posted
The way I see it, If I like a certain pop band who doesn;t write their music, well, I like the song. And I can respect the talent of those who did write it and the talent of the artist for pulling it off.
The people who wrote that song obviously know how to write songs because they can write what people like.
When i like an artist, i'm really liking the whole team that helps that artist be who they are.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We each owned around a hundred albums or so, most of which made us happy when we listened to them. This being the case, our goal has been accomplished. So why should we ever buy or listen to another CD again for the rest of our lives?
Because the more you listen to an album, the less happiness it brings you each time. Part of the happiness was rooted in the qualities of the music, and part of it in the newness of it. The quality stays, but the newness wears thin, and you need something new to move you that way again, to give you back the sense of discovery you had when you first heard the music you now own.
Totally agree with you on the Cardigans. But my real favorite Swedish band (oh - there are just so many! ) is Garmarna. They do techno-rockish stuff, but the lyrics are medieval poetry. They have one album that's the poetry of Hildegard von Bingen (my favorite medieval female art patron/poet/visionary nun) all rocked out. I highly recommend them. I had a student in the class I TA'ed last semester who had spent a year in Sweden but never heard of them - I let her listen to my Vengeance album, and she is now a true convert.
You can also get compilation albums that feature all kinds of contemporary Scandinavian groups. It's good for restoring your faith that the Northlands are not just American pop producing machines, though heaven knows they can crank out the bubblegum.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the more you listen to an album, the less happiness it brings you each time. Part of the happiness was rooted in the qualities of the music, and part of it in the newness of it. The quality stays, but the newness wears thin, and you need something new to move you that way again, to give you back the sense of discovery you had when you first heard the music you now own.
^ Icarus's Theory of Diminishing Musical Returns™
And here, Icarus has explained why the divorce rate is so high... Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I've always said that music, like all art, is communication. The object isn't to make you feel happy, but to make you feel what the artist wants to make you feel.
That having been said, when we're talking about HATING music, what we have is obviously more than a failure to communicate.
Let's look at a personal "everybody thinks these guys are great but I don't" pet peeve of mine, Coldplay. Their first single was a whiny, meandering bit of tripe called "Yellow". The capper for me was the way the guy sang the word yellow. The line was "and it was all yellow", but he's got this incredibly fake-sounding British accent, so the line comes out like "'n' it wz awwwl yellahowugh". As bland and lame as I found the song to be, that one line made me want to scream and cry and break things.
Why? Why do I hate that song so much? Well, first, it fails to resonate with me emotionally. But not only do I not feel whatever they intended me to feel, I completely reject the song. Somewhere on some fundamental level, the song misses so badly with me that I can't even listen to it. Maybe I don't want to feel what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I don't like what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I CAN'T feel what the song is trying to make me feel.
posted
or maybe you need to listen to more than one song from a band to be able to judge the band as a whole...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I've always said that music, like all art, is communication. The object isn't to make you feel happy, but to make you feel what the artist wants to make you feel.
As I said before, I'd call that propoganda, not art. Art is communication, but if an individual work's point is to make you feel the way the artist wants you to feel, that is not communication, that's an attempt at control.
quote:...but he's got this incredibly fake-sounding British accent...
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but he is British, isn't he?
quote:Maybe I don't want to feel what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I don't like what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I CAN'T feel what the song is trying to make me feel.
Maybe you think it's trying to make you feel something when it's really just "painting a musical picture." I'm not saying that music can't or won't influence the way people feel. But as communication, only half of the work was completed by the artist. The other half depends on you the listener to interpret, imagine, etc.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Most of it is just plan chemical. For example, I hear Dir en grey and something inside of me just lights up. Other people hear them and they look puzzled. Pop music is also sometimes distasteful to me because they are thinking in terms of what an ideal audience would like instead of just playing for themselves. At least in most cases. That is such a turn off.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider: I've heard the other singles, and while they don't drive me crazy with how bad they are (like Yellow), I haven't heard anything from them that would indicate they're capable of producing music I actually like.
Godric: Without delving too deeply into semantics, IMHO, "painting a picture" is exactly the same thing as playing a song or publishing a novel. In all cases, you're presenting art to an audience--and in both cases, the audience can like it or not, empathize with it or not, take it or leave it. But the good stuff moves you, and artists who know what they're doing move you in specific directions. Just like a writer of fiction, a musician anticipates the audience's reaction.
As an example: Joe Satriani's "Summer Song" captures summer very, very well. When I hear that song, it's the middle of July and I'm doing 90 down the highway with the top down, even if it's December and I don't own a convertible. I'm feeling what the artist is hoping I feel when I hear the song, and presumably what the artist himself was feeling when he wrote the song. That's good songwriting, and good music, not propaganda.
quote:Without delving too deeply into semantics, IMHO, "painting a picture" is exactly the same thing as playing a song or publishing a novel. In all cases, you're presenting art to an audience--and in both cases, the audience can like it or not, empathize with it or not, take it or leave it. But the good stuff moves you, and artists who know what they're doing move you in specific directions. Just like a writer of fiction, a musician anticipates the audience's reaction.
Once again, I have to quibble with what you're defining as art. If the "artist" knows what he's doing and moves you to go on a killing spree, is that "good?"
Although the late Mr. McLuhan is famous for having proposed that "the message is the medium," I believe he was wrong, or at least not completely accurate. While the medium by which we communicate (in this case we are speaking of art and music, specifically) may indeed have some affect on how we perceive the message, it is not in and of itself the message. What does this have to do with our subject, you ask? Let me give an example. If a composer writes a sonata that he intends to make his listeners sad, he will employ his medium (minor keys) as his message (sadness). But this is not the whole story for the art critic, whose job, as I see it is to not only define art from entertainment or propoganda, but to interact with the art -- communicate, if you prefer. As a listener you should become a critic. Unless, of course you are only participating so as to be entertained, in which case you are free not to think and enjoy the experience (I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except that entertainment should not be anyone's sole purpose in his/her exposure to art. If one chooses only to be entertained, one becomes much more likely to mistake propoganda for entertainment and thus be affected by it.).
As a critic then, and as someone who is actively communicating with art, the message seperates itself from the medium and grows into something more than mere entertainment and more than mere propoganda, but art in it's truest sense. Now before you suppose that I'm jumping all the guns and delving into the theoretical, I point to your own example of Santana's "Summer Song."
You are interacting with the music when "it's the middle of July and I'm doing 90 down the highway with the top down, even if it's December and I don't own a convertible." The question is, how are you interacting? Are you being "controlled" or are you developing those feelings and images with the song?
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godric: If an artist was in a blind rage, and that rage inspired the artist to write a song/paint a picture/dance a dance/write a story, and upon taking in that piece I became so enraged that I went on a killing spree, then certianly the artist was effective in getting their message across. Imposing moral judgments on the reaction of the audience has nothing to do with whether or not the piece was well done. In fact, it would take some amazingly well-crafted and inspired art to move someone to immediate physical action.
As regards to my example--well, first of all, it's Joe Satriani, not Carlos Santana. Secondly, being a "critic" of at has nothing to do with "interacting" with it. The very definition of the word "interact" require that you have the ability to change the art--you, as the audience, do not have that ability. All you can do is take it in and process it. Now, the first time I heard Summer Song, I felt the way I still feel when I hear that song--I didn't know it was called Summer Song, but it sure felt summery. Heck, go download it and hear for yourself; get the cut from his "Live in San Francisco" disc if you can.
Basically, what I'm saying is that art that makes you feel the way the artist intended is good art, and propganda is art that tries to change how you THINK about something. Those are two totally different things, dude.
quote:. Imposing moral judgments on the reaction of the audience has nothing to do with whether or not the piece was well done.
I didn't say it did. My question was an introduction to my argument. You seemed to be saying that if an artist can make you feel what he is feeling when he creates his piece that constitutes "good" art. A piece of propoganda or entertainment can be well done and not be goood art. Nobody can say that the Backstreet Boys albums aren't well produced. But would you call them good art?
quote:As regards to my example--well, first of all, it's Joe Satriani, not Carlos Santana.
Oops!
I must admit that I am not very familiar with either Carlos Santana or Joe Satriani.
quote:Secondly, being a "critic" of at has nothing to do with "interacting" with it. The very definition of the word "interact" require that you have the ability to change the art--you, as the audience, do not have that ability. All you can do is take it in and process it.
I disagree. Many musicians and other artists have gained insights from listeners and critics. Others will not discuss their inspirations or the "meaning" of their art because they want the audience to decide for themselves. That's an invitation to interact with the art. The artist provides us with a subject or subjects, but we must respond.
quote:Basically, what I'm saying is that art that makes you feel the way the artist intended is good art, and propganda is art that tries to change how you THINK about something. Those are two totally different things, dude.
Propoganda is not limited to realm of thought. In fact, I would venture to guess that it works better by discouraging thought and encouraging reactions. Once again, if an artist's sole purpose is to make you feel a certain way, I do not classify his work as art, but as propoganda. Not all propoganda is bad (in a moral or physical sense) and not all art is without propoganda, but I don't think what you're saying here are two different things.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have been following your discussion, and it is very interesting. If you look back to the post I made with the Jerry Garcia quote, where he mentions the thin line between entertainment and art, I think he makes a lot of sense.
I wonder if we took a look at our favorite musicians, successful-in-the-mainstream ones, if we could follow a history of their work and see how it changed over time. How much did they change since they started playing? Did their music start to change because of pressure from thr recording industry? Did they keep doing their thing anyway?
One example, for me, would be Billy Joel. For a while there, he did not play the piano. He is a master! His lyrics and music were, to me, beautiful. Then, there was a period where he married Christy Brinkley, was in the public eye, and his music changed. It was not necessarily worse, it just changed, and I no longer cared for it. Other people loved it.
I just really wonder what it is that makes musicians change. One thing might just be simple: their life. Maybe they were poor, and had seen some tough things, had lived through pain. Then, they became rich, and they were happy. Their music seemed fluffier, but it was just that they were no longer deep and dark.
posted
Sorry to bring this topic back up from the dead, but I wanted to respond to Godric:
quote:You seemed to be saying that if an artist can make you feel what he is feeling when he creates his piece that constitutes "good" art. A piece of propoganda or entertainment can be well done and not be goood art. Nobody can say that the Backstreet Boys albums aren't well produced. But would you call them good art?
No, because the Backstreet Boys don't HAVE a message, or a purpose, or any reason to make music other than money. That's why, when you listen to their music, it's all sort of bland, pleasant, noncommittal music that's sort of generically about relationships (but nothing too specific or personal). They don't succeed at moving people (other than 13-year-old girls). Good art stirs something inside you, inspires you. If an artist is good at what they do, they can capture a feeling or emotion and convey it to the audience. Of course everyone has their own feelings, reactions, and associations--but ultimately an artist is trying to express themselves, to share some emotion or feeling with an audience.
quote:I must admit that I am not very familiar with either Carlos Santana or Joe Satriani.
I won't hold that against you for the purpose of this discussion, but you should check Satriani out. You should check out "the Extremist", or "Crystal Planet".
quote:I disagree. Many musicians and other artists have gained insights from listeners and critics.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether their first album was any good or not. Just putting in a CD and listening to it, or attending an art exhibition, involves no "interaction". You can't judge the quality of art, or the ability of an artist, based on how the later art is produced (based on popular and critical response). A finished piece of art should be judged alone, by itself, on its merits.
quote:Propoganda is not limited to realm of thought.
Yes, it is. Propaganda is political art, meant to change or reinforce the political thoughts of the audience. If everyone who hears a certain song starts tapping their toes, because it's just that catchy--that's not "pro-toe-tapping propaganda", that's just good music.
quote:Once again, if an artist's sole purpose is to make you feel a certain way, I do not classify his work as art, but as propoganda.
Well, you can go ahead and classify whatever you want as whatever you want, but propaganda is a word that already has a definition. Art that effectively captures, conveys, or evokes an emotion, feeling, time or place is not propaganda--it's good art.
quote:Sorry to bring this topic back up from the dead, but I wanted to respond to Godric:
I'm glad you did! I've been enjoying this discussion quite a bit, although it is blantantly obvious you're arguing off key.
quote:No, because the Backstreet Boys don't HAVE a message, or a purpose, or any reason to make music other than money. That's why, when you listen to their music, it's all sort of bland, pleasant, noncommittal music that's sort of generically about relationships (but nothing too specific or personal). They don't succeed at moving people (other than 13-year-old girls).
::nods::
quote:Good art stirs something inside you, inspires you.
Yes! Good art is more than the sum of its parts (the artist and the audience). Hopefully you're not only inspired in an emotional sense -- hopefully you're inspired in a way that is true, or that reveals truth or beauty, etc.
quote:If an artist is good at what they do, they can capture a feeling or emotion and convey it to the audience. Of course everyone has their own feelings, reactions, and associations--but ultimately an artist is trying to express themselves, to share some emotion or feeling with an audience.
This is where, I think, our differences lie. If what you describe is the sole purpose of a piece, it is propagandistic (as a side note, I've been idiotically mispelling propaganda all this time... ). I'll discuss this more later.
quote:I won't hold that against you for the purpose of this discussion, but you should check Satriani out. You should check out "the Extremist", or "Crystal Planet".
I will. One of the things I like best about meeting and talking to new people is discovering new and exciting music, books, movies, etc. Thanks!
quote:Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether their first album was any good or not. Just putting in a CD and listening to it, or attending an art exhibition, involves no "interaction". You can't judge the quality of art, or the ability of an artist, based on how the later art is produced (based on popular and critical response). A finished piece of art should be judged alone, by itself, on its merits.
I'm not sure that I follow your train of thought. I wasn't comparing an artist's early works to his latter works. I completely agree that a finished work should be judged on its own merits. What I'm trying to say is that the audience and their response is a part of any piece of art. I think we, as a culture, and as consumers, have become lazy regarding how we engage art. We seem to think that all the responsibility lies on the artist alone and we swallow their often incomplete ideas whole.
quote:Yes, it is. Propaganda is political art, meant to change or reinforce the political thoughts of the audience. If everyone who hears a certain song starts tapping their toes, because it's just that catchy--that's not "pro-toe-tapping propaganda", that's just good music.
To quote the wonderful Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
From Merriam-Webster OnLine:
quote:Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO- Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 Date: 1718 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Obviously, definition number one does not apply. However, please point out to me where in definitions two and three it says that propganda is limited to trying to change the way people think.
As I said before, it works better, most certainly politically, by discouraging thought and encouraging reactions. Why are smear campaigns so popular? A TV add smearing the incumbent is in a broad definition, visual art. I would classify it as propaganda. But it works by evoking an emotional response, not a thoughtful one.
And again, I'm not saying emotion is bad. I'm saying that good art culminates with good emotional and thoughtful interaction.
quote:Well, you can go ahead and classify whatever you want as whatever you want, but propaganda is a word that already has a definition.
As referenced above...
quote:Art that effectively captures, conveys, or evokes an emotion, feeling, time or place is not propaganda--it's good art.
I think that your definition of good art is too broad and lacks the element of personal responsibility. When I say that, I don't mean to imply that you have to write a thesis or create a movement based on every piece of art you come into contact with. I mean that as an audience of a piece of art your engagement of it is the last piece of it's completed puzzle. If you listen to a piece of music that effectively captures joy and you become joyful and then a piece of music that is depressing and you become depressed, you are only reacting to stimuli and might well be a "victim" of propoganda.
posted
Reviving this post to tell Alucard (wherever he is) that I LOVE Static-X and thank the Lord that I found someone else on this forum that does. I've started two threads at least talking about them and all I've gotten are a couple of shrugs and shaking heads. PEOPLE! They ROCK!
*raises fist of metal*
We're going to the concert tomorrow! YES!
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) is ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
