|
Intellectual House o' Pancakes Comments Page and Grill
(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)
Mr Lojban - 2008-06-19 01:26:02 2. No. They certainly *can* do those things...but they might also evoke, sound good (sha-la-la...), be disposable, or not exist at all. (This is even more true when it's not a "pop song") 3. The late, lamented Mr. Bo Diddley would certainly agree; while I think these things add to many tracks, they're not required. If they were, they wouldn't be at all special. 4. Inclined to agree...but there's always someone clever to put a new spin on cliches, isn't there. 5. What's funny is that every writer listed in one absolutely did not believe this, or at any rate, practice it. (Don't know about Barry much...) I'll agree with Lennon, McCartney, Costello, and Bacharach rather than these guys. 6. Unless they're obviously not playing it. Preferably, say, the drummer holding a saxophone upside-down but playing the drum part on it. 7. While insisting that your entire jam is worth listening to is foolhardy unless you are a musical genius, pop songs can *come* from jams...so long as the jam is ruthlessly edited into shape. Pop is strongly about form (thus statement 4), even though that form is malleable. 8. Well if it's okay, who says it's "illegal"? That is, if as a musician you want your music to be downloadable, say so - and then it's not "illegal." So I sorta agree...and I also sorta agree with the second part. The point of encouraging downloading is to expose music to more people who might like it, but those people (it is to be hoped) will some day purchase it, or something. That said: musicians and other artists should never expect to make a living from their art. If you do, you're fortunate - but if you expect that to continue, you place yourself at risk of serving the marketplace rather than your art and craft.
That is exactly the mindset that leaves so many talented people broke, and/or drained by crappy dayjobs that get in the way of their art. I think we need a new para-digg-em here: it's ok, and possible, to make money while making good, inspired art. This musical manifesto has a tenet about commerce. How perfect. Ha!! [PC]That is exactly the mindset that leaves so many talented people broke, and/or drained by crappy dayjobs that get in the way of their art. I think we need a new para-digg-em here: it's ok, and possible, to make money while making good, inspired art.
I think you misunderstand me. By "expect to make money," I mean only that. I certainly don't mean to suggest it's wrong to make money, or to try to make money, with one's art...only that it's extremely difficult to do so, and many people might be better off recognizing that fact. Draining, crappy day jobs are draining and crappy for non-musicians too - I'm not defending them, only saying that our economic system is not predisposed to allow artists to make money. (For that matter, neither is our culture. The two facts are anything but unrelated.)
I should probably also state that I'm not trying to make an anti-commercial statement. If your art inspires you to want to write a song that you think masses of people will love, sing along with, dance to, etc. - and not just inspire dissertations among two hundred beard-stroking, intense young men reading Kierkegaard in coffee shops - there's nothing wrong with trying to write that song. Just that if the song doesn't light the commercial world on fire, that probably isn't the song's fault - or yours, as its writer. Thus: you shouldn't expect to make money...on the merits of your talent or art. It doesn't work that way. I think enough people believe in the myth of meritocracy in the arts that they feel that their lack of commercial success has to do either with the quality of their work or their efforts in publicizing it. As for the instruments in music videos: for the most part I agree but I did once learn a new chord while watching the video for "Every Rose Has Its Thorn." So...thank god for that. The single thing that I most dislike about Billy Joel's music is the inescapable feeling I get from nearly everything he's ever done that he's desperately trying to find a way to appeal to some particular audience or other. Through his career that target audience has changed several times...but there's just always something that feels mercenary about Joel's music. This would be a trivial issue if Joel were talentless - but in fact, I'd argue he's a very talented songwriter, one whose songbook would contain many more genuinely good songs if he hadn't always been trying to score more hits. I can't prove this, of course - it is, as I said, a feeling - but to me much of his music is an illustration of the way an excessive regard for commerce can diminish one's art. add your comment: |
