The downfall of the music business?

[BenG]

Interesting how Jimmy Smith comes up in a thread on the subject of "craptacular pop-tarts" as Head-fi registered craptacularist Eagle Driver so eloquently stated.

Please check out these Jimmy Smith titles:

Sermon
House Party
Live at Smalls
Dynamic Duo
Organ Grinder Swing
Cool Blues

I thought Dot Com Blues was, ironically, somewhat of a pop record.

Anyways, I think we have to remember that the crap that makes the pop charts these days indirectly subsidizes the less popular. If there were no mainstream record industry, the technology(everything from mp3, CD, studio equipment to CD recorders)that enables you to easily listen to lesser known music would not have been developed or would be a helluv alot more expensive. Sad but True.

 

[CaptBubba]

I'll think about calling them artists once they actualy start writing their own lyrics. I will start calling them artists once they do that and when all their songs arn't about some girl/boy that they are in love with.

This is the reason I buy cds. I find that most of the time the tracks I like best are the ones that i origonaly didn't really care for, but which grew on me over time.

 

[huy_ha]

CaptBubba, I agree with your sentiments regarding authorship, but that would also leave out most of the great vocalists and classical musicians. If they're not going to write it themselves, they could at least choose not to perform other people's crap.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

KeVlaR - What really galls me is that people are oblivious or too stupid to see what is going on.

I think people do see what’s going on. What gauls me is what can’t afford to happen because all the money is sucked into the pop-crap; which is: a mass customized set of music streams that exposes you to new music and allows you to select for ownership real time songs at a cost of about 25 cents.

aiOtron - NO, you see, people who do things that require skill are not necessarily 'artists'

My dad is a ballet dancer. He danced at the Metropolitan Opera and at American Ballet Theater in New York---he was pretty damn good but he was too short for the lead roles (5’ 7”). He was fond of saying that there are craftsmen and then there are artists. He also used to say the difference between a professional artist and an amateur was that a professional could be creative on demand.

Carlo - 2) female nudes are more beautiful than male nudes.

My dad wasn’t gay (though most male dancers), but when I one time asked him whether he thought the male of the female form was more beautiful he said that, though the female form may be more attractive, the male form is more beautiful.

KeVlaR - The real 'artists' are being afforded relative freedom to record what they want with state-of-the-art equipment

Good point. Desktop everything has lowered the production cost of audio, video, and print production by a factor I’d reckon of about 100. Might even be 1000 in video---I used to work in a video post-production house and the amount of hardware was AMAZING; nowadays you can do it all on a PC to a reasonable facsimile of quality.

Nick Dangerous - THAT does it. I'm officially an activist now.

When it comes to voting with my dollars on the subject, I go to www.emusic.com --- $9.99 a month for unlimited downloads; the listenable quality (128kbs); INCREADABLE selection of jazz, and LOTS of other music too; moderately good ability to find other music based on your likes. (For the perfect resource there go to www.allmusic.com.)

KeVlaR - I despair. I really do. Don’t dude. Someone’s going to come along and do the mass-customized music streams right and then instead of one artist making billions while ten thousand starve, you’ll have 9,901 making $40,000 a year and a hundred making $500,000.

Currently listening to Beth Custer, really trippy stuff.

 

[setmenu]

Tyll
Regarding your comment on nudes.
I too get a bit sick of people saying the female form is the more
attractive,what a lot of nonsense!
A healthy nude human form is attractive full stop.

Yes the female nude is more commercial, I agree there![something I like to exploit as a sculptor....hehe]

When used in artistic expression the human forms differing natures are used to give a fuller expressive pallete,but the choice as when and where to use each forms attributes is probably more blured these days,having changed with the cultural views on the 'roles' of men and women in society.

But I see we are back to definitions of art again in this thread !

sign off!

Setmenu

 

[carlo]

Kevlar,

thanks for the album and catalog number. and for a great thread.

zoboomofo,
Quote:

How can I have any hope for radio if there aren't any grizzled veterans left - who've already learned the dos and don'ts of radio - to lead the way?

after reading your post it occured to me that what might be wrong with "popular music" is that the same handfull of people seem to be producing the stuff... it's really become more of a producer's than an artist's genre, kind of like the motown years. disclaimer: in concept, not quality. really, does anyone think the name glen ballard is going to induce people to be interested in a album?

BenG,

you kick ass, thanks for the album recs. could you give me some wes montgomery ones as well? please pm me if you'd rather keep this thread on track.
Quote:

If there were no mainstream record industry, the technology(everything from mp3, CD, studio equipment to CD recorders)that enables you to easily listen to lesser known music would not have been developed or would be a helluv alot more expensive. Sad but True.

i agree. the problem is that the same mediums that have been delevoped to make music accessible are what the riaa is trying to regulate.

Tyll,

wow, i'm responding to the headphone guy... goosebumps creeping up my spine.
Quote:

He was fond of saying that there are craftsmen and then there are artists. He also used to say the difference between a professional artist and an amateur was that a professional could be creative on demand.

nice quote; your dad seems like a very cool guy.

Tyll & setmenu,

(i hope) the list i referred to is meant to be very, very sarcastic: in the punk sense, not the nineties "irony" sense. funny that #2 is inciting the most response... i personally think #1, #3 and #5 are the best. the whole list is brilliant though - as i recall there were ten items.

best,
carlo.

 

[zoboomofo]

Carlo, you read my mind there about producers and motown. I was thinking about Motown and Brill Building songs - they always feed that stuff onto the speakers at work. They seemed to suit a specialty brand of music, like the teeny bopper pop of the eighties. Today, prefab pop bands have broad appeal. People of all ages love this stuff, and that bothers me. Someone already mentioned how this flooding of the airwaves with Glen Ballard/Max Martin etc. type songs stifles young talent from getting exposure. Too true. Back in the eighties, or as recently as New Kids, you could look past the fluff, and find many gems on the radio. Now, these acts are more trendy than novel, and nobody seems to want to look for cool bands anymore.

I mean it makes me so angry to hear a nice upbeat toe-tapping debut from a pop band, and then hear their standard romantic ballad follow ups. Its like "Gee we've reeled the suckers into our latest pop project. Commence the fluff ballad writing." Grrrrrrrr.

 

[ai0tron]

While not gay, and I see the female form as incredibly beautiful... the male form, or a well sculpted male form, is awe inspiring in it's power. It's also awe inspiring in the difficulty it presents to a craftsman/artist.


"there's that cool document that travels around bohemian kids (paraphrasing from memory):

when making art remember that:
1)subject matter is important. for example paintings of roosters sell faster than paintings of eggs.
2)female nudes are more beautifull than male nudes.
3)it isn't a still life if there isn't a bannana.
4)pretty frames make for pretty paintings.
5)stuff that makes people scratch their chins is better than stuff that makes people walk away.

anyway.
try to remember that there was a group of people who thought that rock and roll wasn't music since it wasn't what they agreed with. art, and all it implies, should hold the broadest level of definition. as you said, its the most important factor in challenging minds/ expressing emotion/capturing the essence of life. " -carlo


You shouldnt have even taken the time to type out that crap about the bohemians, I dont even know which way to construe the trully pointless nature of that list.

First of all the argument that something is wrong or invalid because it's subjective is ********. If that trully is your belief you should shut the **** up for the rest of your life because no matter how hard you try you can never utter the absolute TRUTH as you simply DO NOT POSSESS THE CAPABILITY TO KNOW. NO HUMAN DOES.

MAybe rock isnt art?? Ever compare the emotional power of classical to the emotional power of rock and roll?? I think youll see a huge disparity in what is actually elicited from the listener. I mean classical insduces thought, their is so much to recognize about each piece, rock RARELY is a thinking type of music. I CANNOT listen to calssical music in public, ITS INSULTING to the composer to do so anyway. There is so much in those works of art, they quite often bring me to tears. Rock has never once raised my emotions to such a sublime state. Am I missing somthing?? HELL NO, I "GET IT" to put it bluntly, there just isnt much to "GET". Other than "OFF". You dont typically try to comprehend the arrangement of rock, because the arrangement is INFANTILE. Part of the expression of classical music is in the arrangement and it goes FAR BEYOND, "is that catchy, does it sound good?" I personally think rock is "fun" but like pop, and other ****, it's rarely art. Is the rolling stones "pink" art?? No, but some of their early stuff was. Sting is a great artist, so is trent reznor. I hate the beatles, I think they suck. Their songs are boring. Are they artists? Not in my opinion, they were way to popular, they were just sucking people off IMO. Thats what rock DOES 90% of the time, it sucks you off.

Art and all that it implies should NOT hold the broadest definition. The problem with art is that people like you, can't work up the guts to say something ISNT art. And then there are people who can't work up the guts to say something IS art. The truth is art is RARE, even the stuff in museums isn't always art. Sometimes it's ********, maybe that makes it art, who knows. Someday art will be valued as it should be valued and people will use their friggin brains to make determinations about art... I spend so much TIME THINKING about art. *******it, I think the highest art has no meaning sometimes. Pure abstraction, the most subliminal of all forms of expression. Saying something with nothing. Putting the meaning in the most minute of subtelties. You know out of millions of dreamers one or two little kids make it to the big leagues. NOW, I think art can be produced by ANYONE, BUT, it takes TIME to LEARN how to be an artist. And even then there are some who quite simply will NOT be very good at it, but alas they can do it!

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Huh? I don't listen to classical any more, even at home. And I'm not listening to rock or pop music as much as I used to, either. Face it, (rock/pop "artistes") they're ALL cr4pz0rs.

My main musical style these days is jazz, from the Roaring '20s through the end of the '50s.

 

[carlo]

ai0tron,

christ man, do you feel better? my first flame at head-fi... i suddenly feel like i belong.

that list (as i see it) is a sarcastic view of what art is according to some people - a list of requirements. the point of the list (once again as i interpret it) is that not all of us agree with it. personally, i think it's brilliant, and it on it's own basically sums up my retort to your post. however, it seems like i'll have to expand on the subject.
Quote:

carlo: 2)female nudes are more beautifull than male nudes.

Quote:

ai0tron: While not gay, and I see the female form as incredibly beautiful... the male form, or a well sculpted male form, is awe inspiring in it's power. It's also awe inspiring in the difficulty it presents to a craftsman/artist... You shouldnt have even taken the time to type out that crap about the bohemians, I dont even know which way to construe the trully pointless nature of that list.

i agree with your first point completely. i think you missed what i thought was the obvious satire in that list. try to read it again and see the humor in it.
Quote:

First of all the argument that something is wrong or invalid because it's subjective is ********.

that's exactly my point... read again the quotes below from our earlier exchange.
Quote:

ai0tron: For me an artist is someone who excells in the technicalities of their discipline to the point that they no longer struggle with it, they struggle with the idea of the music, or painting, or whatever... If you place upon the pedestal of Art only those who are trully deserving then perhaps the others would get the picture and QUIT or try to learn the subtle points of expression.

Quote:

carlo: while you've very clearly established your personal definition of the word "art" (and "artist"), i think you're missing the important point that art is subject to interpretation.

notice that i don't denounce what you believe to be art, but rather invite you to understand that others view art differently. my response, as well as the list, was an invitation to you that just because you don't think something is art doesn't stop it from being art to another human being.

consider this train of thought: if art is the expression of emotional and intellectual thought, a narrow classification of what art is therefore is a narrow allowance of thought. great artists (in every medium) have been persecuted throughout time for creating works that other people couldn't grasp. if we allow for one view of what art is, we turn into elitists... who would have the power to decide what is and what isn't art? we as human beings are opinionated - views of art should be discussed and shared, not attacked.

next point:
Quote:

MAybe rock isnt art??

okay, i'll try to see your point of view.
Quote:

Ever compare the emotional power of classical to the emotional power of rock and roll??

for myself, sure. however, a lot of different things musically elicit an emotional response from me... from bob dylan's "the ballad of hollis brown" and "a poem for woody guthrie" to puccini's la boheme. have i compared it with groups of people? no. even with the advanced state of cognitive science (something you really should read up on) i don't think an individual's emotional response can be (or, on a personal level, should be) measured.
Quote:

I mean classical insduces thought, their is so much to recognize about each piece, rock RARELY is a thinking type of music. I CANNOT listen to calssical music in public, ITS INSULTING to the composer to do so anyway. There is so much in those works of art, they quite often bring me to tears.

that's a beautiful thing. i can certainly relate. but what are you saying to the rest of us who see the beauty of joni mitchell's "a case of you" or weep to louis armstrong?
Quote:

Art and all that it implies should NOT hold the broadest definition. The problem with art is that people like you, can't work up the guts to say something ISNT art. And then there are people who can't work up the guts to say something IS art.

what in god's name are you talking about? i certainly believe the majority of things being called art isn't art, but i also understand that i see the world differently than other people. i've made no assumptions on who you are, but rather have responded to your words. try to pay me (and others) the same level of respect.

for example, my girlfriend and i are members of the norton simon museum in pasadena, ca. an impressive collection of impressionist and post impressionist art. one day (one of our first dates actually) we went in to look at degas' 12 year old ballerina... i still have to pause in my tracks at the sight of her. there were (and always are) a large group of people who seem to miss the beauty of her, her defiance (april, my girlfriend, sees her stance as shyness and nervousness), and i can never understand how someone could walk by such a moving work with a passing glance.

we all see the world differently. one view isn't any more valid than another. what i see as something may be nothing to you. once again, i suggest you spend some time studying cognitive science.
Quote:

*******it, I think the highest art has no meaning sometimes. Pure abstraction, the most subliminal of all forms of expression. Saying something with nothing. Putting the meaning in the most minute of subtelties.

minimalism may be my favorite genre of art. if you get the time try to read leonard shanlin's "Art & Physics - Parallel Visions of Time and Light", it changed my life.

Quote:

Sting is a great artist, so is trent reznor. I hate the beatles, I think they suck. Their songs are boring. Are they artists? Not in my opinion, they were way to popular, they were just sucking people off IMO. Thats what rock DOES 90% of the time, it sucks you off.

you're comparing sting to the beatles? sting... you mean that guy who used to sing with a jamacain accent with the police? that same sting who never gave andy summers his due as an influencing force with the police? wasn't it sting who brought story telling to the mass public then followed it with cheesy love ballads? who was that guy who tooted his own horn for bringing in the sitar on his newest album forty years after the beatles did? oh, right, that was sting. um, i forgot who i saw performing with puff daddy on mtv a few years ago... he was blonde, had a see through shirt, looked like he just had sex for eight hours... do you remember his name?

sting was a great artist from soul cages through fields of gold, but try not to place him above the beatles (and i'm not even much of a fan). and last i checked, not only is sting filthy popular, he was also more than willing to become a spokesperson for a car company. paul mccartney tried to preserve the beatles catalog so their songs wouldn't be used in commercials, sting on the other hand not only allowed puff daddy to absolutely destroy "roxanne" on a remix, he invited him to do so.

now... stop... and... think.

are my views any less valid than yours? are either one of us right or wrong?

THAT's my point.

carlo.

 

[ai0tron]

"that list (as i see it) is a sarcastic view of what art is according to some people - a list of requirements. the point of the list (once again as i interpret it) is that not all of us agree with it."

I realize this. And still I find it ridiculous. There is nothing brilliant about it, it's insulting or obvious. It's a cop out, 80's pop philosophy that died a horrible death along with 80's pop. And I didnt "flame" you, just warmed you up a bit.

The Police have some incredible songs, and yes the drummer is a huge part of it. I love the drums in message in a bottle. I'm glad you're pointing out stings character flaws, doesn't change the fact that hes a great songwriter, both for his music and for his lyrics. No, he's not at the top of his game anymore, I really don't like his latest cd at all, but Eva cassidy's cover of fields of gold proves to me at least what a great song writer he still is.

Am I the only one who noticed that the 2 beetles who are still alive are total burn outs?? I can't believe they are still trying to get into the lime light. I mean Ringo played some slick drums in his day, he certainly added something to the role of drummer in a band, but these days, hes lame. The same goes for Sting to a certain extent, moments of glory overshadowed by general lameness.

"notice that i don't denounce what you believe to be art, but rather invite you to understand that others view art differently"

NO, I feel art is a CONDITION. A state of being, it can be defined, trully it can. Like dead or alive, art or not art, yes weird perceptual variations can cloud the issue but the fact remains and it can be found if we ever understand! Technically solids are liquids in slow motion, ever see the glass in an old house??? I mean, you must draw distinction!! Otherwise everything blurs together.

It's like chess. Any 2 people in front of a chess board are playing chess. However, someone good at chess, might see amateurs as not really playing the game. I dabble in chess. Sometimes when playing a lesser opponent they make moves that are so bad I don't even understand them. Art is like this, it can be so bad that it is misunderstood as art when in fact it was just amateurish. Conversely I have played people who were so incredibly good that the game would unravel it's self 25 moves after my "mistake" and I realized that I had been beaten a long time ago, and I simply had not understood the early deciding move. Thus art is also on a level that leaves it misunderstood at the opposite end of the spectrum. Also, if you play chess SERIOUSLY, you will understand that the game transcends you as you begin to unravel it's mysteries. You start seeing how incredibly deep it goes, you begin to see the future of the game as an abstraction. It becomes a game of ultimate precision, move for move, playing for the advantage of a single pawn 10 or 15 moves down the line. Art is like this, to trully understand what art is you must transcend the medium. Art is a transcendent idea manifesting itself on the 'page'. It's a higher realization of something beyond the literal, although it is often enhanced by the literal. You are guided to the idea of art by it's literal symbolism. You look at it and you reach out into nothing, making known the unknown, pulling forth from the nothing an idea which has a shape on a canvas or whatever.

Art is not some shmoozy be all. Art is not everything around you. Art is the ultimate metaphor, it's a new language disguised in an old language, it's a language that forms an idea for which there are no words. It's something perfectly human, something so evidently useless (colored marks on paper or canvas) but something that is trully transcending reality!!!!

I personally feel that a strong attitude of skepticism will be the only thing to keep Art on a higher level. Not arrogance, open minded skepticism, a willingness to hear and learn while keeping an equal willingness to denounce as unworthy.

Schubert, geez, wow. Man, this piece of work by Schubert... The TOTAL control of the medium, the complete understanding, it's as if he calls upon the notes that he desires without even trying. It's as if God gifted him such total understanding becoming focused into the literal, taking the listener on a transcendent journey into the unreal world of Schuberts musical metaphor.

I mean, IT IS MAGNIFICENT. The very definition of Art.

There is very little in the world of Rock, that you could even pretend compared.

How about chopins famous raindrop prelude? The literal story of a thundering rainstorm, and it's single raindrop? The ominous procession of nature, the inevitable coming of the storm, the mighty blast of thunder, and then after all that EMOTION, a single note. One drop of rain. But the metaphor can be extended to our lives so easily, I never even thought of it as a story about the weather, It was just a prelude to me for the longest time. I was struck when I found out it was called the raindrop prelude, it was such a simple concept, so elegant, so easy, but so beautifully complex in it's other meanings. A true piece of Art.

Why call most rock art, when it fails to communicate an idea that is even interesting. Why call it art when all it does most of the time, is get you off. Is Limp Bizkit art? I did it all for the nookie?? Is that ****ing art? Do you really feel proud to be human when you hear that **** blaring on the radio? Kid Rock's American Bad Ass?? Do you think Mozart would hear that and laugh or cry? It's been what, 300 years? And still, no one has equaled his gifts to music. He surpassed everyone in his short life, and he still reigns as the greatest mind music has ever seen. So you think a bunch of mislead teenagers moshing at a KORN concert are on the same level as someone understanding Mozarts deepest fears in Don Giovanni?

I personally, have felt gut wrenching pain at the hands of great classical musicians. Michelangelo literally brought me to my knees. I do not understand why anyone would ever call equal, the trite, pointless music of pop culture to such magnificent art. It's just outrageous. It's moronic.



Eagle- Jazz can be extremely expressive, I have started liking it more and more, it's an interesting and valid art form. However, I feel that Jazz, and blues artists tend to get stuck in a rut, as they rely to heavily on sponteneity. Also, because of that sponteneity, I think the art form is wierdly limited, even though it may seem that it can go anywhere.

 

[ai0tron]

"are my views any less valid than yours? are either one of us right or wrong?"

LIke I said earlier, subjectively, no one is wrong, or no one is right. Why even ask me that question?

Why bother with life if you can never be right or wrong????

Why even ask questions? Just stop, because it's all equal in the end, we all die right?

 

[setmenu]

Just like the cycle of life,debates on art go....round and round and
round........


Setmenu

 

[Eagle_Driver]

ai0tron, I'm not trying to flame you; it's just that the retailers that I visit either have nothing but "craptacular pop-tart" music or have a severely limited selection of classical music CDs (many of which have crappy recording quality).

 

[ai0tron]

"Just like the cycle of life,debates on art go....round and round and
round........ "


yup