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

[@?,*???&?]

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.

And yet 80% of music is under the radar and never comes out in a tangible form. This makes life better? Selfishly, narcissistically? Yes. But mostly it's a waste of time.

[;ivlunsdystf]

Are self-expression and creativity automatically narcissistic or selfish if there is no audience? I don't think so. Actually to me that seems almost backwards. Anyway, I am now satisfied that at least y'alls understand what I am saying and perhaps even why I am saying it, even if you don't feel the same way. (makes plans to back out of discussion a bit)

[allyouneedisears]

More people making music = More music.

More Music = More good music.

[JGriffin]

Are self-expression and creativity automatically narcissistic or selfish if there is no audience?

Kind of by definition, actually.

[JGriffin]

And yet 80% of music is under the radar and never comes out in a tangible form. This makes life better? Selfishly, narcissistically? Yes. But mostly it's a waste of time.

Stay off my side, Jeff.

[chris harris]

So, is the only argument against "more music = a good thing" that the saturation kind of devalues the art? Or, is there another reason to believe that more music is a bad thing?

I personally believe that corporate homogenization has done much more harm to art than grass-roots variety has. I'd rather sift through shit for little pieces of food, than be force fed shit. Neither is as good as a fruit-bearing tree. But, art's never really been that easy.

To argue for the old system, where waaaay less music was ever recorded, is to foolishly believe that somehow, some day, these giant corporations will decide that the music is more valuable than the buck that can be made from it.

[Jay Reynolds]

Who really records/plays music by themselves and never lets anyone hear it? I think that would be kind of hard, actually.

[;ivlunsdystf]

So, is the only argument against "more music = a good thing" that the saturation kind of devalues the art? Or, is there another reason to believe that more music is a bad thing?

Who (besides Jeff) thinks more people making more music (and this is including amateurs) is a bad thing? Show of hands.

[cgarges]

More music= more good music and more bad music. It's that simple.

If the planet has 100,000,000,000 pizza joint and another 100,000 pizza joints open, some of them will be good and some of them will not be good. (I know this for a fact with the recent opening of a couple of new pizza joints in my neighborhood.) I can't imagine that there's any giant difference in the influx of new music.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[rwc]

I don't think the process of making amazing work has become any simpler.

Mediocrity has become more accessible but IMO excellence is as difficult to achieve now as it ever was.

Dare I say it but I prefer what I see from the old model. You were helped all the way through and you made good money. There wasn't much elitism, if you had amazing talent, people went behind you.

Now you're kinda expected to have a finished product to display someone before they will even support you. and there's a lot of poser music pushed to the top now.

The only people who seem to scream loudly about how the old model sucks are the people who put their advances up their nose in powder form, and then complain about how they got screwed.

In the 1960s a high school kid who's a great player could go to a club and make $100 in a night playing.

in 1960 money!

the lack of well paying live gigs across the country is another sucky part of the "new" music industry

[AstroDan]

More music = more good music.

More good music = more babies.

[bickle]

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?

I just thought it was funny, is all. And the statement doesn't actually imply anything about women or anybody else it just says something about men who make records.

Really I thought I'd take the opportunity to agree with Jeff(?) about something. Oh well.

[nopenopenope]

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

i agree mostly (even though this is a tangent). Freud was a big proponent of "penile envy", but the more accurate representation is "ovarian envy". I mean, i'm not trying to say it's the ONLY reason and women CAN'T make records - far from it. but many of the things men do can be traced back to trying to make up for the fact that we simply cannot create life. so instead we are driven to do other things to try and ignore that we can't have babies. i know, heavy, heady stuff...

but at any rate: all music is good music, all music is bad music. it's totally subjective. to take a page from the book of zappa: if you put a frame around it, it's art. if someone tells me or implies "you are about to hear music", then so be it. i am hearing music. it's up to me to like or dislike it. so i'll go ahead and say more = better in this case, but it does, in an economic sense, devalue the music. but to me, that helps raise the intrinsic emotional value. as it gets harder and harder to make a buck on music, it becomes more and more about the music. to sum up, more is more AND less is more. now the board will collapse on itself in a paradoxical implosion.

[mjau]

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

i agree mostly (even though this is a tangent). Freud was a big proponent of "penile envy", but the more accurate representation is "ovarian envy". I mean, i'm not trying to say it's the ONLY reason and women CAN'T make records - far from it. but many of the things men do can be traced back to trying to make up for the fact that we simply cannot create life. so instead we are driven to do other things to try and ignore that we can't have babies. i know, heavy, heady stuff...

Wow...I didn't think anyone outside of literary criticism actually took Freud seriously anymore.

[b3groover]

To answer the original question: Yes. What's wrong with people making music? It's much better than what they could be doing...