As for the royalties — clearly, they fund Fritz’s rampant cocaine habit.

That’s an interesting point, if we’re listening to the same piece of music, but have infinite possible reactions, then music will constantly result in deterritorialisations and reterritorialisations at a micro level. Also, every time the individual encounters this music, they may have differing reactions. Therefore does music always inadvertently rupture the codes, it (or the capitalist commodification process) tries to impose? Or more likely, the mild (or extreme) variation in experiences is an inevitable byproduct of all coded objects/mediums/things.

This area is incredibly intriguing, I’m more than a little obsessed with trying to understand the mechanisms that come into play when you (or rather I) listen to music. Especially music that has such a strong de/reterritorializing effect that it can actually be unpleasant to listen to. Like Proust’s madeleines, but taken to an evil extreme …forcing you to relive physical and emotional experiences whether you want to or not!

And I agree that music is hugely coded and mediated and all that, but the individual de/reterritorializations it enacts can be so individually specific and unpredictable that I think D&G have a point about music’s capacity to rupture and disrupt codification.

All about recontextualisation, I guess. Anyway, I don’t know. All I know is I enjoy listening to Radiohead and Pink Floyd.

I would argue any moment someone has though with a particular fall out boy song, will always be subject to limits and code, no matter how astonishing it may seem to them. They will listen to that music in a particular environment, in a specific format designed to codify and reterritorialise the music. You might have had transformative experiences, but were you free to see it as music a complete listening experience, that goes beyond any possible image? At the very least, the music has been produced. It applies to at least some of the preconceived ideas of song formulation and structure, thus it’s been reterritorialised quite a few times, before it reaches you. While we all love this music, it’s not deterritorialised. I’m not making a moral judgement about the types of music we listen to. Though i am trying to point out how any music we listen to no matter what it makes us feel has the capacity to fulfil D&G’s discussion of music.

Maybe I shouldn’t use the word free, because it’s getting me into trouble.

My problem is, how are you defining free music? What exactly makes a piece of music put us in touch with “a cosmo”? Let’s say that there is a scale of “free” music. One end occupied by endlessly regurgitated, mindless, limiting pop music — actually, let me be more specific: one end is occupied by Kmart radio, where not only is the music shite, it’s totally regulated by the corporate body, and designed to make customers buy things and workers work more effectively. On the other end of the scale is the music that you make yourself, or that is made by someone in your family, etc., which is liberating and beautiful and pretty free indeed.

How do we mark the transition from “bounded” to “free” music? It seems difficult because there are so many factors to take into account. Music, like everything else, is so intensely contextual. I might hate Fallout Boy, but if someone listens to Fallout Boy and is inspired by the beauty of the music to write a poem or become a singer themselves, isn’t that them moving along a line of flight towards the cosmos? I’ve had plenty of intensely transformative musical experience over the years, yet another person could listen to the same songs as I did and decide that they were whiny, boring or stupid, and completely shut themselves off to them. It’s all so transient.

I think the issue is that you’re establishing this idea of a free, unblemished, “primary’ music. There are only twelve notes in the Western musical tradition, and as they say, there’s nothing new under the sun — but does that really matter if someone feels freed by a piece of music?

What do you think?

However on the topic of Cobain’s suicide, it probably is the best thing for a rock star’s longevity. They become mythologized, and all there current labour develops a new surplus value, as it’s limited. We know that nothing more can be produced, therefore we commodify everything they ever touched (well that may be a bit of an exaggeration). I have the Cobain diaries at home, which combined with the 10th anniversary of his death. A best of was also released at this time including one of the last recorded tracks, ‘You Know You’re Right’. Thus, the history of Nirvana will almost always begin with Cobain’s death, as it re-codifies and valourises everything they produced.

In terms of selling out, the best example is probably the ipod ads. It’s probably a bit early to say, but the success of those ads don’t seem to have affected any individual who has licensed their music. In most cases it’s increased their popularity exponentially. However, we have to consider that they are selling a music device. Not quite as political as licensing music to promote a conservative newspaper.