.jpg)
So I'm just sitting here putting a little CD together of some music I've been listening too lately including bands like Deathcab for Cutie, The Shins, Postal Service, Modest Mouse, Iron & Wine, etc. - bands that, more or less, are off the radar of mainstream music, but demonstrate brilliantly creative song writing (in my humble opinion.) Suddenly, I hear the Iron & Wine cover of "Such Great Heights" (originally by Postal Service) coming from the TV in the other room. Curious, I dash over to the TV, only to find some guy sitting on a park bench - eating M&M's.
Maybe what struck me was the contrast between a mainstream product riding on the coat tails of obnoxiously invasive and ubiquitous American-style marketing - and a song of considerable artistic integrity that took some extra work for me to discover, and that by word-of-mouth.
It begs a few questions:
- Is there any hope that purveyors of pop culture (eg., media conglomerates) will ever recognize the inherent value in artistic expression, aside from it's revenue potential?
- Given the subjective nature of artistic expression, is it even possible to separate artistic excellence from financial incentive?
- Will the large grassroots followings of many "indie bands" ever get the attention of those who hold the keys to widespread cultural exposure (i.e., the media conglomerates)? If so, would these bands be compromising their creative integrity to partner with these "key holders" if they were guaranteed their continued creative licence?
- Are test markets, and other mechanisms that media conglomerates use to predict if a song/band will be worthy of mainstream attention, artistically bankrupt?
- Is it possible for artistic appreciation in society to grow such that it overcomes the current soured marriage of capitalism and music?
(Interesting, isn't it, that some of the best art and the most talented artists in today's world have been relegated to advertising agencies and PR companies - the engine rooms of greedy capitalism.)
For those of you who see any semblance of logic in these questions and can follow along with this ambiguous rambling, please feel free to bring clarity to my nonsense.
For those who don't have a clue about where these questions are coming from, let me spell out my frustrations a little more clearly. It seems that, in Western society, we are strategically exposed to and given access to music that will make the businessmen behind large media conglomerates (e.g., Viacom, EMI) more and more wealthy. Therefore, the music we hear on radio and television is only there because of it's potential to make these men (and, granted, the stockholders) wealthy. My issue is that music, as artistic expression, has value outside of it's ability to make money. And, unfortunately, some of the best music in the world today does not cause these media bosses to see dollar signs. Having said that, capitalism has seemingly infiltrated, hijacked and trivialized Western society's concept of artistic excellence by declaring that music only has value if it has the potential to rake in the money.
There. I'm done now. Please don't call me a music snob. I think my Linkin Park collection disqualifies me from that label.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First of all, nice looking blog. I've never been a fan of eblogger, though. It always seems like I have to register anew every time to post a comment. (I'm even typing this post in note pad in fearful expectation of having to register yet again). If your gonna learn some basic html and css then definitely go with a freeware program like movable type and keep brandonwellcome.com. Having your own domain is impressive and the freedom to customize your own site is unmatched by almost any other service (except maybe typepad).
(Before you read on, I apologize. You hit my "History prof" button this am... so get ready for the "mini-lecrure" ;-) ).
Next, the comercialism of art is tragic but not in any way new. For the last 600 years of Western civilization, artists have found only two ways to greatness: selling out to some degree or death. In the first catagory, we have such greats like Michelangelo and Bernini (art used by the Popes to increase revenue of the Papal States) and J.S. Bach (music master for the Elector of Saxony: I recently read that he was commissioned to write a nine part contata for a coronation of his boss and it was pretty cheesy; however, JS recycled the bad but lucretive art into parts of his most artitistic works such as the Christmas Oratorio and the 'Hosannah' section of his B minor mass). In the later catagory we have folks like Van Gogh who died penniless. Then there's artists like Motzart who is a bit of both catagories: struggling with selling out and, as a result of not selling out, died with much less pomp and cash than he would have otherwise.
I actually sense and hope that we are coming to an end of comercial art for mass marketting because the days of mass marketting are coming to an end. The internet and all the technologies bundled with it have empowered artists to reach audiences without the largess of greedy corporations. I'll give it about another 25 years... until then, enjoy those M&Ms!
I think Anon. you're right and wrong. Right and the beginning and wrong at the end. I'm not sure where exactly you're seeing this lull in media and advertising. It seems like just when it can't get any worse someone figures out how to... well I can't think of another word so I'll just say it, whore themselves out for capitalism. This is coming from a guy who worked for 3 years at a movie theatre in the states. I would go away to college and everytime I came back, there'd be a little more advertising somewhere. They find palces to put it. And where there are no places, they create it. I can't tell you how many times I've thought to myself, "There's no way this place can get any more commercial." And every time I'm proved wrong.
B-Real, speaking of movies, that's how you're dear friend with the sweets knew about the song. Garden State. The movie was ok, but it was accompanied with such a huge advertising campaign for the 18-30 range. And anyone who wants to be "down" with that generation is going to go ahead and jump on the band wagon.
I think mostly what it boils down to, as I mentioned in our IM conversation, is that to have artistic integrity or quality, or an artistic nature about yourself, you're going to have to take risks that probably not everyone will like. The idea of mainstream is to give the most appeal to the most amount of people. In order to do that, the standards must be lowered so that no one will be offended or displeased by any aspect of that which you're presenting. What you end up with is sort of a watered-down, hallow version of whatever it was you originally had. But it's those risks that make songs (or in a greater sense, works of art) interesting. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't but that opinion is of course in the eye of the beholder.
Like I said you're buddy on the bench probably doesn't know who Ben Gibbard is. Or that the song was a cover or even who originally did it. But you do. He's probably never sat in an open-mic night in a coffee shop and listened to crappy guitarist after crappy guitarist waiting to hear that one song which was actually pretty good. But that's his loss because he missed out on that one moment, that you got to experience. And that is worth more than M&M's and an iPod.
With the advent of podcasting and several inidi-band portals (http://www.podsafemusicnetwork.com/) i think that there is no-problems with inidi-bands getting exposure. As far as how the radio has turned to crap (thanks clear channel) in the usa as well as DRM in music cd's i think that overall main-stream music is in a decline thanks to the very greed you write about in your post. The problem is that many music consumers only get their music from the radio and not from reccomendations from friends and other music buffs thus making more money for sony,emi and the other major distributors of music.
Post a Comment