Does this mean it sucks?

[cameron]

Thanks BC, yeah, one thing I'm feeling better about is that with Taxi I don't feel I have to write just what the Nashville record companies want. I feel more optimistic that I can write what I want and sooner or later a Taxi listing may come up that suits it.If not, that's fine too.Cam

[mojobone]

Said it better 'n I could, +1, milfus.

[buildingcastles]

Jun 15, 2008, 12:30pm, milfus wrote:ok castles, its not that black and white, art isnt definitive to self, there is an art in bringing enjoyment to people, only writing for your self is vanity, and narcissism, I just took a lot of issue with the above statement, it is absolutely crippling, music is about connection, you can either connect with people, or with yourself. Art is defined as cultural, one man has not, and never will be a culture.What you described is just artistic masturbation, and hey, you see it how you see it, do what ya gotta, I respect that, but I will speak out against it being advocated, as you are free to advocate it in the first place."some write for themselves, some for the world, both get there intended audience."Hey, I have no problem if someone enjoys creating art for others, but it seems some people get so caught up in people appreciating their art that they base their own appreciation of that art on what others think. I just think if someone enjoyed writing a song and enjoys listening to that song, they shouldn't qualify it as sucking simply because other people aren't into it. Art is not defined as cultural in the sense that one must connect with others of a culture in order for it to be art. Art is shaped by culture but it is not defined as a connection between those of in a culture. Semantics aside, whether you call it art or flippity floop, I don't think a person should place the value of their art souly on others, and maybe not on others at all. I think you should look at why people want to write for others in the first place before you reserve those vain and narcissistic labels for personal appreciate of one's own art. Why does someone want to write for others? Are they looking for attention? Are they looking to get money from those fans? What is it they're after? Is it not generally a selfish purpose to seek fans? Hey, I want my art to connect with others as well; I think everyone does. I just feel that the most pure form of art is that which is genuine; that which is untainted by the desire to appease others. I think that which really has substance is straight from the heart, unashamed by how others might take it. I just don't think most creative epiphanies or advances came through fitting in. But hey, as you said, do what you gotta do. That's the great thing about art; everyone's entitled to their opion. I understand that some here make their living off of music, and they feel they have to do whatever they have to do to continue to make that money, which probably means sacrificing being as genuine to themselves as they would like to be. And that's ok; it's all in what you value more. And as you said in another thread, you like the challenge of fitting into a certain genre or writing for a specific purpose. But hey, you could say you are being genuine to yourself in a way, because that's what you enjoy. There's nothing wrong with that, but I also want people to just respect their music for what it is-their music.

[milfus]

see this is a totally different view than before, the declarative I was going after was "if no one ever enjoyed my music." Enjoying your own music is completely fine, but if the interest is in appeasing yourself, then atleast in my view, you have forgone part of the musicianship, you are writing for fans and adhering to it, but the "fans" are just you, same form, limited function. As a realist I was chiming in and saying, you can wait for the world to change and appreciate you, or you can find different areas in marketable music that you personally enjoy. No sacrifice is needed, I don't feel I have given up any part of myself by making music for others in the least, because it all sounds like my music, I just expanded and found things me and my audience can both enjoy. And even if now and then I make a song or two I don't particularly care for, its one song idea, I got millions, no big loss. Hell you could even write a song you really like, about how you had to write one you didn't, so it ends up as creative fodder. I just think the stance that every song is sacred, and taking your artistic vision serious to a point of hurting your career will hold you back for worse than anything else. Advocating exploration instead of seclusion, to sum it up, cause trust me, you will change a HELL of a lot faster than the world around you.

[hummingbird]

Quote:I understand that some here make their living off of music, and they feel they have to do whatever they have to do to continue to make that money, which probably means sacrificing being as genuine to themselves as they would like to be. And that's ok; it's all in what you value more. And as you said in another thread, you like the challenge of fitting into a certain genre or writing for a specific purpose. But hey, you could say you are being genuine to yourself in a way, because that's what you enjoy. There's nothing wrong with that, but I also want people to just respect their music for what it is-their music. I have to speak to this as I disagree that writing to the market is any less challenging, or has any less artistic integrity to it than 'writing for yourself'. In fact, I would say, very strongly, that the REAL challenge is to find your artistic "genuineness" in the music you write for the market. I speak totally as someone who believed that writing for the market was 'selling out' some artistry or creativity 4 or 5 years ago. But now I know that is BS. If the market wants mysterious suspense tracks, then you can bet the mysterious suspense tracks I create have Vikki Flawith written all over them. If the market wants tracks a la so-and-so, you can bet my so-in-so flavoured tracks have a good dose of Vikki Flawith in them. I don't "take myself out" of the equation when writing commercial music, because who I am, what I am, how I think, and what inspires me is just as much a part of 'commercial' music as it is for 'for myself' music. I now know I limited myself by thinking that I would be limited by writing what the market wants. Anything but. I'm inspired & challenged by the list of wants and needs.

[squids]

Jun 16, 2008, 10:05am, buildingcastles wrote:Hey, I want my art to connect with others as well; I think everyone does. I just feel that the most pure form of art is that which is genuine; that which is untainted by the desire to appease others. Given that, we should all fall down on our knees right now and thank whoever is responsible that music is still defined by the general public (or whoever can manipulate them) because art (as in painting, sculpture, etc) is usually defined by a small population of exremely wealthy people who have enough dough and time to define what that is. And the world troops right along with their vision. Music is another thing altogether. No one made a 'mistake' here and got their tunes forwarded or got deals or wrote music after getting a ton of rejections jes to hear themselves sing/play/write. They figured out either before they came here (or after) what it was going to take to earn a financial reimbursement for their time/effort. You call that commercialism, I guess. I call it successful because the whole point of using Taxi is to succeed at using it. Otherwise it's jes a waste of money and the universe knows we don't have much of that goin on. The worst critics, if we're honest with ourselves, are our own inner voices. Changing our minds, our perspectives, honing our crafts? Hell, son, that IS art. I ain't Michaelangelo gon' take on the Pope to convince him my vision of a tune is what God intended. Am I gonna shop a tune if it won't get a forward no matta how many times I pitch it? Maybe, if it's good enough. Maybe not, if it's not. I'm experienced enough to know what I'm pretty good at and what I ain't. I'll take risks like the next guy; I'll fall flat on my face and laugh about it too, that's the joy and the privilege of doing music. The art is knowing the difference between my ego and my skill. Don't get me wrong once....when I nail a tune that a cowriter wanted me on, I'll put myself right up there with the most joyous person on the planet and give em a run fo they money. Success ain't always defined by money or how much you can impress yourself. To me, a good deal of it is how much my peers trust me to come through fo them on THEIR vision, not mine and how I can interpret that to get them what they need. If that's money, so be it. If it's fame, go ahead on. Fo me, half the time, it's the thrill of collaboration, creating somethin I couldn't do myownse'f. And you can't buy that, no matter how many posts you make or how much art you produce.But hey, you wanna enjoy yourself by yourself and carve out your own cool new genre, knock yourself out, ain't nobody here gonna stop ya.

[vicky]

Quote:I understand that some here make their living off of music, and they feel they have to do whatever they have to do to continue to make that money, which probably means sacrificing being as genuine to themselves as they would like to be. that's one way to get a response.....I call this the 'college mentality"...so many attitudes about how the "system" is going to steal your soul....and in music...the industry will.....I'm with Vikki and Squids......There really isn't much of a separation between composing for oneself, others' approval, or a listing for Taxi...It's all the same....starting with an idea that comes from you....My newest saying is..."there is only one industry"...so if you(or whoever) doesn't want to be a part of it, then don't.....it's not different than society itself.....you can't really get away from it....It's easy to get frustrated when you don't get the response you are looking for, but then is the best time to open your mind to others' ideas or just stick to your guns....both have worked for me....As a matter of fact, I've posted the most "out" stuff from what I've seen of the forum, and on some of these not everyone likes them at all, but one of screeners says they're a fan, and a few people post that they really like it, and I've stuck to my guns, and I'm thinking of starting a whole new band because of it.....good luck, just stick to what you enjoy doing,vtbp

[milfus]

vikki and squids......shooot, i never get any credit =0( vikki is my new mazz, haha, that being said, totally agree with yall.

[prez]

All I have to say is that Milfus put it down on tis one. Gotta give you kudos bruh.

[edteja]

Part of the confusion (and, IMHO that's all it is) is that making art is making art, and who it is made for (yourself, others, posterity) is part of the artistic design, really. There is a difference in making art for yourself and making it for others, and even in making for others who will be wise enough to understand it in some dark, distant future (probably my audience ). If I write a song or composition to reach others, then part of my job is to evoke a particular emotional response. I said "job" but I mean that as an artistic task. Then I try to use all my artistic skills to accomplish that. If I write for myself, there might be countless motivations, but then I have to abandon any concern about whether others relate to it or not. In short, I have to be consistent. I can't moan because it doesn't work for other people. That would be like designing a garage that was perfect for my Toyota Matrix and then whinging because I can't get a truck in it.In the end, therefore, I don't think any of this has anything to do with the artistry at all. That is just what we apply to the execution. It we approach the creation with integrity and artistry (whatever that means to the artist) then it is good. It just might not be popular. And external success is just another way of describing some form of popularity.