Post

Doing homework for a class, hadn't written a post for today, decided to share the thoughts I explored in the homework.

Should music ever be banned?

Who is doing the banning?

Any organisation such as a government or an orchestra will have some kind of systemic power. It will therefore under capitalism be in the best financial interest of this organisation not to ban a piece, a genre, a unit of music unless popular opinion is solidly, cohesively condensed in opposition to said unit of music. But even then, the popular opinion that is the loudest may not be representative of the people who are marginalised and whose music is perhaps the music being banned.

In a light hearted way I have "banned" certain songs from being intentionally played in my presence, but this is not completely enforceable and I do not expect or desire this "ban" to be absolute.

Bans encourage secrecy which in turn creates environments in which safety is more difficult to ensure. Part of the appeal of illegal drugs is the fact that they are illegal. The same logic applies to banned music, especially as music is such a strong part of cultural identity; people would feel as though part of their culture was being forcibly taken from them and some might turn to violence as a way to express their pain.

Bans have also disproportionately negatively affected women, nonwhite people, disabled people, and other marginalised groups. Banning music enables the one(s) doing the banning to control the leisure activities of others. I would argue that this is a form of violence. By controlling someone else's leisure activities you are controlling the environment in which they think. You are controlling what they are able to express and the ways in which they are able to express it. You are effectively forcing them to express only the ideas, thoughts, emotions that you have decided are acceptable. If you're the kind of person who would do this, of course you don't care that it's violence; but that's what it is.

Bans are often used as a type of censorship. The classic example is of Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich who still managed to express his political views under strict government censorship. Of course there were most likely many other composers who we don't know because they were executed and their compositions destroyed.

Personally I am the kind of person who might argue for, say, Richard Wagner's works to be banned, because of his antisemitism and misogyny and because his operas were used by the Nazi party as propaganda. But a government or opera company would never do so, because Wagner is popular and sells tickets. If Wagner's works were not to be performed anymore, it would be in an economic situation where the works are no longer financially viable to perform, and then it would be less of a ban and more of a gradual shifting of the company's regular repertoire.

In conclusion, I don't think there is ever a good reason to ban music.