Turns out, nobody has really done any research or writing in music and ethics. There is some work on how music serves as an anthemic tool for social movements with ethical import (civil rights songs). There is some work on the historical views of how different cultures have viewed music as a language with moral overtones. But there’s nothing current being done on ethics as an integrated tool for decision making in the life of a musician.
This is becoming something of a problem the more I dig into the preparation for teaching a course on the subject. I need to use books. They don’t exist. I need my students to trace the thinking of other people in the area. It hasn’t been done.
I went out looking for a course at a major university that tackled music and ethics, either as a “professional ethics” sort of course, or even from a more theoretical “philosophy of music” perspective. Nobody has one. The content just doesn’t exist.
Approaching a blank field in academia carries with it an odd sensation – you don’t know if you’re traipsing through virgin territory, or a nuclear wasteland. Is there nothing here because nobody has been here before, or is there nothing here because everyone who starting walking through it ended up with 3 legs and persistent boils, so nobody comes here anymore.
In other words, is it void because there’s nothing worthwhile to talk about here?
I hope that’s not the case. I don’t think it’s the case. But the other possibility is almost as terrifying. Every mountain gets to kill off a few dozen climbers before someone finds a route that works. Every “first voice in” to a virgin academic area gets to be the punching bag for the dozen or so “second voices in” that come to tango.
So, all that to say, you lucky people are going to be helping me pull this together. Prepare yourselves. Pray. Fast. Listen to music. Learn to write meaningless run-on sentences that are weighted down with redundant clauses, filled with obscure syntax, and imbued with a self-righteous sense of condescension. We’re going to create some Academic Content!
phil 9:58 am on 27 October 2006 Permalink
Whose purposes?
In any case, that immediately moves us out of “musical ethics” and into “general ethics” since most human activities have purposes.
Other than blogging, of course.
“Music for a purpose” seems to quickly degenerate to distilled excrescence of bovine, unless the notion of purpose is very broadly defined.
Chad 11:33 am on 27 October 2006 Permalink
John,
The cure for hero worship includes an alley in Burbank, a Drum Major routine, and a video camera.
Chad 11:42 am on 27 October 2006 Permalink
There’s another facet to this discussion, which has been so lacking in content and controversy, that I just thought I’d throw this in….
Christian faith (or upbringing) has shaped and colored the creation and execution of music for a great percentage of people here. I have often been insanely jealous of people who get to write whatever the hell comes into their brains. I have been sold (and have often bought) the line that no song or lyric is appropriate for church comsumption unless it’s completely theologically sound, or spiritually relavant. Too much anger, vulgarity, harshness, or anything else that can be read into as “worldly” is unacceptable in the church environment.
Even the song that I quoted a few weeks ago as my protest song began as something much more specific and much more personal and (let’s face facts here) much uglier. My Christian College blocking gnomes told me that there was no way it was ok to write the song about the topic I origianlly had in mind. It was a personal attack on someone. And man… was it justified.
So, my musical ethics (situational ethics as well) told me to channel that angst into something more nebulous, i.e. the media. It’s not that I don’t believe the content of the lyric as it stands (we all need a little more unplugged time… IMO) it’s just that the ethics of my life and experience naturally checked the full wrath of my lyrical abilities. Good interpersonally… perhaps bad artistically.
aly hawkins 12:42 pm on 27 October 2006 Permalink
Phil – Yeah, I “purpose” is a bad choice of word. “Artist’s motivation” is more accurate to what I’m thinking.
corey 12:50 pm on 27 October 2006 Permalink
Another question, Mike. How much of this is rooted in your desire to prepeare your students for “practical” performance situations? I think the students have something special in teachers who have gigged and have some “yarns” as Chad calls them. I’d think there would be plenty to discuss there.
phil 12:55 pm on 27 October 2006 Permalink
Ah, but as we’ve already discussed, my motives are pretty murky, and probably fairly disreputable.
I do love certain music, though. I’m not sure why. It makes me feel interested, alive, curious, expressive… it engages my perceptions and my intellect and frequently my feelings (not always in any verbalizable way… I couldn’t put a label on the feelings, mostly) and my physicality (i love words that begin with ph). It may engage me “spiritually”, but that’s even more slippery of definition than “aesthetic”, so I’ll just toss it out there without qualification for now.
I don’t much care about the “artist’s motivation”…. and I haven’t noticed that other musicians especially care about mine when they perform my music… they just respond to the music.
Face it…. we’re all prima donnas… or is that prima donni?
Topherless 7:14 pm on 27 October 2006 Permalink
I think the first step you need to ask yourself in regards to ethics in creating music is “why is this music being created” because that will dictate what musical ethics you should abide by. Music is much to big to be put into one category even if that category is “art.”
Do some people create music for the purpose of art? Yes. Do some people create it as a from of self expression? Yes. Do some people create it in order to generate commerce? Yes. Do some people create it as a vehicle to achieve fame? Yes. Do some people create it to score extra points with hot chicks? We’ll, YES!!!
Are all of these reasons valid? YES (as long was we are honest with ourselves for our reasons.)
So, you think your “musical idea” is somehow better than the person who has the musical vision? In a technical sense you might be correct, but what if that part doesn’t represent or express what the person whose ultimately responsible for what’s being created is about or feels? It doesn’t matter if the rest of the entire world agrees that your idea is musically better (which in itself is debatable.) If the goal was to create the best possible music, why not always fire whoever your guitar player is and hire the best session guy ever all the time (same for singers, drumemrs, bass players, etc.)
Another point is let’s say your out on the golf course and Tiger Woods comes out and says, “here, let me play your round of golf for you because I will obvioulsy play it better.” It’s not always about the destination my friends, it’s about the journey.
Now, if you only want to be involved in the noble aspect of only working with people who are creating music as “art” then that’s cool. But if you sign up for a project where the goal is to sell records then don’t complain about art because that’s not what the PURPOSE of the project is.
What makes this more confusing is that typically no music is created for just one purpose. It might be 30% for ART, 40% for selling records and getting famous, and the last 30% to score more chicks. Your job as a session player is to have your feelers out to see what those percentages might be and then make your comments accordingly.
This brings me to my next point. Once you figure out the PURPOSE, the next step is to figure out YOUR ROLE in that PURPOSE.
Now, to make matters even more confusing and the reason why so many bands fail is because not only do the percentages of purpose for making the music change, but the percentage of what each person’s acceptable level of contribution (or role) clearly changes and is not always defined. The drummer might think his level in a 4 piece should be 25% and he makes music 20% for the money and 80% for the chicks whereas the singer thinks the drummer’s role should be minus 5% and the singer makes music because he was abused as a kid and want’s to express his anger and therefore his purpose has nothing to do with money or chicks.
I would also like to point out that myself personally, as a person who makes his living in the music business, I have no problem working on all kinds of music that’s being made for all of the above reasons and I don’t feel like I’m selling out for any of it. Whether it’s for sales, art, self-expression, or yes, to score chicks. I’m all in (granted, my favorite projects by far are when it’s for ART.) I also don’t care if someone’s a horrible musician and they are asking me to work my tail off to help them sound great. I see no problem with that.
I also can appreciate having the ROLE of engineer who has no opinion OR engineer whose asked about his opinion enough to where it’s even a production type level of contribution.
My personal grip/problem is when people are in denial about their own intentions. Nothing is more annoying than a person who claims to care about art but always makes decisions based on commerce. If someone wants to make an artistic record that will hopefully sell, that’s cool, just be honest about it.
People complain about Incubus, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake all the time. Me personally, I have no problem with any of them. However, if Britney said she had more talent as a singer than Billy Holiday, or if Justin Timberlake said he had more talent as a songwriter than John Lennon, or if Incubus said they where more groundbreaking than Black Sabbath then I’d have a problem. But my perception is that they are pretty honest with themselves about what their role in music and what their purpose for making music is.
Maybe ethics in music is actually more about finding your role and purpose for being involved in music and in order to be “ethically sound” you must be honest with yourself about what that purpose is and stick to that purpose (not taking pop gigs if you do it only for the “art.)”
harmonicminer 7:18 pm on 28 October 2006 Permalink
Umm… I like a lot of what Topherless said. I think I’ve had different experiences than Topherless regarding how honest many musicians and producers are about just what they’re doing…. in particular, I think there’s a lot of pretension about “art” and “creativity” by people who just wanna be famous… with all that comes along with that.
Being a hack arranger (the second oldest profession…. remember that guy Jubal in the book of Genesis?), I’ve worked with my share of people who are utterly dependent on my skills (or someone like me), want nothing more than to please the audience in a BIG way, but also want me to tell them how great their music is and how inspired I am by them.
I am completely happy and joyful to use my skills to help someone produce a better musical product.
But, I got my skills by LOVING THE MUSIC FOR ITSELF, not by this percentage based approach to musical motivation. I suspect that’s true of most people who really develop their musical ability, if they’re honest about it. No one lives in the practice room four hours per day or goes through the sweat of learning to do takedowns to get chicks. I don’t think they do it “just for the money”, either.
There are lots of people who love to talk about how much they love music, but they don’t behave the way lovers of music behave in terms of self-development. I think most of those people loved CONSUMING music (so to speak), and thought it was a relatively short trip from there to a being a MUSICIAN. It isn’t, and I know of no shortcuts.
When people conflate their love of being a member of the commercial music/media industry with their love for music, the problem begins. It is stunning to me how many “commercial musicians” appear to exhibit pride in their ignorance. As in, “See how great I must be to be this rich and really know so little? Wow, what talent I must have!” Their appear to be very many verses to this song, and several bridges… but they all have the same refrain.
So I’d like to suggest a division of the discussion:
1) The ethics of participation in musical endeavors (Mike has already discussed this… we probably need to go back to that and continue it).
2) The ethics of personal musical development. What are the ethical commitments of a person who DOES claim to love the music?
James Gutierrez 7:27 pm on 28 October 2006 Permalink
Topherless/anyone: I think your thesis would be a great idea for more of a ‘music philosophy’ course than ethics.
Looking at the content of most of the thread, I can say with a level confidence that any ethics course offered (or mandated) to the APU music students, once “dumbed down” for average consumption would end up appearing like a class on music etiquette, which makes sense historically. If there exists a variable profound truth that impacts the behavior of those who partake of its understand, and it is decided that this truth is to be taught to the masses, eventually this profound truth will be dumbed down into a system of behavioral rules, traditions, etiquette, such things that potentially lose all profound connection with the truth that spurred them.
I would humbly propose that such a course a APU should be centered around the subjective philosophy of music. There students would not simply work hypothetical situations in the music industry where ethical issues may arise, and thus become detatched and even resentful of the course, but they could sincerily search and discuss the kind of questions proposed by Topherless regarding purpose/ faith role/individual role: the base from which all thier ethical decisions will be made in the composition/perfomance/replication of music.
Mike, great idea for a class by the way! I had to take the philosophy sen. sem. and write my paper on music in order to attain the kind of depth I needed to cornerstone my career. I’ll be praying for the endeavor.
aly hawkins 8:42 pm on 28 October 2006 Permalink
I like where Phil’s going with this…there are different ethical considerations for participating in making music and dedicating oneself to musical development.
Phil – When I wrote about “artist motivation,” I should have been clearer. I was thinking specifically about the ethics of participation in a creative enterprise, not the ethics of listening to an artist’s finished work. (Though there may be ethical considerations there, too.) To use an extreme example, let’s say Stick was contacted to mix the reunion album of Skrewdriver. (Like I said, it’s an extreme example.) It seems to me that there may be ethics for him to consider in his decision, however musically talented they may be. (And that’s quite open for debate.) Their motivation is to create music that promotes a white supremacist agenda…an agenda some might categorize as “unethical.” And for the sake of the example, let’s say if Stick doesn’t take the gig, he can’t make his mortgage. This is an ethical dilemma.
To be less extreme about it, there is a lot of music in the mainstream (esp. hip-hop, but definitely not exclusively) that’s misogynistic, a prejudice that some might categorize as unethical. If Corey is offered the guitar gig for a record that frequently refers to women as “bitches” or “hos” by an extraordinarily talented artist who has dedicated himself to his craft, should ethics play a part in Corey’s decision take the gig? What if taking the gig is the difference between feeding his kids and not?
I don’t think aesthetics is the highest consideration here. There are ethical dilemmas that are much more concrete than “the service of art” that arise in the life a musician.
Topherless 12:52 am on 29 October 2006 Permalink
What a great topic. I love where this is going.
2 thoughts:
#1. A lot of these posts are philosophical in nature yes, but my opinion/main point was that people who subscribe to different philosophies will have a different set of ethics. Before you pick your ethics, it’s important to ask yourself what your philosophical principles are.
#2. Of course “No one lives in the practice room four hours per day or goes through the sweat of learning to do takedowns to get chicks. I don’t think they do it “just for the money”, either.”
First I’d like to point out I never said people create music “just for the money” or “for chicks” even though it was quoted as such. That’s why I brought up the whole point of percentages for reasons of doing what we do with music.
If we where musicians for the sole purpose of our love for music, then why ever leave the bedroom or leave the garage to play in front of an audience? Why sell records? Why do music videos? Why take PAID gigs as a session player? Why would you want a record deal? Why make T-shirts with your bands name/logo on them? Why does your band need a name or a logo to begin with? Why would Prince (an amazing musician) wear full body tight leather suits when he performs?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding Mike’s point, but my impression is that we are talking about ethics in terms of the music BUSINESS right? He wasn’t talking about his ethics in terms of locking himself in his bedroom in order to learn takedowns, he was talking about his ethics in relation to himself as a PAID session player.
At some point, a certain percentage of the reason for Mike taking a PAID gig as a session guy is because it’s making him money right? Might not be the only reason, might be 75% love of music 25% getting paid (depending on how high his mortgage is.) Mike’s job as a “hired gun” is to gauge his clients goals/intentions and behave accordingly. IF his client’s goals involve Mike lowering his own moral standards to a level he’s not willing to go, then he should quit the gig. Otherwise, do your job and don’t impose upon your client your own moral/ethical standards. Save that for when you make your own record.
corey 7:10 am on 29 October 2006 Permalink
Easy on the Prince references, Chief. Mike is huge fan, and more than once, he’s done Sunday morning gigs wearing one of those full body tight leather suits.
I’m just sayin’.
harmonicminer 9:31 am on 29 October 2006 Permalink
Topherless, I didn’t mean to imply that YOU had said people practice and learn “just to get chicks” or make money or whatever. I understood you to be talking about participation in musical endeavors, which can indeed arise from mixed motivations.
My main point: the ability to MAKE the choice to be involved as a musician is usually developed out of somewhat more focused motivations involving a love of music that leads to those hours of practice and learning. Sure, some kids are forced to learn music by parents… but I don’t think it takes off until they love it on their own.
The reason Mike is in the position where he has to grapple with ethical issues of participation is because he loved music enough to get really good at it. i’m just voting for not confusing the one with the other.
Hey Aly… you’ve been listening to some wierd music.
Anyway, as long as we’re dealing with ethical implications of lyrical content… what about Christian albums with crummy theology?
I’m just sayin’.
Stick 10:14 am on 29 October 2006 Permalink
Or maybe worse… Christian records with crappy music.
Topheless 11:15 am on 29 October 2006 Permalink
I totally agree with Harmonicminer that we all get into this and hopefully continue to do so because of a root love of music.
Sure, Mike probably got to where he got for a love of music. But reinforcement/recognition along the way doesn’t hurt either (whether it’s from his parents, friends, fellow musicians, or even the homecomming queen.)
I know plenty of talented famous musicians (I’m not going to name names like *cough* John Mayer, but trust me, these people exist) who love music, where geeks about music, maybe even geeks in high school because they wheren’t the jock, but when the girls found out they could play guitar and sing, we’ll let’s just say they practiced a little harder.
We all love to have our ego’s stroaked every once in awhile even if we don’t like to admit it. Even as musicians or engineers. Once again, you might be 75% love of music, 25% ego, but I think it’d be crazy to say 100% anything (money, chicks, OR love of music.) What percentage makes you up will change your ethics quite a bit in regards to music.
harmonicminer 6:28 pm on 29 October 2006 Permalink
Topherless, you’re right, of course, that no one’s motivations are 100% of anything. I’d just say that the reinforcements are probably not enough to make somebody go through the process of becoming excellent, absent that foundational, and very powerful, love for music.
So, we’re still back where we were in this way:
What are the ethical responsibilities of a person who genuinely DOES love the music, and whose musical self-development reflects that, in terms of how they participate in various kinds of musical endeavors?
I’m not sure that there are any “musico-ethical” responsibilities for a person whose primary reasons for being involved in music are extra-musical (includes most worship and “Christian” music, sadly), except not to lie about it.
There may be a few extra days in purgatory for relatively ignorant producers who abrasively pretend to know more than the expert musicians they hire. But I’ve learned to smile and take the money, though I seldom agree to work for such people again.
If you really don’t have the option of saying no, then you should just do the best you can in the circumstances. Better to work than not live up to your responsibilities to others.
Remind me to tell you about the naval base where I played piano in the officer’s club in the early 1970’s. The perfect audience… too drunk to be able to tell when you clammed, and always appreciative…. and they paid me every night at closing.
harmonicminer 10:11 pm on 29 October 2006 Permalink
Speaking of music to get chicks:
Scientists are still unsure what whalesong is meant to communicate. Only male Humpbacks sing, so it was at first assumed that the songs were solely for courting.
shaman ayerhart 4:55 pm on 19 April 2007 Permalink
Hello all, my name is Shaman Ayerhart and I am a student at the Music Industry Arts program at Fanshawe College in London Ontario, Canada. You may be interested to know that MIA (as its called) offers an ethics course that pertains to the canadain music industry, taught by one Terry McManus. I’m sure terry would be delighted to discuss his course with you; his contact information can be obtained through the college (I would share that with all of you, but it’s not my place to volunteer such information for privacy reasons)
Thanks for your interesting insights in to this topic, I stumbled on the board while reaserching for Mr Mcmanus’ term paper.
Yours; Shaman
shaman ayerhart 4:56 pm on 19 April 2007 Permalink
Heres a link to go along with the previous msg.
http://www.fanshawec.on.ca/programs/courses/mia2.asp
Sarah 12:30 pm on 7 February 2009 Permalink
I’m currently getting my master’s in musicology and am interested in studying this very thing. In fact, I stumbled across this post because I googled “music and ethics.” My interest lies primarily in Western classical music, not Christian popular music. But whether it’s popular music or high art, do feel that any art form has ethical content, the fun comes in pinning it down :) Good luck with your search!
Lisa Dieffenbach 11:27 am on 26 September 2009 Permalink
I am taking a course in Professional Ethics. I must write a paper on an ethical case study. I was looking for something in the field of music education/ music. Do any of you have suggestions?
michael 2:11 pm on 26 September 2009 Permalink
Any of our professional music educators want to take a swing at this one?
sharolyn 8:33 am on 27 September 2009 Permalink
Here are some thoughts.
1) The most recent example in our district is that, for the first time, beginning band is limited to 40 students at each of nine elementary schools. How do you pick which 40 kids get to be in band?
One idea is: the first 40 people to sign up. Three moms, advocating for their children, had the idea of coming to the assembly at which the permission slips were passed out, thus turning in the slips immediately. I don’t like this idea, because it punished kids whose moms have to work.
Another idea is: Basic music proficiency test (simple rhythms, sing this note back to me, etc.) Again, this rewards kids who have had the opportunity to take piano lessons, for example / bigger picture is the danger of widening the achievement gap. Plus, Jason had THE MOST PRECIOUS trumpet player from a special day class (let’s say there was a lot of saliva)… he was so excited to be there and who wants to miss out on THAT?! :)
At some schools there were 38 sign-ups, and that’s when you high five.
2) is somewhat similar. I always tell my kids I love my job except for two days of the year: the days I announce casting for the Fall and Spring school-wide musicals. If 12 girls want to be Sacajawea, no matter who I pick there will be 11 sad girls, and one of them will be in tears.
The ethical part: Should I always choose the person with the best stage presence? -But what if it’s the same person every time? Don’t I need to provide other kids with opportunities? Does behavior matter? What if the best singer is kind of a jerk? (I have my answers to these, but I think you’re asking for questions.)
That leads me to 3)… In our accomplished high school band, two section leaders recently put freshmen in trash cans. They are no longer section leaders. That has caused quite a stir.
4) The Holidays. That could be a post of its own.
Hope this is helpful, Lisa. Please write back when you’ve figured these out. :P
sharolyn 8:37 am on 27 September 2009 Permalink
In conclusion, how shall I handle it if the last beat of a triplet is hogging all the value?!
michael 2:04 pm on 27 September 2009 Permalink
That last one is way too controversial.
The recent budget cuts are bringing these questions into sharper focus, but they’ve always been in the background. What is the fundamental purpose of general music education? Is it to cultivate some basic musical awareness and appreciation in all students, or is it to identify and cultivate students who have special ability, and to help them develop that ability.
Of course, we would like to thing that the answer is “both”, and that we shouldn’t have to choose, but the reality is that music education is filled with choices, choices about how to allocate scare money, valuable time and attention, opportunities, and each of those choices means picking one value to uphold, or the other.
Do you take 10 minutes of extra one-on-one time with the student who still hasn’t figured out basic fingering on their instrument, or do you invest that time by introducing a student who excels some new literature that might jumpstart them in a new direction?
michael 2:09 pm on 27 September 2009 Permalink
What obligations does the music program have to the rest of the school body? Is it fair for the administration to expect the music program to spend so much time and budget on building up a glorified pep band to basically cheer in uniform for the football team?
Administrations are notoriously bad at understanding anything the arts do, but they DO understand things like “1st place” or “Level 5″. There are many directors who use poor rehearsal practices (having choir students listen to their part on tape over and over) rather than really teaching students how to practice and rehearse, because when it comes to competition time, it help them win.
Should the abomination bastard-child called “Show Choir” even exist? (That one is easy. Hells no!)
Stephen 4:46 pm on 16 November 2009 Permalink
Hi,
I’ve read most of the posts and have an idea of where you are heading with this. Recent events prompted me to do a Google search of Music and Ethics and this thread is excellent. This thread is mainly about the music itself and whether or not to get involved to potentially improve a song.
What you haven’t even touched on is the music industry and what people will do to get ahead, to have their 15 minutes of fame. You want to discuss ethics, this is probably THE most important area. Plagiarism abounds – sometimes subliminal, sometimes outright theft – ethics, or lack of, certainly play a huge role. I’ve personally seen two different “artists” do the exact same song, change the title and each calls it their own (not a case of theft but a sly, back-handed slap in the face of the fans since both “artists” are complicit). Aside from the ethical aspects, it borders on fraud, once it is offered for sale.
An ethics course is definitely needed – not only for the musicians, but for all involved in the making of a song.