For the right reasons (alternative, house, rock, genre, album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

04-20-2008, 01:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,708	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.