---

Posted by Dr Rich on 05-19-2005 at11:55:

 

quote:

Originally posted by mike quote: Originally posted by Dr Rich quote: Originally posted by mike quote: Originally posted by nomadmike Don't Christians drive cars that breakdown or need a tuneup? Go out to eat. Buy clothes? What is it about CM that goes against the advertiser? Who is more anti-advertiser POD, or System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine? IMO Rage's message is mute due to the fact that the are on a major label. m You lost me on that one. So Bob Dylan's message is mute? POD is on a major label. So is System of a Down. They were on a major label, so what? Does that mean they were Britney Spears? Here is something I found in the subject. quote: Tom Morello provides this rebuttal to that criticism: A lot of labels contacted us, and lots of them just didn't seem to understand what we wanted to do. They kept talking about the message of the music as a gimmick. They were interested in us just because there was a buzz... They saw us as the latest local rock band to be hyped. But Epic agreed to everything we asked--and they've followed through... we never saw a conflict as long as we maintained creative control. When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart. The anti-major label elitism is pretty stupid. You seem too smart for that. I maybe wrong since I am no expert on rage against the machine but I was under the impression that they, or at least the lead singer expressed a message of communisum, if that is the case then selling a communist message seems a little contradictioary. I am not anti major label, I buy CD's from Pink Floyd, Peter gabriel, etc. But I don't think their mesage contradicts their distribution method. m

Okay... that makes more sense. I see what you are saying.

I see it as getting the message to the most people.
But whatever...

I am more of a System of a Down fan anyway

---

Posted by nomadmike on 05-19-2005 at11:55:

 

quote:

Well, I believe that what Mike is saying about Rage is that they say they are against the machine but they are part of it. It's the same paradox as when Curt Cobain ended up on the cover of Rolling Stone...a magazine he put down for being too commercial.

But that's the nature of the music industry. Todays rebel is tomorrows headliner in Vegas. If we can accept that we can work with the industry without compromising ourselves.

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:02:

 

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rich quote: Originally posted by mike quote: Originally posted by Dr Rich quote: Originally posted by mike quote: Originally posted by nomadmike Don't Christians drive cars that breakdown or need a tuneup? Go out to eat. Buy clothes? What is it about CM that goes against the advertiser? Who is more anti-advertiser POD, or System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine? IMO Rage's message is mute due to the fact that the are on a major label. m You lost me on that one. So Bob Dylan's message is mute? POD is on a major label. So is System of a Down. They were on a major label, so what? Does that mean they were Britney Spears? Here is something I found in the subject. quote: Tom Morello provides this rebuttal to that criticism: A lot of labels contacted us, and lots of them just didn't seem to understand what we wanted to do. They kept talking about the message of the music as a gimmick. They were interested in us just because there was a buzz... They saw us as the latest local rock band to be hyped. But Epic agreed to everything we asked--and they've followed through... we never saw a conflict as long as we maintained creative control. When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart. The anti-major label elitism is pretty stupid. You seem too smart for that. I maybe wrong since I am no expert on rage against the machine but I was under the impression that they, or at least the lead singer expressed a message of communisum, if that is the case then selling a communist message seems a little contradictioary. I am not anti major label, I buy CD's from Pink Floyd, Peter gabriel, etc. But I don't think their mesage contradicts their distribution method. m Okay... that makes more sense. I see what you are saying. I see it as getting the message to the most people. But whatever... I am more of a System of a Down fan anyway

Me too. SOAD rocks

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:04:

 

quote:

Originally posted by nomadmike quote: Well, I believe that what Mike is saying about Rage is that they say they are against the machine but they are part of it. It's the same paradox as when Curt Cobain ended up on the cover of Rolling Stone...a magazine he put down for being too commercial. But that's the nature of the music industry. Todays rebel is tomorrows headliner in Vegas. If we can accept that we can work with the industry without compromising ourselves.

Sure and a lot of people can accept that. I just happen to be anti industry because I see it as anti art. The starving artists are the ones on the forefront of true art. The big time guys are being told what to make and how to make it so it will sell. A commercial product will rarely break the mold unless the industry has a plan for it to.

---

Posted by Dr Rich on 05-19-2005 at12:05:

 

quote:

Originally posted by nomadmike quote: Well, I believe that what Mike is saying about Rage is that they say they are against the machine but they are part of it. It's the same paradox as when Curt Cobain ended up on the cover of Rolling Stone...a magazine he put down for being too commercial. But that's the nature of the music industry. Todays rebel is tomorrows headliner in Vegas. If we can accept that we can work with the industry without compromising ourselves.

I see your point, but if you make art, you should get it out to "the people."
Don't make something and then hide it in a closet.

It's part of the challange of every artist, to be true to their vision.

---

Posted by mike on 05-19-2005 at12:05:

 

I have to go job #2, so you can take cheap shots at me until I
can get home and can respond.







m

---

Posted by Dr Rich on 05-19-2005 at12:06:

 

quote:

Originally posted by mike I have to go job #2, so you can take cheap shots at me until I can get home and can respond. m

Two jobs??? What a sellout!








































Have a good day.

I gotta get going too!

---

Posted by nomadmike on 05-19-2005 at12:11:

 

quote:

The starving artists are the ones on the forefront of true art.

Or they can just be incredibly stubborn hacks.

I never looked at what I did as art, and I doubt anybody else would mistake what I did for it either. I did eventually look at what I did as craft and I did come to look at myself as an entertainer. The message don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing.

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:12:

 

quote:

Originally posted by mike I have to go job #2, so you can take cheap shots at me until I can get home and can respond. m

Hey everybody, lets take cheap shots at mike )

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:15:

 

quote:

Originally posted by nomadmike quote: The starving artists are the ones on the forefront of true art. Or they can just be incredibly stubborn hacks. I never looked at what I did as art, and I doubt anybody else would mistake what I did for it either. I did eventually look at what I did as craft and I did come to look at myself as an entertainer. The message don't mean a thing if it aint got that swing.

This sheds a whole different light on things. You never called yourself a Christian recording artist?

---

Posted by nomadmike on 05-19-2005 at12:22:

 

Never released a recording. That should tell you a lot. I was just the guitar player.

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:28:

 

Well, yes but would you have called yourself a recording artist

---

Posted by nomadmike on 05-19-2005 at12:36:

 

Now cut that out!

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at12:42:

 

See I would consider popular music art just really really bad art. And extremely unoriginal art. When you have 75-year-old guys sitting back looking at market analysis to tell them what a 13-year-old will think is cool then you know it can't be good for art

---

Posted by nomadmike on 05-19-2005 at14:10:

 

Anything a 13 year old thinks is cool is bad for art!

Trying to make most music into art is taking it more seriously than it really is and can lead to Diva Disease. To me art is something you do for yourself, performing is something you do for others. If nobody likes my art that's OK, but if someone lays down some money to see me then I better give them some bang for their buck so they do like me and come back for more.

If I had all of this insight straight 20 years ago I might have made it.

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at14:51:

 

See, to me art is a form of self expression. The very act of art is to express ourselves in creative and fresh ways to others. You have me curious though. I will check and see what Websters has to say about art

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at14:56:

 

Well, Dictionary.com says:


Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at14:57:

 

If you are interested I would be curious to explore this more and start a thread in the off topic section If you would like to join me it will be called "What Is Art"

---

Posted by jiminy on 05-19-2005 at15:00:

 

well - my pennies worth.

I think every artist should probably combine both-
A. a desire to express,
B. and a desire to be appreciated by others for your expression.

If they lean too far one way or the other- you get the classic case of "two Virgins" and "Silly little Love songs"

But for myself..would I like one of my original songs to be "picked up" and recorded by some big time artist?
Damb straight I would. that would fulfill both A and B for me.

Would I write a song simply because I think other people would like it- even if I think it repulsively stupid? No - that would violate A.

Would I record myself farting into a microphone- thinking others could appreciate the sonic sound? No - that would violate B.

And lets face it- I record things cuz I think I got a new found knack..but do I not care if anyone else likes it or not? - why of course not silly- i want what little I can glean from anyone who listens

to me..thats art.

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 05-19-2005 at15:02:

 

quote:

Originally posted by jiminy well - my pennies worth. I think every artist should probably combine both- A. a desire to express, B. and a desire to be appreciated by others for your expression. If they lean too far one way or the other- you get the classic case of "two Virgins" and "Silly little Love songs" But for myself..would I like one of my original songs to be "picked up" and recorded by some big time artist? Damb straight I would. that would fulfill both A and B for me. Would I write a song simply because I think other people would like it- even if I think it repulsively stupid? No - that would violate A. Would I record myself farting into a microphone- thinking others could appreciate the sonic sound? No - that would violate B. And lets face it- I record things cuz I think I got a new found knack..but do I not care if anyone else likes it or not? - why of course not silly- i want what little I can glean from anyone who listens to me..thats art.

May I cut and paste this and respond in the other thread )