The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Art: The gray line between
Murago
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I remember watching Bill Hicks comment on people in the field of marketing. He said they should kill themselves. I've though about it, and I wonder if he wasn't so far off. I've been trying to figure out at what point in the grand scheme of things, or better yet, what things need to happen in order to go from orignal to commercial.
This can back taken in a few different mediums, but as a musician, I'll delve into that closest to me.
At what point does a person become a sell out? Can you go from original to sell out? Can you just start off as a band/artist that never brings something new to the table, and only sells out? After selling out, can you regain composure and do it better in the future?
The reason this is on my mind as of late is b/c of The Smashing Pumpkins, or better yet, Billy Corgan. They recently released a dvd (tues. actually), entitled "If All Goes Wrong". The DVD contains a live performance of old and new material from their 2nd residency at the Fillmore in San Fransisco as a new band. It also contains a feature length documentary of STRAIGHT UP thoughts from Billy about what's going on. If ever you've wanted to know the mind of an artist, get this DVD. You also get the performance on CD, and its only 17 bucks.
I'd like to summarize as quickly as i can, what I got from this. Billy Corgan is an artist. I'd liken him to either Bob Dylan or David Bowie. Let me explain. As a person trying to make it in the music industry, you have to do what you have to do. Solo artists who can make such a huge impact as both Dylan and Bowie have are rare. It comes down to this.
Right sound, right message, right time, right place, and the ability to adapt. That's a pretty fucking tall order. Dylan would not have worked in the 90's. Bowie would not have worked in the 60's.
So, as an artist, I believe Corgan did what he needed to do. He found people that he could work with. Now, if you know as much as I do about the pumpkins, you'll know what i'm about to say is fact. Billy Corgan was the main writer for about 95% of the music. He gets a LOT of flack from "fans", critics, and other musicians b/c of his megalomania.
Here's what's fucked up. He's at an unfair advantage. If he would have just pulled a Trent Reznor, no one would say shit. He wouldn't have had to "break up" the band, and go through all the shit. Keep in mind, this guy has made his millions...he's set for life. What's he doing? He's making more music...that's what he wants to do. In the DVD he states, we're musicians trying to move FORWARD, not back...and very few people are actually connecting with this imo.
What does this have to do with selling out, art, the gray line?
Well, I look at Fred Durst. What is he doing? I look at Lou Bega, the Backstreet Boys, Nsync, Spears...what are they doing? What are they doing that helps move things forward? In music, in life, in anything?
I feel that anytime art actually offers integrity, wisdom, TRUTH...it gets turned to shit by immatators and businessmen. I look at the Jonas Brother
s, and I want to just talk to people who give these guys money. Its so fucking obvious that Marketers, record lables, industry fat cats have CREATED something to make money off of.
Its exactly like the Pussycat Dolls. SHIT. They fucking feed people a TV show that flat out shows you "here's how we are going to make a band out of thin air for the purpose of selling it to you", and then we buy it. The other night at Denny's, they had "band specials", which included Katy Perry, Hoobastank, The Plain White T's, and some other band. If that's not selling out, I don't know what is.
Maybe MY thought process is wrong. Is it? I feel that I enjoy the music of an artist MORE when i know they aren't looking to make a quick buck. Billy Corgan actually LOST money playing the 12 day residency in San Fransisco (recording dvd, ticket sales). As a musician i find it kind of wierd thinking this way, b/c I know I will someday want to make a living off of entertaining people.
Another example, The Goo Goo Dolls. A punk band through and through until their first hit, "Name". Suddenly, their next album is filled with pop hits of a similiar quality, and the band goes into the stratosphere. Now, I have mixed feeling about the Dolls, so don't jump on me. I was listening to them at a time when my head wasn't filled with these thoughts, so I don't think i'll ever stop being a listener. But their new material is just more of the same. Their running their engine on the same fuel for awhile now, and rather than reinvent, they keep touring on those good old hits.
As even the great Tom Petty has said "don't bore us, get to the chorus"...so i don't think this type of instant gratification that is craved from listeners is necassarily new, but I do feel that by now, shouldn't more people realize that they are being spoon fed EXACTLY what they want?
Is this too far out there? Comments are gladly welcome if anyone actually reads this whole thing.
This can back taken in a few different mediums, but as a musician, I'll delve into that closest to me.
At what point does a person become a sell out? Can you go from original to sell out? Can you just start off as a band/artist that never brings something new to the table, and only sells out? After selling out, can you regain composure and do it better in the future?
The reason this is on my mind as of late is b/c of The Smashing Pumpkins, or better yet, Billy Corgan. They recently released a dvd (tues. actually), entitled "If All Goes Wrong". The DVD contains a live performance of old and new material from their 2nd residency at the Fillmore in San Fransisco as a new band. It also contains a feature length documentary of STRAIGHT UP thoughts from Billy about what's going on. If ever you've wanted to know the mind of an artist, get this DVD. You also get the performance on CD, and its only 17 bucks.
I'd like to summarize as quickly as i can, what I got from this. Billy Corgan is an artist. I'd liken him to either Bob Dylan or David Bowie. Let me explain. As a person trying to make it in the music industry, you have to do what you have to do. Solo artists who can make such a huge impact as both Dylan and Bowie have are rare. It comes down to this.
Right sound, right message, right time, right place, and the ability to adapt. That's a pretty fucking tall order. Dylan would not have worked in the 90's. Bowie would not have worked in the 60's.
So, as an artist, I believe Corgan did what he needed to do. He found people that he could work with. Now, if you know as much as I do about the pumpkins, you'll know what i'm about to say is fact. Billy Corgan was the main writer for about 95% of the music. He gets a LOT of flack from "fans", critics, and other musicians b/c of his megalomania.
Here's what's fucked up. He's at an unfair advantage. If he would have just pulled a Trent Reznor, no one would say shit. He wouldn't have had to "break up" the band, and go through all the shit. Keep in mind, this guy has made his millions...he's set for life. What's he doing? He's making more music...that's what he wants to do. In the DVD he states, we're musicians trying to move FORWARD, not back...and very few people are actually connecting with this imo.
What does this have to do with selling out, art, the gray line?
Well, I look at Fred Durst. What is he doing? I look at Lou Bega, the Backstreet Boys, Nsync, Spears...what are they doing? What are they doing that helps move things forward? In music, in life, in anything?
I feel that anytime art actually offers integrity, wisdom, TRUTH...it gets turned to shit by immatators and businessmen. I look at the Jonas Brother
s, and I want to just talk to people who give these guys money. Its so fucking obvious that Marketers, record lables, industry fat cats have CREATED something to make money off of.
Its exactly like the Pussycat Dolls. SHIT. They fucking feed people a TV show that flat out shows you "here's how we are going to make a band out of thin air for the purpose of selling it to you", and then we buy it. The other night at Denny's, they had "band specials", which included Katy Perry, Hoobastank, The Plain White T's, and some other band. If that's not selling out, I don't know what is.
Maybe MY thought process is wrong. Is it? I feel that I enjoy the music of an artist MORE when i know they aren't looking to make a quick buck. Billy Corgan actually LOST money playing the 12 day residency in San Fransisco (recording dvd, ticket sales). As a musician i find it kind of wierd thinking this way, b/c I know I will someday want to make a living off of entertaining people.
Another example, The Goo Goo Dolls. A punk band through and through until their first hit, "Name". Suddenly, their next album is filled with pop hits of a similiar quality, and the band goes into the stratosphere. Now, I have mixed feeling about the Dolls, so don't jump on me. I was listening to them at a time when my head wasn't filled with these thoughts, so I don't think i'll ever stop being a listener. But their new material is just more of the same. Their running their engine on the same fuel for awhile now, and rather than reinvent, they keep touring on those good old hits.
As even the great Tom Petty has said "don't bore us, get to the chorus"...so i don't think this type of instant gratification that is craved from listeners is necassarily new, but I do feel that by now, shouldn't more people realize that they are being spoon fed EXACTLY what they want?
Is this too far out there? Comments are gladly welcome if anyone actually reads this whole thing.
Check out www.myspace.com/scarborough -- tell me what you think!
Murago on
0
Posts
Seriously though, you're putting the musicians you like up on a pedestal, without actually thinking as to why people create and listen to music. Is the music you listen to really inherently better? Does the fact that some music is created on purpose to sell well make it bad? Is it a bad thing when more people enjoy and connect with an artist than less?
Corgan shows, through obvious action, that all he wants to do is making music. He takes to OBVIOUS influences (Fucking Black Sabbath, and Fucking Pink Floyd) and creates psychadelic melodic metal. He has found a voice that is unlike any other...and throughout his discography, you can HEAR him finding his voice. He is able to connect with listeners on different levels, whether its anger, love, DESOLATION, despair, sadness.
He gives fans EXACTLY what they don't want. Look back to some of the greats. When critics or "fans" disagree with they are doing artistically, that's some of my personal favorite moments. That's usuallly growth, a true DESIRE to try something different and make it your own. I think that's shown strongly in both their latest album, and Machina: The Machines of God.
In music, he does not compromise.
In life, he knows that the path of a touring musician is one he DOES NOT LIKE. He states that in the dvd. And yet, b/c he feels the need to express himself, he does it anyway. This isn't someone looking for the buck...this is someone trying to make a statement...trying desperatly to connect. And I think we're too distracted to realize it.
Yes. Though there's an obvious bias reason for that. However, I think i'm backing it pretty well...tell me why Britney Spears ranks in the same realm.
Yes.
No.
credit where credit is due.
Why do people make music and listen to it?
Maybe if a few people answered this question for me, I might get a better idea of what i'm trying to grapple with.
I'm only guessing that this is basically saying any artist is only looking for attention. I'm going to think about that for awhile.
In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the people who say they're only doing it for themselves, and then go on to sell their work, seem more like sell-outs. It sounds to me like they're saying "only my viewpoint matters, I'm only letting you guys partake in my stuff because I want money."
EDIT: To be clear, though, there's a difference between what people say they want and what they really want, or need. Part of your job as an artist is to be aware of (and attempt to predict) how people will perceive your work, but that doesn't mean you cast aside your own assessment of how that work should be done. You're trying to reach people with your art, but Amazon reviewer #139 doesn't necessarily know better than you how to do that. But if Amazon reviewers 1-139 are all saying the same thing, there might be something there...
But Beethoven wrote on commission oh SHIT!
PS The Smashing Pumpkins suck, and while I admit I don't know much about them, from what I have heard, I find it hilarious you are holding them on a pedestal.
Hey now
You're an all star
Get your game on
Go play
Well, i hear what you're saying...but do you hear what i'm saying?
When i say "They didn't give the fans what they wanted"...are you thinking about what they want? What the fans want?
If all someone wants is self gratification...that's wrong.
But hey, who am I to say its wrong in the end right? Lets all just drink beer and have sex...life is good.
Music is music. Who cares if it was made as art, or to make money, as long as it is good?
Sometimes I'm looking for meaning in life or music and sometimes I'm not.
Sometimes artists are trying to bring meaning to life or music, sometimes they just want to make a quick buck.
As someone who has worked jobs I didn't like in order to make cash I needed (or wanted even) I can sympathize with artists who feel that must compromise their vision to make cash, but I don't see how some "Strong Moral Message" hippie singer is really any better then "Backstreet is back to make cash for a new house in the hamptons!"
At the end of the day vote with your ear and your dollar, if you prefer to ONLY listen to music with deeper meaning, well good for you.
I'm surprised at how mad this made me!
o_O
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
I don't understand this question. What I understood your quoted sentence to mean was that the band didn't "give in" to their fans and make the music that the fans wanted to hear. This seems at odds with your (apparent) disdain for people that make music for other people.
Now you're getting it!
Thats funny, it made me lol.
And for you Ghandi, the joke is, you quoted Smash Mouth, not the Smashing Pumpkins.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
Actually, you haven't backed it all, you've just proclaimed that bands who make enough money to eat are somehow bad, and your favorites are actually good. And you contradicted yourself with the last two questions, they're actually asking the same thing.
So, why do you think that your music is better?
I think if a person just has a deep connection with something, they'll want to try and rally others around it. Maybe I need to talk to actual musicians...
I dunno. It just feels like the bastardization of music and other forms of art is taking a toll on the nation subconciously. The people I talk to, at work, at school, at home...they aren't really awake.
I guess maybe I belong in the 60's then? I'll just stop now...i think I got what i needed.
What are the last few concerts you went to?
I think the only definition of selling out that I can come up with is "sacrificing your integrity purely for money"
Of course, by that definition, Backstreet boys probably havn't 'sold out'.
Just because something was created to sell, doesn't mean its bad. Just because music is 'fun' or 'catchy' doesn't mean its devoid of artistic purpose. Just because you give your audience what they want or enjoy doesn't mean you are compromising some grand artistic vision.
Are you creating something because you want to create it?
Or,
Are you creating something because you think people want you to create it (in most cases, for money or fame)?
It's the difference between, let's say, the Land Before Time and the Land Before Time II.
Also, Billy Corgan makes music that I consider pretty enjoyable. He's also an overtly self-indulgent egomaniac. Chuck Klosterman agrees.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Then again, I am even more of a pretentious faggot then you are.
Really, what the fuck do you mean by that?
I say this solely based on my admiration of his work from playing Rock Band.
In other news, I think—respectfully—that a lot of your post is sort of redundantly pretentious. Everyone on here has their own ideas about what "great" or "progressive" music is and I'm sure Corgan is up there somewhere in the aggregate.
However, I was more intrigued by your points about the tension between solo artists and bands. I don't really follow bands much, but is this not similar to the tension in other bands like Radiohead, where Yorke was for a while sort of the dominant force? To what extent does being a solo-artist style musician, compared to a musician who compromises with his or her band, color the nature of one's work?
And since the thread title is "Art," I'm also curious what people think about solo/collaborative efforts in other mediums. Shameless plug: I am struggling to write a new-media book right now and I don't think I can do it by myself. But at the same time, I'm unsure of how much control I'd be willing to cede if I collaborated with artists or other writers. What advantages are there to the collaborative approach?
Having enough money to eat is one thing...buying 3 ferrari's is something totally different.
Let's take Dr. Dre.
That dude has produced so much since he broke on the scene back in the 90's. He's an artist and he helps other artists. He's still in the game. I think Rap is a bastardization of what he and his crew stood for back in the day. Though...I dunno...He may have 3 ferrari's.
w/e w/e...
I think I'll shut up for sure now.
a) A inherently better than B?
b) B inherently better than A?
c) Neither.
Let your answer be your own, but I point you to Dead Poets Society, in which Robin Williams criticizes the textbook for trying to compare poems and define them as better than another.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
I feel I may have been too harsh - look, as a stage actor, I get what you're going through. It feels like all that the people in general want is simple, easily digestible stuff. They pass by the real quality work, that's deep and full of meaning to go for shallow stuff. But you're not looking at WHY these things do well. There are also quality works of art and music that are popular, and shallow crap that does badly. You have to look at the art itself, and be able to pick out what's good or bad about it, not just looking at how much you admire the creator for sticking it to the man.
It's more like one is the means, and the other is the end. He's saying that it's good for people to like your music, but it's bad for you to make music that you think people will like. Since no one actively makes music they think sucks (I hope), they are effectively the same thing. Either that, or it assumes that selling well doesn't necessarily mean the fans appreciate and connect to the music.
This rekindled me.
I think Darren Aronofsky makes amazing movies. And he has put a spark in me to discover more movies that aren't trying overtly win an oscar or get approval. I don't koow if my train of thought will cross over into different mediums though.
It doesn't seem like it.
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
So maybe this whole thing then boils down to whether or not opinions can be right or wrong. Maybe I'm a prick for thinking there CAN be degrees of variation on how right an opinion is.
B/C if I met someone who said Spice World was better, I'd either pat the little girl on her head and tell her to wait a few years...or I'd never speak to this grown person again.
ya...maybe I'm just a douche.
Actually, nevermind. I think I agree with you here.
The 9th is amazing... absolutely breathtaking piece of music. But you cant dance to it in a club. So which is better?
A) Depends on what you, the listener, want.
Again music doesn't have to be intellectually stimulating to be 'good'. One of my composition teachers said probably the wisest thing on the subject I have ever heard: I cant tell if your composition is good or not. The only measure of 'good' is 'did it accomplish what you, the composer, wanted'.
If your goal is to write a song that makes people dance, and when you play your song, people dance, then you made a good song. If your goal is to make people cringe and feel uncomfortable, and you write a beautiful bach choral, then you made a bad song.