"The Voice"

[Vito Corleone]

The entire music industry is a music competition.

 

 

Exxxxactly.

[rodclement]

The guy was good and has been doing it for a long time, good for him, he paid his dues and now can support his family doing it! Isn't that all of our dream? I still think years from now we will be talking about Vicky Martinez and have forgotten all about Javier, etc.

Rod

[3shiftgtr]

 

Why's that?

 

 

The can of worms from hell.....

 

This is a multi level answer with layers upon layers that reach deep into the subconscious of a nation and its people. But the short answer is.....

 

.....art is not a competition. To make it so makes it a business. And that is why people say this:

 

 

The entire music industry is a music competition.

 

 

....and think that there is no difference between music and business.

 

Worm can opened.

[Vito Corleone]

The can of worms from hell..... This is a multi level answer with layers upon layers that reach deep into the subconscious of a nation and its people. But the short answer is..... .....art is not a competition.

 

 

Two thoughts:

 

1) art can't be judged without it being a business? Since when? I've seen art competitions of all sorts where commerce isn't the goal.

 

2) Not all music is art. I'd venture that most music is not art. And once you take composing out of it, I'd say less than a very small percentage of music is art. The vast majority of performance I'd put in the "skill" not "art" catagory.

[3shiftgtr]

Two thoughts: 1) art can't be judged without it being a business? Since when? I've seen art competitions of all sorts where commerce isn't the goal. .

All art is judged when it is shared. When it is sold for profit, then it becomes a business. BIG difference. Art competitions without commerce as the goal are still competitions....and I still feel the same way.

2) Not all music is art. I'd venture that most music is not art. And once you take composing out of it, I'd say less than a very small percentage of music is art. The vast majority of performance I'd put in the "skill" not "art" catagory

And that is where POV gets skewered. It is an old argument, this art vs. commerce thing. But you of all people, who constantly stress the importance of the artist considering the audience at all times, should know that the audience has their own perspective. And it is not that of the artist. It cannot be due to the fact that the artist creates and presents, and the listener listens. It's like the old Jascha Heifetz story:

Heifetz, considered by most to be the greatest violinist since Paganini and certainly of the 1900's, played is final big concert that announced his retirement. After a 20 min standing ovation and curtain call after curtain call, he retired to a room 'cool down' room where he was not to be disturbed until he came out. A porter always allowed one interruption to see if he needed anything. His porter of some 20 years, came to the door and asked the maestro if he needed anything. But then he also added a compliment to the maestro, his boss of 20 years, with tears streaming down his face:

Porter: "Sir, that was an amazing and sublime performance. I am honored to have witnessed it."
Heifetz" "Have you gone deaf? Were you even listening? I haven't played that piece that bad since I was a teenager. Now go get me a towel."

Bottom line is that Heifetz's POV is much different than that of the Porter, who like the audience, was greatly effected by the idea that this was his last major performance. They felt an emotion that Heifetz had a different perspective on. He was focused the giving of the art and its presentation, and the the audience was focused on the reception thereof. The REALITY of the performance was much different than how it was perceived. And legend continues that you can tell a good reviewer by whether or not they thought it was a good performance or not.

So the percentage of art that is art cannot be defined by a percentage. Art is art. By definition.

Now, if in your definition of art, you add a measuring spoon to determine the amount of art that is in the art to actually make it art....well, that is a different thing.

[Vito Corleone]

And that is where POV gets skewered. It is an old argument, this art vs. commerce thing. But you of all people, who constantly stress the importance of the artist considering the audience at all times, should know that the audience has their own perspective. And it is not that of the artist.

 

 

Of course not. And the two need to be balanced in the mind of the artist. If one doesn't care at all what the audience thinks, then there's no need for public displays of ones art. Play at home for the artist if the artist's opinion is the only one that matters.

 

 

 

So the percentage of art that is art cannot be defined by a percentage. Art is art. By definition.

I didn't say that. I said only a small percentage of musical performances are art. Big difference.

[3shiftgtr]

 

Of course not. And the two need to be balanced in the mind of the artist. If one doesn't care at all what the audience thinks, then there's no need for public displays of ones art. Play at home for the artist if the artist's opinion is the only one that matters.

 

 

I disagree. It's called sharing. "Hey look what I made. I think it's cool. It made my life better." is different from "Hey look what I made. I made it for you. Please buy it." Neither is better. And one does not have more rights than the other.

 

Saying that an artist who makes purely personal art shouldn't share it, is every bit elitist and snobby as saying artists should only make purely personal art.

 

 

I didn't say that. I said only a small percentage of musical performances are art. Big difference.

 

 

I think the definition of art is coming into play. Without quoting Wiki or whatever, an presentation in the abstract regarding an idea, is art. And that in regards to music, involves any music. A kid hitting pots and pans in the kitchen is just as much art as Coltrane. Or just as artistic as a commercial act such as Journey. It is the act of making it that makes it so. That there is an amount of art in an artistic presentation is a non sequitur.

 

I think you are trying to separate art and craft, no?

[Vito Corleone]

I disagree. It's called sharing. "Hey look what I made. I think it's cool. It made my life better." is different from "Hey look what I made. I made it for you. Please buy it." Neither is better. And one does not have more rights than the other.

 

But neither are they mutually exclusive either. One can still be "Sharing art" within the boundaries of commerce or competition.

 

 

 

I think you are trying to separate art and craft, no?

 

 

I think they are separate. Or, at the very least, opposite ends of a continuum. Playing covers in the manner I do, it's pretty much all about craft. If there is a degree of artistry that comes through or is required to make the craft better? So much the better. And it takes a degree of craftsmanship in order to best translate ones artistic vision. So certainly there's a certain amount of overlap. But I think the two things are separate, yes.

 

But all this begs the question:

 

why hate competitions? If you believe there's art in even the most commercial acts, then certainly there is art to be found and enjoyed in a competition such as "The Voice". If you can find and appreciate the art in Journey than certainly you can among the very fine singers often found in such competitions?

[rodclement]

I disagree. It's called sharing. "Hey look what I made. I think it's cool. It made my life better." is different from "Hey look what I made. I made it for you. Please buy it." Neither is better. And one does not have more rights than the other. Saying that an artist who makes purely personal art shouldn't share it, is every bit elitist and snobby as saying artists should only make purely personal art. I think the definition of art is coming into play. Without quoting Wiki or whatever, an presentation in the abstract regarding an idea, is art. And that in regards to music, involves any music. A kid hitting pots and pans in the kitchen is just as much art as Coltrane. Or just as artistic as a commercial act such as Journey. It is the act of making it that makes it so. That there is an amount of art in an artistic presentation is a non sequitur. I think you are trying to separate art and craft, no?

 

 

Sorry to but in this discussion, very good by the way, but in your Utopian world, the artist would make art and share it, the cook would make food for love, and we would all just exchange freely, each just doing what comes to us naturaly in perfect balance...by the simplest defenition of exchange, even if by love, it denotes a form of commerce, exchange of goods...many people make art but I like yours more than his so I will exchange my bread for your art...so on and so forth.

 

My point is that art without an audience, without the competition to please, does not complete the artisits need, never...and when it does doctors call it a mental illness, the pure production without the need for feedback...

 

Just me respectufull point of view.

 

Rod

[3shiftgtr]

 

But neither are they mutually exclusive either. One can still be "Sharing art" within the boundaries of commerce or competition.

 

 

Of course they are not mutually exclusive. But I believe people that make great art without commercial considerations shouldn't be bannished to the basement of the 'bull{censored} self absorbed artist' as your post suggested.

 

 

I think they are separate. Or, at the very least, opposite ends of a continuum. Playing covers in the manner I do, it's pretty much all about craft. If there is a degree of artistry that comes through or is required to make the craft better? So much the better. And it takes a degree of craftsmanship in order to best translate ones artistic vision. So certainly there's a certain amount of overlap. But I think the two things are separate, yes.

 

 

They can't be at opposite ends of the spectrum. They are integrated to dependance. You can't have art without the craft of learning the means of expression. Even with the baby/pan thing, the baby had to make choices regarding which pans to get out. Someone had to hand the kid the spoons. All art that you would consider to be 'non craft' still used some level of craft to create it. Chords just don't come our of thin air ya know? LOL!

 

 

But all this begs the question: why hate competitions? If you believe there's art in even the most commercial acts, then certainly there is art to be found and enjoyed in a competition such as "The Voice". If you can find and appreciate the art in Journey than certainly you can among the very fine singers often found in such competitions?

 

 

It goes back to the Heifetz thing....the reception of the performance by the listener, is colored by the experience of the event. And the color of 'competition' in an art event creates something that I feel, stains it negatively. Sure I can appreciate the art in any performance. But....

 

I prefer to put the artist and his/her intentions as my goal as a listener. I wanna feel what they are feeling. And when their goal is to win something, then they become like an actor. Expression is in the performance by proxy, but the win is the motivation. I prefer expression to be the motivation.

 

When winning is the thing on the table, well, I prefer sports. I go to sports to see people strive to win. I go to art to see people strive to express themselves. The less personal expression in the art, the less I connect with it cuz somethimes the "sell sell sell" part of it gets in the way of what inspires me. It colors it so that the personal truth of the art gets harder to find. And when the "I make art to be famous and rich only." guys combine with the "we sell audiences to advertisers" guys, no matter how talented the performer, it just gets hard for me to trust the performance.

 

I've been there. I know what is being whispered in their ear.....

[Vito Corleone]

They can't be at opposite ends of the spectrum. They are integrated to dependance. You can't have art without the craft of learning the means of expression. Even with the baby/pan thing, the baby had to make choices regarding which pans to get out. Someone had to hand the kid the spoons. All art that you would consider to be 'non craft' still used some level of craft to create it. Chords just don't come our of thin air ya know? LOL!

 

 

It's a left/right brain thingee. The part of our brain that makes us create music is not the part of our brain that gives us the ability to be good musicial technicians. So yes, I do believe they are on opposite ends of that contiuum. Which is why so many masterful players can't seem to write a decent song to save their lives and so many great songwriters can barely put 3 chords together and sing in tune.

 

 

I've been there. I know what is being whispered in their ear.....

 

 

Me too. Which is why I enjoy such competitions. I'm able to see through the bull{censored} and connect with the art or, at the very least, the skillful craftsmanship.

[Vito Corleone]

Of course they are not mutually exclusive. But I believe people that make great art without commercial considerations shouldn't be bannished to the basement of the 'bull{censored} self absorbed artist' as your post suggested.

 

 

I'm not the one banishing anyone to the basement. If one so shuns commercialism that he only does it for the art, then he'll probably keep HIMSELF in the basement and I'll never hear it to judge it. Once they put it out there for public consumption, they've now entered the competition.

 

Sure, I've run into the guys who claim to, as you said share with a "Hey look what I made. I think it's cool. It made my life better" attitude. But I really can't think of very many times there wasn't still a price tag attached to that art they were so willing to "share" with me.

 

So, with all honesty, I do think a lot of the "I'm just in it for the art" stuff is bull{censored}. Or, at the very least, an excuse for not having achieved greater commercial success.

[rangefinder]

It's commerce if it gets me paid.

 

It's art if it gets me laid.

 

If I can do both, all the better. If not, I'll take either one.

[3shiftgtr]

I'm not the one banishing anyone to the basement. If one so shuns commercialism that he only does it for the art, then he'll probably keep HIMSELF in the basement and I'll never hear it to judge it.

I personally have been a part of several different art for art's sake projects where some were free and given away, and some were sold. All of them developed audiences who loved what was done. And they were done with no thought during the creative period to an audience or sales. The selling of it came afterward. And now as I think about it, every person in those various projects were pros ('cept for one).

And I have made purely commercial musical art that was geared to help sell products of all kinds: music with and for artists, soft drinks, musical instruments, cars, retail, etc. And the perspective in creating that art was completely different from the other stuff. Each project was artistic in its own way, but the artistic decisions were made for different reasons.

And I have been a part of making art that was made to sell, but had a contribution from me that was purely personal.

So this idea that people that make art for art's sake are basement dwellers, is kinda snobby. It feels like"'well if you don't play commercial stuff, then you belong in the basement." Don't know if that is what you feel, but there is kind of a subtext there....

Once they put it out there for public consumption, they've now entered the competition.

Well don't confuse the art and the intentions of the artist, with the selling of it. It is certainly possible, and quite popular amongst non musical artists, to make the art for the expression, and let the selling of it be separate. If one makes art purely for expression with no interest in it's appeal, and you let the selling of it be a different issue, then you have separated the art's intent from it's sales numbers. The competition is in the realm of sales and promotion not in the art's creation.

So, with all honesty, I do think a lot of the "I'm just in it for the art" stuff is bull{censored}.

Of course you do cuz you are not in it only for the art! Art is only a part of why you are in it. And that is not a bad thing.

But let's get something clear. I am not an advocate of the idea that all art should be for art's sake. All kinds of art is needed for all kinds of people. It is a personal thing that I don't like music competitions. I don't care about it's popularity or whether it is commercial or not. I only care about the music's truth....it's intention. Which is a bit fuzzy/shallow/whatever when all the "artist" wants to do is win the competition. It just doesn't move me.

And btw, the best singers, craft-wise are on BET's Sunday Best. FACT.

[Vito Corleone]

So this idea that people that make art for art's sake are basement dwellers, is kinda snobby. It feels like"'well if you don't play commercial stuff, then you belong in the basement." Don't know if that is what you feel, but there is kind of a subtext there....

No, what I meant was, if you make art for arts sake, there's not really going to be to a whole lot of opportunity for someone like me to see it. Once you take it out of the basement and present to the general public, you've pretty much entered the commercial realm.

Of course you do cuz you are not in it only for the art! Art is only a part of why you are in it. And that is not a bad thing.

You're too kind. I'm not certain art is ANY of the reason I'm in it at this point. I'm just saying I've heard the "I'm just in it for the art" claim many times. Almost always from people who have very negative/cynical attitudes about the 'business'. Which leads me to believe they are just making excuses for themselves. Seems to me that if they only cared about the art, they wouldn't actually give a rat's ass how commercial or non-artistic the business of music (or any other art) is.

And btw, the best singers, craft-wise are on BET's Sunday Best. FACT.

Probably. Unfortunately I don't make enough money to afford Extended Basic....

[3shiftgtr]

Seems to me that if they only cared about the art, they wouldn't actually give a rat's ass how commercial or non-artistic the business of music (or any other art) is.

And therein lies the slippery slope of art vs. commerce. If one makes a decision to 'do' music for a living, then one must reconcile the commercial considerations with the artistic ones.

I once heard a b-level signed country artist in the control room yell at the A&R guy "Leave the @#%&^ music decisions to me. It's my name on the record. Your job is to figure out a way to sell the {censored}." And of course any one who knows the business knows that A&R RARELY 'figures out how to sell' anything.

And those 'non commercial' decisions are the reason he doesn't tour and hasn't had a deal for 8 years. Off the map.

And yet, I have a good friend who is an Americana artist who could care less about commercial considerations....uses his judgement alone....and makes a fine living doing what he alone (and his wife) wants to do. Doesn't really fit the Americana tag well, but that is where he chose to categorize his output. All of his artistic decisions in writing performing and recording are made for his vision of the music. Only AFTER he makes the recording, does he figure out how to sell it.

One CAN make commercially successful art while staying true to a non commercial vision.

[3shiftgtr]

My point is that art without an audience, without the competition to please, does not complete the artisits need, never...and when it does doctors call it a mental illness, the pure production without the need for feedback... Rod

 

 

I know one guy who I play with regularly, made a record when his wife was dying. Took him 1 month to record it. He played all the instruments and sang. Did it in his little home studio. Kind of a folk/jazz thing....folk songs about birds in the trees and granola and such, but with jazzy chord extensions and lots of layered percussion. I had to beg him to give me a copy. He just did it cuz he had to get it out at a time of great pain as he dealt with his wife's big 'C'.

 

He told me he could give a {censored} if anyone ever heard it. He just had to do it. Very important to him. But he never even told anyone. Word spread to his friends thru his family. Not as weird as you think.

 

And btw, while folk jazz ain't my thing, it was about a perfect a record in that style as I have ever heard. The guy is just so damn musical.

 

And did the art work for it too......which was amazing.

[mineame]

From what I read, they want to get him away from rock as fast as possible. There just isn't any money in it for the record companies right now.

 

 

Want him to get away from rock? I like Javier, the first time I heard him I knew he was going to win it all... But he is not rock, well at least none of his performances I saw were.

 

Labeling him as rock, is kind of on the level of awarding Jethro Tull a grammy for best heavy metal band. It's just a big wtf statement.