​

"And if a number of individuals so concur in one action that together they are all cause of one effect,

I consider them all, to that extent, as one singular thing."

(Spinoza)

 

The Song of a Thousand Songs

What if we perceive the whole of popular music as “one singular thing”, as one massive collaborative project? The combined work of composers, performers, producers, listeners, all types of musickers whose efforts have gone into constructing this vast phenomenon. We often speak of popular music as a thing with a life of its own, so let us give this natural predilection some substance, some value, rather than just as a passing metaphor. If the genius-author is still part of the construction of value then we have as genius-authors the joint authors of the pop project, where the many songs are no longer seen as an immense number of singularities but as an authored entity in itself. This magnum opus that encompasses the entirety of pop has a name, it is one song called ‘The Song of a Thousand Songs’ and is composed and performed by a group called The And.

 

Here we put forward the concept of popular music as multiplicity, as the one and the many, and consider the general workings of the popular music community in its collaboration on the pop project, and set out to show that the ends of songs are not ends at all, or at least the former fixity of such endings has undergone a rapid dismantling in recent times, and put forward, as the main concept of Toast Theory, the following axiom:

 

Musical phrases in which we perceive resemblance operate through the same modes of relationship regardless of whether they occur within one piece of music or in separate pieces of music.

 

When we hear a theme develop in a symphony, we heap praise on an author. When we hear two similar themes in different songs, we heap criticism and shouts of ‘plagiarism’ upon one of the authors. Yet, in terms of what we hear, there may be no difference at all in these two scenarios. 

​

Removing Non-sonic Signifiers from Endings

So, what is an end, and who decides when the music is finished? In this chapter I discuss how musical phrases (‘tunes’) can be perceived in relation to each other and propose that the observed borders of a traditional view of musical entities is no longer as fixed as it once was. In order to do this, I will consider two case studies: One where two similar phrases are accepted as an internally validated thematic development within a single work, and the second where two similar phrases are accepted as being from different works. In this way we can then ask the questions as to how the entities (the pieces of music) are made separate. The two case studies are:

 

1. Thematic unity with a single entity: the opening of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, in particular the opening theme (A1) and its first variation (A2);

2. Thematic unity across multiple entities: a phrase in song 1 (S1) and a similar phrase in song 2 (S2).

 

There are two parts under consideration, firstly the ways in which themes may be seen in relation to each other, and secondly what divides and what unites these themes when they are internal (within one work) or in separate works (not within one work). 

 

Case Study 1 (Thematic unity within a single entity)

Let us concentrate on the connection drawn between the proceedings within Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. If we take the opening theme (A1) as the original theme we hear the next phrase (A2) in relation to this:

​

​

​

 

 

Fig. Two phrases within ‘one’ piece.

 

We can note similarities in the phrases A1 and A2, such as, for example:

• The rhythm ‘short, short, short, long’;

• The ‘shorts’ are a repeated note (pitch);

• They are the same duration (quavers);

• The interval from short notes to long is a 3rd.

 

And we can note some differences, for example: 

• A2 comes after A1 (it is not before or at the same time);

• The phrase A2 starts a tone down on the F and not the G;

• The intervalic descent is a minor 3rd and not a major 3rd.

 

Case Study 2 (Thematic unity across multiple entities)

The theme in song 1 is labelled S1 and the theme in song 2 is labelled S2. They are by different composers, they are in different songs, some listeners think that they sound similar.

 

​

​

​

​

 

Fig. Two phrases in ‘separate’ pieces.

 

Here we take two phrases S1 and S2 and view them through the same modes as we did for A1 and A2: It is evident that many of the same similarities apply. We can note similarities in the phrases:

• The rhythm ‘short, short, short, long’;

• The ‘shorts’ are a repeated note (pitch);

• They are the same duration (quavers);

• The interval from short notes to long is a 3rd.

 

And we can note differences:

• S2 comes after S1 (it is not at the same time, at least not on the page here);

• The phrase S2 ends on the F and not the G;

• The intervallic ascent in S2 is a minor 3rd and not a major 3rd.  

 

In both case studies, whether the phrases occur within a 'singular' work or 'multiple' works, the relationship between the themes is the same, and hence the statement that "Musical phrases in which we perceive resemblance operate through the same modes of relationship regardless of whether they occur within one piece of music or in separate pieces of music."

 

So, the questions then start to become obvious when we ask ‘what are the differences?’ Let us pick out some of the obvious objections and discuss their merits (objections refers to distinctions that privilege the coherence and totality of individual musical works over the joining of all works into one thing).

 

It might be said (in a derogatory way) of similar themes in different compositions by different composers that:

• They are not in the same ‘piece of music’;

• They are not by the same composer;

• There is no ‘fixed’ gap between when one phrase is heard and the next (could be months or years between hearing them);

• There is lots of other ‘stuff’ (other songs etc.) sounded between these themes;

• They are not meant to be together, but in the ‘singular’ work they are meant to be together;

• The second artist is a plagiarist, they stole it from the first artist.

 

Which out of these objections is an objection on musical (sonic, sound only) grounds? We argue that the answer is ‘none’. Do we have to accept the objections that are set out here and adhere to their legitimate claim with regard to how they separate? We might simply ask then, why does it matter that they are not within the same composition? We still hear the relationship, the development, etc. The singularity of a piece is only defined by, for example, the end of a written score, the end of the record, the stream of the playlist etc.; they are signifiers of endings only, we do not have to accept them as concrete closures of entities.

​

Popular Music as a Distributed Model of Collaboration

Collaborators might normally be expected to be willing participants in a project, people who have signed up for a joint venture, but perhaps all of us who are involved in pop have signed up simply through our actions in that we have, in some way, ‘contributed to pop music’. The very phrase suggests that we have played our part in constructing a joint thing. Through this lens we are all collaborators on the pop project, whether willingly or otherwise. For the purpose of this chapter I will use the terms ‘pop’ and ‘popular music’ freely without interest in any distinction, and I will take the position of allowing the pop project to be a collaborative venture into the construction of a singular entity, the many songwriters contributing to the on-going single that is popular music, the ever-shifting song that is ‘The Song of A Thousand Songs’. This song is always number one in the charts and it is always in hibernation on a shelf, it is always under renovation and it is always discarding old blooms that were once its brightest flowers. In times of prosperity it is seen in full bling, bedecked with ‘goldy-looking’ chains, and in times of austerity it revels in the authenticity of unplugged soul searching. ‘The Song of a Thousand Songs’ is composed and performed by the group The And, a band that has itself seen a number of changes in its line up over the years. The And is, of course, the name of this conceptual group of collaborators, that is, everyone that contributes in whatever way to the construction of ‘The Song of a Thousand Songs’ is a member of the band (any relation to any other band named The And is entirely coincidental, although ironically, if there are bands out there with this name then their band The And is also part of The And).

 

Robert C. Hobbs in his essay ‘Rewriting History: Artistic Collaboration since 1960’ puts forward this proposition: 

 

"I would like to propose that collaboration is, in essence, nothing more or less than influence positively perceived as part of an on-going cultural dialogue."

(Hobbs in McCabe 1984, p.79) 

 

The manifestations of these influences, songs, allow us to see the contributions to the project and how they are connected. If we stand further afield for a while and watch the musicking (Small 1998) happen then we will see how the capacity for influence that is ready and waiting in a receiver acts upon the received object and throws it out once more to be received by others with the capacity to respond to influence. The capacity for influence encompasses the readiness to receive, the desire to engage with what is received, and the ability to use the received in actively shaping a new output. It is the ability to be affected and for this affectation to have an effect, a manifest output. Collaboration is the effect of affect. As Deleuze writes on the Spinozian body, “a body affects other bodies, or is affected by other bodies; it is this capacity for affecting and being affected that also defines a body in its individuality” (Deleuze 1988, p.123). The concept of influence that has dominated this way of thinking in recent times is that of Richard Dawkins’ meme as he describes it in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene (2016), and indeed his first example of the meme are ‘tunes’ (Dawkins 2016, p.249). The way in which the meme succeeds is outlined by Francis Heylighen through the processes of assimilation, retention, expression and transmission (Heylighen 2009) and this aligns with the description of the capacity for influence drawn from Hobbs’ statement. With this gene-like propagation now established as a mechanism for this cultural replicator we can consider this in light of collaboration. We are familiar with noting influence from one entity to a later other (through one author to another), so if we consider the collective endeavours of popular music as a manifestation of collaboration then we might see more clearly why the status of serious and non-serious music  (in Adorno’s terms) has evened out, for part of this discussion is with regard to the comparison of the thematic development found in the symphony (symphonic first movements in the Classical style in particular) with the thematic development (often termed ‘the evolution’) of popular music.

 

Vera John-Steiner and her collaborative partners note four patterns of collaboration that range from the widest form to the closest form: distributed, complementary, integrative, and family. These are not closed forms, this classification “is not a hierarchy” (John-Steiner 2000, p.197) and are represented within an un-segmented circle. She goes on to detail some of the characteristics, such as “Distributed collaboration is widespread. It takes place in casual settings and also in more organised contexts”. The examples given are demonstrated through the conversation, as in the following:

 

"The participants in distributed collaborative groups are linked by similar interests. At times, their conversations may lead to new personal insights. When exchanges become heated or controversial, new groups may form to address issues in greater depth. Other groups splinter or dissolve. But out of such informal connections some lasting partnerships may be built."

(John-Steiner 2000, p.198)

 

The role of the collaborator in this model is “informal and voluntary”; it is a contribution that is not necessarily agreed amongst partners other than that interested parties make contributions to the project. Their working method is characterised as “spontaneous and responsive”. It might well be that contributors to the pop project may be calculated rather than spontaneous, or even with calculated spontaneity (as in the case of fabricating the casual in order to market a boy band for instance), but it is normally an uncalculated expression and is largely impulsive in the manner with which it responds, it has a capacity for influence and a desire to influence others. A distributed model of collaboration then has voluntary, informal contributions to a project of shared interests. It describes the collaborative nature of the pop project at its macro level. 

​

​