Page 1 of 2
#1
What separates a musician who composes music for the pure love of music; the emotional connection, the art of composition, etc.. Compared to the musician who composes music for the aesthetic factor; the attention, the praise it could bring them.
I'm stuck on learning certain music theory like pop song structure because I feel like then I'm only trying to compose for praise, for the fame.
Last edited by james.ranken at Jan 22, 2016,
#2
People who compose music for the attention of others aren't any less of a musician than the people who compose only for their own satisfaction. People who do it for praise aren't "fake" musicians. If you make music you're a musician. Your intentions for the purpose of the music is irrelevant.
Also, you shouldn't be making music because you want other people to view you in a high regard. This is the reason why you can't make anything new/good up. You're not doing it out of passion. People who excel at things are passionate about what they do. They can't view life without it. You're doing it to impress others. I say stop being a poser and find a new hobby (preferably something you love doing so you can excel at it). I always thought that doing something so others can think you're cool is a waste of time anyway.
#3
Quite a few parts in agreement. Fun and passion are the two biggest reasons for doing music, the third being to alleviate stress or anxiety or negative/toxic emotions. A composer is a musician, yes. Unfortunately, too many musicians nowadays have this sort of vanity going with them (that is very easy to have when confidence turns to arrogance or cockiness) and they think they're the best thing to ever happen to music. Only when truly taken down a lot of pegs is there finally closure in one's abilities. Hell, I'm still learning music even after almost a decade of playing it (which is a little less than half my life so far). Just do you and have fun with it all, and it should go well. ...impressing others isn't necessarily so bad, if it's for good intentions. Then it just becomes a natural sort of habit, but to each their own. One can love what they are doing and excel at it and still be counted as a poser. True on the viewing-life-without-passion claim, as well.
#4
fake musicians play guitar
modes are a social construct
#6
A musician is someone who plays an instrument. It is often specified to be to a high level, or to a professional level, but it may also be a kid who is somewhat dedicated to learning to play recorder. There is no deeper semantic level to this. It is only defined by whether or not they play an instrument, and then there's some wiggle room for what level of skill/dedication "counts".

I don't understand what you mean by "atheistic factor" - as in they don't follow a deity? They can only enjoy and love music if it is in reverence of a god? Commercialism is atheist? I are confuse.

As for the "love of music" thing... some people enjoy making work for others to such a degree that they would appear a Utility Monster to the artfags. I don't think you can impress your values of art upon them in any meaningful way - it's not as though though that would diminish the enjoyment they get from making other people happy through their generic sounds.

A better question might be "self-expression vs commercial pandering", to which I would say that I hold a vastly higher value to the former, but that's only external, and has nothing to do with how much the composer enjoyed composing.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Jan 22, 2016,
#7
Quote by Banjocal
I don't understand what you mean by "atheistic factor" - as in they don't follow a deity? They can only enjoy and love music if it is in reverence of a god? Commercialism is atheist? I are confuse.


I don't get that part either. I've never heard the word "atheistic" used in such context.

And I think calling someone a fake musician because they love pop is a bit thick. I don't understand how studying pop makes you fake. I mean, it's music theory? Pop uses the same musical ideas classical music has used for centuries. They use the same musical ideas you can find from jazz. Of course, there is a difference in complexity and maybe originality, but the basic idea is the same, it's still tonal music, it uses functional harmony, follows a song structure, uses the same rhythm and timing based ideas... and by the way, writing a catchy pop melody is not easy. The only reason you should feel like you're writing for praise is if you are. Why couldn't you write pop for the fun and the art? What if you like pop? It's incredibly dense to say that if you like pop, you're a fake musician
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#8
They are musicians no matter what they wish to achieve with their music.

Emphasis mine:
Quote by Kevätuhri at #33790361
Of course, there is a difference in complexity and maybe originality, but the basic idea is the same, it's still tonal music, it uses functional harmony, follows a song structure, uses the same rhythm and timing based ideas...
Not necessarily; two things prominent in today's popular music are melody and rhythm, but that doesn't mean that the details hold any less complexity.

Quote by CherokeShredder at #33790285
Nah, fake musicians try to think just vocals will work for songs :P Kidding...maybe
You'd better be kidding, otherwise you're rejecting over a millenium's worth of music.
Glad to cross paths with you on this adventure called life
Quote by Jet Penguin
lots of flirting with the other key without confirming. JUST LIKE THEIR LOVE IN THE MOVIE OH DAMN.
Quote by Hail
you're acting like you have perfect pitch or something
#10
I never put much thought into it.

Although, I think being called an "Artist" is the highest praise you could give me.

A musician is someone who simply makes music, an artist is a lifestyle. Music is an art, the way you dress is an art, the way you interact & carry yourself is an art.

I want to be an artist first & a musician second.
Some see the glass half full, others see the glass half empty. Me? I see that the glass is refillable.
#11
Quote by james.ranken
What separates a musician who composes music for the pure love of music; the emotional connection, the art of composition, etc.. Compared to the musician who composes music for the atheistic factor; the attention, the praise it could bring them.
"atheistic"?? Did you really mean that word?
What's music got to do with belief (or not) in God?
Quote by james.ranken

I'm stuck on learning certain music theory like pop song structure because I feel like then I'm only trying to compose for praise, for the fame.
Well, that's up to you.

If you play music, then you are a musician. You might be good or bad, you might be pro or amateur, or anything in between.

If you compose music, then you are a composer. Likewise, you might be good or bad, you might be pro or amateur, or anything in between.

You can be a great musician without composing a single note. You can even be a great composer without being much of a musician. (Irving Berlin could only play the piano in the key of F#.)

As for why you do it, obviously if you're professional you're doing it to make a living. It's your job.
That doesn't mean you don't have an "emotional connection" (or even a spiritual one) with it. In fact, you probably need a deep love for music to get good enough to turn pro in the first place. Only a real love for music will persuade you to put in all the practice and learning you need.

There are doubtless some in the music industry who produce simple, formulaic music for commercial reasons who may have a somewhat cynical attitude to their product. We can all think of figures we might accuse of that. But still - whether you like their output or not - they are still consummate craftspeople. Highly skilled at what they do, even if those skills are more about beat formulas and studio technology than melody and harmony. It's still "music", and if it's successful then - by definition - it's "good music", because it appeals to large numbers of people (who are not all stupid ).

If you're not making a living from music, then you do it solely because you enjoy it. If you're composing only "for praise, for the fame" - but you're not currently getting any of either - then why bother?
Of course, you need to work your way up - but if you're not enjoying what you're doing (if you don't feel an emotional need for music in itself) then it's a long hard slog with no promise of anything at the end. Only very tiny minority of songwriters will ever make a living from it - and you can bet they're all pretty passionate about their craft.

However, for many who begin with a love for music, they may find that professional life (at least in the commercial pop or session business) colours that love, threatens to undermine it. They may find they need to do things (play things or write things) they don't enjoy in order to make a living. The way to survive then is to learn to enjoy everything - to see the value in playing (or even writing) music you'd never choose to listen to yourself. If your public enjoys it, then you need to understand that, and not dismiss them as idiots with poor taste.
Or just enjoy being a cynic of course!
#12
Quote by Hail
fake musicians play guitar
That's me all right. I've been faking it for 50 years now. I think I'm getting away with it....

People clap, and even pay me money sometimes, and they can't all be doing it just out of politeness. At least that's what I tell myself. (I haven't checked to see if they'd actually pay me more to stop playing...)
#13
Would a trumpet player in the Boston symphony be considered a "fake musician" because he does not write the music? If someone is a highly skilled player is he or she a "fake musician" because they only follow someone else's written music and gets the dynamics and timing from a conductor? I don't think we can qualify who is and who isn't a "fake" musician or a "real" musician.

I agree with the jongtr. I also have been getting paid to do this since I was 16 years old and that was 40 years ago. 99.9% of the time it was cover music. I must be a "fake" musician will continue to be one.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Jan 22, 2016,
#14
Quote by Rickholly74
I agree with the jongtr. I also have been getting paid to do this since I was 16 years old and that was 40 years ago. 99.9% of the time it was cover music. I must be a "fake" musician will continue to be one.


And it's not like it's about money either. My father is about the same age as you, and has been playing guitar ever since he was like 16 also. He doesn't have a band, he doesn't do gigs, he doesn't play with other people. He barely knows any theory, I surpassed his theoretical knowledge after like 6 months of playing. But when he picks up the guitar, he can improvise great rock riffs, beautiful blues solos and emotional chord progressions without even thinking. Do I think that he's a bad musician because he doesn't work as a musician (he's a graphic designer at a newspaper), or because he doesn't have education? Not really. He can still totally outplay me lol.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#15
You can write pop music because you love it. Who cares what some people think about you? If you become famous, you will also be hated. The more popular you are, the more hated you are. That's how it goes.

Whether you compose for money or just because you like it is all up to you. Nobody else can tell you why you wrote a song - that's what only you can decide. And that's regardless of the genre. Classical composers like Haydn didn't write "art music" (even though today we listen to it as "art music") and they didn't have the time to wait for inspiration and only write music that was "true" to them. Composing was his job and he composed for people that needed music. That's how he made a living. Actually the whole "art music" thing had more to do with the romantic period. Before that (instrumental) music was more abstract - it was mostly just music without any extramusical "meaning" to it. But during the romantic period people started appreciating music that tells a story - it's not only music, it describes something concrete. That's when it became more important that a piece had a "meaning" to it (other than just "being music").


I don't think anybody composes just for the money. Being a composer is really not that profitable a business (at least today). Anything that has to do with music is not that profitable. If you just want to make money, don't make music. So nobody writes songs just for the money. To become a pro, you need to have some kind of a passion for music.


Also, great points, jongtr.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#16
Fake musician:


There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#18
If you look down on people more famous than you, more skilled than you, more popular than you who are making more money than you because they 'sold out maaaan', then you are a 'fake musician.' We all picked up an instrument because we wanted our music to be heard, because we have dreams, because we love performing to an audience, and if you're playing sloppy Pantera covers in your bedroom while moaning about how Justin Bieber 'got lucky', then you've failed, to be blunt. Write music for whatever reason you want, write music because it sells, write it because you like doing it, be as business minded or art orientated as you want to be.
#19
Big +1 CelestailGuitar. I started playing guitar because unlike the boring piano and trumpet I had been playing since I was very young, I wanted to join a band, play rock and perform to an audience. Any audience.

The idea that the "industry" is holding anyone back from achieving success is BS. Today there are 1000 more avenues to success in music then when I started playing 40 years ago. I don't look down on anyone who achieves a high level of success because I know that their success was based on hard work and getting off their asses and playing anything, anywhere, at anytime and not sitting home trying play scales faster than (insert major influence here) or trying to be a legend in their own bedroom.

Amen.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Jan 22, 2016,
#20
Guys, I think "atheistic" was just a typo for "aesthetic"...

Wait, it wasn't even a typo, that's exactly what he wrote...godammit, learn to read you people!!!

[EDIT] Ok I'll let you off, he's edited it
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com
#21
Quote by steven seagull
[EDIT] Ok I'll let you off, he's edited it


Yeah I'm 100% it was atheistic at first. Not that it matters though, makes little sense to me either way
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#22
Quote by CelestialGuitar
If you look down on people more famous than you, more skilled than you, more popular than you who are making more money than you because they 'sold out maaaan', then you are a 'fake musician.'

We all picked up an instrument because we wanted our music to be heard
Longboringpostafterthecut
That first bit is basically a no-true-scotsman.

the second part... nah. Not at all. I don't make my photographs or my pieces of music for other people, I make them to explore my own existence/experience, and I then share them with others with the possibility of them perhaps affecting the viewer, regardless of whether they hate it, or identify with the work in some way. Don't reduce the reasons people make work to such simple terms; it's more complex than that and I am hardly an exceptional case in this regard.

And even just picking up an instrument - are people that shallow? Is the first thing you think when you start a new hobby "man, people will think I'm cool!"? Not self-betterment or a deeper understanding of yourself? Not knowledge or better physical skills/dexterity? Not your own enjoyment purely for itself, but to improve your social status?

Also, it's a little insincere to reduce the "you are a fake etc etc" thing in the way you have; if an artist starts out by baring their heart to the world, discussing the most significant, honest fragments of their lives and struggles through a highly experimental style, experimenting with their medium and pushing for new artistic forms of expression which identify themselves as an individual as opposed to someone simply lifting another artist's style - then continues to, as they get popular for their idiosyncratic sound, reduce their expression to platitudes, tropes of literature and the tiredest of chord progressions for money, sure they might just need to pay the bills, but it's hardly reasonable to go "WELL YOU'RE A FAKE MUSICIAN" when a listener notices that, hang on, this artist has basically shat into a bucket and called it art for a few bucks.
Selling out very much is a thing and it begins with tearing your personality to pieces in the name of making a few bucks, most of which won't be yours due to shitty labels and high taxes, and for a chance at being famous in a universe that will almost inevitably forget you within 100-300 years.

I don't think that the practical skills of (most) popular/radio artists should be denigrated - they are good writers and excellent businessmen, but they are far more businessmen/women than they are artists. That isn't insignificant.

As for industry holding people back, it's more an issue of cultural stagnation than it is the labels having any real malevolence - people don't want to hear free jazz or prog/doom so the market for that is less lucrative, and so the cycle progresses.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Jan 22, 2016,
#23
I'd rather be a fake musician if it meant stacks of cash and more women than my tongue could handle. F##k credibility.

If it happened the other way that'd be fine too ofc.
#24
Real, fake, it really shouldn't matter as long as one has passion for what they do. Some of the better musicians even in the past were considered posers and fakes by folks who didn't understand it truly is difficult to do creative or new music if one focuses on just that.
#25
Quote by jongtr
That's me all right. I've been faking it for 50 years now. I think I'm getting away with it....


women do it all the time, i'm sure they don't even realize they do it after a while

Quote by Kevätuhri
Yeah I'm 100% it was atheistic at first. Not that it matters though, makes little sense to me either way


pretty sure he was going for "secular" or "unromantic" - purely mathematical.
modes are a social construct
#26
idk considering half of you lot called john cage a fake musician i think i wanna be a big faker
#27
*deep sigh*

Quote by Banjocal
That first bit is basically a no-true-scotsman.


How? I've got incredible respect for any musician that can make money with their music. If your life honestly involves playing in your bedroom while you moan about popstars having more money, I have no problem turning your own jealousy on you when you claim their music is somehow less valid than yours.

the second part... nah. Not at all. I don't make my photographs or my pieces of music for other people, I make them to explore my own existence/experience


You probably don't. If you keep your art to yourself, fine, this is not what the thread is about. Don't put it out in the world and moan about how no one cares when you aren't treating your art like a business.

And even just picking up an instrument - are people that shallow? Is the first thing you think when you start a new hobby "man, people will think I'm cool!"? Not self-betterment or a deeper understanding of yourself? Not knowledge or better physical skills/dexterity? Not your own enjoyment purely for itself, but to improve your social status?


And how is any of that shallow? Many people pick up hobbies for the social aspect. Many people pick up hobbies because they want to do it, and the social side is a secondary thing. This entire topic is about a musician's freedom to do whatever they like without fear of having people shout 'SELLOUT D:' at them.

Also, it's a little insincere to reduce the "you are a fake etc etc" thing in the way you have; if an artist starts out by baring their heart to the world, discussing the most significant, honest fragments of their lives and struggles through a highly experimental style, experimenting with their medium and pushing for new artistic forms of expression which identify themselves as an individual as opposed to someone simply lifting another artist's style - then continues to, as they get popular for their idiosyncratic sound, reduce their expression to platitudes, tropes of literature and the tiredest of chord progressions for money, sure they might just need to pay the bills, but it's hardly reasonable to go "WELL YOU'RE A FAKE MUSICIAN" when a listener notices that, hang on, this artist has basically shat into a bucket and called it art for a few bucks.


No artist has done this.

Selling out very much is a thing and it begins with tearing your personality to pieces in the name of making a few bucks, most of which won't be yours due to shitty labels and high taxes, and for a chance at being famous in a universe that will almost inevitably forget you within 100-300 years.


._____________.
#28
a "fake musician" isn't anything. it's a completely meaningless term that's only useful for stirring ridiculous discussions on internet forums.
#29
^Correct.
Quote by CelestialGuitar
How? I've got incredible respect for any musician that can make money with their music. If your life honestly involves playing in your bedroom while you moan about popstars having more money, I have no problem turning your own jealousy on you when you claim their music is somehow less valid than yours.
Because it follows the fallacy - ressentiment still =/= not being a musician. It might make a person a bitter or crappy one, but it does not disqualify their being a musician. Thus, it is a NTS. Plenty of musicians do that (sadly). Even some relatively successful ones, on rare occasion. Doesn't mean they suddenly do not play an instrument.

Also, validity wouldn't be the question, necessarily - quality and sincerity would be. On top of that, it wouldn't necessarily be ressentiment/jealousy - you're strawmanning the arguments against popular artists into one specific example. It's a rather evocative one at that; you paint a lovely word-picture of this kid in all black with a guitar tuned to drop g, his tone muddy as fuck. He cries over his strings, and whispers a single word. "Bieber!" he cries. "You are the source of my problems!"

While I've no doubt that these metal kiddies who epitomise modern cynicism exist, there are many more legitimate reasons to take issue with some popular acts, and you're very conveniently ignoring them.

You probably don't. If you keep your art to yourself, fine, this is not what the thread is about. Don't put it out in the world and moan about how no one cares when you aren't treating your art like a business.
And yet you used the words "We all picked up an instrument because we wanted our music to be heard". Is specificity of language an issue here? I am hardly an exceptional case in this regard. Diane Arbus, Joanna Newsom, Swans, Mark Rothko - these people do/did make art that in some way involved other people, but their work was very much for their own development and pleasure, too. It's not just about making other people feel good - if you can get your work out there while staying true to your vision, people will come. If folks like Swans (and Rothko) can manage that then it is not a case of "not treating your art with a business side". Hell, the only reason that Rothko changed his output was because his body was starting to give out. Arbus embraced the outsider as she felt herself be. Newsom progressed from cutesy but substantial folk tunes into some sort of avant-garde chamber folk stuff, and then into two hour long mixes between those things, etc - there's certainly room for these people exploring art for their own development.


And how is any of that shallow? Many people pick up hobbies for the social aspect. Many people pick up hobbies because they want to do it, and the social side is a secondary thing. This entire topic is about a musician's freedom to do whatever they like without fear of having people shout 'SELLOUT D:' at them.
And yet your two sentences say
We all picked up an instrument because we wanted our music to be heard, because we have dreams, because we love performing to an audience, and if you're playing sloppy Pantera covers in your bedroom while moaning about how Justin Bieber 'got lucky', then you've failed, to be blunt.
So there's a few things to this

1. Asserts that we /all/ picked up an instrument to be heard, and that we all have dreams of being heard (presumably in some famous capacity), and that we all love performing to an audience
and
2. That someone playing in their bedroom (for themselves and their own pleasure), technical ability notwithstanding, is somehow a failure if they also find the success of a major businessman/artist in the popular music industry to be a shame for culture.

So immediately, you're placing the "goal" of music as being one of getting famous or popular, or in any case making its significance and value an external one, rather than valuing it for what it does for a person internally. Not inherently shallow - I simply disagree with the valuation.

No artist has done this.
No artist has radically changed their output in such a way that the substance and originality of their work has - over a period of releases or overnight - been stripped away for a more generic, substanceless one? The history of art says otherwise. Plenty have, to varying degrees. Most artists are just trying to get by, and I can understand that. I'm talking about the colder, more cynical examples of it happening, but the way bands have this tendency to lose all experimental edge in their work the longer they're in a contract is a pretty damning thing. "Selling out" is a pretty shitty term with loads of semantic baggage, but if you know a better term for doing that, I'm open to suggestions.

Labels try to shape bands into more accessible things, and often shave all their edges off. It's easier to do if you're stuck in a contract. Some people do it to spread their message more (RATM is a good example), but not many bands have the stones that they had, and they kept their noisy, abrasive element. Whining about it is one thing, observing it is another.

._____________.
I do not understand what this means. Do you need to google the term? Do you take an issue with cosmic pessimism, or with my assessment of the entertainment industry and the way capital flows within it? With the assertion that reducing the "You" in your art for the sake of other's ego/pleasure and/or money is a less than desireable thing?
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Jan 22, 2016,
#30
Quote by Hail
women do it all the time, i'm sure they don't even realize they do it after a while
- and they think we can't tell. We let them do it if it makes them happy.
#31
Quote by steven seagull
Guys, I think "atheistic" was just a typo for "aesthetic"...

Wait, it wasn't even a typo, that's exactly what he wrote...godammit, learn to read you people!!!

[EDIT] Ok I'll let you off, he's edited it
Well I thought he might have meant that, but it doesn't make a whole lot more sense in context, because he's equating it with "attention" and "praise" - as if "aesthetic" is somehow opposed to "pure love of music; the emotional connection, the art of composition", when it belongs more on that side:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aesthetic
#32
Milli Vanilli are the only fake musicians I can think of...oh and DJs (just playing - some DJs are legit musicians)

Otherwise anyone for whom making music is a part of their life is a musician.
Si
#33
My honest opinion is that anyone who worries about this kind of stuff is facing the very real prospect of becoming a bit of an elitist hipster douchebag...not something I'd wish on anybody but it's one of the signs.

In short, as Frank Zappa would say, shut up 'n play yer guitar.
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com
#34
Quote by steven seagull
In short, as Frank Zappa would say, shut up 'n play yer guitar.


We already established that if you play guitar you're a fake musician.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#35
What about stuff like Jazz From Hell that was mostly keyboards iirc
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#36
IMO anyone who makes music is a musician, period. Motive is irrelevant.

Someone who, for example, air guitars or lip-syncs to someone elses music is someone I would describe as a fake musician, in that they are pretending to be something they are not.
#37
Frank Zappa is less a musician and more a sel-worshipping, cynical, know-it-all pseudo-intellectual with a superiority complex that just uses very shoddy guitar playing to get people to acknowledge his existence and listen to his asinine musicians. He's basically like if Bob Dylan had nothing of value to say and just wanted to hear himself talk.

Quote by 20Tigers
Milli Vanilli are the only fake musicians I can think of...oh and DJs (just playing - some DJs are legit musicians)

Otherwise anyone for whom making music is a part of their life is a musician.


I don't think you know the difference between a person that is a DJ and a person that isn't actually a DJ.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#38
Quote by theogonia777
Frank Zappa is less a musician and more a sel-worshipping, cynical, know-it-all pseudo-intellectual with a superiority complex that just uses very shoddy guitar playing to get people to acknowledge his existence and listen to his asinine musicians. He's basically like if Bob Dylan had nothing of value to say and just wanted to hear himself talk.
But "Freak Out!" was still a work of genius, IMO.
No opinion on anything that followed....
(Mind you, I was only 17 when I heard it. )
#39
Quote by james.ranken
What separates a musician who composes music for the pure love of music; the emotional connection, the art of composition, etc.. Compared to the musician who composes music for the aesthetic factor; the attention, the praise it could bring them.
I'm stuck on learning certain music theory like pop song structure because I feel like then I'm only trying to compose for praise, for the fame.


I think that most of the time to some degree you can't separate the artist from the art completely but you can control it to some degree.

A lot of our big time art, in this day and age, I think is very much like that. Where the owners of means of production, the big production houses, record labels, investors and what have you are in it to make money and may have personal vested interests as well, and they have a say in what the artist can do, and the artist can't make art without them, so they have to make some concessions for the suits, even though they are really the artists.

But if you ask michaelangelo to paint you something religious on the sistine chapel ceiling, or let him paint whatever he wants for his own enjoyment, you'll get a michaelangelo.

I think it's going to become more and more like that with music, as before, it was more common for fans of something less popular to go out and buy CDs of maybe more political artists, or less approachable stuff, less universally liked stuff, and now, the way they make money is more through mass collecting through advertising on YouTube, or through things like spotify and pandora, than on direct sales. People don't pay for music really anymore, and so they are getting what's free, which is mass appeal stuff.

One example of that is Sarah Bareille's song "love song" is about her not wanting to write a hit love song for her record execs, and Mika's "Grace Kelly" is about how he can be whatever they want, but he wishes his record execs would just like him for what he is.

I think sometimes artists will decide to make a money song, or might decide to make a club tune, or something like that, but I think most of the time artists make a lot of what they like. That's what makes them an artist, if you know what I mean. It's not about following a recipe, but about making something that moves you, and that seems right to you. You might have to make concessions, but overall I think the pop writers write stuff that to some degree really moves them. I mean, maybe max martin might help a pop star write a song that lyrically doesn't really speak to him, but I'm sure he would be able to relate on some level, and would feel the music. I know I can't detach myself like that, make something that is totally not me, and that doesn't speak to me, just following rules. I can't do it. It's by feel, and I can't cheat that. I think even guys that write music that's blatantly stating that all they're doing is writing songs for fame and fortune, are actually being honest, and not compromising their art, it's just that they are those types of people, and that's what's meaningful to them, and that's what moves them.

So, for me, for the most part, the artists are being artists, the pop writers get less credit than they deserve, and it's the owners of their masters, the money for their marketing, and the labels they work for that are sterilizing their content, because that's what sells. And ultimately that's what the majority of people want, and that's all people are paying for.
#40
Quote by theogonia777
Frank Zappa is less a musician and more a sel-worshipping, cynical, know-it-all pseudo-intellectual with a superiority complex that just uses very shoddy guitar playing to get people to acknowledge his existence and listen to his asinine musicians. He's basically like if Bob Dylan had nothing of value to say and just wanted to hear himself talk.

No. If he wanted people to acknowledge him he would've done something else that didn't require lots of effort and got more fame.
Page 1 of 2