top of page
Writer's pictureMartin Milner

Music and democracy

How can music making help explore power structures and build stronger participant voice?


I’m a musician who is interested in how music is produced as much as in music per se. There have always been many ways to organise sounds, and they all relate to different ways of organising people. Some of these ways allow for more equal participant voice than others. It’s always a good question to ask: what power structures were in place for this music to happen? What infrastructures? What has to be true for this music to exist? These are not new questions, but hardy perennials - they must be asked over again, especially at times of potential change and evolution


The discussion extends way beyond music and musicians. It’s the fundamental question of politics, work and society. What has to be true for our hierarchical, competitive and anti-Nature civilization to exist in the way it does right now? More pertinently, what roles are open for the participants in this society? What voice do we really have? What voice would we like to have, given a choice?


And what can the world of music help us to understand? Here are a few ideas to stimulate discussion.


Let’s compare the ways in which music is produced. (We can discuss the consumption of music some other time, it deserves an article of its own.) I am going to stretch the point to make the point, and I invite you (dear reader) to go with me in order to understand how these examples could apply in your own practice, whether it involves music or not.


  1. The musician/composer, alone, creates a piece with parts for many others to play. These others function as ciphers, faithfully reproducing the composer’s intentions according to established rules of notation. The composer’s voice is the only one that really matters - everything else is arranged in order to allow that voice to be heard.

  2. The musician/composer, alone, creates a piece using digital technology, relying on the competence of a vast technological sector to create and communicate the sounds. The composer is limited only by their imagination and what is technically possible. The composer has full control within the technological limits, and there’s the rub: the technology tends to exert a kind of voice. Think about how so much music we listen to comes not directly from instruments or human throats but from ever-tinier speakers. The fundamental qualities of sound have been processed, filtered and ‘enhanced’ by algorithmic special effects to a degree that masks and disguises the true voice of the composer. So, like an Instagram selfie, the music is a hyperreal version of the composer’s voice.

  3. The musician/composer, alone, creates music that can be performed by them. They do not need to write it down, only to perform it. They are responsible for all elements of the music, but also lack the possibilities that come with interaction with other players. That is, they are the only participant, and although it is absolutely their own voice that can be heard, it is a lone voice in the crowd, and thus not as strong.

  4. The musicians/composers are a group of people who have come together to create music. They might have a basic plan or concept - e.g. to sing beautiful harmonies - but there is no score or director. The group must make decisions both prior to the performance and during it, as each individual adjusts their attention and intention according to the shifting context. Everyone has a voice, but none is consistently louder than the others. Ideas come and go, and the group somehow chooses which ones to strengthen and develop in a self-organising way.


Okay, these are highly simplified examples, and we haven’t even mentioned the audiences yet. But already I hope you can see the different power structures operating in each case. Now I’m not promoting one over another - in fact I believe there is a time and place for all of these examples. I have, at various times, been in all of these situations myself. But I am arguing for a more conscious understanding of how each case works.


In the case of the lone composer, the individual genius hearing the music inside their heads (you’re thinking Beethoven, right, and we really have to move on from the Enlightenment, don’t you think?!), we can see a parallel with other hierarchical power structures. What about religion? The composer is ‘god the creator’; the director is the ‘high priest or pope’, the orchestra is the educated clergy and the audience is the congregation, humbly accepting the musical messages from above. Or what about the typical corporate structure, with the CEO proclaiming from on high while the workers below follow management instructions? And what about typical schools, where the Headteacher/Director controls the overall enterprise, with teachers being the classroom authorities and sometimes older students being the ‘prefects’ who have power over other students. In short, this is a hierarchical structure that has power flowing down from above to below. In politics it might be monarchy, autocracy, or a dictatorship.


The creator using technology is making use of what society has provided - nothing wrong with that, in fact, what other choice is there? - but is also thus caught up in the current state of the infrastructure. The technology doesn’t only liberate individuals to create complex masterpieces without anyone else’s help, it also determines the limits of artistic imagination. This is why it is easy to make a piece using loops in a music software, and also why so much of that music sounds more or less the same: mass-produced, highly processed junk-food music. Without the technology - and the material resources it requires - this music cannot exist. So this music too relies on hierarchies of power within the digital tech industry which in turn limits or influences the kind of voice the musician can have. (Then there are the material resources needed - the rare earth elements, the metals and minerals, the energy and water needed to create the equipment. Personally, I’d rather not be complicit in the ongoing destruction of the biosphere, but clearly it’s hard to avoid it altogether: I’m writing this on a computer!)


The solo creator/performer has a great deal of freedom to use their voice. Some level of technical expertise is required: solo performers are inevitably limited by themselves, and it is a rare individual who can sustain interest in their performance, because there is ultimately a lack of interaction with others. The most successful are not only accomplished musically, but also gifted in interacting with audiences. Minstrels, griots and folklorists will always exist, but if they only serve themselves and not the wider community, their voice will not carry much weight.


The final case is the most democratic. The group has a shared goal, and a shared intention to achieve it. They are consciously responding to each other in the moment and making decisions - i.e. they alternate between intention and attention. They may be playing only for themselves (i.e. having ‘a game of music’ like the way people have a ball-game in the park) or for an audience, but the criteria for success are selected by the group. Whereas highly accomplished improvising musicians do this regularly, it is also an approach that works for anyone at any level of ability. That is, it allows all voices to co-exist. The music produced may not be commercially viable, and that is absolutely the point - it’s not for sale, it’s a matter of community participation and empowerment!


As a community musician my goals include the setting up of frameworks to allow for spontaneous and delightful music making to happen in a way that each participant feels valued as a part of a greater whole. I call one of my projects ‘people with instruments’ because what is important is the people part. It’s not as easy as following instructions from others, or fitting sounds together like a sonic jigsaw puzzle inside a computer. It’s also very different from the solo instrumentalist or singer-songwriter, because each participant has to check their own ego, balancing what they want to say (intention) with what they hear around them (attention).


As a music teacher I can teach people how to read and write music notation, how to use music technology effectively and imaginatively, how to play instruments, how to interpret scores and so on. As mentioned, I have been a composer, director, digital musician, singer-songwriter, classroom teacher and more. But what I really hope for is that people will find the confidence to assert democratic principles in their own practices, and exercise their own voices while also hearing those of others.


It’s all good, it’s all interesting, it’s all music making! But as we live through this perfect storm of crises, in a collapsing civilization, with global heating, mass extinction, biodiversity loss, increasing forced migration and gross inequality, we need to consider how we do stuff, whether it’s music, education, business, politics or whatever.

Maybe it’s time to look around and connect with those nearest to us, see what music we can generate together. And then see what other results might come about when we adopt participatory and democratic approaches. Maybe we can’t ‘save the world’, but at least we can help out in the neighbourhood.


The processes we choose define us as much as the goals we choose. I’m working for a more musical world where everyone can participate, in any ways that contribute to the overall harmony. That is like saying I’m for a more democratic world, where all voices are part of the composition. We are, after all, all in this together.

(Note - this article was also offered for publication in Sounding Board, the magazine of Sound Sense - the UK development agency for participatory music making, in Autumn 2022)

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Working at the School Of Life

I have dedicated my life for over 35 years to education and music. Paradoxically (perhaps) I am uncomfortable in most schools, which too...

Comentários


bottom of page