Whatever, I don’t care
Rantings from the inside of my head - tongue in cheek and foot in mouth
I have stuck my neck out a country mile here making up my own meaning for a word. Is that OK? Does it even matter? Whatever. I don't care.
In this article, have decided not to focus much on the strictly
political meaning of whateverism ("I will uphold whatever policy decisions the leader made, and follow whatever instructions the leader gave.”), because if you are interested in this, there is a plethora of information out there you can find easily with a quick search. I have decided to think about the idea of whateverism as an opposition to the fundamentalists and traditionalists. To do this I have chosen to think about whateversim in the context of the new music world. I could just as eas- ily chosen pop music culture as a starting block, but that would have been too easy, and I find ques- tioning new music practice much more fun.
Before I get started I would like to point out that I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate here, as I of- ten do on my blog page, however at the root of this is my opinion. Just to remind you what that means before you start needing to put your knickers back on because I am pissing you off for what- ever reason, I would like to remind you what the job of a devil’s advocate is.
devil's advocate (noun)
a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
I thought I was a nothingarian, a person with no particular beliefs,
however as I also have high moral and ethical standards it seems that
I may be a follower of whateverism. Seemingly apathetic, not caring
about the consequences of my actions necessarily, but having ethical
standards yet enjoying eliciting a response. I have used the term
“whatever” repeatedly when discussing my music with others who
largely seem totally perplexed at my attitude to my creative pro-
cesses. I used to play in bands but I got bored. I also hated the way
marketeers appropriated ideas from music to make money. My music
is a big fuck you to traditionalists and marketeers. I actually make
conscious decisions about how I go about this. I am constantly break-
ing the rules about how I make my music, the sounds and the rhythms. If I could count the number of times people have given me unsolicited advice I’d need more fingers.... you could use autotune, to avoid feedback you need to.. use a metronome to keep in time... you should get a laptop and you wont need pedals, you should get Ableton... Why? So I can sound like everyone else and make notes and rhythms that feel safer and more comfortable? Well I explain that I am not interested and they usually persist to which I sometimes respond “whatever” and smile. I love to confuse people like this. It means that they have noticed that things are not quite right.
Rantings from the inside of my head - tongue in cheek and foot in mouth
I have stuck my neck out a country mile here making up my own meaning for a word. Is that OK? Does it even matter? Whatever. I don't care.
In this article, have decided not to focus much on the strictly
political meaning of whateverism ("I will uphold whatever policy decisions the leader made, and follow whatever instructions the leader gave.”), because if you are interested in this, there is a plethora of information out there you can find easily with a quick search. I have decided to think about the idea of whateverism as an opposition to the fundamentalists and traditionalists. To do this I have chosen to think about whateversim in the context of the new music world. I could just as eas- ily chosen pop music culture as a starting block, but that would have been too easy, and I find ques- tioning new music practice much more fun.
Before I get started I would like to point out that I am being a bit of a devil’s advocate here, as I of- ten do on my blog page, however at the root of this is my opinion. Just to remind you what that means before you start needing to put your knickers back on because I am pissing you off for what- ever reason, I would like to remind you what the job of a devil’s advocate is.
devil's advocate (noun)
a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
I thought I was a nothingarian, a person with no particular beliefs,
however as I also have high moral and ethical standards it seems that
I may be a follower of whateverism. Seemingly apathetic, not caring
about the consequences of my actions necessarily, but having ethical
standards yet enjoying eliciting a response. I have used the term
“whatever” repeatedly when discussing my music with others who
largely seem totally perplexed at my attitude to my creative pro-
cesses. I used to play in bands but I got bored. I also hated the way
marketeers appropriated ideas from music to make money. My music
is a big fuck you to traditionalists and marketeers. I actually make
conscious decisions about how I go about this. I am constantly break-
ing the rules about how I make my music, the sounds and the rhythms. If I could count the number of times people have given me unsolicited advice I’d need more fingers.... you could use autotune, to avoid feedback you need to.. use a metronome to keep in time... you should get a laptop and you wont need pedals, you should get Ableton... Why? So I can sound like everyone else and make notes and rhythms that feel safer and more comfortable? Well I explain that I am not interested and they usually persist to which I sometimes respond “whatever” and smile. I love to confuse people like this. It means that they have noticed that things are not quite right.
Consider this. New music these days sometimes seems like covers or interpretations of the early
contemporary new music composers. Many a contemporary music academic is classically trained
and has the difficult task to attempt to unlearn this in some senses to try to create new music. How-
ever, from this platform and a set of beliefs that things must be done a certain way, its is difficult for
such people to actually create truly new music. I have seen way too many performances of new mu-
sic of the works of early new music composers, or something that emulates this, or using the same
tools used by the early new music composers, such as graphic scores. Many are using laptop com-
puters and live mix some sounds (probably some found sound they found somewhere). This sounds
more like an electronic music producer to me than a new music composer, although the sounds used
will of course determine the final result. None of these things are new anymore and are wrapped up
in the notion that to be accepted that they must follow a set of rules created in the academic world
for what new music is.
Another restriction in the creation of new music is the obsession to name and categorise everything. Musique concrete, microtonal, free improvisation and so on. This encourages the creation of more music of the same kind. I was recently asked to make a track for a harsh noise wall compilation, and it was emphasised that it had to be wall, not just harsh noise. Immediately I am hemmed in and so this project has come to a sudden stand still. It’s really not all that different in its function to say a country music singer songwriter writing new songs that can be recognised as belonging to that genre.
Surely new music can only be new once? Once upon a time the new music composers would have been groundbreaking and exciting. How about ignoring what acceptable notes and rhythms are? No? Whatever. Things are supposed to be in time with each other... why? Also, why do we have to document it with a score? I feel that to create truly new music a person needs to shed the restrictions of these rules (whateversim in the political sense) and state a big “whatever” to all this.
Even if a musician doesn't want to do this as a final result, why not just stop worrying about the structure of the composition and just go with your heart and feelings and see what happens? You don’t need everything to be like something else. You don't have to do everything to achieve some socially constructed measure of success. Stop thinking so much and be yourself. You just might have fun with it. If someone questions it, you can always just respond with “whatever”.
Another restriction in the creation of new music is the obsession to name and categorise everything. Musique concrete, microtonal, free improvisation and so on. This encourages the creation of more music of the same kind. I was recently asked to make a track for a harsh noise wall compilation, and it was emphasised that it had to be wall, not just harsh noise. Immediately I am hemmed in and so this project has come to a sudden stand still. It’s really not all that different in its function to say a country music singer songwriter writing new songs that can be recognised as belonging to that genre.
Surely new music can only be new once? Once upon a time the new music composers would have been groundbreaking and exciting. How about ignoring what acceptable notes and rhythms are? No? Whatever. Things are supposed to be in time with each other... why? Also, why do we have to document it with a score? I feel that to create truly new music a person needs to shed the restrictions of these rules (whateversim in the political sense) and state a big “whatever” to all this.
Even if a musician doesn't want to do this as a final result, why not just stop worrying about the structure of the composition and just go with your heart and feelings and see what happens? You don’t need everything to be like something else. You don't have to do everything to achieve some socially constructed measure of success. Stop thinking so much and be yourself. You just might have fun with it. If someone questions it, you can always just respond with “whatever”.
