Evolution and Extinction:
A Look at Music and Social Competition for the Arts
by Matthew C. Mackey
35,000 years. Yep, that’s how long humans have been playing music. Not too bad. My guess is much longer, but the oldest instrument found…so far… has been credited to the Paleolithic era. In 2009, a thin vulture-bone flute was found in a cave in the southwest part of Germany. Coupled with the discovery of 30,000- 33, 000 year old sculptures and the Chauvet Cave paintings dating from 30,000-32,000 years ago the bone flute gives art a long and credible part in human development.
It seems humans have been artistically experiencing the world since as long as we have been conscious of our presence in it, and we keep redefining and inventing our means of expressing those experiences. For example, the modern concept of the novel is a relatively…novel idea. Although the origin of the novel is debated by such experts as Stephen Moore, author of The Novel: An Alternate History, it is widely held that in 1740 Samuel Richardson gave the genre a birth with Pamela, a recent endeavor comparatively. The important thing to note is that humans have been evolving not only as a species but as artists.
Since the artistic genres, I’m thinking of visual arts, performing arts and literary arts, probably started evolving relatively (I use the term loosely) simultaneously, though literature as we recognize it today took much longer to develop, I wonder why one form has maintained a distinct social popularity while other artistic activities have , well, faded into the background. Ever since our sweaty-browed ancestor carved up that vulture bone, music has remained the most popular of artistic avenues.
From the drums of the fire ceremony, to singing or chanting prayers towards the eastern sun, to inaugural ceremonies, to honorary tributes, and even to the car rides home, to the evening out, to the late night philosophical discussion, music has found its way into every aspect of human life. Every nation has its anthem, every school its fight song, and every individual sings a favorite tune in the shower, but what of visual art or works of literature or the theater?
Of course I’m not moping because music has such domination over the arts or that it creates competition for those other artists who are working in other media. Kudos! Well done Music Gods! What I am interested in is why music is 35,000 years later still a social phenomenon, while other artistic endeavors have either lost or never quite attained such a grand status. Take for example, the plethora of bands and musicians making beacoup bucks while visual artists have a hard time making a decent living. I don’t mean to say that thousands of musicians don’t have a hard time surviving or that a handful of visual artists don’t make it big, but it’s far more likely that people on a Saturday night will go and PAY to listen to a band before they go to an art gallery. And, for example, when was the last time you heard of a poet reaching true “rock-star” status? Or a playwright having groupies? The terms were invented for the music world.
With as many artists we now have putting their work in touch with more people than at any other time in history, thanks to the advent of the computer, why is it that music is the most sought after artistic expression? I imagine it is followed closely by film, and the recent debate over literature piracy involving Lucia Extebarria gives me no …okay maybe a little comfort that people still want literary arts, especially if they’re willing to steal it. Is theft a form of flattery?
Anyways, I don’t blame music for its domination, but where does that leave the rest of us artists? Do we simply say, “Well, it’s not what I do, so I’m not worried about it”? Hmm… I’m afraid we better not.
If artists want to remain a viable component to society, it is necessary to understand that music probably more so than any other artistic genre has maintained a constant social relevancy. That is people find music pertinent to their lives, useful even. People build their own playlists, construct or imagine their own soundtracks, find memories flooding back every time a certain song pops on the radio. They play music trivia with friends, post songs on Facebook, and most of us have at one time or another dreamed of being in a band, and if not we all have bands or musical styles (there are a multitude to choose from) we love listening to. No matter how we slice it, we are inundated with music as an art form. And that is okay because I need something that fits my mood, expresses how I’m feeling at the moment, but like the rest of the world, I don’t often reach for the collection of Basho, Buson, and Issa on my shelf.
When I told people I wanted to study poetry at the graduate level, the responses were less than encouraging: “You’ve got to be kidding,” “Are you rich? Is your family rich? Why would you do that?”, and my favorite, “Yeah, the world’s going to the shitter anyways. You might as well do something like that.” What the fuck? I thought. Don’t people care about the arts anymore?
Those same people in fact did care about the arts. More appropriately, they cared about music. A few of them even paid close to a hundred dollars a ticket to go to see Elton John or Mumford and Sons in concert. Music is in demand. The other arts? Not so much. Film may be a growing second, bringing in millions of dollars of revenue, but even still, music trumps film in terms of social demand.
Here’s and exercise to gauge just how much we recognize music over the other arts. Note how many you recognize from each brief and non-comprehensive list:
MUSIC NON-MUSIC
Coldplay William Faulkner
Chet Baker Toni Morrison
Miley Cyrus Gertrude Stein
Katie Perry Paul Cezanne
Madonna J.K. Rowling
Cher Jackson Pollock
Blink 182 Henri Matisse
Bob Dylan Tennessee Williams
The Beatles George Bernard Shaw
The Rolling Stones Oscar Wilde
The National Ron Howard
Now take it one step further and note how familiar you are with each recognized artist. For example, you might recognize both Coldplay and Oscar Wilde. How may Coldplay albums or downloaded songs do you own vs. how many works of Wilde grace your shelves, or Matisse prints on your walls? You probably own the Harry Potter series…we all do, and you may even own a Ron Howard movie.
Again, I’m only comparing the two artistic genres in order to demonstrate the current social appetite and pose the question of response to artists working in non-music genres. We don’t all have to be musicians. Though, it would do us well to be more musical in our pursuits. As a recent article mentioned on Buried Letter Press, confluence in artistic genres isn’t a bad thing at all. But I’m not asking you to start singing your poetry (give it a try, you might be surprised) or play piano over one of your short stories (again, surprise yourself) or paint to Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 (It is inspiring though). What I am saying is that as an artist you have a few choices. 1. You can accept the fact that your particular art form might not be in such high demand, and resign your work to academia or the small art gallery or publication or 2. You can compete in new and exciting ways, creating a new social place for the particular art forms you work in. No matter where you end up, academia, the small art gallery, a local press, on the bestseller’s shelf, or main-stage, it is important to consider the social place or role of your work. If it’s important enough to compose or create, then it should be important enough to be read, viewed, or experienced. I know this brings up the precarious question of audience in art, but it’s not a bad one to ask yourself. Where do you want to go with your work? Who do you want to experience it? How do you accomplish these things?
Music has enjoyed almost as long a history of evolution as humans have. The relevancy that music has in society is due largely impart to its ability to adapt and evolve, to stay competitive, and to meet people where they are. While all of the artistic expressions have progressed (at different paces), Music is the artistic equivalent of Darwin’s natural selection, and when any art stops evolving, when it stops competing, when it stops being relevant, it slowly becomes extinct.
