"Why We Fight," some of the more thought provoking musical writings posted to Pitchfork at the moment, discusses genre-mixing this week. Part of the prolonged point that author Nitsuh Abebe makes in support of exploring other types of music is that genres encourage development within other genres, and, in fact, keep them in balance.
One of the reasons this intense article is so interesting? These stories that are so focused on maintaining an open mind to music and art is remarkably applicable to politics. Abebe mentions multi-genre collaborations as a not-so surprising result of curiosity and accessibility - how, "People have talked for years about the music world becoming more fragmented, full of more and smaller boxes... So what could be strange about musicians reaching from one box to another, or hanging around between them?"
If this cross-pollination can be recognized, criticized, yet still capitalized on in the music industry (which has its fare share of backward problems...), why is it still so important for candidates to stick to one box in their platform? Why has the long tail been an important epiphany in every consumer product industry except for politics? In the essay, Abebe asserts:
I'm in favor of open sandboxes, no matter how much cringing is involved. And one big reason why is just this: Different sandboxes have different ways of talking and thinking about things.
Perhaps this is why art is so addictive. These collaborations provide a safe space for idea exchange. At the end of their conversations, the art is something neither musician could have started to explore on their own. That’s the dream in terms of the future of politics. And yeah, if we could have made a speech this past Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial, it might have gone something like that.