Is an increase in the number of people creating music good?

[bickle]

Everyone should be creating some type of art. It's good for you.

I agree wholeheartedly! And we're in good company - so does Lawrence Lessig!

Why do men make records? Because they can't have babies.

And I actually think this is pretty awesome, too!

[DrummerMan]

I would say that one of my least favorite things, as a performer, is playing in front of an audience comprised mostly of other musicians, though.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I would say that one of my least favorite things, as a performer, is playing in front of an audience comprised mostly of other musicians, though. :shake: :crazy:

BINGO - it's a lot more fun to subjugate (or, if you aren't 'feeling it with respect to that word, IMPRESS) listeners who don't understand how the noises are made, innit.

[JGriffin]

the paradigm of commercial art/music/creativity is very much about subjugation of an audience,

whaaaa?

Agree? Disagree? That's up to you. I say the dominant commercial model puts the viewer/listener/cinema-goer at the mercy of the creative person, which I call subjugation.

I disagree. Any commercial model puts the artist at the mercy of the audience. Without an audience the artist has no reason to exist, and no fiscal support to continue producing art.

[Jay Reynolds]

Why do men make records? Because they can't have babies.

I agree! That's why no women make music that is worth a damn!

Also:
Grits ain't groceries
Eggs ain't poultry
And the Mona Lisa was a mutha fuckin man!

Back OT- I think its a good thing. The more people are involved in creating music, the more we all have in common. Its nice to have something based on creativity and joy that we can share with each other.
Also, I'm a firm believer in the concept that you have to "give it away to keep it". I never attended a recording school, so everything I've learned has been given to me for free. Though I really don't consider myself much of an expert, I still try to pass along the good advice I've been given thus far. More new folks means more opportunities to "pay it back".

[chris harris]

Why do men make records? Because they can't have babies.

And I actually think this is pretty awesome, too!

Really?!?

I mean, I get that it's all about creating something and nurturing it. I just think that this is an idiotic way of stating that.

So, why do women make records?

And, what conclusions can we draw about their different motivations as it relates to the quality of the results?

See?

[DrummerMan]

I would say that one of my least favorite things, as a performer, is playing in front of an audience comprised mostly of other musicians, though.

BINGO - it's a lot more fun to subjugate (or, if you aren't 'feeling it with respect to that word, IMPRESS) listeners who don't understand how the noises are made, innit.

No, actually it's alot more fun to have an impact on (or subjugate, I have no problem with that term) people who don't have a chip on their shoulder and preconceptions about how music is supposed to be created and insecurities about how they go about doing it, then placing those insecurities on their analysis of you.



after a show, would you rather hear:

a) Wow, your drumming was really cool. I was, like, just dancing and grooving along all night. The whole show made me feel really good.

or

b) Yo, your chops are fucking AWESOME, dude! was that 5 against 7 you were doing in your solo? what kind of cymbals are those?


I know what my answer would be.


so, maybe this means the answer to your question is, in fact, "yes", but with with a caveat of being comfortable with that as a positive enough thing.

[DrummerMan]

Funny, I just realized I had wrongly read the thread topic as:

Is there an increase in the number of people creating good music?


whoops. I think what I've been saying still applies, though.

[cgarges]

I would say that one of my least favorite things, as a performer, is playing in front of an audience comprised mostly of other musicians, though.

Not me. If there are other musicians there, there's a much greater chance that someone is actually listening or paying attention. That, to me, is much cooler. If always seem to play better if I know that's happening.

It's much harder to play if there's just a room full of people not really acknowledging you. Charlotte's a weird town like that. Whenever people from out of town come down here and check out some music, they're always like, "What's wrong with these people?"

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[DrummerMan]

It's much harder to play if there's just a room full of people not really acknowledging you.

Sure. No one wants that, but if the music I'm playing only can draw the attention of other musicians, I find that as a sign that somethings wrong with it. That's not a general statement that needs to be applied to everyone, but it's high up on my personal list of musical standards.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I did not intend to insult anyone personally in my earlier posts. I stand by opinions about commercial art and, for continued want of a better word, subjugation.

I will say this in a different way: I think creativity/art/music/drama are bodily functions that occur naturally, in quite inchoate form, in kids. Lucky is the kid who hangs on to these things and possibly gets to develop and nurture them. In our world where so much of music is a commodity marketed to teenagers and young adults it is refreshing indeed to see little rays of light like a guitar section at Best Buy or a zillion myspace bands with 50 fans each, because it means that creativity is making its way home, back into the hands/hearts/souls of many rather than being farmed out to a few charismatic or exceptionally talented and/or attractive professionals.

That is another version of what I mean, not to replace but to clarify my earlier, more offensive generalizations. Again, sorry to those who were offended. I think this will be an interesting discussion right up the moment it is locked!

[JGriffin]

I did not intend to insult anyone personally in my earlier posts. I stand by opinions about commercial art and, for continued want of a better word, subjugation.

I will say this in a different way: I think creativity/art/music/drama are bodily functions that occur naturally, in quite inchoate form, in kids. Lucky is the kid who hangs on to these things and possibly gets to develop and nurture them. In our world where so much of music is a commodity marketed to teenagers and young adults it is refreshing indeed to see little rays of light like a guitar section at Best Buy or a zillion myspace bands with 50 fans each, because it means that creativity is making its way home, back into the hands/hearts/souls of many rather than being farmer out to a few charismatic or exceptionally talented and/or attractive professionals.

That is another version of what I mean, not to replace but to clarify my earlier, more offensive generalizations. Again, sorry to those who were offended. I think this will be an interesting discussion right up the moment it is locked!

I for one am not insulted. But I am still puzzled by your use of the word "subjugate." Either I'm missing your point or you think the word means something it doesn't.

[dynomike]

This is a great thread, I prefer it to the CC one since I'm not american. I have a bit of a rant to add to the discussion.


I don't have a problem with everyone being a musician. The creation of art does have intrinsic value for the artist, and I encourage anyone to get in touch with their creative side. I mean, I run a studio for mainly independent musicians... its also how I make a living... probably true for many of you as well. HOWEVER. I do have a problem with the 'subjugation of an audience', as the pretty man says (beard of bees? ysyrtypy? why is everyone changing their names??)

right, the 'subjugation of an audience'. i have a problem with that sometimes. there are a lot of people out there on MYSPACE or FACEBOOK, or postering the streets, or physically trying to drag you to their shows or make you listen to their album. and at most of those shows, there's nothing NEW or EXCELLENT offered, and i leave feeling bummed about music. this is coming from someone who really loves music, live or recorded. but nobody needs to see an 'ok' show or hear an 'ok' record. we're like 60 years into recorded pop music now... if you're not doing something TOTALLY AWESOME then why are you trying to get my attention? we don't need more 'ok' music, we've already got lots of 'good' music! make some totally awesome music, then come talk to me!!

anyway thats my problem with the 'new channels'. just as it empowers the kid genius in a small town to independently create and release something amazing, it also empowers EVERYONE to saturate the 'market' with 'ok' music, and i think that music has lost a lot of its value as a result (and this is independent from the whole napster thing...)

and basically i wanted to state that i openly INVITE subjugation as long as the music is excellent. you be the musician, then i'll be the audience. that is all.

[;ivlunsdystf]

But I am still puzzled by your use of the word "subjugate." Either I'm missing your point or you think the word means something it doesn't.

Subjugate: Conquer, rule over, preside over, take by force, etc. Nobody seems to like my use of this word here. Fair enough. What I mean by it, and I still can't think of a better word to use in its place, is that there is an imbalance of power between artist and audience and this imbalance is exemplified by loud PA systems, insider jokes, restricted access to backstage areas, etc. etc. in the world of rock and roll, and this imbalance is exploited to sell crap to teenagers and make them feel like they need to keep buying crap to be a part of something bigger than they are. This is the cynical view.

Whoever pointed out that the artist cannot exist without a supportive audience is a bit less cynical than I am. I hope you are right!

BTW, in all fairness to beardofbees, I am not and was never beardofbees. Apologies to beardofbees if this misconception has somehow spread beyond dynomike.

[JGriffin]

But I am still puzzled by your use of the word "subjugate." Either I'm missing your point or you think the word means something it doesn't.

Subjugate: Conquer, rule over, preside over, take by force, etc. Nobody seems to like my use of this word here. Fair enough. What I mean by it, and I still can't think of a better word to use in its place, is that there is an imbalance of power between artist and audience and this imbalance is exemplified by loud PA systems, insider jokes, restricted access to backstage areas, etc. etc. in the world of rock and roll, and this imbalance is exploited to sell crap to teenagers and make them feel like they need to keep buying crap to be a part of something bigger than they are. This is the cynical view.

Ah. Yes. I completely disagree. The audience is free to not listen. There is no Ludovico Technique chair we're strapped into when we enter a club or CD store.

if there's an imbalance of power anywhere, it's between the big companies who have marketing dollars and the independently funded artists who can't "subject" as many people to their art.

Whoever pointed out that the artist cannot exist without a supportive audience is a bit less cynical than I am. I hope you are right!

Supportive? That's not what I said. The artist does not exist without an audience. Period. The audience is the reason the musician is there. It's not the other way around. I know many musicians who are under that impression, and sadly it shows in their art.

Pre-emption: Someone may feel tempted to say, "buy dwulby! I can make all sorts of art in my room, by myself, and I don't need to show it to anyone!" Sure you can. But that situation is not germane to this discussion--this discussion is about the relationship of artist to audience.