Anyone still make Rock music as Art?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

Frankly I never did get over Jeff Baxter playing on that Donna Summer song (that was him yes?) `She Works Hard For The Money`.

See, another example of you judging him. He was already mega-rich from his work with Steely Dan and the Doobs.... so where is the 'sell out'? How much do you think that he got paid? There has to have been an incentive for him to do that, but money could not have been it.

 

Bill

[doc taz]

Speaking of Dream Theater, at one point during their existence, they had a talented keyboardist named Kevin Moore. He has a self-running entity called Chroma Key . So far, it's released two albums, and a demo CD. A new one is coming in the summer.

 

Compared to many of the artists that have come from the world of DT, Moore's probably the most adventurous of them. In addition to being a multi-instrumentalist (he also plays bass, guitar, and vocals), he's fluent in Japanese, and has studied filmmaking. Moore also has taken up various peace-based causes. Music remains his number one reason for living, thankfully.

 

I'd describe Chroma Key as an ambient, yet organic sounding trip, full of subtle nudges from various genres of music, and tastefully placed samples from various media (movies, tv, etc.). Very tasty stuff. If you've heard the song "Space Dye Vest" from DT's "Awake" album, then IMHO, you've heard the beginnings of Chroma Key.

[Robman2]

Abe???

 

Did that woman get seriously hurt during that fall?

 

YIKES!!!

 

R

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

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.

I don't think so. Lots of artists have evolved and done different things without necessarily "pandering" to anybody. It's not just a question of "rejecting change," it's a particular type of change. Besides, a fan has a perfect right not to like something that an artist they admire does, just as an artist has a perfect right to do what he likes regardless what the fans think.

 

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?

It's "bad" because a longtime fan of Thompson would see it as cheapening his work and would probably be disappointed with the work itself. It's an emotional response, which is a perfectly valid response to art, ya know.

 

But a 'sell out' is bad. I've -never- seen the term used in any format that wasn't a put down.

It IS a put down. No question. I'm just saying it's not an entirely meaningless and vague 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.

Well I've never been a fan of either Genesis OR Phil solo, so I can't really comment except to say that I have known a few other well known artists for whom it doesn't matter that they're already rich. Their chief motivation is to get richer, and to have more hit records, rather than to make the best music they can make. They've become addicted to fame itself, and often times a fan senses this. The fans aren't always right, either, and maybe the artist really does enjoy doing the work that the fans have labeled "sellout." But that doesn't mean I can't understand where the fans are coming from.

 

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.

And it isn't. That was what I was trying to explain. Merely selling well isn't usually what gets somebody labelled a "sellout." People apply that label when they perceive (whether rightly or wrongly) that the artist is making artistic decisions based on what will sell rather than what will yield their best work. If you can make those two things overlap (which some people do), more power to ya!

 

Did the Stones 'sell out' when they did "Some Girls"? Or back when they stopped doing blues and recorded "Satisfaction"?

Not in those particular instances, but the Stones are kind of an oddity because they have one guy (Jagger) who's only too happy to "sell out" pitted against another guy (Richards) who'd like to wring Jagger's neck every time he does that. The result of combining those tendencies is often great - "Miss You" for example managed to sound like 70's disco AND still sound like the Stones. And the Stones were also able to embrace punk to a degree on the Some Girls album because punk isn't really incompatible with the Stones' vibe. But they've done other records that sound much more formulaic. For instance Jagger wanting to work with the Dust Brothers on their last record was a real yawner and seemed like an obvious attempt to appear current and hip for the sake of it.

 

And yes there were fans who thought the Stones "sold out" when they stopped doing blues. In fact, Brian Jones thought that to a large degree. I don't agree with that personally of course, but I can understand why some people did. Nevertheless, few people have stuck the "sellout" label on records like Beggars Banquet or Exile, because the Stones managed to evolve as a band and still show their roots. They also managed to make hit records without really sounding like anyone else or pandering to the other trends of the day.

 

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.

Like I said, yes it is a put down and it's an emotional response, but often an understandable one, and I don't think it's entirely without merit or meaning.

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

Frankly I never did get over Jeff Baxter playing on that Donna Summer song (that was him yes?) `She Works Hard For The Money`.

See, another example of you judging him. He was already mega-rich from his work with Steely Dan and the Doobs.... so where is the 'sell out'? How much do you think that he got paid? There has to have been an incentive for him to do that, but money could not have been it.

 

Bill

I`m not judging him, I`m judging the music. That`s what listeners do, they make judgements on what they hear. It works for them or it doesn`t.

As many times as I`ve heard that song it still

has a `Bambi featuring Godzilla` flavor.

[Jedro]

Well, I never expected so many replies or to generate a discussion about money vs art. I think my question was a little vague, whether or not something is artistically valid is completely up to the listener. I guess, to me, the music I heard on the Genesis concert was not the most radio friendly music. There was a cetain integrity there. Maybe they were really raking in the cash, but it didn't seem like the kind of music you'd play, particularly in the 70s, if you wanted to make a lot of money.

Thanks for all the recomendations. Some I have heard of, some I have not. I'm going to check a few out and see what grabs me.

No one listens to music for any other reason than the fact that it moves them, at least I should hope there are no other reasons. That's what music is for. But things are so stale these days that I figured there must be someone out there who's doing something different.

 

And the avatar, yeah it's pretty funny! I hope the woman didn't get hurt, but with falling into a hole like that, I don't see how you couldn't come away witha bruise or two. Or three.

[skipclone 1]

BTW, as far as `sellout` being a hippy-era term-

I don`t know what people were yelling at Dylan when he went electric, but check out the song `sellout` by Biohazard. Yeah, try getting in those guys` faces and calling them a bunch of hippies.

[Basshappi]

Wow, my first post on the guitar forum

 

Abe, you might try Jethro Tull and Kings X. Opposite ends of the rock spectrum prehaps but I think that both bands exhibit the qualities you are asking about.

 

Cheers