Whether we like their music or not, people like Chuck D and Courtney Love deserve at least our respect (and we won't forget them) for the stand they've taken on the MP3. Down the road, when this mess is sorted, we'll all remember two kinds of "music-makers" : those who supported MP3 and those who fought the new technology. Of course it's up to us to decide who we'll remember fondly as the true artists, and who'll be remembered as just making music to make money.
Selling out isn't only about the music. Bands change, music changes, it's inevitable, and we each decide according to our tastes whether we like the new directions taken by musicians or not. Ultimately though, if the artist is truly making music as an expression of their creative energy, it wouldn't matter if we didn't like the music, because their intent would shine through and we'd at least be able to respect the artist, if not enjoy their music. However when musicians start making music because they have a contract to fulfill or a bank account to fill... then it wouldn't matter what the music was like, their intent would still show through, and without the respect for the artist, we'd have no respect for the music. We might like the music, we might even listen to it, but there is a very distinct difference between listening to a song you like, and one you like -and- respect. Listening to good music that you respect is an experience you savour. It makes you feel something. The artist's emotional investment in the song allows you to feel the intent of the song. A song just written to get radio play will do just that. You'll hear it on the radio, and then turn it off, and forget about it. Good music makes you think and makes you feel, long after the final chord has been struck.
A good artist makes music because they love the art form and they love expressing themselves, and moreover they love the experience of sharing their expression with others. That's why musicians perform. For the 99 out of every 100 musicians who don't make it big by performing, they could be making a lot more money by training to be lawyers or purchasing-agents or bus-drivers etc. Many musicians do work other jobs to fund their performing. They clearly aren't in it for the money. They are there, practicing every night, putting their finances out on a limb, dealing with the stress of setting up gig after gig in a different small venue every weekend; because they love performing and "sharing" their music, which is their experience manifest in an artform. To be right to the point now, what this illustrates is that the primary goal of a visual-artist, or a musician, or a filmmaker etc. is to have their work seen, heard, and experienced. The artist derives pleasure ('utility' if we would apply the cold terminology of an economist) from their performance, from the shared experience and mutual emotional bonding that occurs between a performer and their audience. This is their reward. This is what they work for.
Financial remuneration, is the inconsequential and secondary possible way of deriving utility from performance. In light of the emotional (and if you are inclined to believe so; spiritual) benefits derived from performing, many musicians would (and often do) perform for either little or no financial compensation, or even for a loss. It is an insult to every -true- artist of any ilk, past, present and future, for anyone, most of all a -purported- artist to suggest that financial rewards should ever be put ahead of the ultimate goal of sharing one's expression. If they wish to treat an art-form as an industry, and expression as a product, they should have enough respect for those who create art because the art -is- its own reward; to ensure they make no pretenses of artistry. No false suggestions that they are in their line of work for any fans, or because they love what they were doing. If they loved what they were doing and if they enjoyed the fact that their fans enjoyed their music, then the money wouldn't mean a thing.
It's not a sellout, or someone who was in it for the money before being a sellout, that I mind. Everyone has to make a living, and if that is how they choose to do it, that's fine with me. It is those I mind, who lie about their intentions and desires, and in doing so, offend the true nature of every -true- artist ever to live.
I'm not pointing any fingers or naming any names. I'm hardly qualified to be a judge of people's natures. All I hope is that every artist out there will never lose sight of the best reasons to be an artist. Love your audience, they are your lifeblood. As long as your message is reaching your audience, all is well, no matter what you do or do not get paid. Remember this, and no matter how much I love or hate your art, you'll always at least have my respect for being an artist.
And respect, is more valuable than anything money can buy.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether we like their music or not, people like Chuck D and Courtney Love deserve at least our respect (and we won't forget them) for the stand they've taken on the MP3. Down the road, when this mess is sorted, we'll all remember two kinds of "music-makers" : those who supported MP3 and those who fought the new technology. Of course it's up to us to decide who we'll remember fondly as the true artists, and who'll be remembered as just making music to make money. Selling out isn't only about the music. Bands change, music changes, it's inevitable, and we each decide according to our tastes whether we like the new directions taken by musicians or not. Ultimately though, if the artist is truly making music as an expression of their creative energy, it wouldn't matter if we didn't like the music, because their intent would shine through and we'd at least be able to respect the artist, if not enjoy their music. However when musicians start making music because they have a contract to fulfill or a bank account to fill ... then it wouldn't matter what the music was like, their intent would still show through, and without the respect for the artist, we'd have no respect for the music. We might like the music, we might even listen to it, but there is a very distinct difference between listening to a song you like, and one you like -and- respect. Listening to good music that you respect is an experience you savour. It makes you feel something. The artist's emotional investment in the song allows you to feel the intent of the song. A song just written to get radio play will do just that. You'll hear it on the radio, and then turn it off, and forget about it. Good music makes you think and makes you feel, long after the final chord has been struck.
A good artist makes music because they love the art form and they love expressing themselves, and moreover they love the experience of sharing their expression with others. That's why musicians perform. For the 99 out of every 100 musicians who don't make it big by performing, they could be making a lot more money by training to be lawyers or purchasing-agents or bus-drivers etc. Many musicians do work other jobs to fund their performing. They clearly aren't in it for the money. They are there, practicing every night, putting their finances out on a limb, dealing with the stress of setting up gig after gig in a different small venue every weekend; because they love performing and "sharing" their music, which is their experience manifest in an artform. To be right to the point now, what this illustrates is that the primary goal of a visual-artist, or a musician, or a filmmaker etc. is to have their work seen, heard, and experienced. The artist derives pleasure ('utility' if we would apply the cold terminology of an economist) from their performance, from the shared experience and mutual emotional bonding that occurs between a performer and their audience. This is their reward. This is what they work for.
Financial remuneration, is the inconsequential and secondary possible way of deriving utility from performance. In light of the emotional (and if you are inclined to believe so; spiritual) benefits derived from performing, many musicians would (and often do) perform for either little or no financial compensation, or even for a loss. It is an insult to every -true- artist of any ilk, past, present and future, for anyone, most of all a -purported- artist to suggest that financial rewards should ever be put ahead of the ultimate goal of sharing one's expression. If they wish to treat an art-form as an industry, and expression as a product, they should have enough respect for those who create art because the art -is- its own reward; to ensure they make no pretenses of artistry. No false suggestions that they are in their line of work for any fans, or because they love what they were doing. If they loved what they were doing and if they enjoyed the fact that their fans enjoyed their music, then the money wouldn't mean a thing.
It's not a sellout, or someone who was in it for the money before being a sellout, that I mind. Everyone has to make a living, and if that is how they choose to do it, that's fine with me. It is those I mind, who lie about their intentions and desires, and in doing so, offend the true nature of every -true- artist ever to live.
I'm not pointing any fingers or naming any names. I'm hardly qualified to be a judge of people's natures. All I hope is that every artist out there will never lose sight of the best reasons to be an artist. Love your audience, they are your lifeblood. As long as your message is reaching your audience, all is well, no matter what you do or do not get paid. Remember this, and no matter how much I love or hate your art, you'll always at least have my respect for being an artist.
And respect, is more valuable than anything money can buy.