For the right reasons
 

Making music is a discussion we rightfully have here on a regular basis. But the philosophys behind it are vast and we often attribute degrees of acheivement based on those personal views.

Here's the question. When creating music, we often give credit to musicians for doing it for "the right reasons." We salute the originators here quite often, and condem the follows, but should we condem them as vehemently as we do. Musicians (used loosly) inspired by other music are certainly "doing it for the right reasons", aren't they?

After I read the Nickleback review the other day, I was thinking "well at least they don't piss and moan like Eddie Vedder does whenever he sees a concert with a mosh pit or hears a vocalist with a baratone. If a musician (of any stripe) is focused enough to bitch in print about something else going on in music, does this render them more superficial and less music oriented for the right reasons?

As much as you may detest anyones music, if their performing for their own love of the art, shouldn't we be more accepting of that, regardless of taste?

I assume straight away that if someone's making music they are doing it out of their own passion, with a few exceptions. I can't say i detest any artists, its a strong word, but the fact that they genuinely enjoy writing music isn't a factor i take into account when criticising their music.

Well enjoyment isn't right on, its more of a "why do they enjoy it."

A la, Hard-Fi wants to be famous, James Brown liked writing music.

This is the distinction I'm aiming for.

There is no wrong or right reason to make music.

Well you're always going to have trouble with questioning artist's intent in song writing. You could accuse any mainstream act for writing music for the wrong reasons simply because they're making money.
But again, bands motives aren't a massive factor with me. I'm pretty sure a few of my favourite acts are money-hungry bastards but i enjoy the music so i don't care.

it all depends on how the individual defines music and art.

once an individual has reached the the point of being able to define those two elements independently of external validation the idea of an idealogical debate as to the underlying motivations of other people's music becomes rather banal. you will either like something or not - period. unless you personally know the musician's being discussed NOTHING is being debated beyond hearsay and personal opinion, which is ultimately little more than an ego stroking competition.

it typically seems that while an individual is still attempting to reach the above point in their personal development the typical 'band X is better than band Y because of this ideal' argument generally serves to cover up other insecurities about their views on music, art, and society and their lack of ability to define it for themselves in a way they can truly believe in.

i'll be the first to own up to the fact that i used to bitch and moan about how mainstream music should be. at this point i really don't give half a crap as to why people make music anymore. if i like it i'll listen to it, if i don't i don't see the reason for wasting any sort of energy whining about it.

Thanks for the addition. i don't know what you were attmpting to address with this comment but I hope it was acheived.

This topic is for people with opinions on the question. Thank you.

As for Mr. Dave's last point there, i've been trying unsuccessfully to say that for years.

But speaking of "what people will think of you", to both of you i'd suggest that its at least subconciously what you're doing with this question. Too often on these forums we get ripped apart with the argument "well that isn't true because [example A] is an exception to that" and then we go about discussing much of nothing.

But I'm not asking to discuss any given bands reasons for writing, think more abstractly. If a band who stole every move in the book from someone else, would they be writing music, in your opinion for the right reasons.

Ignore what they think, or that its ambigous, or subjective, or irrelevent.

I'm asking you. Can someone with no original ideas be considered just as right in your opinion, as an originator.

This will likely ruin it all but lets say for example (and please don't drag these acts into the discussion), could a Black Crows be as artisticlly correct as a David Bowie?

Well, it isn't like a subjective idea can be inherently wrong. We're talking about subjective subject matter, and not objective subject matter. This is art, not science. Motivation can't be right or wrong, it just is.

Please read my last post.

I'm not asking for the same recycled arguments.