By: Lucious Skyroakah

(The following is written by a university graduate who, having realized he probably wasted 4 years and unspeakable amounts of money on a useless degree and unnecessary education, needs to feel smart from time to time, so take this attempt at scholastability as nothing more than that, although if you have some beefs, want to poke holes in this 'theory,' or have any other ideas please correspond!)

Music today is not as good as it could be. By this I don't mean that I happened to like the bands that came out 10 or 20 years ago or that the music scene is in a slump, or that modern bands aren't as talented as they used to be, or will be in the future. However, for metaphorically illustrative purposes, it is apparent that 1) music evolves from generation to generation in a way that I will argue is much like the Darwinian process of natural selection, and 2) because of that, its tendency is to continually progress from simple to more complex as time goes on (club wielding to atom splitting humans for example). The reason this isn't actually happening I argue is because of an interference in the system of natural selection in the music industry by the decisions of non-band entities such as major labels, major radio and television stations and such forth that disturb the natural order that would otherwise yield a much more diverse, interesting and rich spectrum of music available to any potential listener.

Natural selection is a cumulative natural process (discovered by Darwin) whereby genetic variations in organisms that are advantageous for its survival are replicated and passed on to future generations increasing the frequency of that gene, and the converse; organisms which possess genetic traits which do not provide a physical advantage will not survive, extinguishing those characteristics from the gene pool. This process is used to explain the change or evolution of species through time. This system, allowed to proceed undisturbed to its logical conclusion, also improves the species as a whole throughout many generations, as favourable traits are reinforced, and unfavourable traits are discarded. It's an open question as to whether or not humans for example are 'better' now than they used to be, but certain characteristics that many would consider favourable are more prevalent than they would have been 200 or 2000 years ago. As a whole, we are more advanced, technologically and intellectually, are 5 inches taller, live 25 years longer and seem to be better looking overall (have you ever seen those old timey pictures?? Not a looker in the bunch!) Now it may be a stretch to implant this analogy to the state of music and have it make any sense, but the geneology of bands and of individual organisms have many features in common. The main similarity is that the characteristics of either are largely determined by the legacy of their predecessors. An organism's fate will depend largely upon the genetic resources obtained from it's parents (life span, intelligence, personality). And a band derives it's 'sonic signature' or (to borrow a Richard Dawkins, author of 'The God Delusion' term) its 'memes' [hypothetical entities that act as 'replicators' of cultural inheritance] from the bands that came before that inspired and influenced them. A superficial difference between the two of course is that bands can have more than 2 parents, but the same principle applies in both cases. Every 'organism' or 'band' is directly influenced by the generations preceding them, and are strictly limited by whatever is available in their gene (for the organism) or 'meme' (for the band) pool. Something can't come from nothing. Which is to say all music is derivative and no music is truly original. The most original music likely has more numerous and blended influences and for the sake of definition in this essay is more 'complex.' Certain qualities can remain dormant (like recessive genes) and not be visibly apparent for generations, which is why occasionally two brown haired parents will have a red headed child (to their dismay- no I'm kidding, you have to see that South Park episode though), and why certain bands seem to pop out of nowhere and revolutionize music (maybe you have your own example for this- CM.. jj *cough*).

So, applying the process of natural selection to bands, logically you would assume the best, most determined, original and otherwise deserving bands would attract the most fans (consider fans 'prey' in the Darwinian thought experiment). And as a result make the most money, be around the longest, and generally be predominant enough in the 'memetic environment' to ensure they spawn future generations of offspring (other bands) which carry aspects of their 'sonic signature.' And if any of their offspring are successful enough, that will be carried to the next generation as well. This is the essence of the process of Natural Selection, which, left to its own devices, is extraordinarily elegant and powerful enough to create organisms that are sufficiently cognitively complex to discern it's workings (humans, thanks to Darwin, minus the Creationists). Unfortunately with that knowledge comes the ability to interfere with it. Humans, having risen to the top of the food chain can now tinker away with the process and create fruits, vegetables, animals etc that would never have existed without their intervention. My precious Peppy, a pomeranian would not exist but for the hand of man (bred down from huskies and others), so I'm not saying that manipulation of genes or 'memes' for that matter, is, as such, a bad thing. But, like Peppy, certain bands would not exist if Natural Selection was allowed to run its course in the music industry. Aside from the obvious 'manufactured' bands like Simple Plan, Pussy Cat Dolls, Hedley etc.. certain bands and artists, who have little natural talent or determination to be successful on their own are elevated by another type of species in the chain, which behave a lot like human dog breeders who 'breed to sell.' Out of the millions of perfectly good bands, radio stations, major labels, TV programs preselect the 100 or so bands that we are to listen to and support financially. This now becomes a process of 'artificial selection.' Their chosen pets are granted with innumerable resources which provide them which unnaturally long life, and a much larger grazing ground which allows for more prey than any one 'organism' would ever need. Although they may still not be particularly 'good hunters' (say they 'catch' one out of 1000 fans) because of the increased opportunity to 'hunt (grazing grounds consisting of millions)' they can easily survive and flourish. Because this one group is artificially elevated, many other bands simply can't survive on the meager 'resources' that remain and die out. This is not to say that these 'artificially selected' bands are all simple and/or undeserving, but many would not 'survive,' and many more bands would survive were it not for the intervention or 'unbalancing' of the playing field. And as a result, there would be more music out there, more diverse music available, and likely more complex (better) music to further influence future generations. The distribution of 'resources' would be more even and more bands would have the opportunity to contribute to the 'memetic' legacy of musical evolution. In the current state of music, bands who can't tour full time can't survive, but you also can't tour without money, so it's sort of a catch-22. So, because of this, the majority of bands that survive long enough to 'pass on their genes' are a small group of 'protected' homogenous artists, which causes the overall gene pool to shrink. Because many organisms with favourable traits, who ordinarily would have had a great memetic contribution to the overall 'meme pool' are killed off, the resulting pool suffers, which leads to a poverty of natural diversity and complexity. Kind of like a Mennonite village (if you're a mennonite reading this you deserve to be offended, you aren't allowed on computers!)

This should not be taken as a condemnation of the music industry because the 'intervention' I speak of stems from the Capitalist ideal, which has proven historically to be far superior to the Communist or Marxist type methods of economic organization. Although my 'Natural Selection of Music argument' seems to be motivated by the desire for 'greater equality (this is what both the Communist and Marxist groups apparently strove for),' there are two crucial differences. In order to have a Communist society function, it has to be continually enforced, which will inevitably result in its downfall, whereas Capitalism allows any individual to reap the benefits of (almost) any profitable financial enterprise they have the ingenuity to pursue. Which is what will occur in the absence of interference from external sources, ie. the Government. So one is a process which operates through oppressive limitation (Communism) and the other through the empowerment of the individual (Capitalism). The other major difference is that although I agree the Natural Selection process (in the music industry) would yield 'greater [not perfect] equality' overall, it would ensure that 'survival rates' of bands would increase in proportion to their 'memetic complexity.' Which, put another way means that those bands which are best adapted to contribute to future generations of music (as determined by their success in the absence of outside interference), do. So, Capitalism and Natural Selection seem to be successful for similar reasons and Capitalism is indeed seen to an effective system. But unless it is checked to some degree it will limit the democratic aspect of our political ideal. People can't choose something they aren't aware exists (it's a lot more difficult to become aware of a band like Strung Out for the average person if you're continually bombarded by Beyonce, Justin Timberlake and Dixie Chicks from every form of media). Essentially I'm advocating a version like Canada's 'watered down' capitalism. Major labels, radio stations, magazines etc.. should of course still operate, but with a focus shifted from immediate profit and a small amount of artists, towards a future oriented, perhaps more sustained approach that would allow more artists to be heard, and as a result cultivate a 'healthier' species of music. Here's one final metaphor again involving dogs (Chasing Mercury likes our dog analogies, there's one in John McCrae and in Caps and Sleeves). Labels, radio stations.. etc (humans), should be allowed to bet, and profit from a dog race, but they shouldn't be allowed to inject their dog with some sort of performance enhancing drug before the race.

One practical suggestion, in keeping with my argument above, that I believe would help improve the current and future state of music is the following. In radio: In addition to there being a quota of required Canadian content per hour, there should be a quota for new/ indie music, not just an "indie hour" on every station. Believe it or not old timers, new bands have been formed in the last 25 years to replace ACDC, Bon Jovi, Rolling Stones, Beatles. Great bands, but they don't need any more recognition or money, and you would come to love other bands as much (minus the nostalgia) soon. Plus, play bands where all the members are dead even less. All this does is pour more money into some fat inheritors lap (like when Homer's electric hammer gets credited to Edison). Radio stations would complain temporarily that advertisers would be less likely to pay for advertisements in between 'unknown' bands, but given a bit of time they wouldn't be unknown anymore. And say every station was equally committed to the, say 25 percent, no one would be at a disadvantage.

Another thing that I think is bad for music is when a band becomes successful, likely to due to years of hard work, touring, busting their ass in every conceivable way (kudos to them!! but...), and then breaks up, and forms 2 or 3 "side projects." Now, automatically these other 2 or 3 bands are signed, given the exact same status and opportunities as the band that broke up. Often these bands sound like shittier versions of the previous band, but the same idea, yet they bypass the entire ladder, without proving themselves at all. From the labels standpoint, it's a good gamble. 'Some of these members were successful before, they will likely be successful again.' Reasonable, but a self fulfilling prophecy. They are only successful because of the 'fast tracking' provided by the label. They have a tour, video and album plus distribution funded on day one. This also demonstrates the sometimes arbitrary nature with which labels can align themselves to bands.

This essay I acknowledge has a few unexamined assumptions. But some wizened, angry, omniscient university professor isn't deciding my fate by reading this so I will not really try to reconcile them completely.

1) Does art advance in the same was as technology or science, ie. From simple to complex?? I AM treating music like it's like discovering a better way to build a mass transit system or a more effective cure for some disease. So, how did we go from the paintings of the renaissance (amazing and complex) to the soup can or pencil paintings of that weirdo (simple and sort of stupid)?? Well two possible responses. One, I say it advances 'as a whole'.. which is a practically impossible assertion to measure. And by whose standards? Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if art isn't beauty, what is? Well, I don't say better or more beautiful, I say complex. And by operationally defining 'complex' as: music which has more numerous and blended sources I can be safe by the fact that every year there will always be more past sources to draw from which makes blending that much easier.

2) Do people want more 'complex' music? My answer: yes they do. Well any music lover does. But even me, the advocate of "new and different" music has barely any new favourite bands. Why? Perhaps, partially, to the status quo I'm complaining about, they aren't easy to find! You have to SEARCH for new bands the way it is. But you'll hear the same stupid ass song 9 times a day without trying. But, unfortunately, I think we are all to blame.. We have pretty short attention spans, and most of us, not much time on our hands. For example: I get the new Strung Out album, a band I KNOW I love, and sometimes can't get through the whole album in a month. They are clearly better songs than anything you'll hear on the radio. But like anything worthwhile, it can be an acquired taste.. like wine, art, literature, film, and MUSIC. Complexity is ultimately more satisfying, but harder to get involved in. Hmm.. well maybe I've argued myself out of my own point. Maybe that's why there's such crap on radio and TV.

3) Am I saying all this because I'm in an unsigned band who has an album I think is great, and who has done a Canadian Tour for 3 months and still have to work my balls off in a factory to keep going??

Probably, haha.