Anyone still make Rock music as Art?

[Jedro]

I just happened to catch an old Genesis concert on TV the other day. This was post-Gabriel, but pre-solo Phil Collins. I really enjoyed it although I'm not a big fan.

Does anyone really do music like this anymore? I don't mean 1970's progressive rock. I just mean music that is created as more of an artform rather than a money-making venture.

I guess I just need something new.

[doc taz]

Tough to say. While I realize money's an issue with most folks, so what? I go for artists that move me, and hopefully aren't just a bunch of airhead posers and money hungry folks, regardless of style of music.

 

As for current prog-rock, I like Dream Theater and Pain of Salvation , among others. The latter is particularly interesting on many levels and highly original. Its singer is among the most dynamic, expressive person I've heard anywhere. He's also a fine guitarist and drummer, and has a mind for political issues (he studied in college for several years, but stopped due to PoS taking up more time).

[A String]

Hmmm...Not a whole lot of new stuff like there was in the 70's...One of my students had me learn Paranoid Android and Just by Radiohead. I must say that the guitar solos in those songs were very original...Unlike most of the thing's I've heard. Not sure what the rest of thier music is like though.

[Funk Jazz]

have you listened to XTC? Phaser? Sigur Ros? Trashcan Sinatras? Phish? Wilco? Kelly Joe Phelps? Chris Whitley? Radiohead?

 

there are tons of good bands that put commerce after artistic vision.

 

all the bands i listed have records out within the last three years, it is happening NOW.

 

i would suggest avoiding corporate record stores like the plague, hang out in some local shops and you'd be surprised at what you hear.

[J J]

i dont have an answer to that question (nor do i remember what it was )

 

But i just wana say your avatar is HILARIOUS!

[yamsa2000]

That really is the best avatar I've ever seen. I got a laugh out of it too.

Aussie band Jet is one that comes to mind.I like the fact that they're not afraid to make a stand against all that DJ rubbish. Also the Robert Randolph Family Band - just like old times, to quote David Letterman. Trying to think of another recent band that have a whole Led Zep thing going, just can't think of their name.

[Lee Flier]

Hmm... I'm not sure I entirely understand the question the way you worded it. How can you be sure Genesis wasn't money motivated? And just because music was created without regard to money doesn't necessarily mean it's going to sound "arty."

[skipclone 1]

Check out Mew, from Denmark. Not much in the way of solos, but their songs are dense, textured work. They started out as a group assembled to make a soundtrack for an art film-doesn`t get more artistic than that. They put on a great live show too.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

I'm fond of the October Project, but even that stuff is ten years old, and more celtic leaning than art rock. If you missed the Strawbs back in the day, you might aquaint yourself with their stuff. If you do like the October Project, you could check out "Grey-Eyed Glances". They have a few CDs out in a similar vein.

 

Bill

[skipclone 1]

Good choice-I have their self-titled debut.

They sure weren`t around long.

[iMember]

I wouldn't call October project Rock... Great music, though. Shame they broke apart after just a couple of records.

 

I've recently been listening to the Notwists. Excellent stuff. Check it out.

[yamsa2000]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Hmm... I'm not sure I entirely understand the question the way you worded it. How can you be sure Genesis wasn't money motivated? And just because music was created without regard to money doesn't necessarily mean it's going to sound "arty."

Me too - you play music, people pay you. Most bands I've heard that claimed not to be interested in making money have been so bad that making money was never going to be an issue anyway. When you get right down to it playing rock is a pretty safe way of playing music....it's a well trodden path, despite the rebellious posturing.

[Sauce]

the jam band scene (the only modern music i really listen to these days) is very much about the music. most of these quite talented bands, (phish, string cheese, keller) allow recording at concerts for free, they have whole concerts online you can down load for almost nothing. some of them have music on their websites.

 

it's definitely an artform for a lot of these guys. i mean the music is a bussiness, it's their job that can't be forgotten that professional musicians play music to earn money but a lot of these guys care about the music and the audience and what they're playing.

 

hah yeah and about that avatar, a friend of mine sent me that one about a week or so ago, i've been watching it like non-stop. it's so good. although, it's not quite as good as the one with the telemarketer girl singing. i dunno if anyone else has seen that one but it's hi-larious and the most annoying part is that i lost the url and i can't find it again.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Well, yeah, we do need to recognise that when we sell a product, it is commerce. As soon as we sell a ticket or a CD, it's widgets and any 'art' is incidental. But there was a school of rock in the 60s/70s called "Art Rock", led by Yes, Genesis, the Strawbs and a couple of others.... so if it is art or not is not really the question... we're looking for bands in the "Art Rock" vein.

 

Bill

[skipclone 1]

I also think that the terms are fuzzy here-`art rock` is a musical category that has nothing to do with whether it`s intended to sell-obviously if it`s released commercially it`s meant to be for sale, in a record shop. Where it differs is in not deferring to common expectations of song length, instrumentation, vocal quality, etc.

OTOH, music people who have no concern whatsoever for financial matters-AT ALL-are amatuers, in the classical sense. That`s a perfectly legitimate avenue but none of the groups you mentioned fit that category.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

I also think that the terms are fuzzy here-`art rock` is a musical category that has nothing to do with whether it`s intended to sell-

Right. I got confused by that as well because at first I thought he did mean "art rock" the genre, but from the way the rest of his post reads, I got the feeling he meant something else.

[A String]

The actual fact is, it takes money to live. A lot of musicians like to maintain all (Although it rarely happens) of thier artistic intergrity when they sign a record contract. But all musicians want to sign that contract. The only other hope is to be a part-time player and get another job. When you start out, you have dreams of making it big so many people can hear and enjoy your music. In order for that to happen, it must be a full time job which means it must pay you an income. Now I know there have been a few bands who have turned down gigs in protest of the high ticket costs, but you still see them playing out, getting paid and collecting royalties. Even painters strive to sell thier art. I don't belive a persons willingness to sell thier product can remove the lable of art from it. Even bands like Phish get paid. How much money does a person have to make at thier job before they have "sold out"?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by A String:

... I don't belive a persons willingness to sell thier product can remove the lable of art from it. .....

I didn't say that it did. What I said was that any art content is incidental.

 

Selling is selling. That act contains no value judgement as to the seller, the buyer, or the quality/content/destination/or resoning behind what it being sold. As soon as something is offered for sale, it becomes a part of commerce. A Twinkie or a Piccaso, makes no differenvce in terms of the act of commerce. Only the size of the numbers change.

 

"Selling Out" is a nebulous, hippy term for someone who changes their lifestyle in ordser to get money. It rarely applies to anyone doing anything. (Or possibly, it applies to everyone doing anything besides sitting int he park smoking dope and bitching about the government.)

 

Bill

[Danzilla]

A group that has struck as close to a balance in this area is Marillion. They started aout as "art/prog" and were successful at it, in a commercial sense as well as artistic. Then they had some not-so-commercially successful years. Now they've taken the bull by the horns. They approached their fan base and aske them if they'd be willing to buy the next album upfront, before it was even recorded. Then they new how much money they had to work with for recording, hiring a producer, etc. They budgeted to get Dave Meegan to produce; made their copies for the pre-orders, and then took a finished product to a record label and got a good distribution deal out of it for the remaining copies. Now they've done this again with their new album, but are also budgeting for a tour so they can go where they haven't been in a while (like the US). Do we all have that large a fan base on which we can call? Probably not; but it's an innovative way of making the album. They were able to make the music THEY wanted with out having to worry about having a hit single for the record company. Although they did have a #1 download from MP3.com!

 

I'd like to think that my music is partly for the art of it, as I'm certainly not making much money at it! And in the Christian music genre, we keep telling ourselves it's about ministry, not money. To quote Bill Gaither, "It must be ministry, 'cause it's rarely entertaining!"

[A String]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by A String:

... I don't belive a persons willingness to sell thier product can remove the lable of art from it. .....

I didn't say that it did. What I said was that any art content is incidental.

 

Selling is selling. That act contains no value judgement as to the seller, the buyer, or the quality/content/destination/or resoning behind what it being sold. As soon as something is offered for sale, it becomes a part of commerce. A Twinkie or a Piccaso, makes no differenvce in terms of the act of commerce. Only the size of the numbers change.

 

"Selling Out" is a nebulous, hippy term for someone who changes their lifestyle in ordser to get money. It rarely applies to anyone doing anything. (Or possibly, it applies to everyone doing anything besides sitting int he park smoking dope and bitching about the government.)

 

Bill

Sorry man...misunderstanding. Didn't mean anything by it.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

"Selling Out" is a nebulous, hippy term for someone who changes their lifestyle in ordser to get money. It rarely applies to anyone doing anything. (Or possibly, it applies to everyone doing anything besides sitting int he park smoking dope and bitching about the government.)

I certainly agree that it's OK to get paid for playing music, but I don't think the term "selling out" is completely vague or meaningless either. I think it refers to making artistic decisions based on their perceived commercial profitability rather than what the person would actually consider good. The increasingly tight formatting of radio stations is a good example. It used to be that program directors and even DJ's could make a decision to air a song based on their personal judgement that it was a good song that deserved to be heard. Now the decisions are made by focus groups and demographic sheets, and the DJ and even the program director have little to no opportunity to use creative judgement.

[strat0124]

Its only art in your own mind, or not!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Danzilla:

...is Marillion. "

Yeah, THAT'S the name that was rattling around in the back of my head but would not emerge!

 

Theres the whole "Tangerine Dream" crowd, but that stuff pretty much puts me right to sleep... just like Pink Floyd, it's not my cut of tea... or my "illusion on a double Dimple"....I'm much more likely to be drinking scotch than tea!

 

Bill

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

[QBI certainly agree that it's OK to get paid for playing music, but I don't think the term "selling out" is completely vague or meaningless either. I think it refers to making artistic decisions based on their perceived commercial profitability rather than what the person would actually consider good. .[/QB]

Perhaps. But it is most often used in an accusatory fashion by someone who has no vested interest to put down the efforts of another.

 

And who decides? If I decide tomorrow to start writing music for commercials (again) because someone offered me money to do it and I found the process challeging enough and interesting enough to take on, should I be castigated by someone else who wasn't asked or who perhaps is not so successful or lucky for doing so?

 

I have just never seen the term applied in a rational fashion. It seems to be along the lines of calling someone a cocksucker.... has little actual meaning, just seems to be a perjorative term.

 

Bill

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

I have just never seen the term applied in a rational fashion. It seems to be along the lines of calling someone a cocksucker.... has little actual meaning, just seems to be a perjorative term.

Yeah it is used irrationally a lot, I'm just saying there IS potentially something meaningful behind it (as opposed to calling someone a cocksucker ). I think a lot of it is simply expressing disappointment on the part of a fan who feels let down. Take a guy like Richard Thompson who is famous (to the extent that he is famous) for playing and writing what his creative judgement dictates, with complete disregard for whatever is popular at the moment. If he were to suddenly start working with Britney's producer and writing disco tunes, his fans would feel completely betrayed. I think that would be a legitimate feeling and "sellout" would be a legitimate word to describe those feelings. That doesn't mean Mr. Thompson or anybody else shouldn't do whatever they think is best for themselves and their career. It's just that from the fan's perspective, a move like that would be a huge disappointment and likely to cause bitter reactions, and I can see their point of view having been let down that way before. In fact, many long time Genesis fans express such disappointment in Phil Collins.

[A String]

That is a great point Lee. I suppose if you look at a "sell out" as being a person who has given up their artistic integrity to play something they normally would not just because the money is there, rather then as a person who has sold out by accepting money for their existing art style...I was looking at it more along the lines of the latter. Where a person would be a blues player and be offered lots of money to play blues and then be called a sell out for playing for money. I would disagree with that label. But the way you used it, where the blues player is offered lots of money to play (say) disco...I would have to agree with you 100%. That, IMO, would be a sell out.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"Take a guy like Richard Thompson ... If he were to suddenly start working with Britney's producer and writing disco tunes, his fans would feel completely betrayed. I think that would be a legitimate feeling and "sellout" would be a legitimate word to describe those feelings."

 

See, that is where I think that is where we diverge. The 'fan' is judging the artist, and of course the 'fan' always wants the artist to keep playing the same thing over and over again, with different names. He rejects the change, and castigates the artist.

 

Meanwhile, it's certainly possible that Richard Thompson might find it a challenge and a joy to write for Ms Spears, and she might decide that she wants to add some of his depth to her public offerings. That exposure puts him in a larger spotlight, likely bringing more listeners to give his catalog a try. This partnership improves her work, and displays his. Why is that bad? But a 'sell out' is bad. I've -never- seen the term used in any format that wasn't a put down.

 

"In fact, many long time Genesis fans express such disappointment in Phil Collins..."

 

and why? Phil stepped in for PG, and did a yeomanlike job of singing all those Genesis art rock favorites of mine. Genesis grew into something else, and began to fill arenas, still on the strength of their 'art' style music. He had a boatload of money and no reason to 'sell out'. He chose to make a different kind of music in his solo career, some of which I liked and some that I didn't, but obviously he liked it, becaue he released it. He became very, very popular on the choices that he made. Where is the "sell-out"? He was already rich. He was solo.

 

I don't think that I have ever seen an actual case of a 'sell-out' in pop music. It seems almost ludicrous to me, because the very nature of the music industry is to sell. Selling well should not be a bad thing. Did the Stones 'sell out' when they did "Some Girls"? Or back when they stopped doing blues and recorded "Satisfaction"? Did Alanis Morrsette sell out when she stopped doing disco and recorded a wildly popular album of her own songs? Did Glen Balard 'sell out' when he produced that recording?

 

I just can't find a resonable use for the term that does not involve someone trying to use it as a put down. I'm open to other views, but I can't seem to get a handle on it here.

 

Bill

[skipclone 1]

I have to disagree there-not in the pejorative nature of calling someone a `sellout`, obviously there`s a negative connotation-but that it has anything to do with the artist`s motivations. I don`t think fans want to hear the same thing over and over, especially not with someone as capable as Richard Thompson, nor would they. But there`s a big difference between evolving musically and playing on Hillary Duff`s latest opus. Whether the artist sees it as a necessary evil or an artistic challenge to play teen pop, it`s unlikely that the audience for that music would suddely get interested in complex, challenging music, and it`s equally unlikely that the older fan base would suddenly start debating Britney`s wardrobe choices. It don`t work like that, mon. Frankly I never did get over Jeff Baxter playing on that Donna Summer song (that was him yes?) `She Works Hard For The Money`.

[synthetic]

If you like Genesis, I think you might like Kevin Gilbert. "Shaming of the True" is my favorite album released in the last five years. I don't know anyone who's listened to it that wasn't blown away. It's a true "concept album" without the art rock fluff, all great songs. I just listened to it this morning and it still gives me a charge.

 

Great guitar tones, too, I noticed a cool sound this morning that sounded like compressed/direct mixed with distorted guitar, really cool sound. (I can't tell, did that take it on topic or drive it off?)

 

http://www.popplusone.com/shaming.html

[Robman2]

The muse drives the craft.

 

Daily practice, masterful technique, inspired licks, general mundaniety, lyrics, good bad or ugly are all part of the process.

 

Keeping ones skeptical critiquefulness intact long after the first version, is a good idea.

 

Does anyone ever simply say, this tune is done?

 

After the fact we all could or would edit additionally but once it's tracked it out of the barn and then of course there are the gems we would't change for anything.

 

Are we talking lyrically fronted art or musically fronted art?

 

Oh and more to the point, we are all in this for the art or were, making money, was a perk...???

 

In my sphere at least.

 

Rob