Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.
#31
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #31
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
FOR ME. That is what both of those points have in common. Two words. "For." "Me."

Is there something that intimidates you about the choices of others?
But you came on a public forum to post in support of the original post - that music should be free to the consumer.
That edict takes away MY choice.
You can do what you like, but I see you mostly supporting ways to break up the economic model in place for musicians for 100 years.
That hurts professional musicians all over the world. Like I said, you can do what you like with your own career.
I also think it's fair to say Andy Warhol is regarded as one of the most important artists of recent times.
The artists moving the current art trends (by common agreement) are also highly motivated by sales (Damian Hurst and... yes, Banksy would be typical; examples)
#32
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #32
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But you came on a public forum to post in support of the original post - that music should be free to the consumer.
That edict takes away MY choice.\
BULL. SHIT. I neve agreed with the orignal post. READ.
#33
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #33
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
BULLSHIT.

Warhol???? Of all the artists of last century? Not for me cowboy, for a LONG shot. "Most important".. I always LOVE that phrase, as if there is no individual discernment possible in art. Good freaking lord.

ART is not about sales, it's about emotion. The art that YOU think is "the greatest" falls flat on it's ASS for me in this case.

Art is not a popularity contest. Leroy Neiman sold more work then Warhol ever did. Enough said.
Bullshit on you, cowboy.

You are using the wrong measuring stick if you think the Leroy Neiman argument has any weight.

Yes, Andy Warhol is the most important, most influential, and was the richest artist of the 20thy century. Who is your choice then?
#34
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #34
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

Sorry, the third poster - my mistake.

The third poster who claimed I liked money more than music - even though they know virtually zero about me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
As I've posted elsewhere, I believe we'll look back in history to see a short blip where a small number of musicians got rich from their craft. Then it will go back to "normal."
The quote above shows a misunderstanding of the industry IMHO.
#35
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #35
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
BULLSHIT.

"Most important".. I always LOVE that phrase, as if there is no individual discernment possible in art.
This is exactly the type of thought I am talking about. That because there is someone who can legitimately be called great or the greatest it somehow engenders this feeling of negation in others.
#36
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #36
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
Bullshit on you, cowboy.

You are using the wrong measuring stick if you think the Leroy Neiman argument has any weight.

Yes, Andy Warhol is the most important, most influential, and was the richest artist of the 20thy century. Who is your choice then?
It doesn't actually matter who my choice is. The point is, your choice is yours, mine is mine. "Most important" is in the eye of the beholder. Such a presumptious load.

Just to add fuel, I did a google search, randomly, for "most important artists of the 20th century."

Here's the first link that wasn't about music.

100 Most Important Art Works of the 20th Century, page 1

Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?

So funny, how people really think they have a hold on something like "best" or "most important" as if it some universal truth.
#37
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
This is exactly the type of thought I am talking about. That because there is someone who can legitimately be called great or the greatest it somehow engenders this feeling of negation in others.
It doesn't negate. The problem with it is there is individual experience that impacts how we see and experience art. So there is no "best." There IS best-selling; there is "most popular." There isn't a single "best." Sorry.
#38
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #38
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
It doesn't actually matter who my choice is. The point is, your choice is yours, mine is mine. "Most important" is in the eye of the beholder. Such a presumptious load.

Just to add fuel, I did a google search, randomly, for "most important artists of the 20th century."

Here's the first link that wasn't about music.

100 Most Important Art Works of the 20th Century, page 1

Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?

So funny, how people really think they have a hold on something like "best" or "most important" as if it some universal truth.
And some people have to hold on to their feelings of negation because someone else has an opinion.


Maybe the problem is that you don't have an opinion. You don't name anyone besides my choice, and then you turn to Google to look into the matter and are happy when Warhol isn't on the list that you found.

I don't mean to get too personal here, but the above speaks volumes to me.
#39
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #39
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

#40
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #40
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I
Funky... NO Warhol. Who'da thunk it?
And apparently you don't bother to read the list anyway. Warhol is on at 41 and 42 . . .
#41
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #41
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
So there is no "best." There IS best-selling; there is "most popular."
But humans have developed a system of ascribing importance due to popularity as well historic significance and impact.

It's just a fact that Bach, Beethoven and The Beatles are all popular but also extremely important in terms of creative impact on the human story the world over.
#42
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #42
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Sorry, the third poster - my mistake.

The third poster who claimed I liked money more than music - even though they know virtually zero about me.



The quote above shows a misunderstanding of the industry IMHO.
Honest mistake, so no worries...

As far as my misunderstanding, I actually think I understand a little. Up until recently, most musicians in modern history were more like slaves... they were hired by the rich. Mozart. Wagner had money problems much of his life. Beethoven depended on art patrons to keep him afloat. Very different then the blip of time when artists became some of the highest income earners.
#43
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But humans have developed a system of ascribing importance due to popularity as well historic significance and impact.

It's just a fact that Bach, Beethoven and The Beatles are all popular but also extremely important in terms of creative impact on the human story the world over.
Right, but you would't be so presumptuous as to call ONE of them "most important."

There are many artists who I would say are "important" in that sense. I GET the term, but it has always bothered me, as if people really they their art school education gives them special insight into what is "important."
#44
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #44
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
And apparently you don't bother to read the list anyway. Warhol is on at 41 and 42 . . .
I was talking about the TOP 20... the actual page I linked to.

How can the "most important" artist only clock in at 41?

Picasso. Dali. Cezanne. Matisse. Some rather impressive names there. One might even say "important."

Sorry, couldn't resist.
#45
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #45
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Seriously?
You're linking to someone's personal list as a credible art critique?
Someone who admits to no academic credentials or particular expertise:
Atlas of the Twentieth Century - FAQ - Trust
Oh, I KNOW the list is bunk. All lists like this are, frankly.

But my point is, if he's really "most important" as if that is a FACT, how can anyone choose someone else? Also, google it yourself and find out what page Warhol comes up on.

I'm NOT denying Warhol is a great artist. I just HATE presumptuous people who think they can say what IS the "most important" as if there can be no discussion.
#46
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #46
Gear addict
 
Unrealworld82's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 388

I like this thread a lot.

I do tend to support the idea that history will record that the 20th Century marketing machine did, for a time, succeed in making music as a product insanely profitable. But, as of now, that tide has turned in such a way that music will (thankfully) shift from being "product" to being "art" yet again.
And to clarify, I have made a living off of music, though I do not now.

I think music will become somewhat more localized again, and better as a result of not being put through a cookie cutter.

Soon enough, I think a beautiful brick will crash into this industry, and change it, but ultimately save it (music) as a timeless part of the human experience..

Those who took up the music mantle for money alone now get to find something else to do. Those who took it up to make an artistic connection with others, will continue to do so.

Last edited by Unrealworld82; 19th June 2010 at 05:22 AM.. Reason: Mistake
#47
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I was talking about the TOP 20... the actual page I linked to.

How can the "most important" artist only clock in at 41?

Picasso. Dali. Cezanne. Matisse. Some rather impressive names there. One might even say "important."

Sorry, couldn't resist.
My argument is really about the importance of why it is important that there is greatness and its something that we respect and foster, even if it means making hard choices. It's also about why its important to have the ability to recognize it and have an opinion about it and to not ponder on useless things like a list. The two things don't have anything to do with one another.

But, to the discussion at hand: Picasso and friends are all vibrant examples of the art of the 20th century but only Warhol captured and embodied what the world was going to become. A lot of this may be part of being at the right place at the right time, but Warhol's trickle down effect into our Western society and culture is magnitudes greater than any of the artists on that list. I would never put him in the same category as Bach, but Warhol was a singularity . . .
#48
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #48
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

#49
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #49
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Up until recently, most musicians in modern history were more like slaves... they were hired by the rich. Mozart. Wagner had money problems much of his life. Beethoven depended on art patrons to keep him afloat. Very different then the blip of time when artists became some of the highest income earners.
What do you prefer - slave to Burger King, or slave to someone who will pay you to make music everyday?
I honestly think the old getting rich through professional music idea is way overstated.
As I said, I've been working alongside professional musicians my whole life. The vast majority, ordinary working people with average families and average incomes.
I totally reject any notion that it's more healthy to take away the opportunity work full time in music and force creative people to work in a supermarket, building site or even a share trading floor.
Again, you have the choice currently to seek your own path.
I want to hold onto my choices.
#50
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #50
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,839

Warhol or not - it's a side issue.
I seem to have spent my whole life working with musicians who think The Velvet Underground were the biggest thing since sliced bread. The Velvets famously nurtured by Warhol.
Robert Hughes is a recognized important voice when it comes to art critique.
He doesn't like Warhol much either.
On the other hand:
Quote:
He views the market as both a necessary evil and a constant force for struggling artists to combat just to survive. When it came to Picasso, Hughes stated that he "was a millionaire at forty and that didn't harm him." When it came to Warhol on the other hand, Hughes cited the danger of an artist who clings to the market. Hughes admits to liking Warhol's early works, and gives him credit for being savvy and an instrument of cultural change, for somehow presaging the effects of mass media and capitalizing on it.
The Art Story: Artist - Robert Hughes
#51
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #51
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
Picasso and friends are all vibrant examples of the art of the 20th century but only Warhol captured and embodied what the world was going to become. A lot of this may be part of being at the right place at the right time, but Warhol's trickle down effect into our Western society and culture is magnitudes greater than any of the artists on that list. I would never put him in the same category as Bach, but Warhol was a singularity . . .
One might even argue that Jackson Pollack ended up embodying what the world HAS become. He captured events, not paintings. His work wasn't a visual representation so much as capturing the work of a moment, the same way the music of today and art of today has become made up of samples and collages of earlier work.

Of course, it could be that I'm just feeding you a bunch of BS.
#52
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #52
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealworld82 View Post
I like this thread a lot.

I do tend to support the idea that history will record that the 20th Century marketing machine did, for a time, succeed in making music as a product insanely profitable. But, as of now, that tide has turned in such a way that music will (thankfully) shift from being "product" to being "art" yet again.
And to clarify, I have made a living off of music, though I do not now.

I think music will become somewhat more localized again, and better as a result of not being put through a cookie cutter.

Soon enough, I think a beautiful brick will crash into this industry, and change it, but ultimately save it (music) as a timeless part of the human experience..

Those who took up the music mantle for money alone now get to find something else to do. Those who took it up to make an artistic connection with others, will continue to do so.

Why the disrespect to the machine/industry that puts all of these things in front of you? The wanting to tear it down.

Only the Taliban think the world will be a better place if the greatest people on our planet were hidden from view in some local way. That is not a way forward at all. It is no surprise at all that the world's creative societies are the ones that dominate the pace and methods of change in the world - and they do this while remaining fairly fluid.
#53
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
What do you prefer - slave to Burger King, or slave to someone who will pay you to make music everyday?
I honestly think the old getting rich through professional music idea is way overstated.
As I said, I've been working alongside professional musicians my whole life. The vast majority, ordinary working people with average families and average incomes.
I totally reject any notion that it's more healthy to take away the opportunity work full time in music and force creative people to work in a supermarket, building site or even a share trading floor.
Again, you have the choice currently to seek your own path.
I want to hold onto my choices.
The difference, though, is I'm NOT suggesting what YOU should do. I think you making your choice to work in music is excellent for you. I salute you.

AGAIN... I can only state with confidence what I believe is healthy... FOR ME.

For me, separating art and commerce has improved my art. You can reject it all you want. No offense.. but I don't care whether you reject it or not. It is what it is for me.

For me.
#54
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #54
Gear maniac
 
brightshine's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 261

So, if I had decided to flip burgers, I get paid. If I decided to teach school, I get paid. If I decided to be a doctor, I get paid. But, If I had decided to be some kind of "artist", I can't make money from the actual art I create? I'm suppose to "merchandise" it with something else to make a living?

Whoever the folks are that think music ought to be free........I ask: whatever you do to earn your living, would it be ok for me to tell you that you no longer get to earn money from it, you need to "merchandise" yourself in some other way and give me your service, product or whatever for free?

Try telling your garbage man that he needs to "merchandise" himself to earn a buck. You are no longer going to pay for his service. Feel free to put yourself in place of the "garbage man" in the above sentence.

I suggest that people need to apply "whatever it is they believe" to their own situation before telling everyone else how to get on with their life and their chosen way to earn a dollar.
As the thread states (my version)
If you don't want me to steal your product, service, or whatever you do to earn a dollar, don't do it for a living.
#55
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #55
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the plastic bubble
Posts: 8,911

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
Why the disrespect to the machine/industry that puts all of these things in front of you? The wanting to tear it down.

Only the Taliban think the world will be a better place if the greatest people on our planet were hidden from view in some local way. That is not a way forward at all. It is no surprise at all that the world's creative societies are the ones that dominate the pace and methods of change in the world - and they do this while remaining fairly fluid.
I want to tear down the machine that has commoditized music and turned it into mass produced cookie cutter craft. I want to see a new paradigm emerge. I think it's time for a change. Maybe it won't be better... I'm not sure.. but I'd like to see a paradigm where the cream rises to the top independent of commerce.

I won't be disappointed when Lady Gaga and Radio Disney are no longer profitable.
#56
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #56
Gear addict
 
Unrealworld82's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz View Post
Why the disrespect to the machine/industry that puts all of these things in front of you? The wanting to tear it down.

Only the Taliban think the world will be a better place if the greatest people on our planet were hidden from view in some local way. That is not a way forward at all. It is no surprise at all that the world's creative societies are the ones that dominate the pace and methods of change in the world - and they do this while remaining fairly fluid.
Lol. That's not what I want at all.

What I want to "tear down" is the peddling of Fergie, Justin Bieber, and The Jonas Brothers rather than anything remotely encroaching upon artistic expression. Video killed the radio star, but not music. I just want to get back to something that is merit worthy , worth hearing. What's good about the major, music peddling infrastructure in 2010? Not much. Why does anyone want to hang on to something that has already failed?

Did I say that greatness should be hidden? Greatness is commands recognition and will always conduct itself as such.

Also, man I think one should be more considerate when comparing people to the "Taliban." That's just not called for.
#57
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #57
Gear addict
 
Unrealworld82's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 388

Money, itself, is a creation of man. No value to anyone other than the apes with names. Period.
#58
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Warhol or not - it's a side issue.
I seem to have spent my whole life working with musicians who think The Velvet Underground were the biggest thing since sliced bread. The Velvets famously nurtured by Warhol.
Robert Hughes is a recognized important voice when it comes to art critique.
He doesn't like Warhol much either.
On the other hand:

The Art Story: Artist - Robert Hughes


I agree with Hughes. Warhol is a very strange case because who he was is as much a part of his legacy as what art he actually made. Its not only that photography and painting and presentation are influenced by him, it's more accurate to say that he changed the entire language of culture to such an extent that it is impossible to be modern without passing through a door that he opened. This applies to artists such as Banksy down to the terrible scourge of the Kardashian sisters.
#59
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealworld82 View Post
Money, itself, is a creation of man. No value to anyone other than the apes with names. Period.
Money is just a store of value. Value, as an idea, is not a creation of man; it is an instinct, and it is an organizing principle.
#60
19th June 2010
Old 19th June 2010
  #60
Lives for gear
 
adpz's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: new york city
Posts: 1,515

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealworld82 View Post
Also, man I think one should be more considerate when comparing people to the "Taliban." That's just not called for.
Don't take it personally - I am just taking a piece of your thought as a jumping off point to my own thought. It's not a rebuttal or reply directly to you - the limitations of web posting . . .
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Careyn / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
36
ssl_ambition / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show & Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
0
img2002 / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show & Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
2

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.