General Music Chat

i guess at this point its just a matter of opinion. i really disagree with how you use the word "peddle" here. i think music is made to be heard. if it wasnt, how far along would we be right now, music-wise? you can make music for yourself, but there comes a certain point where i personally would say "whats the point?"

Peddle is a euphemism for "market" and or "sell". And yes, I do that because I make most of my living from music. All that means is using what you do to make ends meet. No dishonor in that.

Where we disagree is that I see music first and foremost for myself. My original music is my creation and as such, that's its purpose. Now after that point comes a host of possibilities - performances, CD sales, grants, commissions etc....but thats all after the fact.

If you play or write music only to garner approval from others - that's, well, just sad. A real lack of personal esteem (in my opinion, of course).

yeah, i didnt mean that the word "peddle" didnt literally fit there...i meant because the connotation of "peddle" is worse than "market" or "sell"

I must repectfully dissagree with davis on this one. (sorry)here me out.
if you judge musics' worth by it's audience... aren't you making the simultaneous assertation that your music is not as valuable as whomever else's has a greater audience? For instance, the spice girls' music -as they have a much greater audience than many of our favorite musicians?
Personally, I think that the ONLY writing is for one's-self. Anything else is ego/self-serving/delusions of granduer/self-promotion... and of very little significance (to me) socially or musically.
Furthermore, it has been my experience that the world is chucked full to the brim of morons and simpletons... the mere existence of an audience for an act like the spice girls is existential proof for my claim! Do you really wan't your musical worth judged by them?
If you write only for the things you get out of music -other than its intrinsic rewards... and someday you find those reasons gone or out of reach... you will have no reason to write. IE you reach star status and have no real nead for money, fame, or an audience anymore... your second album will flop like so many other one hit wonders.
anything other than the self is an illusion in my own estimations... mostly because I have come to the realization that there are so many phenominal musicians out there that "no one knows".
Good debate here folks. no offence meant to anyone.
mv

MrMikeV, you misinterpreted my statements. I said if I made it I would use the idol status, fame, fortune, whatever to try and better society. If the 'spice girls' crowd can be swayed one way, then they can be swayed the other way too. And I strongly disagree with you and Irminsul's 'it's all about me' attitude toward 'making it'. In fact, I believe it's more a delusion of grandeur if you believe yourself to be the answer everyone's been looking for rather than taking in the full scope of things and selflessly using your star-status to improve society or the world in some way.

"Personally, I think that the ONLY writing is for one's-self." Again, I think selfish would actually be a euphemism for that statement. There are countless bands who have made it that only write for themselves. The whole 'it's all and only about me' sentiment has obviously permeated the consciousness of the pop world already. In America, that attitude, along with the status of society and politics, have left a lot of people very delusional about themselves and the future. Clearly music doesn't play a giant role anymore, but there are more groups about 'me' and 'spreading hate' than there are about pulling together to make change for a brighter tomorrow.

Obviously you shouldn't write if you don't personally gain something from it spiritually, intellectually, because it's fun, whatever... But if you 'made it' would you just say to the audience 'it's all about me, and what I want, and my pocketbook' or would you try to do something worthwhile with your time in the spotlight?

And there have always been phenomenal musicians that nobody knows about. Just because they are great doesn't mean that they will be able to create something that a mass audience will digest. I've met a lot of technically great musicians who can play better than anybody but don't have the capacity to create or write at all.

But, no, I wouldn't judge my own musics worth based on how large my audience is compared to another artist's... that's far from what I said.

The late great writer Charles Bukowski said that, as soon as your writing is steered by the critics, you're done.

He drank alot, but I think he hit on a universal truth there.

-No matter how much anyone offends... you are all my musical brothers/sisters; thank you for the gift of this debate.
FOA, would I like to somehow improve society through my music?
who the heck wouldn't.
but, bob dylan didn't change society... those kids in the streets protesting while they got there heads cracked did. those kids bought bobs' album cause it was there voice, that album got marketed because it would sell to those kids. not because it was a social change mechanism.
"I believe it's more a delusion of grandeur if you believe yourself to be the answer everyone's been looking for" -what, ya mean like thinking you can change the world with just your music?
I've met a lot of great writers and creators who don't have the desire to do the "crawling under the desk" it takes to become great in the public eye... when all they are concerned with is music.
"I strongly disagree with you and Irminsul's 'it's all about me' attitude toward 'making it'."
Making it big is not the same as sharing your music... it's selling it! It's not benevolent, it's not admirable, it's not dignified. give it away now!
I'll share it with anyone... but I'm not interested in marketing it. I'm not interested in cutting the song down to fit on the radio. I'm not interested in performing it at a record companies will.
we'd all save the world if we had a billion dollars... but who will pick up the gauntlet and save it when all you have is a dollar and you are no one? you'd have a bigger social impact joining up with green peace.

"bob dylan didn't change society... those kids in the streets protesting while they got there heads cracked did."

- Bob Dylan wasn't out to change society but his initial humanitarian interests, as heard on his early records, were amplified by his generation's call for social change. Popular music, as when Bob Dylan was popular on college campuses during a revolutionary time, can be used to formulate ideas in the minds of its listeners. It can be done through music, news stations, radio stations, newspapers, journals, internet, magazines or any other form of mass media that's digested by millions. They can be a very strong social vehicle to mold the opinions of its viewers for better or worse.

"Ya mean like thinking you can change the world with just your music?"

- I never said I could personally change the world with just my music. I said if I was in the spotlight I would use that kind of influence, if I had any, to try and make social change for the better. One person cannot do that by themselves, but sometimes it takes a leader to forge the necessary path that an oppressive government or whoever else would rather us not take (because it conflicts with their ideology, bank account, etc.). Who can rally the younger generation? Snoop Dogg? Where are the leaders and why aren't their crowds holding modern protests against our government and it's atrocities, not to mention the other ghastly things happening all around the world.

"Making it big is not the same as sharing your music"

- Wrong. If you make it big you are still sharing your music whether people buy it or download it for free or hear it at a friends house or whatever. Clearly one has a better chance at sharing his or her or their music, and hopefully their message, to a larger audience if they were being promoted by a corporate record company (greedy as they are) who can put your art in as many stores, websites, magazines, newspapers, stages, etc. as possible. I would happily give all my money to a record company if I had the chance to record an album, mass produce it, tour, and just spread the art and message to as many people as possible.

If you were not interested in marketing your music then you'd be happy playing your music to yourself in your bedroom and wouldn't feel the need to put a group together, make an album, tour or whatever. And it's the 21st Century so you don't have to worry about cutting your music down on the radio - turn it on... there's no stopping the endless barrage of (stupid) ideas being circulated - if a bunch of fifteen year olds love you, you're in!

And sadly, I don't think many people would do something selfless if they had a billion dollars. Sure, some people would, but it's true that money changes people and most become greedy. Obviously, if everybody had that kind of money then there'd be nobody to save. The people who need to 'pick up the gauntlet' are the 'nobodies' with no money. The kids who had their heads kicked in, as you pointed out earlier, were these very people. But it takes leaders like, say, Martin Luther King Jr. to forge the necessary path society should take to better the lives of everybody. Why couldn't this person, or people, be artists instead of reverends?

Irminsul,
My only opposition to that 'truth' is this: if the critics are smarter than the criticized then the criticized may have somebody worth listening to.

was thinking on the ride home... I think some words from billy joel may be particularly relevant here...
I also wanted to point out that sDavis - your pessimism is no match for mine. I'm much more jaded. (hehe)

I am the entertainer
And I know just where I stand
Another Serenader
And another long-haired man
Today I am your champion
I may have won your hearts
But I know the game, you'll forget my name
And I won't be here in another year
If I don't stay on the charts

I am the entertainer
And I've had to pay my price
The things I did not know at first
I learned by doin' twice
Ah, but still they come to haunt me
Still they want their say
So I've learned to dance with a hand in my pants
I let 'em rub my neck and I write 'em a check
And they go their merry way

I am the entertainer
I come to do my show
You've heard my latest record
It's been on the radio
Ah, it took me years to write it
They were the best years of my life
It was a beautiful song
But it ran too long
If you're gonna have a hit
You gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05

I am the entertainer
The idol of my age
I make all kinds of money
When I go on the stage
Ah, you've seen me in the papers
I've been in the magazines
But if I go cold I won't get sold
I'll get put in the back in the discount rack
Like another can of beans
-billy joel-entertainer

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.
-billy joel -angry young man

yeah you could reach a lot of people with good music and signing up with a record company... again I admire your intentions, but they(the record company) don't care about your message and as soon as it suits them to change that in to one that works for them -and they owned you - you'll know who your master is... "cause your gonna have to serve someone". -whatdaya think bob meant?
I guess one of the original questions was "how are you going to stay on top once you make it?" my answer is: don't serve anyone but your music. That is hard to do. And I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think that acknowleging the audience is ever far from any artists mind. It is a balance best left(for me) to those willing to take a chance on leading the audience astray.

I only think the third and second to last stanzas have any relevance at all. And the last one is true but hopefully a person won't stop fighting for something that's right. But, as we know, 'right' can mean many things to different people and 'right' may mean exploding oneself in the name of their 'god' so philosophically trying to define it won't get us anywhere. I just try to support causes that benefits everyone, not just one group.

"they(the record company) don't care about your message and as soon as it suits them to change that in to one that works for them -and they owned you - you'll know who your master is"

- If a record company picked you up because you were marketable, and you already had your message intact, I don't see why they would try to change you. If it's your message that's marketing well, they wouldn't change that if it's making them money. If a record company tried to change Billy Joel it's because he didn't have any influence, went on a commercial down slide, and only had one good record (The Stranger).

" 'cause your gonna have to serve someone'. -whatdaya think bob meant?"

- He certainly wasn't talking about the record company... He was a born again Christian by the time that album (Slow Train Coming) came out. It's all about his newfound religious beliefs. And I guarantee that no record company, or the one he's been involved with for decades, will ever try to change whatever he has to say - they've obviously stuck with him through whatever was going through his head, even when he wasn't doing well commercially.

"I guess one of the original questions was "how are you going to stay on top once you make it?" my answer is: don't serve anyone but your music."

- You're right that you should concentrate on your art, but that aside, how will you stay on top (another one of the original questions)? I think staying 'on top' is more than simply serving yourself and hoping it will keep you there.

"It is a balance best left(for me) to those willing to take a chance on leading the audience astray."

I don't know what you meant by that...

Are you saying bob's music didn't change? You don't think the studio put demands on him that made him go from 'one guy w guitar' to a whole band? Either way, do you think he's playing for money now? Do you think he's playing for fame? Perhaps he is just playing for the love of it... i.e. playing for himself. That's the whole point. you can't sustain the desire to be great if it is based on something you wish to aquire... as once you've aquired it -you will no longer seek it. So again, how would I intend to 'stay on top' - by listening to that sm voice that made me great in the first place.

Irminsul,
My only opposition to that 'truth' is this: if the critics are smarter than the criticized then the criticized may have somebody worth listening to.

Since critics tend to be failed artists in their own right, I believe that pretty much short circuits that one.

Irminsul,
My only opposition to that 'truth' is this: if the critics are smarter than the criticized then the criticized may have somebody worth listening to.

Since critics tend to be failed artists in their own right, I believe that pretty much short circuits that one.

what if the critic is an accomplished artist?

MrMikeV,
Bob Dylan's music has changed quite a bit over the decades (and some of those changes sparked new genres) but it was never the record company who made him change. It was completely up to him to add the Butterfield Blues Band on 'Bringing It All Back Home' and 'Highway 61 Revisited' and eventually the Hawks on "blonde On Blonde'. That was something he wanted to do - his producers were behind him no matter what. He originally recorded an electric version of his second album 'The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan' which was scrapped for the acoustic version (though 'Corrine, Corrina' still had accompaniment). He may be playing for money now - I don't know. He obviously isn't the same songwriter that was so famous in the '60s.

"you can't sustain the desire to be great if it is based on something you wish to aquire... as once you've aquired it -you will no longer seek it"

I disagree. I've heard it said by wise people that great artists are in a constant state of becoming - they're never satisfied with themselves or their art.

I'm saying it takes more than simply recreating whatever it was that made you 'famous' in the first place. I think it goes beyond music if you want to stay 'on top' - whether you stay ahead of the game creatively, if you're controversial, charitable, whatever...

Irminsul,
If an artist is 'failed' (which I guess means 'not famous' here) for whatever the circumstances, it doesn't mean he or she is a lesser artist then ones who are famous. Perhaps they become critics by judging other artists' work by his/her own high standards. Fame doesn't equal great art; who's around that's great now? Nothing is black and white - there's always a large spectrum of gray in between.

what if the critic is an accomplished artist?

Tends to be the exception, not the rule.