Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   For the right reasons (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/30025-right-reasons.html)

TheBig3 04-20-2008 11:50 AM

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?

Piss Me Off 04-20-2008 12:05 PM

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.

TheBig3 04-20-2008 12:06 PM

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.

The Unfan 04-20-2008 12:18 PM

There is no wrong or right reason to make music.

Piss Me Off 04-20-2008 12:19 PM

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.

mr dave 04-20-2008 12:30 PM

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.

TheBig3 04-20-2008 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 471858)
There is no wrong or right reason to make music.

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.

TheBig3 04-20-2008 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piss Me Off (Post 471859)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 471863)
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.

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?

The Unfan 04-20-2008 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471869)
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.

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.

TheBig3 04-20-2008 12:59 PM

Please read my last post.

I'm not asking for the same recycled arguments.

SATCHMO 04-20-2008 01:06 PM

I'd like to think that an artist is honoring their own Muse, so to speak, that there is some sort of underlying catharsis that motivates the creative process. Regardless of popularity or commercial success that's my definition of artistic integrity.

The Unfan 04-20-2008 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471877)
Please read my last post.

I'm not asking for the same recycled arguments.

Oh sorry, I should go into more depth for this discussion specifically I suppose.

You can't objectively measure a thought. So we're left with "merit" which is fairly subjective (****, I'm doing this wrong) and will change from person to person. If you're asking if Black Crows can be as artistic as David Bowie, most certainly. As long as we accept that each of them are achieving their artistic visions than we can conclude from personal stances that they're just as artistic as each other, just in different ways. One chooses to borrow heavily stylistically from others, the other chooses to blend styles into its own thing. Uniqueness =/= artisticness.

Piss Me Off 04-20-2008 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471874)
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 there's nothing wrong with it, so yes. Obviously original ideas are more preferable but you can't say a band are wrong without them.

Rainard Jalen 04-20-2008 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471854)
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?

And what if they are performing for their own love of money and fame, have no interest in trying to be the slightest bit artistic (even if being artistic involves deriving ideas from many influences - nothing wrong with that at all), and have no aims aside from being the one/s to put out the next big generic hit and reap the cash rewards?

I don't mean that wryly and am inviting no flaming response. I mean it quite seriously.

boo boo 04-20-2008 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471854)
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?

Wow, you actually have a point.

I hate when people say a band sucks and then justify it with "they're only in it for the money" which is just pure bullsh*t speculation based on nothing. You don't know what goes through a musicians head, weither they care about the music or not, it dosen't matter, what matters is what the music means to you.

So if there are people who are actually moved by the music of Nickelback then more power to them, dosen't mean you can't still mock Nickelback.

I have no problem with criticism but what I do have a problem with is thats all some people do, its an annoying habit on this forum especially that so many people feel compelled to start sh*t on a thread specifically for a band they don't like.

Since such threads should be for discussions between actual fans, I consider it trolling. Every damn thread EVERY F*CKING ONE OF THEM thats devoted to a certain band, its always reduced to stupid (and pointless) arguments between people that like them and people that don't, preventing fans from having friendly and helpful discussions because they're constantly interupted.

Rainard Jalen 04-20-2008 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 471889)
Wow, you actually have a point.

I hate when people say a band sucks and then justify it with "they're only in it for the money" which is just pure bullsh*t speculation based on nothing. You don't know what goes through a musicians head, weither they care about the music or not, it dosen't matter, what matters is what the music means to you.

So if there are people who are actually moved by the music of Nickelback then more power to them, dosen't mean you can't still mock Nickelback.

I have no problem with criticism but what I do have a problem with is thats all some people do, its an annoying habit on this forum especially that so many people feel compelled to start sh*t on a thread specifically for a band they don't like.

Since such threads should be for discussions between actual fans, I consider it trolling. Every damn thread EVERY F*CKING ONE OF THEM thats devoted to a certain band, its always reduced to stupid (and pointless) arguments between people that like them and people that don't, preventing fans from having friendly and helpful discussions because they're constantly interupted.

I think the two of you largely miss the point. You might not be able to READ one's heart, but when do you EVER? We ALWAYS make inferences about what people are likely to be thinking/feeling, it's quite a natural psychological behaviour. We infer judgments based on what we see, hear and know of a person's behaviour. And often, those judgments are correct.

It is not some SCATHING criticism to suggest that somebody is really only in it for the money. In the extremely commercialized world of mainstream popular music, it's obvious that a lot of people are more interested in the fortune than on making an artistic statement. Compare it with movies: do you really think when they get together and make a film like, say, Date Movie, they are trying to make high art?! Bolleaux! They're trying to make a fortune (and do)! Likewise, you know that when the latest naff redundant generic big dance hit comes out, the person making it with an almost 100% certainty was making it in order to SCORE A HIT, not to make an artistic statement.

I am truly sorry if this is a revelation to anybody but the aim of the overwhelming majority of mainstream popular chart music these days is, and probably always was, success and revenue, not artistic exploration and depth. This is just how it is. You either like it or you don't. But don't go attacking people for stating the case and the facts as they are.

God, seriously, I've even met the sorts of people who were expecting to be the next big generic artist. I've come across two girls just in the last 2 years alone at university who were completely up their own backsides, claimed they were singer songwriters and felt they knew they could be a success. When I asked one of them what sort of music she made, she could not answer my question. I asked her about chords, melody, all sorts. She hardly knew a word I was saying. Eventually she says she made r&b. At any rate, I continued with the scrutiny and ask about influences and whether she desired to be seen as a groundbreaking artist etc. Her response? That she saw herself as a product that she was marketing. Being the "best" was of no consequence. Being successful was what she wanted. It was a career option for her.

Most people going into generic pop are just like this. The people who go on Pop Idol and so forth...exactly of this sort. They're attracted to the fame, the success...and have absolutely NO high artistic aspirations whatsoever!

Hey, how about this. Cripes, I never thought I'd quote Nickelback, but they've got more poignancy that the sort of claptrap being propounded here: go listen to Nickelback's very own "Rockstar". Hear those lyrics? THAT is why most people want to be "rockstars". Not to be great artists. To be worshipped. Thank you, and good night.

mr dave 04-20-2008 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 471874)
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.

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

how do you define 'right'? ;) if the other party can provide me with their own definition of music that can support their creative output then i'll be able to respect it. i might not like it, it might go against my own definition, but i won't deny their right to expression. mind you in a case like that i probably won't listen to it a second time.

your first question is kind of broken. regardless of whether or not they stole moves, if the individual in question is actually writing as opposed to plagiarizing the fact that they're mimicking behavior doesn't detract from the intent of their creation. it ceases to be an issue of right and wrong and becomes one of originality exclusively.

it could be argued that david bowie never had an original idea aside from taking the best elements of original ideas the preceded him and arranging them in his own fashion to suit his own ends. does it make him less of an originator in my book? hardly.

the australian pink floyd, who clearly lifted all the moves they could from PF can also easily be seen as originators in regards to the level of success tribute bands can achieve.

after all... right is relative to an individual's perspective.

mr dave 04-20-2008 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 471896)

I am truly sorry if this is a revelation to anybody but the aim of the overwhelming majority of mainstream popular chart music these days is, and probably always was, success and revenue, not artistic exploration and depth. This is just how it is. You either like it or you don't. But don't go attacking people for stating the case and the facts as they are.

and independent musicians don't want success and revenue? their bellies are filled and bills are paid through good intentions? the aim of ANYONE trying to make a living playing music is success and revenue. some will own up to it. some will hate themselves for betraying their ideals. others will revel in it. the underlying motives will differ between artists and it will show in their creative output but everyone needs to eat, everyone needs a roof over their head, and neither of those are free.

sleepy jack 04-20-2008 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 471901)
and independent musicians don't want success and revenue? their bellies are filled and bills are paid through good intentions? the aim of ANYONE trying to make a living playing music is success and revenue. some will own up to it. some will hate themselves for betraying their ideals. others will revel in it. the underlying motives will differ between artists and it will show in their creative output but everyone needs to eat, everyone needs a roof over their head, and neither of those are free.

Yeah but there's a giant difference between how you go about it. Take someone like Sigur Ros, pretty inaccessible music that isn't likely to be all over MTV charts they stuck to their style though and ended up on a major label and one of the most successful ambient acts ever right now. Compare that to someone like Liz Phair who had a unique delivery, blunt lyrics and music to match it and then one day turned out and sounded like Avril Lavigne. Do you really think they went about getting their success the same way?

The Unfan 04-21-2008 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 471990)
Yeah but there's a giant difference between how you go about it. Take someone like Sigur Ros, pretty inaccessible music that isn't likely to be all over MTV charts they stuck to their style though and ended up on a major label and one of the most successful ambient acts ever right now. Compare that to someone like Liz Phair who had a unique delivery, blunt lyrics and music to match it and then one day turned out and sounded like Avril Lavigne. Do you really think they went about getting their success the same way?

So every musician should write the same style of work over and over again without changing their sound?

boo boo 04-21-2008 12:12 AM

Well if its a consistantly good sound then I don't see why thats such a bad thing.

I'm not saying everyone should play it that way, but neither did Ethan.

sleepy jack 04-21-2008 12:23 AM

Yeah I never said that at all, I mean Kid A is my favorite Radiohead album but I still love OK Computer. Changing stylistically is cool but I think there's a difference between, well what Radiohead did to what Liz Phair did which was go from cool 90s chick rock to a second rate Avril Lavigne to appeal to the masses. I mean I'm all for bands changing style, my favorite Elliott stuff isn't his lo-fi early stuff its his later experimental pop. I don't really understand where you derived all bands should stay the same from my post.

Rainard Jalen 04-21-2008 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 471901)
the aim of ANYONE trying to make a living playing music is success and revenue.

Absolutely right. But that is not the question. The question is, what is the aim of people who make music period? That'll differ depending on who it is. The way I see it there are two options:

1. You make music because you cherish it as an art form and wish, as an artist, to make a statement and present your artistic vision to the outside world.

2. You make music because it's a BILLION DOLLAR industry and as a carefully manufactured product within that industry, you could potentially make a lot of money out of it. Artistic exploration? Psst. You couldn't give a monkey's!

3. Something that oscillates between the two extremes.

This is the same as in any other art form. Most obviously, there is the analogy of the cinema: on the one hand, you have arthouse film which is trying to make a profound statement, and on the other, you have the bad, generic, action blockbusters that turn the box office inside out. You think the makers of the latter are trying to make art, or to capitalize on the popularity of a genre and make a ton of dollars? The answer is obvious and no secret at all. Then, what about the visual arts? You think that cartoon pornographers have any artistic intentions in mind, compared to real abstract artists whose work goes in galleries? Of course not - they're trying to make money out of a craft, not make an artistic statement! Why is it that when it comes to music, so many people are entirely unwilling to make the same distinction, while it's quite clearly and blatantly present?

What was that word? Craft. Hmm. A crucial word indeed. Because the distinction in this whole discussion, all said and done, is between ART on the one hand, and CRAFT on the other. A generic movie, a generic song, a generic painting - what do they all have in common? The fact that they are made according to a tried and tested formula. There is no special thought in it, no flash of genius, no artistic exploration. It's the mere crafting of a product. Like making a table, or a chair, or a plate. Or a car, for heaven's sake. Something that you know is sure to be consumed because it has automatic market value and public demand.

Of course, you could have those types who are a bit of both. They are craftsmen on the one hand and are going for commercial success, but they balance that with their impulse for artistic exploration.

I don't think being an entirely commercial craftsman is necessarily a BAD thing. It just should not EVER be confused with art, nor should their work be compared to the work of real artists. It's a totally different profession, and a totally different output. And as such, it should be seen for what it is: part of the mass consumerist market. That doesn't necessarily make it crap. But crucially, from an artistic standpoint, it is determinedly worthless. And that should not for a moment be doubted.

mr dave 04-21-2008 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 472084)
Absolutely right. But that is not the question. The question is, what is the aim of people who make music period? That'll differ depending on who it is. The way I see it there are two options:

1. You make music because you cherish it as an art form and wish, as an artist, to make a statement and present your artistic vision to the outside world.

2. You make music because it's a BILLION DOLLAR industry and as a carefully manufactured product within that industry, you could potentially make a lot of money out of it. Artistic exploration? Psst. You couldn't give a monkey's!

3. Something that oscillates between the two extremes.

again. this whole thing is dependent on publicly accepted definitions for art and music. which no one has provided yet.

your first point seems rather contrived and pretentious. why would anyone want to make a statement and present their vision besides trying to influence the world to spin more along with their ideals? which would ultimately lead to greater success and (oh no! :eek:) a betrayal of their ideals.

your second is rather close minded. the amount of money involved in making music for a living is substantially more than most people expect (especially once you start considering the time spent creating and rehearsing). i've got friends releasing their first album next week totally DIY but they still want to break even. they still need to make a good $1000 just to cover the recording and duplication fees, they get $0 for their hard work and dedication to writing and rehearsing their tunes. just because someone is trying to break even or (god forbid) turn a marginal profit does not mean they're automatically corporate shills. even the ones who are usually don't realize it. does timbaland think he makes bad music? i doubt it. would we agree on what music is? i doubt it. would it make him a less worthwhile musician in my book? no.

the 3rd option is where you'll find the vast majority of musicians out there today. the idealists from the 1st option will have its crowd of elitists keeping it legitimate. the 2nd option will have the suits making sure it remains profitable. and the 3rd option will just do it's thing and let the crowd fill itself as it sees fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
I don't think being an entirely commercial craftsman is necessarily a BAD thing. It just should not EVER be confused with art, nor should their work be compared to the work of real artists. It's a totally different profession, and a totally different output. And as such, it should be seen for what it is: part of the mass consumerist market. That doesn't necessarily make it crap. But crucially, from an artistic standpoint, it is determinedly worthless. And that should not for a moment be doubted.

so you going to spill the beans on just what 'art' is?

Rainard Jalen 04-21-2008 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 472130)
so you going to spill the beans on just what 'art' is?

Alright, instead of writing another 10,000 words I'll keep it simple and to the point (I mean that with no condescension at all). Then we can limit what we're discussing.

Here is the definition and distinction, and it's entirely sociological, not idealistic (as you may think I intend, but I don't).

Art: made in order to be recognized, acclaimed and well-received by critics and the wider art community.

This entails (obviously and most generally): trying to make something that will be deemed either innovative, clever or profound.

Craft: made in order to be recognized, loved and consumed by the mass market.

This entails (generally): sticking to a tried and tested generic formula, thus "playing it safe" in order to best secure being marketable.

THESE are the two basic opposite intentions. They do exist. They are a fact. Denying their existence is folly (I'm not claiming that you are).





Now of course these are two extremes, two polar opposites. There are always going to be cases that blur the line between the two. Some writers achieve a bit of both at the same time, whether in music, film or literature.

Dave, to make it absolutely clear, I'm not making a pompous argument here. I'm stating the case as it is. There's material that's made clearly with no intent to impress critics at all, but to sell (e.g. generic romance novels, porn movies, and yes, Nickelback!).

The Bird 04-21-2008 12:12 PM

I'm not that sure if it's necesary to define art. You just have to take some kind of measurement and/or place it under a particular context to compare one artist with the other, and generally you will come with an objective result.

As an example, and it is just an example, I'll measure the musician's preparation. I believe on this particular case Beethoven deserves more credit than Ashlee Simpson.

But if we limit ourselves to our own taste, we won't get anywhere.

Rainard Jalen 04-21-2008 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bird (Post 472140)
I'm not that sure if it's necesary to define art. You just have to take some kind of measurement and/or place it under a particular context to compare one artist with the other, and generally you will come with an objective result.

As an example, and it is just an example, I'll measure the musician's preparation. I believe on this particular case Beethoven deserves more credit than Ashlee Simpson.

But if we limit ourselves to our own taste, we won't get anywhere.

That is why I am making a sociological definition based on intent. I mean art in the sense of what is deemed "arty" by the wider art community. In that case, the intention of "art" is trying to win the acclaim of that community.

And art has always been instinctively understood as being about alternative/cutting edge vs generic/mainstream. For example, many of Beethoven's contemporaries composed minuets that were much better than his, conventionally speaking. But that is because he wasn't trying to make conventional minuets, he was trying to go beyond the mundaneness of his contemporaries.

I'll also say this: if all music for the last 40 years sounded exactly like Can and Ege Bamyasi, and then Nickelback as they are suddenly came out of nowhere and were the first of their sort, they would have been considered cutting edge art.

The Bird 04-21-2008 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 472143)
That is why I am making a sociological definition based on intent. I mean art in the sense of what is deemed "arty" by the wider art community. In that case, the intention of "art" is trying to win the acclaim of that community.

I'm sorry, my post was more in response to mr dave.

Urban Hat€monger ? 04-21-2008 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 472130)

your second is rather close minded. the amount of money involved in making music for a living is substantially more than most people expect (especially once you start considering the time spent creating and rehearsing). i've got friends releasing their first album next week totally DIY but they still want to break even. they still need to make a good $1000 just to cover the recording and duplication fees, they get $0 for their hard work and dedication to writing and rehearsing their tunes. just because someone is trying to break even or (god forbid) turn a marginal profit does not mean they're automatically corporate shills. even the ones who are usually don't realize it. does timbaland think he makes bad music? i doubt it. would we agree on what music is? i doubt it. would it make him a less worthwhile musician in my book? no.

I've never really understood this argument.
You should go into making music knowing full well you're going to lose money and that nobody owes you a penny.

Writing and rehearsing isn't hard work , it's a hobby and should be treated as such and that includes when it comes to spending money on it.
You want to make a record? that's fine just make sure you can afford it & don't bitch when people start pirating it over the internet.

Basically my opinion is if you want to share your artistic talent to the rest of the world be prepared to do it out of your own pocket & don't start crying when nobody's interested , You have your record you always wanted to make , that should make you happy enough.

jackhammer 04-21-2008 01:29 PM

I have said it before on here many times. Whatever genre of music is being played you can either hear honesty in their music or not. It should be inherent in most people who have a half decent knowledge of music. I think interviews from bands are always a good indicator as to what their intentions and general ideas are. The best artists let their music do the talking.

Music should always be about honesty and that honesty should always be to themselves. If fans like what you are doing then that is a massive bonus.

Rainard Jalen 04-21-2008 02:12 PM

Exactly. It's pretty straightforward. If you're writing 2 minute innocuous generic ditties the chances are you're not trying to make an impression on any art circles. And if you are writing 20 minute suites full of distortion, drones and feedback, the chances are you're not trying to break the charts!

mr dave 04-21-2008 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 472139)
Alright, instead of writing another 10,000 words I'll keep it simple and to the point (I mean that with no condescension at all). Then we can limit what we're discussing.

Here is the definition and distinction, and it's entirely sociological, not idealistic (as you may think I intend, but I don't).

Art: made in order to be recognized, acclaimed and well-received by critics and the wider art community.

This entails (obviously and most generally): trying to make something that will be deemed either innovative, clever or profound.

Craft: made in order to be recognized, loved and consumed by the mass market.

This entails (generally): sticking to a tried and tested generic formula, thus "playing it safe" in order to best secure being marketable.

THESE are the two basic opposite intentions. They do exist. They are a fact. Denying their existence is folly (I'm not claiming that you are).





Now of course these are two extremes, two polar opposites. There are always going to be cases that blur the line between the two. Some writers achieve a bit of both at the same time, whether in music, film or literature.

Dave, to make it absolutely clear, I'm not making a pompous argument here. I'm stating the case as it is. There's material that's made clearly with no intent to impress critics at all, but to sell (e.g. generic romance novels, porn movies, and yes, Nickelback!).

it's ALL good :thumb: mine differ but whatever. then again i'm also a firm believer that trying anything means you've already reserved yourself to failure. i guess i'm a yodaist

mr dave 04-21-2008 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 472145)
I've never really understood this argument.
You should go into making music knowing full well you're going to lose money and that nobody owes you a penny.

Writing and rehearsing isn't hard work , it's a hobby and should be treated as such and that includes when it comes to spending money on it.
You want to make a record? that's fine just make sure you can afford it & don't bitch when people start pirating it over the internet.

Basically my opinion is if you want to share your artistic talent to the rest of the world be prepared to do it out of your own pocket & don't start crying when nobody's interested , You have your record you always wanted to make , that should make you happy enough.

i agree and i'm sure they would as well. but is it wrong for them to hope to break even with their venture?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:03 PM.


© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.