Ideology-Free Music

the question of music and ideology is indeed a complicated affair. i called for the fusing of anarchism and radical theories in past texts, and denounced the tendency to call for "ideology-free" music. while i stand to this position, the matter is not as simple as it seems, or rather, there is also another point of view to it. the other position misuses an idea that in principle is true - that music should not be subject to roles, categories, "demands", a forced position, a hierarchy - to cut off political involvement in music.
as i said, this is in principle right - yes, music should not be subjugated or controlled, or subjected to essentially hierarchical and authoritarian methods, which are involved when it is said that music *has* to incorporated certrain ideas, be they be political or authoritarian.
but - the important "but" - is that the renouncement of politics, or another "ideology", doesn't solve this at all. because the so-called "unpolitical", "unideological" music in the western world, that is not made according to principles of marxism or socialism or anarchism, is still very much ideological. because the idea that music is made, that music *should* be made for enjoyment, for fun, for excitement, for leisure time *only* - is highly ideological too. music, as it exists right now in the western world - all the pop, rock, techno - holds a certain position, a certain purpose. and this position, this purpose is truly ideological. music is there for "kicking back" after a hard work day, to find some kind of "relaxement" in the boring everyday world, to have a "good feeling", to spend some "free time". there are a thousand ways in which this is can be seen as ideological, and especially, capitalist. the concept of a "worktime" and "freetime" for example, in which the free time is used to gather enough strength back to face the capitalist "workday" - to keep the machines oiled and capitalism going. but we can cut this here to get to more important positions. which is, that is *obviously* an ideology when it is demanded that music has to be in a certain way; even if the demand is that music is forenjoyment. second, that obviously this is a rule too; a demand; authoritarian; oppressive; if music has to be in a certain way. third, that this "simple enjoyment", simple pleasure, that pop music might bring to some, in the end prevents them from reaching higher pleasures, higher purposes, higher joys.

music can be so wonderful; it can lead to adventure and exploration; it can change lifes; it can change worlds; it can inspire the imagination; it can inspire humans. it can lead to daring paths, encounterig the unknown, the wonderful, the bizarre and the powerful. music can collapse the whole world and unfold a new one. if you only seek music for a fleeting moment of simple, flavorless "pleasure" inbetween "worktime" and the next day - well, let me tell you, you are missing out.

of course, the western position is not merely that music should be there for "enjoyment" only; it is more complex; hard to pinpoint, but holding a definitive position and method - and a very ideological one.
the "unpolitical" music of the 2000s was more ideological than any marxist hippieband or socialist punkband of past decades.


the reason that it is not obvious that the "enjoyment-only" position is ideological, is that people are used to it; they grew up with it. their parents listened to music for "fun-only"; their friends do. or so it seemed.
but it becomes clear when the western position is compared with other cultures; because in almost no culture or society in the history of men, music was for "fun-only". it was tied in with the political, religious, aristocratic, cultural structures. you wouldn't think that a man who was assigned to create a piece of music for the glory of the king would've had said to him "meh, i only do music for fun only - couldn't care less about glory". or that the priest who chanted a babylonian ritual would've thought that this is for fun only.
only with the degradation of "modernism", in the 19th and 20th century, the idea arose that music could be for "fun-only".


but let us get back to ideology. it doesn't end here. even if you don't see how contemporary music, that is "unpolitical", still runs along ideological lines, which exists plentiful, there is another problem ahead.
we said music should not be forced to fit in categories and concepts, preconceived ideas and preformatted notions. well, to tell you some news, *music* itself is a category, a notion, an ideology.
if you want art, music to be free; to be free of authotarian ideas and concepts, and ideologies; you have to get rid of art and music itself.
because there is a strict definition of what is music, to most people. a song you hear on youtube, a record you put your needle on, an orchestra you hear play, is, for some reason considered music. the rattling of a jackhammer, the sounds of traffic, or on the other hand, the sounds of nature, wind, animals are not considered music. why should the one be considered music, and not the other? why shouldn't music include *any* sound that exists? this would have some extended consequences. for example, if you want to hear a sweet song, you could go to the street crossing and listen to the traffic; or if you're more of the nature type, take a walk in the forest. if you think music is only that track that is on the album your bought, or was presented in the show you watched - you still have some very basic, preconceived, simplistic, and most importantly, ideological concept of what is "music" and what not.
again, what i find especially interesting here how it would change the concept of listening to a piece of music; if you want to enjoy music, put down your headphones, turn of your speakers, and listen to the hum of your computer, or the noises of your coffee machine.
if kids start to talk not about this or that band they discovered, but which appliances gives them the most wonderful "music" - then we can start to have a good time in society.

and last, why should music even be limited to accoustic, sonic concepts? if we have to get rid of all ideology, and categories, then that music is inherently accoustic, is another thing based on a category that has no foundation, that is to be abandoned. and this to me is the most important point. why couldn't music be; an anarchist text; a just riot; a kiss; a walk through the streets; sitting down at the beach?
in language, and by poets, this connection was always there; or rather, to poets it was obvious - because it is obvious, unless you are willing to close your eyes. certain architecture has been called "frozen music"; what is said to you by your love becomes "the song of her words"; you "like the sound of that" if you agree with an idea; "the rhythm of youth"; and so on; terms, concepts of music have been addressed to many social, cultural, or even everyday concepts; because they are inherently so. to think music comes only of "sound" and can only be sound - is a boring point of view.
if you want to rid music of ideology; than you have to rid music of the 'ideology of music' too; and see that what is music and what is not music, is itself something that is open to debate.