While it's heavy on new bands, it does have some of those artists who are right out of your "definition of indie" which "comes from the late 80s/ early 90s, when indie meant something very different."
I like the Superchunk and the Teenage Fanclub inclusions.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
You're pretty knowledgeable about music in general. You like indie music, sure, but that's only part of it. You'll listen to any old shit as long as it sounds good to you. You're not snobby about music at all, you just like what you like. How boring. Curiously, this makes you popular with the opposite sex.
While it's heavy on new bands, it does have some of those artists who are right out of your "definition of indie" which "comes from the late 80s/ early 90s, when indie meant something very different."
Shit - you got me. In my defence I don't actually like any of those bands, but yes Dinosaur Jr are from that era...
Well, maybe the words don't like are a bit strong, but I'm unexcited by it. I wouldn't class any of those artists as favourites at all. That's the honest truth - I just like what I like
Originally posted by Duncan Black: In answer to Mr Vitunkrapula...
I never said I was against writing good songs - just that writing hit singles is hard. You imply that all hit singles are bad, which is an oversight.
Nah - I didn't mean to imply that. But I didn't explain myself, so its understandable that you would read it that way. I don't think hit singles are necessarily bad. I consider many hit singles to be good songs as well. I have an ever-growing collection of guilty pleasure songs (I'm not really guilty about liking them, but I have fun calling them that).
This is how I see the problem - when you go about writing a song and say to yourself "I want to write a hit song," considerations about what other people will like enter the picture. THAT is bad. Because honestly - I don't know what the majority of people are like. I have no clue what the 'biggest number' of people will like. So instead the temptation is to look at other 'hit singles' and try to imitate - take elements from a bunch of examples and make some kind of Frankenstein song that has no identity of its own. I think this is what you're aiming at with your talk about formulae.
But that's not how good music is written. In my experience, it's always easier to succeed at writing music when you write for yourself - that which pleases you, the writer. Because if you aren't getting anything out of it, chances are nobody else will either. But you can't make 'other people' the focus of your songwriting.
This notion is completely false and elitist. Many great artists connect with their fanbase and feel like they have an intimate bond with a larger group of people. Many people get something out of this, and that can be a fulfilling aspect of being an artist. In fact, I would argue that almost no artists are making music only for themselves, and most artists wouldn't make anything if music was made in a vaccuum.
Posts: 13 | Location: The Enchanted Forest | Registered: 16 March 2007
Originally posted by Dork: Then most artists are indeed corporate puppets only in it for the money.
I make music. I don't make music for other people.
How ridiculous. Just because your music isn't meant for other people doesn't mean people who intend for the public to enjoy or think about their music are suddenly "corporate puppets". For me, art really is about changing the way people think, in one way or another. To make music without intending for it to grow its own legs and do good things in the world seems almost selfish.
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: How ridiculous. Just because your music isn't meant for other people doesn't mean people who intend for the public to enjoy or think about their music are suddenly "corporate puppets".
I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Art is a personal expression; when you do it for other people you depersonalize it and it becomes meaningless: it is no longer you simply expressing yourself, it is you attempting to sell yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: For me, art really is about changing the way people think, in one way or another. To make music without intending for it to grow its own legs and do good things in the world seems almost selfish.
Maybe unpretentious is a better word. Basically when you try to make mind-altering music, all you get is music that sounds like it was made to be mind-altering. There's no "you" inside it, it's a depersonalized expression of your desire to force something that should come naturally.
If you write music that is supposed to have an intended effect, you're writing music ass-backwards. If it has an effect, fine, good. Trying to make it have an effect only falsifies it.
I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. Art is a personal expression; when you do it for other people you depersonalize it and it becomes meaningless: it is no longer you simply expressing yourself, it is you attempting to sell yourself.
Are you an elitist?
Guess what? Art can be an argument! Call it 'selling yourself' if you want. But it works. It's worked for centuries.
Posts: 759 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
If you write music that is supposed to have an intended effect, you're writing music ass-backwards. If it has an effect, fine, good. Trying to make it have an effect only falsifies it.
Ha!!! Tell that to BACH, BEETHOVEN, MOZART, any of the obvious classical masterminds.
Posts: 759 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
If you write music that is supposed to have an intended effect, you're writing music ass-backwards. If it has an effect, fine, good. Trying to make it have an effect only falsifies it.
Ha!!! Tell that to BACH, BEETHOVEN, MOZART, any of the obvious classical masterminds.
... Bringing them into the argument seems deeply pointless. Unless you'd like to try to make a point? I would assume that they were moved my their own music but really I've seen no evidence one way or another.
However, I think the part of my message you quoted should be rephrased. Music should be written to have an effect, yes, but it should be an effect on you, not on a nebulous "other people".
I am indeed an elitist when it comes to making music. Art can certainly be an argument but that is still an expression of the persona. It's when you change your argument to fit "other people" that it becomes false, fake. Commercial.
Originally posted by Dork: It's when you change your argument to fit "other people" that it becomes false, fake. Commercial.
It's all in the ear of the beholder. Many here would look at 50 Cent's music as fake/ commercial, but to him it's real.
Maybe. We cannot know the artist's inner workings truly and thus we must assume good faith at all times. But this is more about creating rather than listening.
I'm a musician and I rarely feel good about writing music with no regard for an audience. Sometimes it's to do with money, but mostly it's an artistic desire to communicate an idea. The work has to be relevant to others in some way, whether as a personal expression, a piece of entertainment or simply to make someone think. It makes me feel better to know I've done my job properly.
It's that old philosophical argument about 'if a tree falls down and there's no-one there, did it fall down at all?'. If your work is ignored, it can be quite off-putting. The most satisfying pieces communicate with people successfully.
The vast majority of purists AND commercial artists have a plan according to how the reader will percieve their work - it's natural for the artist to want others to desire the experience of listening to it.
And there lies the problem. If someone were to actually come up to me and say "Hey, your music would be more moving to me with some guitar solos" I might indeed add guitar solos. I would have had the input of an actual person. But when you don't have feedback it is just guesswork; you go by your own tastes and trying to "smooth out your music for an audience" is really just you trying hard to guess the tastes of everyone listening and (most likely) failing. Personally, I think it is better to have said something true and have it despised than to have lied and have had it revered. The message you send is no good if it isn't yours anymore.
Originally posted by Dork: And there lies the problem. If someone were to actually come up to me and say "Hey, your music would be more moving to me with some guitar solos" I might indeed add guitar solos. I would have had the input of an actual person. But when you don't have feedback it is just guesswork; you go by your own tastes and trying to "smooth out your music for an audience" is really just you trying hard to guess the tastes of everyone listening and (most likely) failing. Personally, I think it is better to have said something true and have it despised than to have lied and have had it revered. The message you send is no good if it isn't yours anymore.
That is true when you start out. My early attempts at music 17 years ago were approximations of what I thought an audience would like. Listening to them now is embarrassing, but I've never lied about what I was doing. I just do what I do. You learn from reactions and they become a part of the writing process. It's difficult to get rid of that once you're in it.
I think the artists you are largely referring to are the ones who fake it for money. I won't mention any names (it causes arguments), but if a band stands there and says 'this is contemporary art', when it's clearly commercial pop music, that is very annoying.
If you look at the Bloodhound Gang (strange example but bare with me). They don't profess to be anything more than commercial chancers making dumb songs about toilet humour and that's exactly what they deliver. There's nothing fake about them at all. I find them quite entertaining for that reason. In a funny kind of way, they have more integrity than a lot of would be 'art bands'.
If you write music that is supposed to have an intended effect, you're writing music ass-backwards. If it has an effect, fine, good. Trying to make it have an effect only falsifies it.
Ha!!! Tell that to BACH, BEETHOVEN, MOZART, any of the obvious classical masterminds.
... Bringing them into the argument seems deeply pointless. Unless you'd like to try to make a point? I would assume that they were moved my their own music but really I've seen no evidence one way or another.
However, I think the part of my message you quoted should be rephrased. Music should be written to have an effect, yes, but it should be an effect on you, not on a nebulous "other people".
I am indeed an elitist when it comes to making music. Art can certainly be an argument but that is still an expression of the persona. It's when you change your argument to fit "other people" that it becomes false, fake. Commercial.
Yeehaw! This is precisely the point I was after earlier. You make music for how it makes YOU feel.
The argument is good, which is why it is interesting. Really, no side has a big argumentative advantage over the other.
The problem is, defining art is quite difficult to do. Defining "pure" intentions of art, or strictly saying that certain intentions must be adhered to in order to qualify a work as art (i.e., art must be personal) is an entirely subjective task.
Therefore, this argument has no definitive answer...Which makes the title VERY appropriate. In fact, we've proved the OP's subject line with our very arguments!
Posts: 759 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
Metacritic Forums 
