REAL "ARTISTIC" vs. FAKE "COMMERCIAL" MUSIC

[Harley-OIART]

I am with you on that one.

To me the determining factor of wether or not a group or artist is 'manufactured' lies in the amount of salvaging done by the production team invovled. Soul can be sucked out of a recording if you eliminate all of what makes it real IMHO. To me music is about connection between artist and listener. If the Listener feels there isn't really an artist on the other end (Ashlee Simpson's Production Team Singing the Song, instead of her) then the listener / consumer may in many cases feel like they have bought into "fake" music.

Really it seems like a question of how do you take being lied to. If you find out your fav artist sucks, and is nursed by the production staff, do you get mad at the artist, production team, and genre? Or do you embrace the fact the production team was able to squeeze a half decent product out of a peice of crap?

-Scott



(You are totally right though, that in one form or another.. ALL music is Art. Just beauty remains in the eye of the beholder as they say.)

[atropos]

2 thoughts here, either of which could be true in spite of the other:

1) "So, no music without true "soul" will and has ever been commercially successful." This is really not the case, because feel / soul is probably something that the average, rather unknowing listener is able to even discern. In other words, market and dress up things enough, and they will be bought / listened to.

or

2) There is no such thing as bad music. If it appeals to someone enough to prove enjoyable, it has done its job.... and the aspects of music that appeal to the blissfully ignorant are often things overlooked by the more discerning, and vice versa.

I delineate music on quite a few points, including the human element in feel and delivery, semblance of originality in song structure, and other things. Some fair, some rather biased, luddite, and just outright elitist, I'm sure some would say.

But that is ok, because it works for me, and at the end of the day, makes me happy with whats in my CD changer . Other music is NOT for me... and if it makes someone else happy, so be it.

Getting older means you discover that life is just too short to bother dwelling on that which you dislike. Just ignore it and move on.

Oh...

May it be the case that this entire debate is fueled by unhappy, commercially unsuccessful artists/producers/engineers/labels? Who wish that the world would change, finally give in, and start liking what *they* are doing/creating? After all, mediocrity always attacks excellence.

Lots of people make music with no attempts at all to be commercially successful. They know the path simply isn't for them, and they know that what they play is not feasible. Nor does it need to be.

But to call uncommercial music somehow inferior to commercial is, well, mind boggling.

[chrisso]

I find new bands or artists that sound like they could have existed in the 70's or 80's quite boring. Quite a bit of commercial meterial falls into that category IMO.
There are new and successful bands that are pushing the boundaries a little. That's all I ask. I just want to hear one or two surprising chord changes and at least one different sound in a song.
Fake vs Artistic comes down to artistry IMO. As long as something has some artistry I'm happy. A lot of the so called 'fake' stuff is churned out by numbers....or should I say focus group.

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by atropos

2 thoughts here, either of which could be true in spite of the other:

1) "So, no music without true "soul" will and has ever been commercially successful." This is really not the case, because feel / soul is probably something that the average, rather unknowing listener is able to even discern. In other words, market and dress up things enough, and they will be bought / listened to.

IMO thats a very ignorant statement. Who's to say that you're a "knowing" listener who's able to discern "soul" or "feel", and that a 15-year old girl from Montana isnt?

She may feel connected to the new Avril Lavigne single, which you are disgusted by. But that doesnt mean either one of you is right. You just like different kinds of music.

[DSMrehearsal]

As an engineer who has to work with both I'd say the difference is a s follows....

An "artistic act" generally is a group who are acomplished musicians, with impecible timing and a real feeling of connection between them on stage. Their songs will sound as good or better even when played live compared to the CD.





you know what I just realised that trying to write this pissed at 4 in the morning is not such a good idea. wil finish in the morn. night all.

[Hitz]

Interesting points QuietDrive.

I would PERSONALLY (key word) say that the *fluff* that comes with mainstream or commercial music is full of.

For example back in the days of Coltrane, The Temptations, The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles and etc those ARTISTS were the main attraction. Not the dancers they will be seen with, not the flashing lights and pyrotechnics of the show, not the dance routine (even though some were dancers). But I guess (keyword guess) that some of the people's beef with the newer artist is that they require too much *fluff* to carry their music.

Compare that to the underground artist who is just lucky enough to get 50 people at a show, his/her MUSIC is the only attraction, then that 50 comes back with 30 more friends they told about this act at this unknown spot and it grows like that....all comming to hear the music.

those numbers increase and time passes 2 or so years for the sake of growth. That act is presented a contract with a certain label etc etc...

Now their live shows aren't about putting together a good set anymore...now it's about lighting and dance routines and stage dancers doing backflips and cartwheels

Music becomes a SIDE PRODUCT for the *fluff* that is supposed to sustain their newfound image in the mainstream world....or a hypermodified image of that artist, and their music is a side product, only the IMAGE of that artist is being sold....he/she just so happens to rap or sing.....or whisper

My 2 cents.

[woomanmoomin]

I think there is a big difference between being touched by a piece of music on an emotional level and just falling for a hook so you end up going around repeating it all day. Both experiences can be nice, but they're not the same.

Here is a classic clip from British TV of the rock 'n' roll years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocq_noEO2uU). I would suggest that you watch it and listen to it closely. It will not, of course, be to everybody's taste, but IMO it is on a higher level both artistically and emotionally than almost anything out there today. If you watch it closely enough until the end, you should be able to make out one pretty clear sign that the performer for one has been affected by it.

There are many other performances and musical moments that linger in my memory for comparable reasons. One of the most poignant involves Joni Mitchell, alone at a piano at the Isle Of Wight Festival, insisting on singing her song 'Woodstock' to a crowd that had already more or less helped to underline the end of the 60s (as much as Charles Manson's Family ever could), by tearing down all the barricades that had prevented free entry. There are moments on a par with this to the present day, and I could probably list dozens of them. They were scarce enough even back in the so-called good old days, however; nowadays they are truly few and far between.

Frank Zappa was open about the fact that, had anyone even tried to embark on a career like his after the 60s, he or she probably would not have got a look-in. Whether or not it was in large part due to the ingestion of copious amounts of drugs, there was a fertility and an innovative spirit about a great deal of popular, commercial music in the 60s, which has occasionally surfaced since (notably as punk) but sometimes seems to me to be almost gone. Most of the industry and most of the consumers seem much more jaded, unimaginative and apathetic to me now than I believe their counterparts were back then. I suppose this is largely connected with the fact that society has (admittedly) changed, but I am not convinced that so much of the old creative spirit even remains to be beaten down any more.

You can't be an 'auteur' now and get your face on MTV.

[atropos]

IMO thats a very ignorant statement.

Clearly you didn't read the rest of my post.....

[soundrick]

I don't post much, but I'll chime in here, since I seem to be having this same discussion a lot lately...

Of course artistic can be described many different ways. As an alternative/parallel example, I've seen many works of "art" in modern art museums that look questionably artistic to me. I think the old phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure" may apply here. But somebody liked it enough to show off to the masses and claim as creatively inspired.

However.........
"if people arent touched by a song or a record, they'll simply not buy it"
This statement is simply not true. Read any current marketing publication or look up a psychology journal article on this subject and you'll find that the fickle masses will buy just about anything if it's flashed in their faces frequently and aggressively.

If someone will buy a 42" flourescent lamp fixture attached to a piece of canvas for $250,000 because the museum curator says it's art, then some joker will spend $15 on Paris Hilton's record for the same reason.

my .02

[Gregg Sartiano]

I think what gets me is the lack of greatness in between the mediocrity.

Or maybe it's the fact that the torch has not been passed. It's over.

400 years of western music appreciation making a consistent climb -- and a generation and a half later, kids CAN'T and WON'T "get" it if your record has extended harmony. Music is now a) relegated to ever-simplified pop forms, or b) passed along like some heirloom for the curio cabinet. (And, jeez, a lot of people got pissed off seeing "Johnny B. Goode" in the same LP collections with John Coltrane!)

Yes, I'll take it THAT far. Play a kid Steely Dan -- or the Beatles doing "Till There Was You" -- or Frank doing "Embraceable You" -- or go further back...Tchaikovsky...Chopin...Beethoven...
Mozart...Haydn...Bach. Wow, I really like THIS time machine!

But no, seriously. The "great" composers were (and are) national heroes. Jazz is possibly America's great cultural contribution to the world. These things USED to be a relevant part of everyday life. But like any language, you have to understand the LANGUAGE to "get" the literature. And "music appreciation" classes don't cut it. The culture has to be STEEPED in it, especially when you're talking about "elevated" forms, which could exist alongside "visceral" forms in one happy popular (in the larger sense) musical universe, but, thanks to modern marketing, they DON'T -- and never will.

Dylan said we're fighting over table scraps from the 60's. Sting said modern rock musicians are "allowed" to not "evolve past Zeppelin" (Zep is great, but it doesn't end there!). Now we've got kids who grew up on dessert and never KNEW there was a main course. THAT, my friends, represents a unique moment in history -- a sign of the times.

[dissolva]

Bad music: music that is inauthentic, in bad taste (kitsch), and/or stupid.

Please note: popular music often has one or all of these elements.

[woomanmoomin]

To sum up my feelings: porn and MTV are both subclasses of junk food. Some people may think they're even better than the real thing, but I don't.

P.S. This message and my other one above represent me on the everyday level of very little real analysis. I have more to say below.

[thethrillfactor]

These days the "artistic" act is the one that is broke or on a serious low budget and calls all the studios with the hopes of you giving them a really great deal on time because according to them "another big studio is willing to work with them...but i rather do it with you because you are a true artist yourself".

Or they want you to work with them for free or low money because they think their music is "artistic" and "cool" and it deserves it...also because the lead singer of the "artistic" band is cute so there is always the faint hope that she may sleep with you(yeah right).

The "commercial" act is the one that is bankrolled by either:

1) A money investor who has no experience in this business but he knows that he loves to party and be scene at all the cool spots.

VIP room?...i am so there.

2) A supposedly former drug dealer/strip joint pimp/street hustler who is looking to capitalize on all the cash out there and opportunities that haven't been tapped yet. Hey i survived on the streets so this business is nothing compared to that.

3) A rich controlling parent who sees their kid as a walking commercial investment ready to take on all endosorments.

Can we say Disney Channel?$$$$$$$$$

4) A former NBA,NFL or Major League player who has liquid cash and loves music so music and sports...what goes together better than that?

5) Someone who is all of the above.

The difference is these people pay on time and through the nose. The only issue is the baggage that comes with it.

[uncle duncan]

A true artist won't compromise their art for the sake of commerce. A commercial artist will. Sometimes a true artist becomes successful in spite of their scruples. Bruce Hornsby's first hit record was his first attempt at being himself, after years of trying to creat commercial music. Fontains of Wayne are another group that became successful in spite of the great material on their CD, probably because of Stacy's Mom. Whether that song was a calculated move or a joke is a mystery to me, but it's nice to see real artists find success now and then. These days I'm rooting for Bird and the Bee. For anyone who likes quirky music and great songwriting, that CD is highly recommended.

[Sizzleboy]

I think the word "artist" is way overused. I also don't think it is possible to call yourself an artist. In fact I think that is conceited. It is not up to the creator to decide what is and is not art. That is up to the viewer, listener, or what have you.

Picasso was a self proclaimed painter.
Da Vinci was...well a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, musician, and writer.

They did not proclaim they were artists, so how does Justin Timberlake make that stretch?


I would call most musicians entertainers, because that is what they do. They entertain their audience, with an expectation of compensation.

There is not even an agreed upon definition of art. Some say it is a creation that is meant to draw emoton in the viewer. Well, a street fight draws emotion in a viewer, and that ain't art.

I think people should just stick to entertaining and let the individual audience members decide for themselves when they feel that the entertainment has risen to the level of art.

[nandoanalog]

All the music in the world is "commercial".... Music was invented to be shown. So, it is "commercial".
All music is "art".
Some artists play or/and write the music they like, and they dont care about exibition at all (this is a really small elite).
Some artists play or/and write music that can make lots of money.



The objective, is getting inside your mind, and make you admire them in some kind of way.

[ericwall]

My 0.02:

It's all about the gut-feeling I get when listening to a song and the performance.

So called artistic/indie/underground music can feel very honest, or sometimes just pretentious and false.

Four 16-yearold girls put together by a major-label, singing and dancing on given orders, feels either totally uninteresting (in most cases), or gives you a smile on your face 'cause the song is just a perfect 3-minute smash and they really deliver.

I am sick and tired of all the strategics in this business of today, but there are sooo many classic evergreens that we enjoy still and touches millions of people everyday that sometimes were written by someone who didn't care about anything else than to make a few bucks. And who knows what the artist thought about what he or she was handed in the studio? Good music is what you feel is good music.

Take a crappy cheesy popbalad of today, performed by someone who can't deliver at all, and then imagine someone like Johnny Cash doing the same song with guitar and piano. Same song but two different worlds. It's in the "ear of the be-hearer".

/EW

[quietdrive]

Why has this thread been moved to "the moan zone"?????

I posted it in the general forum:
General recording equipment discussion + session & music biz politics.

This thread applies to music biz politics. Very CLEARLY!

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

Why has this thread been moved to "the moan zone"?????

I posted it in the general forum:
General recording equipment discussion + session & music biz politics.

This thread applies to music biz politics. Very CLEARLY!

Nah..it's just a moan about semantics.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by Sizzleboy

I think the word "artist" is way overused.

I liked your post I think it sums it up. It is left for the public to decide, because all recording musicians WITHOUT EXCEPTION are looking for public approval. No matter who it is, it's about recognition. I always said that any musician that leaves the bedroom is not playing for "artistic purposes" , anyone who says that is one big liar.

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

I liked your post I think it sums it up. It is left for the public to decide, because all recording musicians WITHOUT EXCEPTION are looking for public approval. No matter who it is, it's about recognition. I always said that any musician that leaves the bedroom is not playing for "artistic purposes" , anyone who says that is one big liar.

Recognition? I do it for money. Short of that, I prefer to go unrecognized.

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Sizzleboy

Nah..it's just a moan about semantics.

And it's barely that.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by chrispick

Recognition? I do it for money. Short of that, I prefer to go unrecognized.

recognition and money go hand in hand. At least it should.

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

recognition and money go hand in hand. At least it should.

Nah...I always perform in a gorilla costume.

Now if I get another banana thrown at me on stage....

[woomanmoomin]

Originally Posted by nandoanalog

All the music in the world is "commercial".... Music was invented to be shown. So, it is "commercial".
All music is "art"

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Commerce implies a mercantile/trading/financial aspect that I don't believe is inherent in music or anything else just because it's supposedly designed to be communicated.

As for the statement that all music is art, what is this supposed to mean? It tells us nothing unless you give some indication of what you mean by 'art'.

Is art something produced? Well, my body produces strange smells a lot of the time, but I'm not sure I consider them art.

Is art something that has to be consciously produced, by human hands? Well, what if I sit on a factory production line putting lids on tins of Campbell's Soup all day? Am I an artist? Is the Campbell's Soup art? Isn't there an aesthetic difference between a tin of Campbell's Soup and an Andy Warhol print of one?

Is art something beautiful, then? Well, what about ugly-beautiful stuff by any of the truly influential composers from about Debussy onwards? (Even Beethoven was seen as a rebel in hsi time.) What about a Warhol print of the assassination of John F Kennedy? What about Hendrix's screaming version of 'The Star-Spangled Banner' at Woodstock? Aren't they all art?

Does something have to reveal true emotion to be art, then? Why? I'm not sure Andy Warhol would have been convinced. How can a recording of some musical notes reveal emotion anyway? How can we know what an artist's actual feelings are? Are we just supposed to look for signs of emotion? They are not emotions themselves. How can we know a given artist is not just acting or that his or her feelings are generally comparable to those of any one of us?

And what about all the imaginative fiction, poems and lyrics whose authors have deliberately taken on personas or viewpoints removed from themselves? (The British writer GK Chesterton wrote a famous poem from the point of view of a donkey. Can this be art?) What about lyrics sung by people who have not written them?

And what if somebody is not receptive to the emotion supposedly 'contained' (somehow) in a given performance or piece of music? Does the fact that many, many people find a technically brilliant Indian 'raga' recital or the music of Mozart boring mean that either is not art?

What about the composer Rimsky-Korsakov's technique of shaping some aspects of his music according to mathematical formulae, etc. Is that artistic? Anti-artistic? Neither? Both?

It's not good enough to say that all music is art and just leave it at that, because on the one hand the nature of art is in question here, and on the other, I would challenge anybody here to tell me what music is, or even what a single song is. What we are dealing with here is, in part, the philosophy of art, and that is no picnic.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by atropos

Lots of people make music with no attempts at all to be commercially successful. They know the path simply isn't for them, and they know that what they play is not feasible. Nor does it need to be.

But to call uncommercial music somehow inferior to commercial is, well, mind boggling.

I think some people make music because they can't not make music. Commercial or not is beside the point. I think that's when the true sense of joy comes through.

[nandoanalog]

Originally Posted by woomanmoomin

It's not good enough to say that all music is art and just leave it at that, because on the one hand the nature of art is in question here, and on the other, I would challenge anybody here to tell me what music is, or even what a single song is. What we are dealing with here is, in part, the philosophy of art, and that is no picnic.

Art, is inside the one who receives it. Some people think that music is an art. Some other people think that soccer is an art. And some might think that doing nothing is an art. They are all right. Art, is what you think art is. All the music is art (if you think it is). Making money with music is an art (if you think it is). I respect people who can fart really loud, for long periods of time. To me, it is an art.
We are not matter. We are the electric impulses inside our brain. If those impulses say "THIS IS ART!" then, it is art. If they say " THIS IS NOT ART! THIS IS A BLACK WALL!" then, it is a black wall.

Everything is everything it is not. For us, humans, something is something when we know (believe) it exists. If we do not know (believe) it exists, then it isn`t.

[woomanmoomin]

"One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, I, 258)

[nandoanalog]

"Right" is the same thing as "yellow" or "pain" or anything else. We just need to give things a meaning so we can understand (make our selfs believe that we understand) things. If one thinks art is art, then, to that person, art is art. Thing have the meaning that we (each individual) give them.