It was not I who brought "politics" into the discussion of "ideas" - in fact I did the opposite by rejecting its relevance. Others have tried to claim a supposed relevance by stating the obvious fact that many artistic ideas have an inspiration deriving from a human condition that has been prescribed by politics (or a political condition). None of us needs a lesson in history to witness this fact.

What has yet to be proved (as far as I am concerned) is that POLITICS has ever exercised sufficient authority and spiritual clout to cause a work of art to be worth more than it would have been anyway without the presence of a political dimension.

I am led to believe from some of the contributors to this thread that "politics" (as such) indeed HAS been a creative force that determines a positive status (viewed in the most objective way possible) for art works that emanate either from within or under its control. I am not persuaded.

It remains my view - until somebody manages to persuade me otherwise - that politics has throughout history had (by its very terms of reference and pragmatic severity) nothing but a negative and detrimental effect upon the expression of artistic ideas.

While the trouble with politicians has always been that they are completely incapable of differentiating "ideas" from "policies", the sad thing is that many of today's artists have shown themselves only too ready to learn from the politicians!

Baz

I can't believe anyone would argue that: rather that certain types of politics have been productively inspiring, others have not. It all depends on the particular politics in question.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else in this respect, but would argue that rather than seeing ideas and artistic creation as something that might be affected by a 'political dimension', instead those very things do themselves have a political dimension. I do feel like the point you are making veers towards the ideological, in the sense of arguing that any other perspective other than that contained within one's one ideology is 'political', but that ideology itself is not.

If, hypothetically, some government or other authority decrees that music should be written with tonal harmonies, regular beats, and present a joyous and uplifting experience (at least in theory), both a decision to concur with such expectations and a decision not to do so (or a decision not to be consciously swayed either way by them) are all 'political'.

A typical piece of mischievous obfuscation by old Morty there! "Running to society"? Where from?

Well you can, in this way: you can deny that the result is music at all. Not real music. (We are not particularly trying to criticise S. here, only saying that it is one view that people do hold.)

It seems there as if the simple argument is that the difference in politics between Crawford Seeger and Riegger on one hand, and Ruggles on the other, might be related to the difference in their musical aesthetics.

Well, if one agrees that he did indeed do so (and that is a very big 'if'), the fact that such a thing has been so often celebrated for that very reason is surely in itself 'political'? And how about in the situation where a composer in the West attempts to write music that rises above, denies, eschews the very demands (themselves repressive) that commercial society places upon artists (themselves every bit as much political demands as are those provided by central political authorities)?