”
I just thought this was great because here is a guy, a musician, who will not just play the songs that people love, but he plays what he has written, in his own style and in his own way. And with that new style, he uses it to win the crowd over and open them up to something new. He is not afraid of the bad feedback but he uses it to better himself and to work on winning the crowd over so that they will better appreciate what he has to offer. He does not conform to what the owners are looking for or to the expectations of the crowd. This reminded me of the essay Art Worlds by Howard Becker, which we read for class also. In this essay Becker writes about everything that art worlds consist of, such as the team of people who come together to produce the artwork. He writes about possible limitations due to the machinery used or techniques adopted in order to produce certain works. Sometimes this causes the artist not to have all the freedoms they would want or even consider. Sometimes artists produce what the viewers would want to see or the music the listeners would want to hear, or whatever was socially acceptable, in order to make money or get the artwork circulated around. Opposing this idea, Howard writes:
"The limitations of conventional practice are not total. You can always do things differently if you are prepared to pay the price in increased effort or decreased circulation of your work. The experience of composer Charles Ives exemplifies the latter possibility. He experimented with polytonality and polyrhythms early in the 1900s before they became part of the ordinary performer’s competence. The New York players who tried to play his chamber and orchestral music told him that it was unplayable, that their instruments could not make those sounds, that the scores could not be played in any practical way. Ives finally accepted their judgments, but continued to compose such music. What makes his case interesting is that, though he was also bitter about it, he experienced this as a great liberation. If no one could play his music, then he no longer h ad to write what musicians could play, no longer had to accept the constraints imposed by the conventions that regulated cooperation between contemporary composer and player. Since his music would not be played, he never needed to finish it; he was unwilling to confirm John Kirkpatrick’s pioneer reading of the Concord Sonata as a correct one because that would mean he could no longer change it. Nor did he have to accommodate his writing to the practical constraints of what could be financed by conventional means, and so wrote his Fourth Symphony for three orchestras.
In general, breaking with existing conventions and their manifestations in social structure and material artifacts increases artists’ trouble and decreases the circulation of their work, but at the same time increases their freedom to choose unconventional alternatives and to depart substantially from customary practice. If that is true, we can understand any work as the product of a choice between conventional ease and success and unconventional trouble and lack of recognition.” (p.182-183)
I know that was quite a lengthy excerpt from Becker’s essay; however I hope the connection is quite obvious. Sacrifice has to be made to be an individual and to do things that one thinks is right or prefers. In Grazian’s book, Louis risked not being liked, not being able to play his music, and possibly not making money. In Becker’s essay, Charles Ives wrote music that people could not play and because of this it was not accepted. He was being experimental and making music his own, yet it was not what others were interested in. Although both situations could and I am sure do cause a lot of bitterness, Becker was right in saying how freeing it must have been also to stand against what others wanted or expected. We are limited in many ways and cannot help those limitations. But in so many other ways we are not limited thus we do not have to conform to unnecessary limitations. Martin Luther King Jr. did not conform to such limitations and neither did Pablo Picasso. Pablo Picasso is one of the greatest artists in history. Almost everyone has either heard of Picasso or seen his work in books, museums, or in classrooms and offices, in poster format of course. He was one of few artists who revolutionized art and opened the door to a whole new world and style of painting. We praise him now for his uniqueness and individuality, but he did not always get praise. His friends looked at his work at told him to not show it to anyone because of how hideous they thought it was. Picasso had had plenty of professional training in painting and drawing so he could produce work that the public would love and enjoy. He did not do that, however. He remained true to himself and his style. It might not have been great back then, but now he is one of the greatest artists that we study, look up to, and try to be like. And that is the sacrifice that individuals make. They have to let go of what other people think and just think for themselves. The individual knows he stands alone, that is why his is an individual. If people agree with him or join him then that is great and encouraging, but he knows that being an individual does not guarantee he will have support for his individuality.
So… maybe some of us are just scared of what other people will think of us. That is an unfortunate limitation that our society and culture has influenced upon us.
___________________________________________________________
Grazian, David. Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs. The University of Chicago Press: 2003, p.159.
Spillman, Lyn. Cultural Sociology: Becker, Howard. Art Worlds. Blackwell Publishing:2002, p. 178-188.
