Unpopular music opinions

[LizzieMaine]

I've never understood the romance of the "starving artist/musician" myself -- seems more like pathological narcissism to me: "Ohhhhhhh how I suffffffffer for my arrrrrrrrt", while promoting a definition of art as being something that, basically, nobody likes enough to spend money on.

Frankly, I think any artists -- including musicians -- worth their beans would not only want to be able to support themselves by the use of their abilities, but would sincerely strive to do so. That's one thing that Sammy Kaye and Duke Ellington had in common, at least -- a sincere appreciation for the fruits of their own labor.

 

[Fletch]

It can be a rough fence to sit on. Just because different musical influences go so well together doesn't make them acceptable to the tastemakers - and I mean the marketers or the critics. Each demands to be met on his own terms - and fully on his own terms. The result is that there are vast fields of the musical landscape where one can't readily make a living - and other fields almost as vast where one can't get published or reviewed.

That's what makes the period when that wasn't always so strictly true music's own Golden Era - because, for a little while, the rules were bent and the terms were negotiable.

I don't think we'll see that day again in music. The way we make, distribute, and use music today is often isolating and cocooning. Music marketers are too arrogant and insular even to fully join the digital age. Music critics bring an ivory-tower focus to the art, well away from the eclecticism of cultural studies.

 

[jamespowers]

I've never understood the romance of the "starving artist/musician" myself -- seems more like pathological narcissism to me: "Ohhhhhhh how I suffffffffer for my arrrrrrrrt", while promoting a definition of art as being something that, basically, nobody likes enough to spend money on.

Frankly, I think any artists -- including musicians -- worth their beans would not only want to be able to support themselves by the use of their abilities, but would sincerely strive to do so. That's one thing that Sammy Kaye and Duke Ellington had in common, at least -- a sincere appreciation for the fruits of their own labor.

:amen::eusa_clap

 

[eveready]

Classic American Music

[video=youtube;1tqxzWdKKu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/video] Here's a real toe-tapper......:eeek:

 

[MissMittens]

I've never understood the romance of the "starving artist/musician" myself -- seems more like pathological narcissism to me: "Ohhhhhhh how I suffffffffer for my arrrrrrrrt", while promoting a definition of art as being something that, basically, nobody likes enough to spend money on.

Agreed. People don't buy music these days without controversy though. Be it wearing a dress made from steak, or drug abuse, or fighting. Seems controversy sells their "art" rather than the art selling itself.

 

[jamespowers]

[video=youtube;1tqxzWdKKu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/video] Here's a real toe-tapper......:eeek:

I hear a pig squealing in the background.:eeek:

 

[eveready]

So do I. His name is Ned........

 

[jamespowers]

So do I. His name is Ned........

lol lol lol

 

[eveready]

On a lighter note.....I believe I heard the pump jockey say it cost $4.99 to fill that boat. Must have been before the OPEC embargo.....

 

[MissMittens]

On a lighter note.....I believe I heard the pump jockey say it cost $4.99 to fill that boat. Must have been before the OPEC embargo.....

LOL!!! It's 4:70 a gallon on the upper Chesapeake :O

 

[eveready]

$4.70 a gallon?:eeek::eeek::eeek:

 

[jamespowers]

$4.70 a gallon?:eeek::eeek::eeek:

Taxation you know. They make you squeal like a pig there.

 

[eveready]

....Literally bent over an oil barrel....

 

[jamespowers]

....Literally bent over an oil barrel....

lol lol lol lol

 

[MissMittens]

....Literally bent over an oil barrel....

Yes, and without using the oil for lubrication :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[martinsantos]

Agree with this, too! And remember me Gilespie.

I really apreciate Dizzy Gilespie as a trumpet player (magnificient technics, even if I do not find lots of music in his playing... From people who play high notes I prefer, as musicians, Cottie Williams, Charlie Shavers and a few others). But the way he used to "sell" himself and his music - clothes, bebop slangs, etc - isn't too a way of merchandising?

Agreed. People don't buy music these days without controversy though. Be it wearing a dress made from steak, or drug abuse, or fighting. Seems controversy sells their "art" rather than the art selling itself.

 

[Rundquist]

Absolutely, Martin. I think here in the USA we have trouble recognizing this anymore - because our pop tradition does not cross generations (as Rundquist noted), and also because much of the music was so close to jazz that it could be accused of "cashing in" on jazz, which makes it harder for some people to respect.

I've been told that there was a period in the 70's where generations old and young were all doing the disco (I don't like or endorse disco personally, though if somebody happens to like it, good on you, lol). It had to do with escapism after the Vietnam war. During the 60's in New York, Mambo drew Latin, White, and Black crowds (amongst other ethnicities). Your ethnic background, age, and economic background didn’t matter. These periods never last. Mambo morphed into salsa and the blacks were out. In the 70’s punk and New Wave started to eclipse disco for the younger generation.

The swing era likewise didn’t last too long (really only ten years). It’s like the 30 or so years that followed the Civil War and has been romanticized in countless Westerns for decades. You’d think that the period lasted for a century lol.

Anyway, I get the idea of liking a period were everything was “just right” (to an individual). Mostly my comments were just stating that I don’t agree with the popular view that everything was aesthetically “just right” during the swing era. Music hadn’t evolved to the point where I thought it was “just right”. Of course once you reach that point (at whatever point it is to you), music then devolves lol.

 

[Rundquist]

I've never understood the romance of the "starving artist/musician" myself -- seems more like pathological narcissism to me: "Ohhhhhhh how I suffffffffer for my arrrrrrrrt", while promoting a definition of art as being something that, basically, nobody likes enough to spend money on.

Frankly, I think any artists -- including musicians -- worth their beans would not only want to be able to support themselves by the use of their abilities, but would sincerely strive to do so. That's one thing that Sammy Kaye and Duke Ellington had in common, at least -- a sincere appreciation for the fruits of their own labor.

:amen::eusa_clap

It’s not romance. Much of the time if an artist wants to produce art that is true to them, it can be un-commercial and unpopular. That’s one of the reasons that there were so many drug-addict musicians. They had to really practice their art for countless hours and often had very few appreciate it. That can be devastating to an artist. Drugs are an easy way to dull the pain for a while.“Suffering for your art” has become a cliché, but it stems from truth.

I have never been critical of a musician that has played music just to make a buck. They are people and they need to eat. But I don’t have to listen to their music if it's no good. I also realize that the two don't have to necessarily be exclusive of each other.

There are obvious exceptions to this of course. Some musicians/composers maintained a high musical standard even after “hitting the big time”, but that is more often the exception than the rule. It's a lot easier to just finish something off when you have a swimming pool waiting for you.

I have a friend that jokes about the worse music is, the more it makes, and vice versa. lol

 

[martinsantos]

You are absolutely right here! Any true musician can say "I got the most of myself, I'm happy to stay here". If so happens, the art of improvisation would be lost. The musician writes his parts and play them all life long.

Of course a lot of orchestras and players in swing era were bad. Once I readed that were around 900 orchestras in USA by the end of 30s; don't think all them would be Ellingtons. (and if they were, the true Ellington would be just be one more between the other 899).

Anyway, I get the idea of liking a period were everything was “just right” (to an individual). (...) Music hadn’t evolved to the point where I thought it was “just right”. Of course once you reach that point (at whatever point it is to you), music then devolves lol.

The point to me is: jazz was popular music and made a huge sucess. In no other time you got as popular music something so refinated and complex. A guy today scream listening Lady Gaga; at those days would scream to Jack Jenney playing Stardust. And personally I think it's a lot more difficult to understand an instrument player than a singer.

The swing years demonstrated that is possible to have, in popular music, good muscial taste, to produce great art and not to be just a part of a cultural industry - and earn good money. Because it was, anyway, popular music. And everybody there, to stay playing and making art, needed to pay the bills.

Ever today, a musician who wants to go against the public must find $$$. Most common in classical music. Remember John Cage, Alba Berg, Stockhausen, etc.

All of us know a lot of painters, writers, musicians, who had so much trouble in life because their art. A lot of sad stories, and any true artist will defend his work against anything. This is the wonder about swing era. They (Dorsey, Thornhill, Miller, Goodman, Shaw, Clinton, Lunceford, Armstrong and so on) produced fine music - and the public accepted and liked!!!

It’s not romance. Much of the time if an artist wants to produce art that is true to them, it can be un-commercial and unpopular. That’s one of the reasons that there were so many drug-addict musicians. They had to really practice their art for countless hours and often had very few appreciate it. “Suffering for your art” has become a cliché, but it stems from truth.

I have never been critical of a musician that has played music just to make a buck. They are people and they need to eat. But I don’t have to listen to their music if it's no good. I also realize that the two don't have to necessarily be exclusive of each other.

There are obvious exceptions to this of course. Some musicians/composers maintained a high musical standard even after “hitting the big time”, but that is more often the exception than the rule. It's a lot easier to just finish something off when you have a swimming pool waiting for you.

I have a friend that jokes about the worse music is, the more it makes, and vice versa. lol

 

[RadioWave]

Drugs are an easy way to dull the pain for a while.“Suffering for your art” has become a cliché, but it stems from truth. I have never been critical of a musician that has played music just to make a buck. They are people and they need to eat. But I don’t have to listen to their music if it's no good.

True as far the drugs are concerned, but then again, it also seems that art has been an introduction to drug use (Parker, Davis, Charles, Gordon, Coltrane, Calloway, etc, etc, etc...) I could be wrong, and I really wish I could find a source to back this up with, but I recall hearing that it wasn't uncommon for Hollywood to introduce and control certain actors with drug addiction. Does anyone know of this?

The swing years demonstrated that is possible to have, in popular music, good muscial taste, to produce great art and not to be just a part of a cultural industry - and earn good money. Because it was, anyway, popular music. And everybody there, to stay playing and making art, needed to pay the bills. Ever today, a musician who wants to go against the public must find $$$. Most common in classical music. Remember John Cage, Alba Berg, Stockhausen, etc.

Also true about the commercialized popular music trend. This is why the last decade has seen the rise of the "Indie" (independent) music, due to the fact that record companies don't want to take the risk of producing music that breaks the formula of popularity. (...There's also the whole "sellout" vibe...different story...)

Also, with statistics like this http://artandavarice.com/2010/03/27/music-industry-profit-pie-chart/ you can't blame artists for wanting to work outside of a major label.