The power of sharing: music as a common good - Part One
Musician Mat Callahan on Spotify, sharing music, the future of live music, and the music industry as a “cesspool of deceit.”
Mat Callahan has been a musician --- a song writer, a guitar player, a singer--- as well as a sound recordist and music producer for, well, decades. He has written seven books that delve critically into many aspects of music and its creation. He’s been a lefty since the 1960s protests over the War in Vietnam. And he has been my political and personal mate for almost 15 years.
So when THE LEFT LANE (TLL) decided we wanted to look into the politics, the economics and the performance of music from the viewpoint of musicians and music lovers, who better to interview than Mat? He is a person who does not hold back in giving his views and analysis. Mat Callahan was born in San Francisco. He began performing and starting bands in the 1960s, working with groups such as the Black Panthers, and opening a New Year’s Eve performance by the Grateful Dead, he fused performance and politics.
In the early part of this century, Mat moved to Berne Switzerland and began collaborating with Swiss vocalist Yvonne Moore. Mat and Yvonne continue to make music regularly (see above photo). Here is a link to their music: matandyvonne.com.
In this recent interview, Mat talks about the joy of music, control over music and its distribution, streaming, copyright, the future of live music --- and why it is “the future” --- the position of women in music and several projects on African America music he has launched of late.
Below is PART ONE of that interview; PART TWO will be here next week: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/
-----Alan Story
THE LEFT LANE (TLL): Millions of people listen to music every day. Tens of thousands perform and write music every day. As someone once wrote: “Music soundtracks our lives”. How do you explain the importance of music, Mat? What does it mean to your life? What joy has it brought to you?
Mat Callahan (MC): First of all, I would like to make a small distinction from the outset with the phrase, “Music soundtracks our lives.” There’s nothing wrong with that metaphor, but for a musician, it’s not just a soundtrack. It is our lives. There’s a difference between having music playing in the background, which is what a soundtrack indicates, and it being the fabric of one’s life. For me, music has been the fabric of my life since I was a child.
Most of my life revolves around making music. I don’t want to draw too big a distinction between myself and the general public or suggest an adversarial relationship between a music-maker and a listener or the audience but when you ask what music means to me, or what it has meant to me, that is what it is.
As for joy, I would say music is mainly a joy. but there’s also a good deal of suffering and sorrow involved. Not so much because of the sounds that music makes, but because of the relationship between making music and the world.
The music industry, in particular, is a cesspool of deceit. This institution is used by the state to repress music and musicians, especially those engaged in the struggle for human liberation. So, you’re interacting with something that you love, but also something that you are fighting against. There are both dimensions: the joy of making music and sharing.
EVOKING EMOTIONS WE CAN’T DO WITHOUT
From a purely experiential point of view, music is lovely. Children respond to rhythm and tone, whether it’s their mother singing to them or a lullaby. It’s clear that music, broadly speaking, the sensations of sound that are musical, have a resonance with our senses of hearing, feeling, and touching. They also evoke emotions that we can’t do without.
There is a lot of evidence, historically and anthropologically, that shows the relationship between music and human beings. Flutes that are 35,000 years old were made by people who might not have even had a verbal language or had a very crude and primitive language, yet they needed music to communicate. On the other hand, if you think about the deprivation of music or people losing music, you can imagine the consequences.
For example, when I was a child in San Francisco, we had weekly music appreciation classes in the public school system. We learned to appreciate music, listened to it, and played instruments, such as drums and xylophones. However, this music appreciation has been wiped out and is no longer available in public schools in the United States. The consequences?
Well, I don’t know if anyone has conducted a study to quantify the consequences. But ask yourself: Is the US a better-educated, more enlightened society as a result?
Meanwhile, I do know there have been studies showing that children exposed to Mozart excel at mathematics. There is a proven connection between music and learning in general just as there is a connection to music and other aspects of our lives.
TLL: In your book “The Trouble with Music” you wrote about the growth of what you called “anti music.” What is “anti music” in popular music, and can you give a few examples? What has caused its growth?
MC: I coined the term “anti-music” based on Tolstoy’s description of counterfeit art in his book “What is Art.” Tolstoy described counterfeit art as works created solely for the court or aristocracy to alleviate their boredom and elevate their class stature or prestige.
Counterfeit art, according to Tolstoy, lacks the authenticity that comes from the artist expressing lived experience or the artist’s own desire to share a truth. It is made to satisfy the customer or patron, not to reveal the honest thoughts and feelings of the artist, much less the thoughts and feelings of ordinary people (Tolstoy had the Russian serf in mind).
This concept applies to much of the music we hear today. The most extreme example is Muzak. Muzak was a corporation that manufactured music originally to stimulate workers in factories. They discovered that certain rhythms and tunes could make workers work faster, expend more energy. It was artificial, engineered along Pavlovian lines. Its purpose is not to enlighten or bring joy, but simply to stimulate production. This was subsequently used in supermarkets to stimulate consumption as well.
MOST IS FORMULAIC TRIVIA
But all of this is well-documented and widely known. It applies to much of what claims to be “popular” music and is sold as such. So what I referred to as “anti music” extends to commercially sold music, where most of what is sold is formulaic trivia. It follows established formulas to maximise sales. It is often produced using machines rather than human musicians. There are many details to delve into regarding this topic, but fundamentally, I am opposing this type of music to what I consider actual music. It’s not about personal taste; it’s about establishing criteria that define what qualifies as music.
What we should be interested in is music produced outside the market, music produced by the populace themselves, without the involvement of the music industry. In other words, music that is actually made in people’s communities, in people’s homes to give expression to their own lives. That music remains vital.
++++++
You can check out, listen to and purchase some of the
music of Mat Callahan and Yvonne Moore here:
www.matandyvonne.com
++++++
TLL: That leads nicely to the next question. Some years ago, you wrote in the same book about how “rulers have always sought to control music, while the oppressed have tried to unleash it.” What is the current trajectory and balance of power in this battle for control over music?
MC: That’s an intriguing question. The idea that the ruling class or elites have always sought to control music, while the working masses have tried to unleash it, holds true and continues to this day. So, what is the current state of affairs? From the perspective of the state, particularly in the West, it appears that the balance of power favours the state. They have transformed music into a disposable commodity, a mere soundtrack used to entice people. It has lost much of its human value and is primarily a marketing tool.
Nevertheless, though the music industry dominates the scene, it doesn’t change the fact that beneath the surface, music created by the people themselves, without industry or social media influence, still thrives. This grassroots music production within communities and households remains resilient and can never be destroyed. When that spirit is extinguished, we will lose something irreplaceable. But the battle is far from over.
REAL MUSIC PERSISTS
It has been pushed aside and banned, with even publications like The Guardian newspaper, which claims to be progressive, serving as a distraction from what truly matters. (They have replaced traditional music magazines like NME and Melody Maker, which are now out of business.) Such mainstream entities actively work to prevent you from encountering real music.
But as I said before, despite their efforts, real music persists and will not fade away. It may require some effort to seek it out, but it’s out there, and its enduring presence is worth acknowledging.
TLL: Okay, moving on to the next question. One of the most significant changes in the music industry in the past decade has been the rise of streaming systems like Spotify. Streaming has worked well for corporate forces that control music. Spotify concentrates on long-term financial growth rather than yearly income. But in a recent quarter, Spotify recorded a profit of 65 million euros compared to the year-earlier period of 166 million losses. In 2022, the entire global streaming industry had revenues that topped US$17 billion. That’s bigger than the gross domestic product of some smaller countries.
My questions: How is streaming working for musicians? And if it doesn’t work well, why not?
MC: There are several factors at play here. Firstly, from a technological standpoint, streaming offers convenience and ease of use compared to physically playing vinyl records or CDs. However, this convenience comes at the expense of the listening experience. Previously, people would sit down and actively listen to music, whereas now it is often treated as background noise during conversations.
From an economic perspective, most musicians I’ve heard from say they are making less money than before, even with CDs. I don’t have all the statistics, but it’s a bleak picture.
SPOTIFY IS A WAY TO SELL SERVICES
Music has always been used to sell other objects, going back to the Victrola. The reason they made music back then was that it was the way they could sell their devices. Steve Jobs said the same thing about the iPod. Spotify is just another way to get people to buy services on the Internet. And people have to understand that music is a lost leader. This is what I discuss in the book (The Trouble with Music.)
Music itself has no value. I’m talking about economic value. It costs money to produce. If society wants to do justice to music and musicians, it must support music and music-making as part of its costs, along with education, libraries, and other common goods. But let’s not be fooled by all the techno-talk. This is about capitalism, not technology.
We need to understand that Spotify is just another way to sell services on the internet. If you want to support musicians, take the time to listen to music actively, whether it’s on vinyl or streamed. Don’t let algorithms dictate your listening experience. It’s a form of mind control that people need to rebel against.
++++++
Listen to Mat and Yvonne performing “No more mournin’”
++++++
TLL: Some people argue that copyright, as a form of intellectual property right, offers musicians protection and a viable income. Do you believe that copyright benefits musicians? If not, why?
MC: Let me begin by saying that this is a complex question, influenced by the long history of copyright or the lack thereof. It is further complicated by the economic status of musicians as a class. While there are wealthy stars, most musicians, including myself, belong to the middle class of musicians and earn a living comparable to that of teachers or healthcare providers.
In this context, copyright allows some of us to derive income from sources such as radio and broadcast, where laws were established to ensure that composers, songwriters, and lyricists receive a share of the revenue when their work is used. While I am personally opposed to copyright, I recognize that, under the current system and laws, many musicians, particularly those in the blue-collar or mid-level category like myself, benefit financially from copyright.
MUSICIANS WANT CREDIT FOR THEIR WORK
However, what concerns most musicians and composers is not ownership, but rather credit and fair compensation. We care about being recognized for our work and receiving just financial compensation. Once we have created and shared our music with the world, we understand that it no longer solely belongs to us; it becomes part of the collective experience of those who have heard it.
Therefore, the real issue lies in ensuring that the creators are fairly compensated and acknowledged for their contributions, rather than focusing on ownership. Unfortunately, copyright often poses as an obstacle to achieving this, where music belongs to everyone while creators are duly credited and compensated for their work.
There are numerous examples of individuals who have creatively contributed ideas to well-known recordings but received no credit or financial reward due to copyright regulations that narrowly define the author as an individual. In most cases, especially in popular music, there are multiple individuals involved, as groups collaborate and arrange songs. These arrangements are often not even written out, and someone may come up with a catchy hook that sells the record.
However, the authorship is attributed solely to the person who wrote the melody and the lyrics, while others who made significant contributions go unrecognised.
TLL: Yes, copyright indeed presents various complexities, highlighting the need for alternative solutions. While we have mainly discussed recorded music so far, you and your musical partner, Yvonne Moore, continue to perform live. Many people still enjoy live music experiences. How do you envision the future of live music? Does it have a promising future?
MC: Live music is, without a doubt, the future. Music always originates from a performance, whether it’s an artist on the stage, in the studio or a film-scorer manipulating machines. Technological advancements have actually compelled musicians and music enthusiasts to invest even more in music. When I say invest, I’m not referring to money, but rather the time, energy, and practice required to deliver or appreciate live performances. The intense and gratifying experience of interaction between musicians and their audience cannot be replicated by any other means.
PROPHECIES OF DECLINE PROVEN WRONG
Consider the predictions of the death of theatre when film emerged, or the death of film with the advent of television. Such prophecies of demise have always been proven wrong. The essence of art lies in activity, particularly in the case of music. Music is exemplary in that anyone can create it, and most people do. Unlike making a film that requires substantial financial resources or even producing a video that demands some equipment and expertise, music can be made with just our bodies. We can sing, clap, and stomp our feet.
As music creators, we don’t need more than certain necessary tools, certainly not a parasitic music industry. Therefore, music has a bright future. It is the future. Recorded music will undoubtedly evolve and change, as is the case with every art form. However, live music will never die. Instead, it will continue to be what keeps music captivating and vibrant.
END OF PART ONE
Next week read Part Two by email (if you are one of our subscribers) or
view it here: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/archive
+++++
The Left Lane (TLL) is a reader-supported newsletter dedicated to bringing you news, views and reviews from a left wing point of view. While both free and paid subscriptions are available, please consider a paid subscription to support our long-term sustainability. All issues can be read here:
https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/archive
+++++
A few messages to our readers:
1) To make sure the TLL does NOT end up in “promotions” or your junk folder, think about adding “theleftlane2024@substack.com” to your contacts list.
2) Researching, writing, uploading and distributing The Left Lane does take quite a lot of work. We have no paid helpers. If you might have a few hours a week to assist us (Alan Story and Uther Naysmith), please contact us at: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com Tell us a bit about yourself and we will get back to you.
3) Here are three websites operated by Mat Callahan.
4) We are in the midst of a major TLL investigation project that we hope to complete in about ten days.