Pop Music Where?
Part 1: Semiotics in the Flesh
published in Virgin Press No.20, Melbourne, 1982
In
August this year, Sydney played host to the 2SM Rock'N’Roll
Eisteddfod. According to the dictionary, an Eisteddfod was
a public session of Welsh bards (minstrels) held in Wales.
It's one of those words that you never really find out the
meaning of though you come to recognize what its current
useage refers to. The 1982 Rock'N'Roll Eisteddfod was something
like a surreal combination of a school sports carnival and
Countdown. To every school kid involved in the Eisteddfod,
the relevance to Welsh bard sessions would no doubt be lost
in history. Indeed, such a connection remains lost to me.
My
initial encounter with these Eisteddfods happened in August
this year when through strange circumstances I came to replace
Lynda Nutter of the Dugites on the judging panel of Heat
3 as she fell ill on her night of judging, The judging panel
consisted of David White (music programming director of
radio 2SM); Ralph Kerle (associate director from the Sydney
Theatre Company, which was offering a six month "scholarship"
to the most promising and theatrically inclined individual
from over the four heats); and two guest celebrity judges.
Needless
to say, the 2SM Rock'N’Roll Eisteddfods are public
events that sail assuredly on the cultural mainstream. Needless
to say, also, that I (by comparisorn lurking around in subcultural
backwaters) was confronted with aspects of the effectuation
and generation of popular culture that 1 have theorized
about, but had never encountered in such force.
In
fact, my writing about the Rock'N’Roll Eisteddfod
(and other peculiar social events, instances and conventions
in forthcoming issues) is based upon the notion (the belief)
that "critical distance" is a limp tool for theoretical
practice if is without the reinforcement gained from exposing
its vulnerability (its nature as a problematic) to a social
reality comprised of a multiple of cultural contexts. Let
us look at two polarized examples from the Eisteddfod that
give rise to what has come to represent and consolidate
(at this time) two major ways of dealing with (consuming,
digesting, regurgitating, excreting) what 1 would term the
"language" of Popular Culture. And it is upon
this very idea of "Language" (what does popular
culture mean, say, cause, relay, imply, effect, etc.) that
polarization hinges.
Consider
two figures from the history of Pop music used in the Eisteddfod:
Elton John and the Human League. Two medleys: “Funeral
For A Friend"/"Candle In The Wind" and five
or six songs from the "Dare" album. Almost instantly,
the mind can spew forth an endless list of differences between
the two – a list that is generally silent in form,
only given a voice through deliberate (forced) analysis.
Differences that are numb from an unforgiving complexity
and dumb to hierarchical organization. Some of the primary
differences determined essentially by this current point
in time and history would be: 70's/'80's; pre-Punk/post-Punk,
old product/new product; analog/digital, then/now; old audience/
new audience; etc. Of course, it is the "now"
that is the condition of dependence for these differences,
but it is also the "now" that forms an eternally
evaporating foundation for such a process of differentiation.
In other words, Elton John is only "old" because
of (things like) the Human League, and the Human League
are "new” because of (things like) Elton John.
On
a more complex level, there are differences at work that
are not to do with simply delineating a present context
for terms of differentiation. Other differences and oppositions
are derived from the nature of quotation employed in the
songs themselves. The central` songs to each of the medleys-
– "Candle In The Wind” and "Don't
You Want Mc" – are involved in radically opposed
methods and ideas as to (i) how a Pop song can refer to
a preceding hsitory of popular culture, and (ii) how a Pop
song as a text (a constructed body of meanings) and a product
(an economic commodity) can relate to the notion of popular
cukure as a language. The fundamental split between "Candle"
and "Want" is centred on the mythological level
that their content is derived from, and the consequent position
that the songs take in relation to the interpretation and
composition (the "reading" and “writing)
of popular culture. Basically,
both songs deal with what could be called the reality of
mythology. “Candle" percieves this reality to
be part of the greater philosophical notion of "Reality"
while "Want” acknowledges that the reality of,mythology
is in fact just another myth. Time for some hearty dissection.
Elton
John purports to (romantically) lay bare the myth of Marilyn
Monroe, piercing it with the melancholy and tragic reality
of "the girl behind Marilyn Monroe – Norma Jean".
The fact is that such a song is part of a historical tradition
ideologically manufactured within the realm of Hollywood's
awesome dream factory – the myth of the tragic figure
of the ‘real persona' behind the manufactured star.
The '70s solidified Marilyn Monroe into the crystalline
example of this particular myth. Elton John joins the long
queue (that extends into the '80s) of a continual re-writing
and re-fictionalizing of the Marilyn Monroe mythology
It
is important to realise, though, that what all those in
this queue have in common is a pretence or allusion to a
revelation of reality (not fiction) through a self-effacing
mode of writing, where the present of the writing invokes
ignorance to its own mythologization. “Candle”
works on a desire to make us ponder upon what is ultimately
an imaginable reality that is underpinned by the Marilyn
Monroe myth. It is intended that we almost pass through
the song, beyond it's writing, into the realm of its semantic
communication. A realm where we 'find out what the song's
all about'.
The
Human League do not even recognise the phenomenal nature
of a myth. Their source of myth in “Want” is
in fact an object (a text) of myth: a constructed piece
of writing that, by virtue of it being a named object, is
a specific and particular part of an existing mythological
chain. “Don't you want me” is simply (though
nevertheless complexly) a re-writing of “A Star Is
Born”, with perhaps more references (stylistically)
being accorded to the Garland/Mason version than, either
the Streisand/Kristofferson or Gaynor/March versions. Here
too is another Hollywood myth: that of the torment and pressure
behind the scenes in an ententainment industry.
However,
the Human League has no desire to expose, express or tell
of the 'reality’ of that myth. Instead they 'quote'
(in the most fundamental sense of the word) a pre-existing
cultural component. One textual product begets another.
Another queue is formed but Elton John is not in this one.
This queue is made up of voices that do not say or speak
things in such a direct way. The Human League do not really
say anything that was not already said in one way or another
by or in “A Star is Born”.
In
this sense, the content of "Want" stretches backwards
into infinity – back to the hypothetical instance
of when what is said in "Want” was first ever
said. Elton John, on the other hand, "speaks"
in his song. He (the writer, the voice of the song, its
author) speaks of this exposition of myth, of the reality
constituted by the song and defined through poetic justice.
The short and long of it is that Elton John says something
through denying everything; the Human League says nothing
through admitting everything. These are the current two
major ways (in a generalised form) of dealing with the language
of popular culture.
But-the
complication of matters does not end here. The further irony
is that these songs and figures within the context of the
Rock'n'Roll Eisteddfod exhibited their conflicting natures
through their theatrical presentations. The school who put
on the Elton John medley staged their production in the
manner and mode of Elton John's writing, and the same applied
to the other school in relation to the Human League. The
former involved a very theatricalized presentation, complete
with overtones and shades of Shakespearean tragedy, while
the latter incorporated a multimedia presentation and fractured
narrative that was ten times more exciting than seeing the
actual Human League perform their own songs at the Palais
Theatre!
The
nature of the approach to writing utilized by "Candle”
is historically validated – it stems from a tradition
of literature and poetry, where notions (problems) of authorship,
expression, craft and talent are all knotted into such an
incredibly thick and tight knot that there appears to be
a solid foundation for critical evaluation and broad interpretation.
The whole idea of quotation as used (whether deliberately
or not) in “Want" is of a more complex and perplexing
nature that is not (yet) historically validated (assessed,
justified and sanctioned) and that will prove to be problematic
for some time to come. Subsequently, the theatfical presesentations
of these two two medleys bore out the absence (Elton John)
and the presence (Human League) of problematics in the way
in which theatre (in its historically determined state of
being in the Present) deals with the language of popular
culture. The Elton John presentation involved a very basic
translation of literary craft into stagecraft. The Human
League presentation involved an (effectively) confused translation
of cultural quotation into a play with images. A manipulation
of meaning (Elton John) as opposed to a manipulation by
meaning (Human League). The latter involves the loss of
artistic control and authorised power, the former deludes
us with such things. Here arises what is generally recognized
as the diffidrence between “speaking” and "being
spoken": not a linguistic paradox but a cultural criterion.
The point is that the Elton John production was a dense
jumble of gesture and narrative that managed to construct
a thin veneer of intended or supposed meaning on top of
a mythological cess pool. Its communication, then, was determined
by a surface reading directed at and derived from an almost
religious adherence to the principle of gleaning meaning
through authorship. The Human League production, conversely,
was crystal clear in its muddy and inaccessible multiplicity.
Where it celebrated the polysemic nature of its mythology
(of stage, song, fiction and image), the Elton John production
suppressed it. Understandably enough, too, the Elton John
production got much higher marks (in fact, it won its heat)
than the Human League production, in what was really a conventional
and impotent judging panel. Even the actual marking categories
(creativity, presentation, origiality, song choice, etc.)
prescribed a value system and criteria for judgment, one
that would inevitably place Elton John, his songs and relative
productions "above" (more historically valid than)
the Human League, their songs and relative productions.
The
Rock 'M Roll Eisteddfod itself seemed to deny its very place
within society – i.e. the convening of a wild spectrum
of cultural, technological and media contexts. (Perhaps
this is the connection with Welsh bard sessions that has
been last in history?) Such an event is concrete proof of
the multiple nature of history, in that the interpretation
and composition of images within the productions were resultant
from a consumption through assault from all aspects of media:
radio, television, magazines, album covers, newspapers,
statistics, records, posters, advertisements, biographies,
interviews, photographs, film clips, products, etc. etc.
etc. Some of the productions were straight stagings of the
narrative images from film clips. Other productions were
original theatrical scripts to songs for which there had
been no film clips. Still other productions used conventions
and tactics from television (as opposed to theatre) to write
a presentation for a particular song. And, of course other
productions were no more than boring theatrical stage presentations.
In my estimation it was usually fairly obvious which productions
were directed by teachers and which productions were suggested
by the students themselves.
The
most incredible thing is that, generally, any school kid's
input to such productions would be based upon an almost
total lack of conscious knowledge of traditional and professional
theatre craft and theory. Through such a state of affairs,
the Rock’n’Roll Eisteddfod provided (unwittingly
and without recognition) what could most probably represent
an avant-garde of theatre practice, i.e. an approach based
not on a history of (specifically and solely) theatre, but
an approach based upon a position of being lost in the cultural
void of now. A void where a single field (such as theatre)
holds no hierarchical power. A void that generates disembodied
meaning.
The
Eisteddfod productions were living constructions of dense
quotations from all aspects of popular culture – media,
history, ideology, etc. An important thing to note, though,
is that these productions. these networks of quotated meanings,
were organized in a way that defies traditional interpretation
and reading. They simply vomit back culture the same way
culture vomits itself onto us every moment of everyday.
The whole artifice of artistic creativity and construction
(ideologically prescribed requirements for "good art,
"accessible entertainment” and “worthwhile
productivity”) is drowned out by the noise of culture.
Productions of songs like "Hotel California",
"Bad Girls", "At the Copa Cabana", “Another
One Bites The Dust”, “The Model”. "Jail
Break” – instantly conjured up babbling histories
of image and meaning. Politics, social codes, sexuality
and morality performed a frenzied, mutated dance. The audience
went wild – high on ignorance, oblivious to the currents
and charges of meaning that gave energy to the semantic
and narrative core to each production. Such is the nature
of the language of popular culture: it remains unspoken
yet the power of its voice is awesome.
All
Ican hope is that the Rock'N'Roll Eisteddfods will come
to Melbourne so that more people are able to get in touch
with what could be described as a Carnival of Now. It is
such a place that we can realize and encounter a heart of
social conditioning, the playground of ideological determination,
the black hole of culture. It must be remembered that meaning
is a form of energy: it cannot be destroyed, only transformed.
Quotation, in this light, is part of the whole process of
energy transference of cultural flow. Inasmuch as energy
came/comes from nowhere/everywhere, so does each and every
aspect of the communicative base of our everyday transactions,
the language of our existence.
Events
like the Rock'N'Roll Eisteddfods afford us the reality of
mythological representation as opposed to the illusion of
artistic statement. To me, their penultimate description
would be "semiology in the flesh" – the
presence of culture is so strong you could almost touch
it. Unlike things like “New Faces" or “Young
Talent Time", the Rock'N'Roll Eisteddfod presented
“raw"(unmediated by media controls and prerequisites)
examples of the effect of popular culture upon itself. The
Eisteddfod productions were sloppy, confused, incoherent,
overloaded, amateur – but they were living, breathing
specimens of how culture constructs and conveys meaning.
