What happened to music?

[Sparky Kronkite]

Had to run yesterday -

Kids and packing for vacation -

No doubt about it, many "artists," great well known ones, have taken money, worked on consignment and many have actually been contracted by patrons.

Here's the thing - maybe "some kind" of art "happens" during those instances - but pure, unadulterated, wholly meaningful art - only comes from the heart, mind and sole of a particular artist. Without any other interference.

If an artist is remunerated after the fact - this is preferred - but when an artist is contracted - like for instance the Sistine Chapel - then his or her vision is compromised "by keeping the client happy." We see this all the time - lately working with architects I see it daily.

My mother and father are both artists - she a painter, sculptor and he a writer. I've seen my mother (secretively) reproduce high demand work that she originated - even the first piece (a painting) was not really art because it was created for a specific audience - to win a competition and sell. The copies were pure craft (crap?) - like Dixon says - from an artisan.

Many of the great Symphonies were contracted - certain composers were banished, some imprisoned for "failed to meet the vision of the contractor." Virtually all movies are contracted. Books, paintings, sculpture - you name it. There's always somebody with money, a vision - and a wall.

Real art (albeit by degree) is totally from one's experience and therefore can be created by anyone - anyone can be an artist. Whether or not "it is eventually accepted by some kind of audience," whether or not "they are eventually offered and accept remuneration," changes the situation (again by degree) as whether the art was is pure, the art is real.

In the end money (some might say survival - one has to eat) does always - taint/alter artistic vision. Fact is - most of today's artists are not that at all. Too much money. And that is the ultimate in self-absorption, me/know thinking.

And look around, of course it's not just art - it's everything - sports etc.. Everything/anything that can turn a dollar eventually falls into the same trap.

Money "is" mediocrity - the great equalizer - look at the Rap artists(?) hanging with the painters and sculptors and cloths designers. They're all merging, because of mo-money. There's even an Eddie Bauer Ford Truck. Rolling art - or a bill board?

In the end maybe the real art is the art of making money - sad.

 

[Ramlick]

Shakespeare was not as "pop" as they come, Laurel. His plays had popular appeal, yes. But that does not make him a pop artist. There were many other playwrites who wrote during Shakespeare's day who no one cares about anymore. Art has never been measured by its popularity. The fact that Shakespeare was popular in his day has no relevance at all to the respect that people have for Shakespeare today. We study and enjoy Shakespeare for what he wrote. If Shakespeare were not appreciated in his own time, we would still consider him the greatest writer who ever lived.

Money only taints art when it's the purpose of the art. Then it resembles a product like a Big Mac, not art. Today we have a music industry that manufactures music that's easy to understand because it formulaic and derivitive. Many people only like new music when it sounds like music they've already heard before.

No, a real artist doesn't compromise for mass appeal. Artists tend to be aiming for something higher. Michaelangelo approached sculpture as though he were uncovering figures that already existed in the stone that he chiseled. Many artists, like Bach, were deeply religious people who wrote for God. People have said that Mozart's music sounds so perfect that it's as if Mozart simply discovered the notes that had had already been created by a higher power. When artists take such painstaking care to create what seems perfect, and their work affects the world this way, it's a lot more than entertainment.

Appreciating good music has nothing to do with political correctness. I have great respect for, and have studied, the indiginous music from many countries around the world. Folk music, or World music, is authentic, vital, and interesting. Laurel, I'm glad you brought it up, because it also disturbs me that World music is unappreciated in this country. No, we're too busy getting herded into stadiums where we watch the performers on giant screens and hear the music blare through us from amplifiers. Is that listening?

What about Jazz? Jazz is another form that's non-existent on radio and television. Jazz is an important art form. I love it because it's real and unique. And I'm not talking about "smooth" jazz, which is shit.


Judging the quality of music isn't as subjective as the music illiterate thinks it is. That's a common argument people use to make themselves feel good. They'll say you're trying to impose your "tastes" on me. Serious musicians enjoy all sorts of music. Judging quality, though, isn't about individual likes or dislikes. It's about things like understanding form, and structure, and development. Just like a great book, or any other art work. It's about composition, line, pattern, originality, and skill with color and texture.

 

[Laurel]

Ramlick, you've made some very good points. This is an interesting discussion.

The fact that Shakespeare was popular in his day has no relevance at all to the respect that people have for Shakespeare today.

And there are great artists - musicians, writers, etc. - who are equally talented and popular that you have never heard of and never will hear, simply because you refuse to "stoop" low enough to pop culture to hear it. With your attitude, you never would have seen a Shakespeare play in its time. You would've sneered at it the same way you sneer at the giant screens and amplifiers of today.

Money only taints art when it's the purpose of the art.

You say this, then bemoan the fact that more people don't buy classical music, and that labels that put out classical music aren't doing well financially. Hm.

And who's to say that money's the purpose in pop music? Do you think Bob Dylan wrote just to get paid? Or Neil Young? Do you have some magical ability to look inside a musician's brain and deduce their motives?

Having worked in the music industry for 8 years, I'd say that 99.9999% of musicians are in the business because the love what they do. Some may get rich off of it later, but in the beginning they're just people making music. There are much easier ways to make money. John Lennon didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey - I know! I'll get three other blokes, start a rock band, and get stinking rich and famous!" To say that popularity equals greed is ridiculous.

In your previous post, you claim that Shakespeare's popularity doesn't hurt his credibility as an artist. Then, you say that money taints art and popular music is bunk on general principle. Hm.

I disagree that World Music is going completely unappreciated. I know many DJ's and electronica artists who are VERY appreciative of African folk and South American music, as well as European "classical". They use these influences in THEIR music - the music you condemn without hearing.

All modern music is not crap - that's my point. You dismiss what you don't even know. You see a billboard for Britney Spear's new CD and assume that that's what modern music is. It's not. Thanks to technology, there's an endless variety of sound and structure out there. New genres are created every day as young musicians hear sounds they never would have had access to a hundred years ago and incorporate them in their palette. There's more music available to the common person than ever before in history.

The public is just as ingorant as ever. If anything, we're more informed. How much information did the average citizen have at his disposal 100 years ago? 200 years ago? People today have more of an understanding of their own government and of their world than at any time in history. There's boatloads of information available to us - via the Internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines...and most people are still willfully ignorant in some respects, BUT NOT ANY MORE SO THAN ANY PREVIOUS GENERATION. When, exactly, was this magical time when the populus was enlightened, when everyone appreciated "good" music?

That's where I have to take issue - you seem to see the shrinking of the classical music industry (and it IS an industry - recording companies DO make billions of dollars off of it) as the "dumbing down" of society. You fail to realize that the more musical genres that exist, the less of the musical pie any one genre will own. That's a fact of the market. I personally would rather there be more variety available, even if it means the market share of my music of choice suffers slightly. Of course, for me it's not all about market share. I love music.

Judging the quality of music isn't as subjective as the music illiterate thinks it is.

And I stand by my claim that that's an elitist attitude. And I'm sorry that you will be forever ignorant of very fine music because you're so afraid of being "tainted" by "bad" music that you won't bother with "pop" culture. Even if you did stop and sample what's happening in your own culture RIGHT NOW, your attitude would prevent you from fully appreciating any of it. You of all people know that you cannot come to art with a closed mind. I'd have to say that that's your loss, and a big one.

 

[Ramlick]

Laurel, I'm going to have to dissect your last post later when I have more time. I'm going out now. I'm disappointed that you keep making so many false assumptions in your posts. The biggest being that I don't like or pay attention to pop music. You obviously don't pay much attention to what I write. Have you really read them carefully? I wish you would, because then this discussion would be far more interesting.

 

[Laurel]

Oh, no. I don't read what you write. I just see your name and make up a response for you, then fabricate an argument to go with the post I made up. That's why I pull quotes from your posts - so I can not-read them and not-argue with them.

 

[Never]

Ramlick: "A classical composer is someone who notates exactly what notes are to be played and what instruments are to play them. He then notates exactly how loud the notes are to played, how fast, and in what rhythm. This is the written tradition."
Thank you, someone other then I thinks Madonna is a classical artist. Woohoo!

"I'm afraid to say as a culture, we're getting really stupid."
I'm afraid to say, as a culture, we were really never that bright.

"Shakespeare wasn't just a "story-teller" afterall. He wasn't just providing escapist entertainment. Shakespeare, like so many other good writers of the past and of today, go the extra mile. They put things into their works that they didn't need to if their goal was just to provide some entertainment to the masses."
You know, I never though of this but you're right. Madonna's just like Shakespeare too.


Laurel: "Rock is mere decades old. Hip-hop and rap aren't even a quarter of a century old."
I'd make the argument that rap is several thousand years old but that would be superfluous to the thread.

"Can you tell the difference between hip-hop and trip-hop? Between house and ambient?"
No, but I'm ready to be enlightened. What is the difference? And while we're at it what it house and ambient?

While I'm asking questions. Ramlick, you said this was not a debate of old verses contemporary. Which contemporary artist do you consider classics?

Spunky: "In the end money (some might say survival - one has to eat) does always - taint/alter artistic vision."
I was always of the opinion that survival is the mother of the arts.

Art is about the artist and the audience. Since rap is, traditionally, sung by black men from the slums. It contains violence and tends to be crude in both lyrics and rhythm. Orchestral is, traditionally, written by older, Europeans and is based on complexity and abstract refinement the sort of music the noblesse and their hired intellectuals appreciated. Rock was originally black music until Elvis came along and shoved it in the face of middle class America. It was promptly embraced by the youth of the day as a form of rebellion against parents- then political rebellion, sexual rebellion, and social rebellion.
Every form of music has its day depending on where artists and the society that surrounds them are drawn to pour their abilities and money into.

Perhaps classical music isn't embraced by today's culture because it is not relevant. A piece of music will only connect to an audience who wishes to connect to it. Classical music has long held itself above the masses - is it any wonder the masses would reject it? Classical music has been proudly elitist - sure, any punk off the street can pluck a guitar or pound them drums but it takes a real Artist (with a capital A) to perform Mozart and it takes years of training (hopefully at some overpriced college) before you can compose an orchestral 'masterpiece'. With that type of attitude, is it any wonder classical music has never thrived in America's sometimes fiercely egalitarian culture?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~