|
| | Liked the article, but I think a problem you might have here is conflation of the desire to have one's music heard and the desire to make money. The two can co-exist, but often the term "sellout" is reserved for those musicians who seem to be thinking of their financial life more than their music. The reason people were so mad at Liz Phair wasn't because she wanted to be popular. It was because she was previously a gifted songwriter, and she seemed to abandon that path because she wanted to make more money. Say what you want about cultural elitism, but the thought that art is a higher calling than money really isn't a bad thing. |
| |
|
| | I agreed with you up until you started suggesting that bands that shed their idiosyncracies in order to conform with objective, popular standards of Good Music(TM) are actually getting better. Then you wrote "Saturated radio airplay should be something to aspire to, not bemoan the existence of. The dominance of certain styles of music, certain artists should act as a pointer not to "what's wrong with music", but what's actually connecting with listeners." and I hung myself with my keyboard cable. I'm typing this right now while I await the sweet release of death. |
| |
|
| | P.S.: Indie music may be 'communist' in theory, but mainstream music is communist in practice (in the sense that it churns out a bunch of worthless shit, and alcohol is the only way to mask the extreme unpleasantness of it). |
| |
|
| | P.P.S.: I agree wholeheartedly with Utica5. It's not all black and white; there's a huge difference between licensing your existing songs out to get more money and wider exposure (see: "Gravity Rides Everything", which is still a very enjoyable song regardless of its being used in a minivan commercial) and changing your sound towards those same ends (see: _Good News For People Who Love Bad News_, which was a mediocre album that I don't listen to very often), and an even bigger difference between either of those and being in a literally manufactured band, created from the start for the express purpose of making money (see: that single in the UK Jukebox a couple weeks ago by a line of HARD-ROKKIN' children's dolls). |
| |
|
| | I think you're confusing communism with totalitarianism, whiteboy. And I seem to recall most of the commenters didn't like the Bratz song... |
| |
|
| | Many music fans want to have ownership over music. They need to feel that a record is theirs, or their discovery, or their territory. This is MY Sigur Ros album, this is MY detroit techno compilation from '87. The more that it is widely known, the less sense of ownership the music fan has. It's such a great feeling when a friend goes "wow, what's this CD?" and you go "actually, it's __________, you can only get it on import, and I had it ages before anyone had even heard of 'em...". That can't happen with, say, Franz Ferdinand or the Beatles. You can't discover them: they're already discovered. You can't 'own' the album yourself because everyone already does. That is the exact reason why you kind of liked Green Day until everyone got into them. It's true that wierd art gives a unique experience and simultaneously is less appealing to mainstream consumers, but that's not the whole story. Imagine if Outkast were still totally obscure and unsigned. You'd might well have Speakerboxx/Love Below as the jewel in your "put it on when the art student friends come over for beer" CD collection. OutKast wouldn't have sold out, they'd be revolutionary (I still think they are revolutionary, but hopefully you get the point). All of this, IMHO, affects the degree to which music fans criticize artists for selling out. |
| |
|
| | Posted 10/12/2005 - 01:20:49 PM by whiteboysushi:
...and I hung myself with my keyboard cable. I'm typing this right now while I await the sweet release of death.
Posted 10/12/2005 - 01:24:39 PM by whiteboysushi:
P.S.: Indie music may be 'communist' in theory, but mainstream music is communist in practice (in the sense that it churns out a bunch of worthless shit, and alcohol is the only way to mask the extreme unpleasantness of it).
I like whiteboysushi because he's funny and he can type.
|
| |
|
| | I agreed with you up until you started suggesting that bands that shed their idiosyncracies in order to conform with objective, popular standards of Good Music(TM) are actually getting better.
Not exactly what I said. What I said was that some of these uncommercial idiosyncracies often taken to be great virtues by the fans are embarrassments to the artists, and they're jettisoned when the recording budgets goes up NOT because they're selling out, it's because they're actually able to do and record what they want, and can thus "improve", from their standpoint if not anyone else's.
As for Liz Phair, I would argue that she's still a talented songwriter. There are fine pop songs on her self-titled album. Art over money, yes, but the two can interrelate, and many different artistic processes are valid. |
| |
|
| | Edward: mostly I'm just having trouble imagining a band whose most unique, immediately noticeable attributes are also their least essential. I'm not just talking about lo-fi production or anything like that, but stuff like Isaac Brock's tuneless yelps or Meg White's shitty drumming. I dunno, "shambolic grandeur" and all that jazz, whatever.
Also, TheBrad is a charmer. He doesn't know it but I giggled like a schoolgirl when I read his post. |
| |
|
| | Meg White's shitty drumming makes some of their songs, especially "My Doorbell". Which is why, even though TWS would, in theory, have the cash to make her sound technically better, they don't.
I'm specifically talking about this comment: "Oh, X was much better when they used to write songs about Y/have more Z in their songs". I myself am hard pressed to come up with an example because I don't think selling out, at least in the derogatory sense (nearly typed DeRogatis there) doesn't actually exist most of the time it's called out. |
| |
|
| | The one nit I have to pick would be the assumption that artists are infallibly progressing (or even maintaining a certain level); and that, given the resources, they can create the music they've always aspired to create. For example, some artists straight-up run out of steam--they record one or two great albums, say, but in doing so exhaust all their ideas/energy/certain-special-something. But, on the strength of their early success they've made something of a name for themselves. Thus, when they make their next album, the one that gets scads of distribution/airplay/whatev, it's a weak rehash. Fans cry "sellout," but that's not (always) the case; sometimes they just don't have it anymore (the same way athletes sometimes lose their touch). I agree that the listener doesn't always know best, but let's not give the artist god-like powers either. |
| |
|
| | Pretty much all I have to say to that is "word". |
| |
|
| | I dunno, you got something there, man, but in the end you just end up way too popist - and popism is just as ugly as rockism (something many Stylus writers seem to have failed to grasp). You place far too much importance on success, to the extent that you almost conflate sales and quality. Of course, high sales and high quality are not mutually exclusive, but nor are they the same thing. If they were, the entire reason for music criticism would evaporate; we wouldn't need to read anything about music beyond fan-bios and the Billboard charts.
And some of the stuff you're saying reflects a seriously distorted view of reality. While I agree that Usher, Kelly Clarkson and Gwen Stefani will hold a significant place in the music history of the early '00s, I find it very odd that you consider Crazy Frog or the Pussycat Dolls to be in the same league. Novelty bullshit is novelty bullshit, whether it sells nothing (The Dwarves?) or quadruple-Coldplay.
Similarly, your linking of popularity and historical significance is just as tenuous. While popular '80s artists such as Duran Duran or Prince rightfully hold an esteemed place in musical history, artists who failed to shift large numbers at the time, such as Gang of Four, R.E.M. and the Replacements are remembered just as highly. And the Crazy Frog of the day? Well, when was the last time you heard Men Without Hats mentioned outside of a punchline?
Also, I really don't get you lionizing the hip-hop attitude to selling out - hip hop fans can be just as snobbish as rock fans about selling out, but they have a different criteria for what is acceptable and what isn't. And sometimes they're right. Excessive airplay doesn't make 50's "Candy Shop" a better song than something like "Ski Mask Way" or "How To Rob". And that's the biggest thing you're missing: sometimes, whether the artist is motivated by art or by commerce, what they think is bad and what they think is good isn't necessarily correct. So saying that "uncommercial idiosyncracies often taken to be great virtues by the fans are embarrassments to the artists" doesn't necessarily mean that the artist jettisoning what they consider an embarrassing element will result in better music. Sometimes the artist doesn't know what's best. |
| |
|
| | I have indulged in a tiny (hah) bit of exaggeration for effect here. Sales are an indication of how many people like it enough to buy it; what motivates people to buy it is something I'm not really qualified to speculate upon - quality is a factor, as is exposure, as is cachet, as are many other things.
I think we can both agree that saying that popularity MEANS quality is as stupid as saying that popularity precludes it due to most people being ignorant morons with cloth ears. People have preferences and I refuse to believe that they're without reason. |
| |
|
| | Hole. The first record Kim Deal produced, and rocks, but sold little. The second record, which K.C. wrote, was even better and sold lots. The third record which B.C. wrote, was worse than any of them and probably sold less copies than either of the first two.
Now, the co-writer of American Sweetheart has gone on to produce much more popular music than the C.L. solo record (for my purposes, the fourth Hole record).
There is a relation between quality and popularity, but palatability is the main signifier. The first Hole record is edgy, but not something you can imagine on the radio. The fourth Hole record is definetly radio ready, but like the third record, lacks the X factor in favor of homogenization. It's that second record that was raw, yet polished. Maybe Hole has other record that I'm forgetting, but I really couldn't care less what the hell I put on the Internet. |
| |
|
| | J.R.K: So you have incontrovertible evidence that "K.C." wrote the second Hole album? I'd love to read it. The only name I see on those three Hole albums is Hole's. The group puts a stamp on the material no matter how many songwriters are credited.
P.S.: Kim Gordon, not Deal, produced Pretty on the Inside. |
| |
|
| | Oh, leave him alone. He doesn't care what he puts on the Internet (man!). |
| |
|
| | It's understandable; I mean, I can't even keep Frank Black and Black Francis straight, and they're the same fucking person. |
| |
|
| | yeah, kim gordon. the internet nerds win again! and it's pretty obvious that courtney love didn't write all those hook laden songs on "live through this" herself. k.c. wanted to break up nirvana and start a goofy pop band with her, so they probably wrote those songs together. i wouldn't believe anything courtney ever says, especially since she claimed "i write better lyrics than kurt". but billy corgan definetly wrote "celebrtity skin" when he was doing courtney, so it's only logical to assume kurt wrote "live thru this" when he was doing her. do you want to write a hole record? go find courtney, put a bag over her head, do her, and then write some songs and have her cough up a lung into a microphone! |
| |
|
| | Well, Courtney Love DOES write better lyrics than Cobain, and always has. |
| |
|
| | Cobain wasn't exactly a lyrics dude. Melody/noise was more his forte (specifically, combining the two in radio friendly unit shifter fashion, intentionally or not - oh no! Did he sell out?). |
| |
|
| | Har. Of course Kurt sold out. But he did try to counter "Heart Shaped Box" and "All Apologies" with performing w/ Earth ["screaming" his goddamn guts out on the Extra-Capsular Extraction EP], and rumbling a guitar alonside Bill Burroughs. |
| |
|
| | so i suppose courtney's lyrics are responsible for the 90s zeitgeist revival? i seriously can't think of a Hole song that derails all you critics as good as "serve the servants" did. |
| |
|
| | OMG, i totally forgot "when i wake up in my makeup". what a soothsayer. |
| |
|
| | seriously can't think of a Hole song that derails all you critics as good as "serve the servants" did.
And I thought that song was just a jejune exercise in combining "erudite" imagery. Huh. |
| |
|
| | you are right, it's as contrived as you would be posting on the internet without consulting your thesaurus. |
| |