In an article from the New York Times about some new tunes, readers are able to sample innovative musical selections from four current, unconventional artists. The first artist is actually a pastor of a church. I found this particularly interesting because the author of the article found the lyrics quite moving, and the manner in which he describes the artist’s musical methodology is intriguing. It is certainly refreshing and encouraging to know that music “made in churches” can have an impact outside of the building’s walls.
Another artist from the article creates more jazz-like music that is rearranged in irregular positions. For instance, one song sounds like it is beginning in the middle of a song. After all, who said that we have to start at the beginning? Who said that there needs to be a “beginning”?
The third artist is actually an Australian duo that has created a nice jumble of jazz and electronic styles, to put it simply and broadly. In a sense, you would expect to hear this music in a hipster community, yet even in that setting, it would probably still be a bit startling to hear. And the last band seems to have found a way to hipster-ize pop music.
I found these artists interesting because most people are probably inclined to merely shrug their music off for various reasons. It is comparable to abstract art, though. Think of de Kooning’s work. There are some pieces that we “get” and others that we would like to keep looking at. Recently (and partially due to our class), I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the current music available, both in English and Spanish. This article and a lot of what we have experienced in the art world this semester have taught me that, in order to satisfy this dissatisfaction, artists need not create for others–unless, of course, money is a huge obstacle. Create with what is in you; get it out. Be less concerned with what others will think of the piece than with how to successfully make intangible feelings tangible through sound, texture, and sight. One of the artists from the article says, “You end up listening to music that you like. We ended up liking music because of the sound and not because the band was hip or trendy at the time.”
I think you’ve brought up a great point here, Karissa! I actually had a discussion the other day with some other intellectuals (just kidding; maybe some day), and we found that a major part of pin pointing people’s music tastes shouldn’t all be placed on the melodies and sounds. Apparently, many people pay attention more closely to the lyrics. Given that I like to relate ideas to theatre, here I go! It’s like analyzing a musical. my friends and I recently went to the newly opened musical, Lysistrata Jones. Now, after the musical, I thought it was phenomenal, and my friends weren’t as impressed. Since I couldn’t just let that opinion go without explanation, I wanted to pick their brains and figure out why they weren’t as impressed. It didn’t take long for me to figure out that it’s just like analyzing any art piece that we’ve studied all semester: everybody looks at different aspects. Now, this may sound simple, but it actually intrigued me to think about.
It’s just like I was saying about the music selections, some prefer the lyrics more and some prefer the melody more. For the musical, I prefer amazing singing and choreography, where as my companions prefer rich and moving content and writing. It’s funny how people move from one art form to another and forget sometimes that al l art is going to be viewed differently by different people’s tastes and preferences.
From an artistic point of view, it makes perfect sense. People don’t all look at the same aspects of a piece of art. What we’ve learned in our Arts Seminar, however, is that you should be able to back up your opinion with valid evidence and clear reasons if you can, because will strengthen your snobbism.
What you have written in this post has sparked off my thinking of the phenomenon of decreased value of music by some artists. This phenomenon, I think,is common among the world, or at least in the Asian area that I am familiar with and American area that you have mentioned in this post. Many musicians are not making their own music anymore; they are coping other people’s trendy style in order to make more profit out of it because the public like those style. Because they like, so the artists just feed them with the music that they are not intend to create, which is sad.
I think the artist should be persistent on their own style and create the music because of their inspiration, rather than conform to the majority. I like the musician, the pop king in China, Jay Chow; he is always making the music that he is interested in. His success make many other people to copy his style, which hurt the diversity of music world. Chow’s new album is not highly considered, but I appreciate it because it reflect Chow’s naive personality and the curiosity to create new things that he likes. Thus that, his album is always different than other musicians.
In conclusion, the art world need diversity.
What you wrote, Shane, made me think of artistic collaboration. Even though I have yet to really experiment with it, other artists (mainly musicians) have told me about the benefits of working with co-writers and other musicians while writing songs. Why? The answer is simply what you have said: everybody looks at different aspects. The beauty in this human differentiation is that we can come together to create a more complete piece of art. It is kind of like an orchestra– the performance would not be as stunning if there were only brass instruments. When the strings, brass, woodwinds, et cetera all come together and play their respective pieces of a song, the outcome is complete. Thankfully, we had the opportunity to experience this first-hand when we played the gamelan instruments as a group. There is absolutely something beautiful about playing and experimenting with the sounds of an instrument by yourself; but there is something even more fascinating (to me, at least) about being able to come together with a group of people and create. I did not realize it until just now, but this is exactly what dancers do. In a sense, I guess that you could say that painters (even those who painted portraits for aristocracy) took part in their own version of collaboration. Maybe working with others is essential to the creation of art. After all, if you got really technical about it, how many artists create entirely by themselves? If an artist is using a canvas, did he make the canvas himself? Did he cut the wood for its frame and assemble it? Just saying.