Topics
IAC Prime Member
|
| | | |
Otis and the Professors
|
4/5/2009 3:34:36 AM
Art vs. Product; the commercialization of music and an old IAC debate.
Hey all,
So we finally finished the song that has taken most of our time over the last month. The idea for this song was previously discussed in another post here on IAC that kicked up a little bit of dust. There was disagreement over the importance of production quality and what made indie music different from pop music, and what differentiated a piece of art or a product, if anything.
Well this new song holds our very strong opinions on the matter and what we feel is a prominent issue in the realm of art and music. We also feel it is some of our best work overall both musically and lyrically.
So I can't find how to do a link right now, but the song is titled "Do You Have A Word For Your Fans?" and it's the top of our page.
Please have a listen, maybe comment, but more importantly... discuss!
Love,
OatP
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/5/2009 3:39:15 AM
lol ... okay ... I accept I'm not the one you wanted to hear from first.
Everything produced is product.
Art ... otoh ... is a very slippery term.
K-
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/5/2009 4:01:48 AM
Oh boy ! ... a discussion .... I'll be back after bit ... :)
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/5/2009 4:44:28 AM
First here is a direct link Do You Have A Word For Your Fans?
Sorry had to go put on my hip waders and my safety goggles ... just in case things get messy ... :)
I like this a lot ... Mystically artfull ... "Ink a flavored wind that blisters" ... top notch line ...
I love the placement of the guitars "of course normal people would not dare do such a thing" but of course that is why I like it ... Creativity in aboundament ...
I especially love the "solo" piece at 2:18 thru 2:40
I could easily hear this piece on Steve Ison's "Adventurers, Jugglers, Minstrels" station ...
... and of course it will soon find itself on one of my stations as well ...
Five or six listens now ... so I close with words wiser than my own ....
"Why is it that our modern world insist upon drawing such a very sharp line of demarcation between the arts and the crafts ? In the days when the arts were really an integral part of people's daily lives, that line of demarcation did not exist.... But today the artist lives on one side of the street and the craftsman lives on the other side and the two hardly speak to each other." -- Hendrick Willem Van Loon
|
|
jingo (what remains)
|
4/5/2009 6:24:56 AM
As a card carrying member of the stinky old General Public I would like to read your artist / craftsman (I liked that quote, Bandless One) thoughts on this subject, it has always intrigued me.
First I will stipulate that we are all consumers, I buy CDs, DVDs, books, whatever and so do you. I will further stipluate that you are taller, smarter and better looking than me - that's all beside the point, though.
Here's where I see "me" and "you" being different - "you" have a much deeper commitment / connection. "You" probably hear a little different than I do, feel it in a different way, can identify with what it takes to craft the art. I, on the other hand, only want to be entertained, pure and simple.
Think about all the choices I have (you have them as well, I know, I am just speaking as the regular "listener"). As I sit here pecking away, I am two feet away from a big screen TV with a few hundred channels of assorted HD dreck to offer, plus who knows what on the DVR, and three unopened Netflix envelopes. I am five feet away from cabinets full of assorted DVDs and CDs. Plus, easiest of all, I can click my mouse right now, not even have to get off my tush, and listen to who knows how many albums. Or, there are a few million URL's that aren't this one that I could be looking at. Point is, there are options available, prolly TOO MANY options. If you asked me to pick the "art" out of all of that, I would probably hand you "2001: A Space Odyssey", the rest is just entertainment.
Another factor is that it has become so easy to obtain music that it seems "devalued" a bit, IMO. For instance, right before I read this thread I was farting around on Amazon looking at DVDs. Somehow I wound up looking at King's X cds. dunno how, just clicking on stuff. Hey - I did not know that King's X released a CD in 2008. Huh, I'll be danged, wonder what it's like? They only want like $7 for it, can hardly get a Whopper combo for $7 - click click, go grab a beer and you are now the proud owner of King's X XV. So far, I like it, but like I said it was easier to get than a cheeseburger. Basically, it could go in one ear and out the other, kinda like a cheeseburger, and never have any kind of effect on me at all, we will have to see.
By now you may be contemplating ending it all, jeezuss this guy types too much blah effing blah blah, ridiculous bastard. The point is that on my particular side of the monitor, it's "product". What makes things a little uncomfortable is that, even though "you" scored a win (out of all my options I am here to listen to your indie, you win) I feel a little weird "consuming" it in front of you. I see your typing, your little pic, cartoon character, or otherwise metaphoric avatar. I can gain some insight as to what you are about, or at least what you are willing to share or create / fabricate. It's like updatable liner notes, very cool - entertaining.
So - is that "OK"? As artist / craftsman, what do you want from me, what do you think my role should be in this interactive media age?
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/5/2009 7:20:14 AM
Very nice read Jingo .... I shall answer as soon as I'm done digesting your words ... right now I'm enjoying the moment ... thank you kind person
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/5/2009 8:30:11 AM
First I must say that I enjoyed your words, and am pleased you bothered to take the time to type them ...
Then I must say that we both may be consumers ... but not in the same way ... A few years ago I did the "drop from society thing" so I buy almost nothing ... but I do consume Volumes of books at the library and listen to music on the web ... but I was a regular consumer for years, so I understand your statement ...
Yes it is true that we live in an age of "instant" gratification ... and very much so an age of interactive media ... One can do all the things you described above and more and you have described yourself as "the general public" very well indeed ... and the fact that they do just want entertainment ...
That being said ... whether the public realizes it or not it is the Arts that effect the senses ...
Scenerio ... The Beatles were artist and with a little help from their friends, they put out great art to the public ... A great thing was happening to the listener without them even knowing it ... Ask most, Specifically why do you like the Beatles and most would say they couldn't put a finger on it, it was just good music ... but the senses know better ... the senses pick up the new way that stereo sound shifts, that little clinking cymbol ride in the background is touching their spine and their nervous system, and they are completely unaware of it ...
The same goes with painting or sculpture or any other type of art ... The idea, as an artst, is to reach John Q. Publics senses in a way that moves them, even if it is an unconscious act ...
This is the area where I disagree with so many of the proponents of what they call "good solid production" in recordings ... Music first entered my life when we had a tube radio and I had a little transistor radio, when we got a "Hi-Fi" system at home, we still had many 78rpm records and mono lp's ... and I enjoyed the hell out of those recordings ... you listened for the entertainment ... not the recording ... (but it was actually the art that made you want to listen) ... I also came from a family that had musicians in it, and would spend hours listening to my grandfather playing the mandolin, uke, and banjo while other family members played kettle drums and kitchen utensils ... and it moved me ... it wasn't Carnegie Hall and Grandpa was no Roy Clark ...
There was NO "good solid production" then, and yet people listened, by the hundreds and thousands everyday, to their radio's and to their neighbors ...
An artist does not need fantastic production to be successfull ... but a production cannot get by without an artist ...
Yes millions of so so records are made and sold everyday ... but only the ones that truly contain art will still be played years from now ...
If one is in it from the business side and just wants to make a buck, then they can ... but as an artist it is not about the money, it's about making something that makes John Q. Public feel something that makes him/her feel good ... that's when you know you have created a true piece of art ...
You ask "what do you want from me, what do you think my role should be in this interactive media age?"
The answer is simply nothing ... it is an artist responsibility to determine whether or not he can tempt you to listen ... and it is the artist responsibility to create something that touches your senses ... even if you are not aware of it, the art will speak to you ...
|
|
Lars Mars
|
4/5/2009 4:38:22 PM
Not wishing to opine, just to muddy the waters a bit more:
Art in America
Glenn
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/5/2009 5:23:32 PM
Like beauty, Art is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
.jpg)
Bob Elliott
|
4/5/2009 6:11:25 PM
Like the guitars, Professor.
Jingo asks, So - "As artist / craftsman, what do you want from me, what do you think my role should be in this interactive media age?"
My answer: Click on my picture and check out my tunes...
|
|
Jesse Adams
|
4/5/2009 7:45:35 PM
You should listen to Bob Jingo... I recommend 'When Louis Armstrong Speaks'. You will not be disappointed.
|
|
Steve Ison
|
4/5/2009 7:45:57 PM
---- Updated 4/5/2009 7:46:36 PM
I thought it was a sweet-vibed track Otis..It has a good heart and a sense of space..Only thing i'd say would be to mic the acoustics rather than DI ing them..
I think crack*a*jack*crow say something similar beautifully in the lovely Wasteland Of Gold
"Yes millions of so so records are made and sold everyday ... but only the ones that truly contain art will still be played years from now ..."
Nice one Sam :)..The Jugglers station (cool station tho it is) isn't mine btw but run by Steve April..
"Everything produced is product"....Tho i guess on some sort of level you can't argue with that(like Jingos comments too),i find the sort of ultra pragmatic,cynical,deconstructionist view of music something i react against and dislike Kevin-and for me- is probarbly the reason there's so much shite,soulless modern music around 'cos thats the way the industry naturally thinks too..
If i go to a site like Slice The Pie-actually mostly musicians/listeners in their 20s sadly-they refer to music alot as 'product' too and talk about the dollar n plays n production n promotion 1,000 times more than the 'art' ( they never talk about the art)..I find the succesful music there incredibly mediocre,clinical,unbearably depressing and totally uninspiring-and sounding-well-just like impersonations of everything currently succesful i don't like..
'Product' thinking has its eyes n ears focussed on radio-ready production,cookie-cutter impersonation of current trends-image and marketing..It cares little(often nothing) for the artistic merit of whats created-only its ability to be sold,get money n get famous..It'll do basically ANYTHING to make money and be famous..It has little or no individuality
'Art' thinking is creation for the joy of creation..Its individual.It cares passionately about making music that it loves..Its got magic and mystery and the beauty and strangeness of the best songs you've ever heard..It moves you deeply,it fascinates you and takes you into the amazing world of your imagination..
All the great music of the worlds been created thru people tuned into the love of 'art'..None by product...Product'll try and impersonate it tho if they happen to live in times where beautiful art also happens to be succesful in the marketplace (like say mid 60s)...It would probarbly take a huge personal crisis to make them be themselves tho (so creating art) rather than being skilfull manipulators-but ultimately empty and soulless (product)
|
|
SILVERWOODSTUDIO
|
4/5/2009 10:41:32 PM
some excellent views here
so thanks!
Jingo --yes fine post
Steve Ison --'takes you into the amazing world of your imagination..!'
that's it ------The original Mona Lisa is ART!!!!!
a print of the Mona Lisa is--a copy just like all that "product" out there
this is how commerce treats artists---copy their original ideas and make a buck!
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/5/2009 10:41:41 PM
---- Updated 4/5/2009 10:47:02 PM
Well thank you Steve and Sam for articulating all of that, you saved me a lot of typing!
I also wanted to add that entertainment, and mindless entertainment are two VERY different things. It is just unfortunate that it seems the latter makes much more money, and maybe rather than embracing that, we should all work toward something better.
Oh and Steve, how do you do that (like what mics do you use?) because we can't seem to get it done without adding a ton of white noise.
-Drewsus
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/5/2009 11:10:06 PM
---- Updated 4/5/2009 11:10:06 PM
Mics generally don't create noise, O ... gain stages do.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/5/2009 11:11:49 PM
We are also recording in my bedroom which makes any mic use a little more difficult.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/5/2009 11:14:00 PM
---- Updated 4/5/2009 11:26:50 PM
I do all my recording in a bedroom ... always have. What do you plug your mic into?
That's where the noise generally starts ... and are you still doing tape deck recording?
If you listen to "Falling" ... a recent production of mine, listen to the choir vocals that begin the song.
They were tracked less than 24 inches away from my relatively loud computer cooling fans on about 10 channels of content (5 harmonies each done stereo)
Hear any "noise"? (Hint: you can't) Knowing your mic's cardioid pattern is also very helpful in canceling unwanted room noise. I angled the mic to cancel the fan sound coming in from the side ... thus keeping the whooshing roar to a minimum.
K-
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/5/2009 11:19:03 PM
---- Updated 4/5/2009 11:30:02 PM
Also ... to the point above.
There are two basic types of music:
1) Music you like
2) Music you don't like
There is nothing wrong or soulless inherent in well produced commercial music. There is also nothing inherently special about it.
OTOH, there's nothing special or noble about poorly produced music. There is nothing inherently wrong with it either.
Everything produced is product.
If questions linger, please refer to above.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/6/2009 12:16:29 AM
hmmm.... this is a good discussion -- as Otis & the Professors pointed out, a path we've gone down many times before......
Nothing earthshattering to add, just enjoying the input of the many talented artists on this site !
ROCK on IAC. The only place that seems to be REAL about music at times.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 2:34:27 AM
Kevin,
I agree that there is nothing wrong with well produced music. I think the problem we are trying to illuminate here is that far too often, the stuff that manages to reach the stage where it has the resources to achieve that kind of production tends to be devoid of any genuine emotion or feel or work. Rather, it seems music and art that get those resources are the pieces that are built like an equation for whatever will make the dollar sign the highest.
Even that, in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem, except that it often reinforces the concept that soulless material is the ONLY thing that sells. There is nothing wrong with people being entertained by cliched lyrics being sung by someone who never wrote them, who doesn't feel them, and is simply a pretty face to be put on the same old chord progressions and beats. There is nothing wrong with having fun with silly songs (or movies or tv). The problem is that it seems like those things are pushing out more genuine heartfelt expressions that strike at something deeper.
Our products entertain us, and fill our lives with joy, and we NEED them. SOME products, however, are also forms of art that do far more than just entertain us, they effect our lives, how we live and love and interact with the world. Our art is the clearest window into the human soul and we should embrace that and allow ourselves to be touched by it, rather than clinging solely to what is simple and easy and mindlessly entertaining.
Never thinking about the art and only thinking about the product (as Steve discussed earlier) is a way of purposefully mucking up the window to the soul in order to make a buck.
And that is what we wrote this song about.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 2:56:08 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 3:24:15 AM
Well expressed, O ...
The problem that I'm trying to illuminate is that there is no "problem" per se ... as there has ALWAYS been a blend of art and contrived ... for there are MANY MANY people who buy velvet paintings ... and LOVE them.
Who am I to judge what brings people happiness?
My parents originally HATED the music of my time ... but eventually came to appreciate it.
I grew up in a house of Sinatra and Broadway musicals ... music always around me ... and I love that music.
So ... rap doesn't suit me ... eh ... that's me.
But I'm very cautious about projecting my own likes and dislikes upon everyone. I don't get what I don't get musically. That doesn't make it bad or otherwise ... it's just what it is ... and ...
(See above)
My lens is my lens ... defining what I like ... as it is with everyone else out there.
And yes, there are people that seek to provide the content that PEOPLE THEMSELVES seek to buy ... because, well ... they want it. They LOVE velvet art music.
Said people constitute the music industry and engage in the commerce of it ... and I cannot fault them for making a living providing what people are buying. That's their job ...
... even if I HATE (like my parents) or don't understand what they fuck they're selling that shit for. Just because I don't like it or it doesn't inspire ME doesn't devalue it.
There's more to the world than my narrow likes or dislikes.
I cannot judge another for what they want or don't. That's a value call I cannot make ... I can only say it's not for me.
So the problem becomes not "production versus art versus commerce" ... that's not a problem
It's only a matter of like versus dislike. YOU OR I don't derive emotional value from it? Fine, we're not EVERYONE.
One mans garbage is another's art.
Who are we to judge?
"A CLASSIC" is never seen the the front windshield, only the rear.
I'm not the do all ,end all on what constitutes art, and I would question the validity of any person's opinion that posited they thought they knew what was or wasn't art.
If I claim to be a wise man surely means ...
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 3:18:26 AM
Probably not a surprise, but I completely disagree. This is not about us projected what we "like" and judging those who don't agree. There are a great number of things a person can not like but still appreciate as someone's art.
Since you brought genre's up let me put it this way. I cannot stand gangster rap. I often find it quite grating to the ears. However, I respect those artist that are rapping about their lives and the world as they see it, expressing themselves and how they feel. I respect that they are creating art. The "garbage" as you put it, is in the people that never even try. They aren't putting any of themselves into their music, my ears are much less offended by generic, soulless dance/pop songs, but at least I can respect the art of the songs I actually find to be worse in terms of what I "like".
This isn't a question of taste, it is a question of intentions. The claim is not that more people should like what we like. We are filling up our lives with junk that even the people who are making it would admit to be junk, that was made specifically to BE junk. If you listened/read the lyrics of this song closely, you would see that this has nothing to do with taste or personal preference, but rather with the very real issue of using such junk to drown out the things in our lives that should/could be the purest.
As mentioned in the song, so much of our art consumption has become a pageant. The people who make it know it's crap and the people who listen know it's crap, like taking an "empty lover" not inherently a bad thing, something we do to pass the time I suppose. But we could be loving so much deeper, and we shouldn't be afraid to challenge ourselves and delve into our deepest beliefs and seek ways to make genuine connections with each other. Too much of the commercialization of art and music suppresses that.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/6/2009 3:24:34 AM
ooooops ... Sorry Steve and Steve .. you two are becoming interchangeable ... :)
... of course the Minstrel's station is Steve April's .... me bad ...
I think I was thinking of Steve Ison's Cabaret Noir
Either way ... they are both great stations ...
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/6/2009 3:26:02 AM
Damn. I forgot how eloquent you were, oh wise soul of Otis and the Professors.
Alwayz enjoy your posts.
Kevin, my only beef is you mentioned VELVET paintings, which are usually CHEEZEBALL mass produced garbage, in almost ANYBODY's opinion. Even the Manufacturers that MAKE them, realize they are WALMART mass production garbage.
Startin' to dig yer style Kev -- I think I would've picked a LESS condescending sounding METAPHOR, when refering to the LESS Hi-fi Underground/Indie music scene in general.....
-just my two cents ---- which Kevin alwayz seems to bring out....
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 3:30:35 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 3:37:58 AM
The first assumption that jumps forward is:
"How the heck would anyone know any particular work's INTENTION?"
Just how does one assess that?
"It's obvious" btw ... is a personal judgment.
It's not about what you or I think ... period.
There are a great number of things a person can not like but still appreciate as someone's art. ... is still in the realm of what YOU think is art.
You cannot make that call for anyone but yourself.
What one considers "art" is a person by person call.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 3:33:47 AM
Jeez P ...
I HATE VELVET PAINTINGS ....
But others don't. It's all about what OTHERS perceive as "art".
NOT ABOUT anyone's value judgment as to what is or isn't art.
That's the point.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 3:37:21 AM
"It's not about what you or I think... period." ... is a personal judgment.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 3:39:06 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 3:41:34 AM
No, that's simple reality.
No matter what anybody thinks.
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/6/2009 3:47:36 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 3:54:22 AM
Kevin, I'd have hoped by now you had realized I'm not stupid.
I get your metaphor.
I just didn't like the implied TONE.
Velvet paintings are liked and sought after by some old ladies, artsie fartsy typesif they think it looks cool. Stoners, homemakers, crafty-types and antique shopes as well as by the white trash.
BUT, they are almost ALL MANUFACTURED ones, which I'm guessin' you were refering to. So it's kind of a STAB at music/art that is not YOUR personal choice. Ya know?
WHY would I say that? Because even Maria Andrea Gonzalez, who purchased a VELVET painting of Jesus last night, KNOWS that it is NOT original ART !!!!
That, my good man, is why I think you might've picked a better metaphor.
Capeesh?
-yer bloggin' demon, pHLeGm
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 3:48:31 AM
Also, just because someone likes something doesn't mean they think it is art. This is where your whole argument falls down, just because some people may like velvet paintings doesn't mean they think they are art. Like I said before, people love being entertained, as do I. I LOVE the movie Dumb and Dumber, that doesn't mean I think it is art.
In anticipation of my response you dismissed the idea that "it is obvious". Which is fine, because I don't think it is obvious. It takes thought and asking me to supply specific arguments as to why such a broad range of things are not art is simply an unfair tactic. There is evidence all over many songs etc, but my inability to supply a satisfactory bright line definition of what is art and what is not, doesn't mean that there is no distinction.
Actually looking at Steve's post I think he did a pretty good job. Also you forget that people often simply state their intentions and you really don't have to figure it out. Intentions aren't nearly as illusive as you claim them to be.
You usual condescension notwithstanding, this is a good debate, but your continual appeals to some kind of clear and obvious relativity is reductive of human capabilities and intricacies. At what point, along your lines of thinking does ANYTHING (art, product, morality, laws, science) become anything other than a function of the opinions of a person? What is YOUR bright line for when something can be discussed for what it IS vs. how it is viewed?
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/6/2009 3:53:33 AM
Excellent.
Well said Otis and the Professors.
I couldn't have done better myself. urrr..... I guess that's kind of obvious, 'cause I didn't.
You'za guyz ROCK and are still in MY top 10 for THE TURTLE SONG !!!!
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 4:01:42 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 4:13:16 AM
What is YOUR bright line for when something can be discussed for what it IS vs. how it is viewed?
It is only what it is to the viewer, never how it's viewed by others.
Thanks for making that point ... which was my point all along.
:^D
At what point, along your lines of thinking does ANYTHING (art, product, morality, laws, science) become anything other than a function of the opinions of a person?
"Classics are never defined through the front windshield ..."
Your individual opinion MAY add voice to popular consensus ... but you still only get to define what art means to you yourself.
... and if your opinion jives with the many, THEN a classic it becomes for the ages.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 4:06:38 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 4:14:08 AM
Because even Maria Andrea Gonzalez, who purchased a VELVET painting of Jesus last night, KNOWS that it is NOT original ART !!!!
That, my good man, is why I think you might've picked a better metaphor.
P, that's EXACTLY WHY I picked the metaphor. Even if Maria bought it with the understanding it's not art TO HER ... (or most, for that matter)
... it IS art to someone who bought it thinking it was to them.
One man's garbage ...
|
|
_REDDISH__11-27-11_001.jpg)
Steve April
|
4/6/2009 4:24:23 AM
The quantum world is much like shelley's couplet;
"worlds on worlds are rolling over, from creation to decay,
lilke the bubbles on a river, sparkling, bursting, borne away."
quantum processes are at the root of consciousness, and are at the root of DNA replication. but basically, here's the paradox, when we measure them we destroy them, and our "real world" comes to be, from the collapse of the wave function, and quantum reality, where parallel universes are all equally real.
the "surviving" wave functions get "amplified" into reality and pumped with energy.
kinda parallels a song creation, where the artist's choices narrow the song's potential universe, but also pump in energy, to make the jump into the "real world."
perhaps society's pop culture is another form of "amplification" that tends to reflect the society's energies.
Anyway, it's kind of ironic that walk into most any art museum and you can purchase an admiring book about van gogh. his paintings are studied with great zeal and enthusiasm, and art collectors spend millions of dollars to purchase an original van gogh. however, in his life he was destitute, and unrecognized.
Society "pumped" the energy in after his death. well, anyway, Van Gogh heroically fixed his creations in tangible form, and after that it seems up to society, to a degree...
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 4:31:51 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 4:40:17 AM
ha ... as an aside ...
A friend of mine, who has played w/ Sting and just about everyone ... just wrote me a PM that he played a gig w/ Ron Wood and Paul Shafer last night. He said it was one of the best gigs he's ever done.
... that's pretty cool shit.
He particularly likes my "Worcester Square" ... and voted it his personal favorite song of 2005.
WTF does he know? Now if I could only build a popular consensus on that ...
:^D
K-
|
|
the perfect banana
|
4/6/2009 4:39:08 AM
The song didn't ring my chimes. Some of it was hard to listen to.
Indie music no matter how fine isn't product til somebody serious engages in trying to sell it, for real. Music needs real businesspeople or already existent business connections to make it product. It makes me laugh hearing indies telling other indies they sold out when few of them are selling squat.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/6/2009 4:43:05 AM
" It makes me laugh hearing indies telling other indies they sold out when few of them are selling squat."
It's not about money banana .... if it were we'd all be playing cover tunes ....
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 4:49:06 AM
Unfortunate that it didn't resonate with you Mr. Banana. However, I know that if you look through this whole forum you will not find a single instance of us degrading people trying to sell their music, become successful or treat certain aspect of music as a business. Nor will you find a single instance of the phrase "sell out" or any of its like minded associates.
Being painted in such broad strokes is unfortunate. It is not uncommon for people to argue what they think someone is saying based on what they have heard people say before. But again, if you actually look at the lyrics to this song, there really isn't anything there that suggests what you guys seem to be arguing with us about.
I hope for other musicians to succeed. I would be absolutely lying if I said that I wouldn't be excited by a big huge corporate record deal, or placements on top 40 radio or even MTV. As long as we didn't have to sacrifice any of our genuine emotion and passion for what we are doing, then I have no problem with any of that, or with anyone else being successful in the same way. It is the people who either sacrifice those things, or never had them to begin with, that this song is about.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
4/6/2009 5:09:01 AM
Each of us has our own way of thinking and I think, to a certain degree, that it is sometimes hard for us to fathom why others do not see things the way that we see them ourselves ...
but there are certain undeniable facts when it comes to art verses product ... ask most any signed artist what they hate most about the music business and they will tell you that it is the loss of control over the creative process ... their "Art" is torn apart and shit canned in the name of "product" ... Pure and Simple FACT ... how anyone doesn't see that as a problem is beyond me ...
Now back to art ...
One of the most beautiful things about art is ... there are numerous graces at the artist disposal,
which no methods can teach, and the best of these artist develop a realm that only a master hand could reach ...
... and as Goethe so poetically put it ... "The highest problem of every art is, by means of appearances, to produce the illusion of a loftier reality."
"Tubular Bells" by Michael Oldfield is an example of true art ... an extraordinary album created from shear master hands ...
... and there you have it in a nutshell ... Art will speak to you ... it will crystallize emotion into thought ... if you do not hear it, perhaps it is not there, or perhaps your mind is closed ... or maybe you just like denying yourself pleasure ... like I said, it's hard to figure the workings of the human mind ...
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 5:16:41 AM
Great point Sam, and on that note...
Kevin, if those are your true feelings, and it is simple in eyes of the viewer (or perhaps in our case the ears of the listener) than you really shouldn't stipulate beyond that as to the validity of our claim. After all, if it is all relative, then maybe the points we are making here and have made in this song are EXACTLY what the listener wants. You claim that it is better to not push your own personal judgments on others, but what if others are deeply interested in our own personal judgments?
We think this is a subject that a great deal of people are deeply interested in and are ready to make some real change. It is time for popular opinion to sway the way it has so many times in our history for the better to avoid situations like the one that Sam just illuminated. And if you have no opinion either way, if you TRULY believe what you have said here, then why tell others how they should go about their business? If it is all in eye of the beholder, and the beholder is ready for a change away from the over-processed and canned and towards for genuine art, then we can only hope to give a part of the voice for such a movement.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 5:17:27 AM
Oh and Phlegm thanks for your support as always. Long live the Turtle Song!
|
|
Steve April
|
4/6/2009 5:40:06 AM
On a positive note, the history of art shows indeed, what a large difference a small community of artists can make, in the fullness of time, in terms of coming into their own in the society at large. Most every art movement started with a seed group, and rippled on from there, like ripples on the water e.g. the romantics were originally thot to be usurping the classical, now the romantics like keats are "classical," french impressionists, the surrealists, the beats, all started with a small core group and expanded out. oh yeah, and the beatles...
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/6/2009 5:53:58 AM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 5:58:38 AM
Two THINGS : one Steve April MMMM-hmmm.... SEED Group? LOVED that comment. Ya never know folks, IAC could be a small piece of that, at the very least.....
SECOND:
Otis and the Professors - DO YOU HAVE A WORD FOR YOUR FANS?
I dig the 60's retro vibe and the LYRICS are incredible. Based on the previous discussion Kevin started regarding your song, It is QUITE funny to me, (and probably only me), that Kevin White Didn't dig it. It's a variation of a somewhat similar message he was trying to deliver in Without Radio.....Welcome to Phlegm Phavorites OverPhlow !
|
|
the perfect banana
|
4/6/2009 5:55:29 AM
I was just commenting at large on the topic when I brought up the indie selling out point, not specifying you, Otis.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/6/2009 6:21:53 AM
Fair enough Banana, just wanted to differentiate our position. Hope I wasn't too hasty or defensive.
And Phlegm, it is truly an honor.
|
|
My-T-Hi
|
4/6/2009 12:54:15 PM
My way of looking at this is for music is:
Do what you want, when you can. Let other people put labels on it if they want....(or care enough too)
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 3:09:48 PM
---- Updated 4/6/2009 3:17:40 PM
Phlegm ... fwiw ... I liked Otis and the P's song ... and none of my comments to this point have touched at all on my like or dislike of it,
... only on the exclamation of what is art versus product.
The movie, "Dumb and Dumber" was mentioned above as not being taken seriously as "art" ... even though it was liked.
There are some that think "Dumb and Dumber" is art ... for if art is meant to move people emotionally, isn't moving someone to laugh out loud the definition of the height of art?
Would not Jim Carrey believe that his comedy is art?
One man's garbage is another's art.
It's ALL product ... and opinion ... and how long collective individual opinions support continuation of the medium of the art.
Steve Allen commented above about small groups of artists (fine or musical) leading to big change in societal perceptions ... which is a spot on comment.
Impressionist art and Rock and Roll are both good examples in two separate fields ...
In both cases, collective (societal) opinions (refer to the two basic types of music premise) turned to support the movements, then time and repetition itself ... turned revolutionary change into accepted norm and with even more time applied ... into classical.
The self-exclamation of any given artist during any given temporal period of art as to what THEY do is art versus product is IMO, the height of conceit. Not that it's never done, it's done all the time. Sometimes, in the face of societal rejection, conceit is all an artist has to fuel their fire.
As My-T-Hi says above:
A producer produces ... and they do what they do. It may or may not be art. It's not up to them to decide or proclaim it.
The result of anyone's efforts, in the pure sense, is product ... which makes everything originate as a product ...
... and only time and collective opinion and continued support can then eventually apply the fitting label of lasting "art" to the work. If one were a member of the little known "Doodle Art" movement in the late 1700's ... one's art now languishes in obscurity.
I'm also sure there were a LOT of hair bands in the 80's convinced that what they were doing was "art" ... but no one hears much about them anymore. The world turned away. Was it not art?
In any case, self-exclamation by an artist that their poop on a platter is "art" serves only the artist's ego, and has no relevance to the world at large. They can think whatever they want, others will truly be the judges.
To be clear, I like O&P's song ... it has a good message worth voicing ... as P pointed out.
Kev-
|
|
LyinDan
|
4/6/2009 4:38:25 PM
I haven't read any of this, but I'd just like to say I think my Big Mouth Billy Bass is a great artful statement.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/6/2009 5:02:07 PM
Witness the glory of TRUE art!
|
|
jingo (what remains)
|
4/6/2009 6:06:06 PM
A lot of very good reading here.
O&tP - I listened to the track several times. The only problem I had with it was that the lryical content seemed a little rushed in spots, somewhat difficult to follow. If you were doing a bombs-away-blood-and-thunder shredder this would not be a problem (prolly be an asset), but I can tell that you have a sincere message you wish to convey here, it was a litle tough for me to follow. So I read it. Iliked:
And the self-indulgent awe-struck
Swarming mobs creating sawdust
Of what used to be ideas that we used to could believe
-----and-----
And I see you there
Behind your eyes
Pretending this scene is worth your while
I am just a dope (hooray!) but it seems to me that the wider message you wish to convey is in those verses. At least I, the Eye that Beholds, see it that way. Very nice.
I would like to explore "mindless entertainment" and "cliched lyrics" a little bit (the robot, claws flailing wildly, warns "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson, long typing and soap box pontificating ahead" Qouth Dr. Smith: "Oh, the pain").
I am no Top 40 guy, rarely listen to FM radio anymore (unless I need to be reminded of how much it SUCKS now), and I have been around the block a few times. Some of my earliest cognisant "music moments" center around flat topped and butch waxed "giants" (my rock and roll uncles) loudly procaliming that the Beatles were for little girls, in fact may BE little girls, and that Jerry Lee Lewis could kick their ass. This would generally be followed up be a reaffirmation that Elvis is, was and always will be THE KING, followed by hours of twirling skirts and bebopping white tshirts. I have seen my sainted Granddad blow his stack because Ed Sullivan was "ruined" when they JUST HAD to put those damned ROLLING STONES on!
I have lived through the Summer of Love, Woodstock, "Gimme Shelter", Charles Manson, art rock, space rock, prog, country and western, Motown,boogie, punk, metal, arena, New Wave, alt country, alt rock, alt disco, NuAlt alternative, Fire and Rain and various protest singers sing various protest songs. I watched video kill the radio star, seen acts as both openers (so new, so fresh, so "now"!) and on their nostalgic "comeback" tours. I have seen things embraced, rejected, derided, and then embraced again. Today's bright, fresh thinking will be tomorrow's cliche, and, in general, was yesterday's cliche in the first place. Just my opinion.
As for the need for slick production, try listening to The Alan Parsons Project's "Tales of Mystery and Imagination" or "I Robot" and then MC5 "Kick Out the Jams". On one hand you have high production values, skilled musicianship, while on the other hand you have raw, unchecked "humanity". Which one is art? Which one stirs your soul, which one gets the point across? Both, neither, Depends?
When I stated that it's all product on my side, I didn't mean that in a negative "I reject your art" way. What I mean is that when I make a choice to listen to this or that, I am consuming it. If it's not good, I won't consume it again, if it is, I want a second helping. IAC, to me, is just another channel, one conduit in a world made of conduits. I am a little to old and cranky pantsed to be looking for some dude with a guitar to touch my soul, I just want to be entertained. It doesn't have to be slick, and it really doesn't have to be moving or meaningful to me - if it is, cool, but there is no prerequiste that says it has to. My question was "is that OK?" and I think I have my answer.
Great topic!
and btw, I did click on Bob's pic and had a nice long listen Sunday afternoon, and yes, I was entertained.
|
|
Sly Witt
|
4/6/2009 6:17:47 PM
---- Updated 4/7/2009 2:58:38 AM
The story of two musicians (named One and Two):
One stubbornly insisted on creating his own music. He was once offered a chance at a recording contract but couldn't accept the strings attached. He wouldn't sell out. Music is a part of his soul.
Two played in a the most popular cover band in town. One of the guys did write an original and it became a minor hit. Music was always more of a business for him.
I submit that One was a good artist and a decent craftsman and Two was a great craftsman but not as much of an artist.
Forward 30 years. They both end up working as computer guys in the same office. One's still writing and recording and posting on IAC and anywhere he can get someone to listen. Two's still doing cover gigs a few times a month. One envies Two his gigs but secretly is grateful that he's (one) still got the 'spark' and that the muse still speaks to him. One is sad that it's become kind of a parlour trick for Two.
But... if you want to go out and party to tunes you've heard before you sure want to go listen to the craft of Two. One kind of sucks at that.
One.
|
|
satch
|
4/6/2009 8:03:35 PM
Goood reading, on the whole...
Here's my tuppence worth:
Art is art until enough people buy it, then it becomes product!
|
|
SILVERWOODSTUDIO
|
4/7/2009 12:06:01 AM
2 cents worth indeed!!!
we have some thoughtful writers showing considerable historical and visionary knowledge (of the Arts)
--slywit, Oat P, even Kev
but Steve A just blows me away with his stuff!!!!!
:^D
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/7/2009 1:02:49 AM
---- Updated 4/7/2009 1:03:21 AM
lol ... even me?
:^D
Sly ... I'm both sides of your example. I could do six hours of covers easily. I'm encyclopedic that way. I could do four hours of Beatles alone! :^D
I could also do six hours of my own stuff ... w/ three releases out, two more in the wings ... and a backlog of other semi-written stuff I've been meaning to tend to.
... and I am lucky enough to have both my creative spark intact (I'm still writing frequently) and a life's experience and knowledge to draw on as I execute my vision.
Notice I didn't say art?
Not my call.
My point,
:^D
|
|
Sly Witt
|
4/7/2009 3:18:48 AM
Kevin made a good point....although I'm not sure how much of what I do is 'vision' as opposed to pure inspiration. I wish I had more 'vision'. I'm almost a slave to that inspiration... but when it comes, it's the closest I get to being 'one' with the Universe.
Maybe that's what some of the 'older' guys here miss... in the 60's and 70's you'd turn on the FM every day and hear stuff unlike anything you'd ever heard before. The beatles would have a new album, the next day Jefferson Airplane, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Canned Heat, Frank Zappa, Jimi Hendrix, the Beach Boys... you get the idea...that was just one week...and it was all NEW. The genre's we're using here were being invented. Where's the new stuff??
It's here, I think. I hear a lot more interesting stuff on IAC than I do on the radio or on TV. It's the rare 'mainstream' artist who makes me sit up and go 'wow'. Everybody should be listening to you guys (and ladies).... seriously...
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/7/2009 3:52:13 AM
---- Updated 4/7/2009 4:02:59 AM
I didn't intend to demean anyone by my comment, Sly. I hope that wasn't the case.
If you listen to "Falling" on my page, you'll hear something I heard in my head in an amorphic state long before it became realized.
That's sort of what I meant by vision.
I "hear" the whole finished product ... conceptually, not exactly ... in my head, then I attempt to "execute" my personal concept of what I "saw".
"Falling" was an unwritten song ... crafted as I worked ... because I had a clear direction and simply followed my muse.
I used to write simple songs. I seem to now "hear" whole productions ... with a sense of how to accomplish what I "hear" in my head ... utilizing what tools are at hand via my learned craft.
My curse is a constant lack of tools that fulfill my dreams.
I want full orchestras with real people, dammit. lol ...
I can't explain it more than that ...
And regardless ... It's still ONLY the product of my personal vision.
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/7/2009 9:26:55 AM
---- Updated 4/7/2009 9:34:11 AM
Jingo, I greatly appreciate your involvement in this discussion, and your last post is exactly the kind of thing that inspires us and gives us hope. Your approach is admirable. Most people would never go through such lengths to give new and interesting music a shot. You may not get into very much of it but at least you listen, and even listened deeply as showcased by your insight on our lyrics which were right on. The fact that this approach seems so rare is sad to us, and the inspiration for this song. Like you said, some stuff you just don't like and won't consume again, but you are at least seeking new and interesting things instead of simply plugging yourself into the machine because it's easier. And that is all a true artist can ask for.
I think slywitt really hit the nail on the head here. This topic, and this song, are not about us. It was never about trying to claim some kind of higher ground for our own benefit, or anything about our own feces, Kevin. I'll get back to that in a minute.
I was watching a documentary on The Monkeys (the band in case there was any confusion) and they were talking about how much they hated the vast majority of their own music. They thought it was soulless mindless garbage, and so did the producer and the writer, but they knew it would sell. And then this producer said, in a very recent interview, that once The Monkeys started asking him if they could write their own songs, he knew he needed to get rid of them and find artists that "wouldn't talk back to me. No one cares what you feel, they care about trends and what we tell them is hip." THAT is what this is all about. Not about us.
This song is about Bob Elliot and Steve Ison, about Sam, Todd, and Phlegm, Susan Raven and Satch. This is a song we wrote when we listened to the music of the people here and knew that it unfortunately may never be heard by so many people. I'll be forced to hear "I Kissed a Girl" a few thousand more times, but what would happen if all the people constantly exposed to that had just one listen to "When Louis Armstrong Speaks"? I think the world would be a better place.
Love,
Drewsus
|
|
Conversation Suicide
|
4/7/2009 9:54:25 AM
Man. OatP -- I guess the "optimist" side of me, is hopin' that ONE of us, who promotes the CRAP out of our good stuff, gets a broader audience.
Hopefully it'll been an artist who's willing to take the MANY talented IAC artists, who AREN'T like a NOFX or Jim Carroll, along for the ride.
Kind of like the small movement idea mentioned earlier, growing BROADER.
I listen to the IAC music, much like you guyz at OatP ALL the time. It used to be IAC almost exclusively, except at parties, & when chillin' with friends and family who wanted to hear IAC AND other music. But, now they play Commercial Radio (mainstream) at my day job, and I gotta say, the only thing missing for MOST IAC artists is support/finances & listeners....
I mean there is SOME Really RADIO_Ready stuff up in here on IAC (production wise) and MANY INCREDIBLE songwriters.
BUT -- then there's a part of me, when they play OLDIES music at work, or even RECENT oldies from the 90's and early post millenium hits, that WONDERS --- WILL any IAC Artists have MUSIC that ends up being worshipped like those songs from the past 100 years in music, that SO many consider to be classics or even "instant" classics??
THAT will SURELY only be something that remains to be seen AFTER DEATH for many of us!
DON'T forget though -- there are a NUMBER of SUCCESSFUL indie artists existing on IAC --so we're certainly in GREAT company! Example: Joe Jack Talcum (workin' with HUGO too now) of The Dead Milkmen, or TOM WAITS or Dano Johnston or DOZENS of other famous PUNK/Indie artist on IAC....
AM I Deluded? will the rest of us get to JOIN them in underground fame/notoriety??
Shit, I'll settle for the notoriety at the very least.
TIME will TELL.
- GREAT blog re: your song OatP -- you've really inspired some insightful commentary up in here.
-pHLeGm
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/7/2009 10:09:48 AM
This has been a great discussion Phlegm! And, believe it or not, we are optimists. We believe the world is ready for this movement, and why not IAC? There is SOOOOO much talent here. Why not Conversation Suicide taking the radio stations by storm? Why not return to the days when the music on the radio could come from artists that really meant it? If Dylan and Hendrix and Floyd could all be megastars, why not some of the people here who put the same kind of love and passion into what they do?
We believe this movement is coming, and we can only hope to be a small part of it.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/7/2009 3:15:29 PM
---- Updated 4/8/2009 12:30:54 AM
It was never about trying to claim some kind of higher ground for our own benefit, or anything about our own feces ...
???
I hope you understood that I was talking in general terms, not about anyone here specifically. Please don't take anything said personally.
To summarize my "art versus product" hypothesis:
An artist cannot claim anything they produce is "more art" versus other's being "less" art (a.k.a. "mere product"), for it could very well be "poop on a platter" (a.k.a. "plain 'ol shyte"), and just because the artist proclaims it their life's work (well, in a sense it is ... but I digress), they cannot label what they produce as a "higher art form". It's not their call.
Everything produced is product ...
... the product of my efforts
... the product of Sly's efforts
... the product of Sam's efforts
... the product of Bob's efforts
... the product of O&P's efforts
... and on and on.
The complexity of the work will vary from producer to producer. The polish of the production will vary from producer to producer. The appeal will vary from producer to producer as interpreted by viewer to viewer.
Accordingly, no producer can stake claim that what they do is true "art" for that's a term that can only be applied by others (and time).
Conversely, no one who produces can stake claim that what they do is any better or worse than anything else that's produced in the world ... and look down their nose at the work of others ... for we all spring from the same well: everything created is born equal, like children who run off and have a life of their own, some will prosper ... others wither and fade.
For finally, from our own narrow viewpoints ... there are only two types of music in the world.
(See above)
(last note: it could also be argued that everything produced is "art" ... in an all encompassing loose extension of term's definition, but I prefer to leave the term more narrowly defined to represent what is, over time ... recognized as works of artists that are especially noteworthy and stand the test of time)
P.S.- Peter Tork of The Monkees is my next door neighbor. He's recovering from cancer surgery at the moment. The prognosis is good. The impact of the Monkees on the music business cannot be easily dismissed. They were HUGE.
P.S.S. - I hate "I kissed a girl" ...
|
|
Pinedog
|
4/7/2009 6:51:33 PM
---- Updated 4/7/2009 7:48:59 PM
Holy chit mon. I read the whole thread. And i thought Kant was deep. You folks have taken this to the molecular level. Fascinating, as Spock would say. Excellent viewpoints, respectfully shared. Challenging accomplishment. Bravo to you all. To bad more world leaders don't/won't/can't/ follow suit.
I just had a grilled cheese for lunch. Not much time, so i used those slices. They are called "cheese product"....meaning that only some of the contents are derived from real, pure cheese. Independent cheesemakers will proudly state that cheesemaking is an art. Is there a correlation here?
IMHO, the most important message from this entire discussion is that tolerance for the opinions of others is the essence of the art of healthy communication. Hats off to you all.
wish i had time to drop by more often...........Pinedog
|
|
Otis and the Professors
|
4/7/2009 8:15:00 PM
Well it looks like there is simply no convincing you Kevin. Good discussion anyway.
I just think there IS a difference between something created by expression and something created through suppression. But you knew that already.
I'm just glad this conversation has been so deep and diverse. If we are having the conversation we are moving in the right direction.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/7/2009 9:51:57 PM
---- Updated 4/8/2009 12:52:13 AM
I just think there IS a difference between something created by expression and something created through suppression. But you knew that already.
I did, O.
But today's dynamic is simply a different dynamic in a long line of different and varied dynamics of how music has been historically created and/or supported ...
So no:
I don't think it matters much how or under what conditions the process of creation is undertaken or forged. I don't think free expression inherently makes better (or even different) music than any other condition. It's all just product born of the mind(s) of man ... under all conditions. There might be arguments made that suppression, oppression and depression (a.k.a. adverse challenging conditions) make for BETTER musical creation (read: blues ... in part).
Consider:
The grand masters of classical music were near slaves, totally beholden to their benefactors for survival. They were commissioned, and told what/who they'd be writing for ... and occasionally what "format" (i.e. opera, ballet etc ...) they'd be writing in; ALL with a target time line to coincide w/ upcoming special events i.e. birthdays, weddings, funerals, marriages, bot mitzvahs ... wait scratch that last one ... so they were under strict time constraints too.
Or let's cite Broadway Musicals, and the incredible pressures, deadlines and budgets and challenges associated with bringing them to stage.
The Beatles were told to come up with a title song for their movie ... immediately. They returned to their hotel room and wrote: "Hard Day's Night" ... overnight.
... and yet ...
I don't think many people will support an argument that what the aforementioned created under severely pressed conditions wasn't art.
Same sort of dynamic exists today, but let's exchange "benefactor" or "Broadway/Movie Producer" to "Record Company".
... and yet ...
Art can still blossom forth, even in a commercialized, suppressed environment. It happens. Often. (Refer to: two kinds of music ...)
All that being said, I only buy range free eggs.
Kev-
|
|
Sly Witt
|
4/8/2009 3:28:44 AM
I think only the artist can truly decide what is their 'art'. It's up to the public to decide whether the artist is popular. I was going to say "good" but that's such a nebulous term. As Phlem (I think) mentioned, some artists aren't really appreciated until they're dead... sometimes for a long time.
Great point, though, about 'Hard Days Night'.. so maybe it's just product..but done by such great artists that the art broke through.
This is a 'whole 'nother topic', but I think that some of what's considered 'art' by the masses is directly proportional to the ability of the 'artist' to BS folks with money. Maybe this is just sour grapes on my part, but I don't think so.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/8/2009 2:04:33 PM
There's a story told of an agent that took a company's best selling artists and pitched one of their already recorded "B side" pieces that had already appeared on one of their albums to the same record company's executives and was told that the artist didn't have any future in the business and declined to pick them up.
There's always been a push/pull between the business of the business and the ephemeral will 'o the wisp nature of the product sold.
Artists generally don't like the business side of the business, and struggle against having business people tell them their business.
Seeking a balance back towards the "art of the matter", less business intervention, artists strike out on their own ... resolving that this time, they'll create a more "artist friendly" environment.
Take United Artists (Mary Pickford/Charles Chaplin) or A&M Records (Herb Albert/Jerry Moss) as two notable examples, but there are many others.
It's interesting to note that as the medium slipped from hard product to soft, that the people most responsible for distribution of product, the ones who consider themselves "experts" ...
... totally fucked their businesses.
And here we are ...
Kev-
|
|
Sly Witt
|
4/8/2009 4:08:59 PM
It hit me in the shower this morning. I don't know why I got into the whole art vs. product thing. Art Schmart... I just like write and sing songs.
|
|
Kevin White
|
4/8/2009 4:15:38 PM
Exactly.
Everyone only does what they do.
Then it's left for others to like or not like ...
"Art" is a very slippery term.
K-
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |
|