Artistic Integrity And The Dichotomy Of Success

I've been dealing with the concept of art and music a lot lately and I'm feeling compelled to share some of my thoughts, as they actually pertain to my current situation.

Let me know what you think (in cursive only).

A CAREER IN MUSIC

I recently met up with an old elementary school friend of mine for drinks and coffee. We had, what I considered to be, great conversations and I thoroughly enjoyed the get together.

As we are both musicians, it's only logical that music would be a topic. And it was. (See, told ya).

My opinions on music, and music as a career have evolved quite a bit since I was the rapscalion of yesteryear, so it's always interesting for me to see where others are in their personal perspectives.

Well, my elementary school friend wants to make an album that will really sell and appeal to a lot of people.

Understandable from a particular point of view, sure.

He said that he does not want to write a bunch of crap, he still wants the music to be good, and represent him and his voice, but he wants people to like it right away.

If you're curious, this would be his very first album.

Unlike me, he believes that he can be successful in music, still, in this economy, and with the business crumbling all around us. Obviously he is much more of an optimistic than I.

So that is, or seems to be, his current philosophy. And more power to him.

But it has not been mine, at least so far.

PHILOSOPHIES ON ARTISTIC EXPRESSION

I said already that I do not agree with him on this point. So what do I think?

(You can stop holding your breath now, here comes your full release of opinion).

My perspective is this: If I'm going to make the choice to put effort into a project, it might as well be the thing that I personally would want to hear, and not compromise what I feel is the core of the art.

There are already an abundance of sub-par to shitty albums out in the world put out by bands who don't give two shits about creating actual art. Why would I possibly want to contribute to the ever growing waste pile by putting out pandering to mediocrity?

Art, and purity of art has been important to me for quite a while. Some say it's bullshit, which is no skin off my back (fuck! My back skin just came off!!!). That's just what I care about.

To me putting out something into the world that has the potential to be emotionally impactful, intellectually stimulating, does not condescend to people, has purpose or a cause or message, and speaks something personal is much more worth creating (and worth listening to), than something that is designed purely to make money.

Is there really a difference between the two?

I definitely think so.

I've heard people say that if your art does not piss some people off, you're doing something wrong.

Or that art that everyone likes must be garbage.

That's a fairly extreme view, and very similar to the artist character from my house party blog. But is there some truth to that?

Again, I think so. If the goal is communication of a feeling, thought, or concept to an audience, the impactful, most creative, most cutting edge ideas will never appeal to everyone on a large scale. And that's okay.

THE DICHOTOMOUS CAREER IN ART

A career in music is quite different than a career in art I would argue. And just so we're clear, I'm using the word art in a broad sense meaning an all-encompassing creative project, not literally, as in a painting of Elvis.

Here is the flaw, and where money and art collide.

Generally, when people speak about art in the big picture sense, they are considering qualifications like the purity of the art, freedom from compromise, and the ability to create whatever is in their imagination, not beholden to traditional restrictions of contemporary styles, tastes, or conventions. Literally the freedom to create what you want because you believe in it.

Take that philosophy to heart when considering a career in music.

Let's say you have a successful debut album, and many people enjoy what you've done. Great. (Unless it was shitty, then not so good). Now it's time to make album numero dos.

Let's pretend that you care about artistic expression, and want to diversify and do something more experimental on your next record, because that's where your heart is. (Some say it's at home. But that's where you hang your hat).

If you release that new, different record to the fans, the ones that wanted more of what you've done before, you run a very high risk of alienating your fan base, and not making any money from the album. Sure it could be a hit, but the odds are against you.

Since your career path is music, and only music, that is where you need to make your money, so being overly artistic and pioneering is actually a bad choice from a business perspective, yes?

In order to make money, you need to run your music like any other product and try to directly appeal to the consumer by making what you know they already want, not showing them something they did not know existed.

Therefore to have your financial well-being directly and solely tied to your art, you have to, by definition, compromise your art so that it will sell to as many people as possible to sustain the career, thereby negating the entire philosophy of art being pure personal expression.

Sadly art as a career rarely happens. And when it does, it's luck my friends. Pure Luck. (But thankfully, not that shitty movie with Martin Short).

SELLING OUT

When I embarked on this long complicated journey five years ago that would culminate in my soon to be released (as of 8/09) 3rd album, I was working with a friend of mine, and great musician to bounce early ideas off of, or to help in developing some guitar riffs and melodies to complement my initial piano progressions.

In the beginning, I explained to him my loose road map of what I wanted to do with this album. I wanted to challenge myself from nearly every aspect this time: longer songs, more changes per song, more complex instrumentation, more unexpected chord changes and melodies, and something that really told a cohesive story musically from beginning to end.

Those are big shoes to fill for sure (I'm size 11), and whether or not I accomplished that goal for the album is not up to me.

The point being that from the outset, my musician friend was all gung-ho about the direction and style. It left him ample room to throw out suggestions that may have seemed to avant-garde in the past, but were completely valid in this new territory. At least that is how I felt when composing.

Half a year later things had changed. Not for me, mind you. (Are you minded yet?)

I could tell he seemed less and less interested in working on the style and direction of the album I was developing, and soon he began suggesting an entirely different idea.

I'll have to paraphrase as I don't recall exactly what was said. But it went something like this:

"Hey man, I've been listening to a lot of more simple music these days like [band name] and [other band name] and that's really the kind of thing that I feel like I want to be doing right now."

I conceded that I also liked one or both of the bands he mentioned, and had no problem with more simplistic music in general (assuming it's still melodic and subjectively good), but that this current album of mine was designed to be a particular style and feel. Simplicity would have to wait for another project, as this one was supposed to be the antithesis of that.

He appeared to accept my defense of the current project, but immediately tried to convince me to do something he knew I had argued against in the past.

"Yeah, I'm just not into the really progressive stuff right now though. I was thinking about this a lot lately and if you wanted to do another band that was just really simple, really super catchy music, I'd be all for working on that."

I raised an eyebrow, as this was coming from the same person who was so enthralled and excited with pushing and expanding our musical preconceptions just a few months ago. But I kept listening to his idea.

"I just feel that you could write some really good poppy stuff if you wanted to, and we could totally make money off of that. People like the really commercial-sounding music. Just look at what's going on. All that complex, musically progressive stuff just won't sell, save for music students. You have to please the people. You can't just write whatever artsy thing you want for yourself."

I can't write what I want for myself? What happened to you my friend? What happened to the guy that made emotional, artistic music an important pillar in his life? The one who wrote songs for himself, because he was moved to do so? The guy who cared about the beauty and integrity of music, regardless of the style or genre it was written in?

Looking back I know that some of his shift in priorities stemmed from his frustration of getting close to thirty and feeling like has not done anything with himself. (I'm in a similar boat right now, in some ways). He was feeling that if we simply gave into the current musical trends, and fucked our previous notions of music as genuine art, that we could instantly have a successful career path in the business.

Is it possible?

Perhaps.

But it is not in any way, shape, or form what I want.

A MATTER OF PRIORITIES

As you may already see, it all depends on what your goals are with that particular project.

Is your goal to create the thing that most reflects your personal perspectives, no holds barred?

Or is it to be tranditionally successful?

I can tell you that while being successful doing what my old guitarist advocated might initially be exciting and/or monetarily fulfilling, I would soon come to regret my choice of direction, and would become bitter (sorry, more bitter) and dissatisfied with it.

It all comes down to what your priorities are. Is traditional success (money and fame) your top priority? Great. Go get it. Write a bunch of songs with the aim of pandering to a mass audience and enjoy it. Honestly, best of luck to you.

However those are not my priorities, and have never been.

In my mind, most paramount of all, is the creation of music that is personal, emotionally expressive, and imaginative. If it does not fulfill those basic criteria for me, then I see no reason to do it (unless it is a specific project like a comedy skit, or a song about making fun of goth kids).

I will say the downside of focusing on art over accessiblity, is that you run the high risk of only appealing to a small group of people, or even no groups of people.

But if that does not conflict with your priorities, so be it. I'd rather look back and be proud of what I offered unto the world, than be embarrassed for something I did on purpose.

CONDESCENDING MUSIC AND CHALLENGING ART

One of the comments I received from my elementary school friend about the music on my new album, is that it is rather challenging. Basically, it's not one of those albums that you like instantly on a first pass listen, due to the fact that thre are so many parts per song, and way too much to absorb right away.

I acknowledged his observation, saying that most people who have given it a few listens have ended up really connecting with it on a personal and emotional level. But it took some time.

So is that bad? Is that good? Let's get some more opinions stat!

I have always enjoyed music that did not assume I was an idiot. I have developed a hatred of music that talks down to me, using overly-simplistic, tried and true, run of the mill melodies and chord patterns that have been used for half a century, and lyrics that were written by a thirteen year old who is new to concept of poetry.

That is what I call condescending music. It assumes your audience has the IQ of recent road kill, and the depth of a rotting beet field. Sure, many people embody those traits, but not everyone does.

I don't like being treated like a child wearing a helmet, so I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt (when it comes to appreciating new music and art that is).

I believe that it's okay to challenge people. It's okay to ask something of your listeners. It's okay to make people actually think about something for a while.

What you put into it, is what you get out of it.

Some of my favorite albums of all time, I did not really care for upon a first listen. "Hmm, I don't know," I remember thinking. "I liked a few parts here and there, but I'm not really loving this album. Maybe I'll try it again later."

And luckily, I did try it again later. And eventually, with each successive listen, I discovered more and more that I had not heard before, and also more and more that I really liked. Now I love them, and put them on a list of best albums of all time.

It was because I put effort into understanding and absorbing those initially challenging albums that I ended up feeling more connected to them in the long run. I was rewarded for my effort with a deeper intellectual and emotional connection to a piece of art.

THE FINAL THOUGHT

So that's how I feel. I care about music as a form of artistic expression, even when many do not, and would rather put out something that I truly believe in, that may never sell, than make money off of something that is only contributing to the continual dumbing down of popular culture.

Too extreme? Do these opinions hold any weight?

Weigh in.


Related blogs:
Existentialist Artist And Drunk Evangelist part 1
The Death Of The Album And The Death Of Music

Enjoy reading this blog? Please socially bookmark this page, or post it on your Facebook, and most of all comment with your personal stories, observations, or violent objections.

Visit the all new DeprecationWear online store! Sarcastic, self-deprecating and elitist merchandise. Click HERE to see my wares!



buy unique gifts at Zazzle

Tags: art artistic integrity music philosophy selling out perspective priorities beauty pure