quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:

But precisely because that same artist isn't (as) concerned with marketing, his music can also be saddled with more meandering and self-indulgence than "commercially compromised" artists would ever countenance.

The worst, least talented music direct via the heart is still better than the best music made solely for money.

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:
The worst, least talented music direct via the heart is still better than the best music made solely for money.

Amen.



Except maybe "emo," OK?

quote:

Originally posted by Nhazghaal:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:

But precisely because that same artist isn't (as) concerned with marketing, his music can also be saddled with more meandering and self-indulgence than "commercially compromised" artists would ever countenance.

The worst, least talented music direct via the heart is still better than the best music made solely for money.

Not necessarily. Of course, there's plenty of trash getting radio play that's pound per pound style over substance but from what you said it seems that you're implying that all cash cow music automatically lacks heart. Feast your ears on Eminem's Stan and Ludacris' Runaway Love. Those are chart-toppers, even. The bullshit no doubt overshadows the truly great material in the mainstream but you can't deny its existance in that particular market.

Now, I'm gonna have to agree with Bryan_K on some of his points. He mentioned Jay-Z's The Blueprint which is a ten as far as material but at the same time was an album that seeked pocket change from the masses. Compare it to Mos Def's sophomore effort The New Danger, an album that had "heart" but ultimately came off as experimental and uneven. Now, Mos Def is one of the greatest emcees to rock the mic yet that record in particular was merely average. Even the conscious artist needs guidence sometimes. Nas is a good example, someone who had nearly full creative control of his prior projects but was inconsistent overall. Fast-forward to '06, sign Esco to Def Jam, put Sean Carter as the executive producer of Hip Hop Is Dead and we recieve one of the greatest albums of his career. Trust.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frame,

quote:

The worst, least talented music direct via the heart is still better than the best music made solely for money.

I have bad news for you, Nhazghaal: unless your listening consists entirely of attending your little sister's piano recitals, you have never heard a song in your sweet, short life that wasn't "made for money"--and even she may have pop aspirations you don't know about. You've also never heard a song that was "made solely for money," but that's your manichean, art vs. commerce worldview, isn't it? I'm not trying to dispute the point that moneylust can have a corrupting influence on talented musicians. But naive bohemianism and snobbery can be responsible for a perpindicular kind of corruption: the one that besets equally talented artists who stop seeing rock and roll as a "way to make it," in Robert Christgau's words, and begin to arrogantly pursue masturbatory experiments designed to annoy or confound a fanbase, as if the artist who makes a living selling beauty or wit to people with an interest in such things were somehow above the act of selling. Commerce is not just the necessary evil that allows people to access the art it opposes; in the right hands it's part and parcel of that expression. My life is a little richer for having heard Jay-Z rap, "I sell ice in the winter, I sell fire in hell / I'm a hustler baby--I'd sell water to a well," a lyrical gem inextricable from the allegedly poisonous influence of capitalism. We can't all be as clever or poetic as Jigga when we talk about the culture we live in, but let's at least be self-aware about it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:

quote:

The worst, least talented music direct via the heart is still better than the best music made solely for money.

I have bad news for you, Nhazghaal: unless your listening consists entirely of attending your little sister's piano recitals, you have never heard a song in your sweet, short life that wasn't "made for money"--and even she may have pop aspirations you don't know about. You've also never heard a song that was "made solely for money," but that's your manichean, art vs. commerce worldview, isn't it? I'm not trying to dispute the point that moneylust can have a corrupting influence on talented musicians. But naive bohemianism and snobbery can be responsible for a perpindicular kind of corruption: the one that besets equally talented artists who stop seeing rock and roll as a "way to make it," in Robert Christgau's words, and begin to arrogantly pursue masturbatory experiments designed to annoy or confound a fanbase, as if the artist who makes a living selling beauty or wit to people with an interest in such things were somehow above the act of selling. Commerce is not just the necessary evil that allows people to access the art it opposes; in the right hands it's part and parcel of that expression. My life is a little richer for having heard Jay-Z rap, "I sell ice in the winter, I sell fire in hell / I'm a hustler baby--I'd sell water to a well," and that lyrical gem is inextricable from the allegedly poisonous influence of commerce. We can't all be as clever or poetic as Jigga when we talk about the culture we live in, but let's at least be self-aware about it.

EDIT: Shortly after my original post (which I've saved if anyone ever wants it) I regretted the way I wrote it. I figured Bryan_K would respond and things could be cleared up there, and when it didn't happen I didn't think it mattered anymore. But just to finally get it the way I want it and since it kind of came up again, alternate version that I'll try to keep relatively brief.

Your direct jabs at me are accurate. I have a tendency to polarize the world, even though I know it's wrong. Pobody's nerfect. Your comment on "naive bohemianism and snobbery" which I understood to include myself is also valid. The fact of the matter is though, I made my initial comment for the very same reason, to combat what I thought was my idea of snobbery ("lowering the access bar for musicians will dilute the quality of music made.") Reminds me of the Fox News lady that said "if we demand China to stop using lead in it's toy paint, the price will go up." What a drawback. I would say the monetary influences do include the extremes - those that play solely for, and entirely not for, money. I'm pretty sure a caveman beat a rock to express himself before money even existed. If I had a cheap acoustic guitar and a 4-track like I'd like, I would record music with no intention to sell it, I can honestly say. I will say intent is more important than results and I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. Accidentally running over someone and killing them shouldn't get you in prison - intending to run over someone in your car and failing should, even though it resulted in no death. Also, I never even said that music made "solely for money" (which you say doesn't exist) is without merit, just that honest music was "better" (again, because intent is everything.) There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for a job well done, but if someone is deterred from making art because there's no profit to be made, they were in it for the wrong reason. I'm quick to admit my faults, but I get the feeling I was too quick last time because I was ultimately unsatisfied with all I left unsaid. I also get the feeling you mentally inserted connections between certain ideals and I that were not necessarily true, and I don't know why you were so quick to ring the alarm. I still don't have a sister.

On a different but similar note: Noam Chomsky has good ideas, but I'm not a big fan of his. And hello Ish. /waves

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nhazghaal,

PrairieFire wrote:

Do you rate any mainstream music?

A resounding yes to that one. How can you not?

If someone tells you there is NOTHING in the entire history of mainstream music that is even remotely good, they're either lying or deaf.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryan_K:
I have bad news for you, Nhazghaal: unless your listening consists entirely of attending your little sister's piano recitals, you have never heard a song in your sweet, short life that wasn't "made for money"--and even she may have pop aspirations you don't know about. You've also never heard a song that was "made solely for money," but that's your manichean, art vs. commerce worldview, isn't it? I'm not trying to dispute the point that moneylust can have a corrupting influence on talented musicians. But naive bohemianism and snobbery can be responsible for a perpindicular kind of corruption: the one that besets equally talented artists who stop seeing rock and roll as a "way to make it," in Robert Christgau's words, and begin to arrogantly pursue masturbatory experiments designed to annoy or confound a fanbase, as if the artist who makes a living selling beauty or wit to people with an interest in such things were somehow above the act of selling. Commerce is not just the necessary evil that allows people to access the art it opposes; in the right hands it's part and parcel of that expression. My life is a little richer for having heard Jay-Z rap, "I sell ice in the winter, I sell fire in hell / I'm a hustler baby--I'd sell water to a well," a lyrical gem inextricable from the allegedly poisonous influence of capitalism. We can't all be as clever or poetic as Jigga when we talk about the culture we live in, but let's at least be self-aware about it.

Noam Chomsky would have a lot to say about an position such as this.
As for me, I'll just settle for a Marge Simpson 'hmmmmh'

EDIT: I fixed your post Ishy so that you could tell where the quote started and ended--that's all I did. Hope that is OK.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FragileKidA,