risingson Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1333551938' post='1603439'] I would argue that's only the case only if someone makes money out of it. Until then, it's just the vibration of air molecules as perceived by the eardrum. [/quote] Yeh of course! And when I'm sat in my room or out on the beach in the summer playing guitar etc. I do it for me because I enjoy music first and foremost. But I've got to make a living from it too, and so do a lot of people, including those who don't play instruments at all. I would be lying if I said that I wasn't financially motivated by music on some level. But music is most enjoyable when there's no pressure from anyone else, and where there's money there's pressure. That's one of the reasons why playing music for yourself is great. [quote name='chaypup' timestamp='1333552397' post='1603453'] Do you not think it's a bit hypocritical to sing "It's not about the money, money, money" etc and then do ads for Mastercard? Fair enough, do adverts/corporate work/suck on Satan's c*ck (as Bill Hicks put it) but don't tell me it's not about the price tag! Edit:I actually love her singing, esp the big band stuff I've seen. [/quote] I think the sentiment of the tune is one of the things that makes the song salable. Most people who know anything about music will know that it is hugely ironic to have success with a song and lyrics that pertain to the rejection of generating money from music, and then having it played on the hour every hour on Radio One for the next 5 years. It's hard not to be a hypocrite when you make music that then gets sold on a national and international scale. Edited April 4, 2012 by risingson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The question of artistic integrity arises every time you have to choose between doing what will, in your view, result in the best outcome musically, and doing what will be most popular or lucrative. If you never experience this conflict, you are probably Simon Cowell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1333548642' post='1603353'] We're getting into the Art vs Commerce debate, aren't we. Its a continuum not a case of absolutes. Few would consider music written for an advert to be Art but Art used as backing music for an advert still has integrity. The problem with people like Jesse J (I know only one song by her) is that, as 'artiists' they don't need to be told what to do by the industry because industry has already screened out the folk who would not 'do the right thing'. So, whatever she does, they will be happy because it ain't gonna be free jazz, is it? I would love it if she came out and did a prog rock cd for its own sake because, as an 'artist', that is where here muse took her Why do I think that to be unlikely PS none of this matters a jot. [/quote] I consider good/great graphic design to be art, and I see no real difference between that and good/great music written for an advertisement and good/great music written to please the writer. After all, Air on a G String is a wonderful piece of music, and that was written for a Hamlet cigar advert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1333553084' post='1603463'] The question of artistic integrity arises every time you have to choose between doing what will, in your view, result in the best outcome musically, and doing what will be most popular or lucrative. If you never experience this conflict, you are probably Simon Cowell. [/quote] Oh god. I think mentioning Simon Cowell in a thread is now of the same rank as mentioning Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1333553185' post='1603467'] Oh god. I think mentioning Simon Cowell in a thread is now of the same rank as mentioning Hitler. [/quote] Ever seen them both in the same room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1333553185' post='1603467'] Oh god. I think mentioning Simon Cowell in a thread is now of the same rank as mentioning Hitler. [/quote] Too right, from hereon in it should be known as 'Dale's Law'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1333553336' post='1603474'] Too right, from hereon in it should be known as 'Dale's Law'. [/quote] Is that like Cole's Law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote name='discreet' timestamp='1333553336' post='1603474'] Too right, from hereon in it should be known as 'Dale's Law'. [/quote] I thought that was a spinoff series from "Heartbeat". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The fact that people get paid is not the problem here. There are a range of drivers like creativity, self expression, talent, applied study, motivation, money, the need for affirmation, the desire to be noticed, to get girls, so you can get pissed and stoned at work etc. Each of these and 1,000 more will have some bearing on the end product. Some of these motivating factors reflect socially accepted traits and others are potentially more destructive. The question is always what percentage of the motivation of the indivdual is simply financial and what is more about self expression etc. Joni Mitchell, for instance, would never be heard if she didn't record and sell her stuff and clearly has an investment in selling her stuff but her prime driver is probably not commercial. Miles Davis was an enigma. He wanted to keep moving forward but he also wanted to be admired and his latter stuff was about trying to attract the audiences he had seen attending rock concerts. His later stuff is much more commercially driven that his early stuff and a lot of people recognise that in the music and are critical as a consequence. The only way to judge whether something is Artistically successful is to define what that means and, by concensus, 'it sold a lot' or 'its great to dance to' doesn't cut it. The rhetoric of 'the artist' is used in commercial circles all of the time (I always laugh when some 19 year old girl band talk about 'wanting to express themselves as artist' as they wiggle their way through this week's bubble gum) as a means of enobling their craft. If an individual doesn't buy into that idea, then the discussion is ended. Music can be a commodity first and foremost but it isn't all that it is and it isn't the main purpose of most of the music I listen to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1333553386' post='1603475'] Is that like Cole's Law? [/quote] I was thinking more of Godwin's Law. And I don't like Coleslaw, anyway. Edited April 4, 2012 by discreet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurksalot Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I watched with interest one of the fundraising shows , Children in need or such , when Jesse J sang Price tag ....... 'we don't want your money ,money ,money ....' I thought that an interesting concept in trying to get peoples money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.