| Author |
Topic: Is Music The Lowest Art Form? |
Mat Rhodes
From:
Lexington, KY, USA
|
Posted 29 Jul 2007 9:16 pm |
|
As an art form, music seems to require the least amount of training and preparation for entry and participation in it. Yet most people who do participate in it for a substantial amount of time have little to show for the time, money, and energy they have expended.
Sure, you might make a couple of CDs or post some songs that a few people actually listen to. You might even score a few gigs. But you still have to have a CD player or computer to listen to it (more energy, more money) I shouldn't have to elaborate too much, but examples include rehearsal time, drive time, proper clothing for the gig, practice time, study time, etc. And I shouldn't have to mention that this art form attracts some of the most unsavory, irresponsible, and flakey people I believe I've ever met.
So are the other mediums exempt from some of the pitfalls I mentioned? What about painters, dancers, architects, actors, and sculptors? A painter does a painting and it's done. Period. You don't need special gadgets to enjoy it. An architect draws up the plans, and the contractors/builders make it materialize over a period of time and it's done. Would it be wrong to assume that the requirements for entry are more restrictive? Just contemplating the sheer volume of music on MySpace makes my head swim. And the number of bands that come through this town is overwhelming. Is music a medium for the art world's "bottom-feeders"? |
|
|
|
Dave Boothroyd
From:
Staffordshire Moorlands
|
Posted 29 Jul 2007 11:11 pm
|
|
Are you sure you are not confusing recording as a technology with music as an art?
These days it is not difficult to capture or create a musical performance on CD.
This was not true fifty years ago.
I don't know about you, but I'll be amazed if you can pick up your guitar and create a brand new song, from scratch, at the first attempt. I certainly can't do it!
It takes a lot of work to create a piece of music, but all I have to do is stand up in front of an audience, say,"Here's a new song I wrote last week" and away we go. Job done- and that is the true means of delivering music, live in front on an audience!
I suspect that your comparison with an architect could not be less apposite. I can make music on my own. The architect might need a team of hundreds.
My wife, Wendy is a visual artist, but I sell more songs that she does pictures, though I would rate our basic artistic talents as very much equal.
In all arts, there are qualitative variations. It's as easy to put a worthless musical performance on CD as it is to doodle meaninglessly on a piece of paper or whittle a lump of wood into a crude figure.
On the other hand we have Beethoven, Leonardo and Michaelangelo.
I do not agree that music is a low form of art.
Cheers
Dave |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 2:35 am
|
|
If you are talking about natural ability or talent then perhaps. Any slug can buy a Sears 6 stringer and play Louie Louie. Not any slug can draw the Block Island Light House.
Is this what you are referring to ?
Music is an art that appeals to the soul as do paintings, it's not less of an art form but may not require the same god given talent that the painter has. But is still requires a talent to sing and perform and generate appeal. It's a different gift. |
|
|
|
Andy Volk
From:
Boston, MA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 2:51 am
|
|
| As someone who was formally trained as an artist and drawing and painting since I was a toddler, I think music is the highest art form of all. It has the a universal resonance with all humans and we seem to be hardwired to create it and respond to it on a deep emotional and intellectual level that crosses all cultures and nationalities. The mathematics of music reflect a deeper connectivity to the natural world (Fibonacci series, etc.) than either writing, art and sculpture. At least that's how I see it. |
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 4:32 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| music seems to require the least amount of training and preparation for entry and participation in it |
No, that would be fingerpainting... |
|
|
|
Mat Rhodes
From:
Lexington, KY, USA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 4:55 am
|
|
| Tony, that would be an apt way of putting it. That whole "three chords (and the truth)" thing... |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 6:01 am
|
|
| What are the other TWO chords? |
|
|
|
Mat Rhodes
From:
Lexington, KY, USA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 6:45 am
|
|
Well, Tony, the II chord is usually a minor seventh chord in jazz. A Hawaiian song's II chord is usually a dominant 7th. Maybe those are the TWO chords to which you're referring. 
But I haven't heard those differences in much of today's pop & country.
Andy, I would think that if music has more mass appeal and humans are hard-wired to create and appreciate it, it would be more of a common denominator and, thus, "lower" like breathing, eating, etc. I guess it just depends on whether you view people as mundane or arcane.
To me, the production and appeal-generating aspects of the music world require talents and skills outside of music itself to make it commercially successful. If you're not performing it live, then a tangible representation of the music is dependent on somewhat sophisticated recording gear ($), and perhaps a sound engineer if you don't have the gear itself. They say you can't polish a turd, but I sure hear and see a lot of shiny sh*% out there.
The majority of popular music in and of itself doesn't require as much study and energy. A sideman these days has a less prestigious task than does the songwriter. And sequencing programs like GarageBand are making that increasingly more apparent.
Now, if you want to take that skill to the level of the great composers and songwriters, then that's a whole other subject. Harder and longer work, less chance of commercial success. Go figure.  |
|
|
|
Michael Johnstone
From:
Sylmar,Ca. USA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 7:48 am
|
|
| Perhaps part of why music attracts so many hacks is the percieved glory attached to it.You know - fame,chicks,money,etc. Other art forms have similar hack levels too. There's bad arcitecture,bad poetry,bad visual arts. Nowadays it seems like technology caters to hacks. If portrait painters suddenly got popular like rappers I'm sure you'd see computer programs where a hack could create portraits by assembling pictures from pull-down menus of eyes,ears,noses,etc on a Mr.Potatohead level.And then if enough time went by where a new generation came up not knowing anything else and that became the norm,you'd see legions of award winning hacks with their artwork on MySpace. |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 8:28 am
|
|
| The lowest art forms I've encountered to date are tied neck and neck. They are Madonna and Michael Jackson. Lots of shiny turds out there. And yes, the music art form attracts the most untalented flakes per square inch. It wasn't like that as much when a Stratocaster cost the equivelent of $2000.00. Now any flake can buy one at Guitar Center for $150.00. |
|
|
|
Randy Phelps
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 9:11 am Art
|
|
There are a lot of things in your post that are undefined. I could see some defining art and craft in vastly different ways. But, as far as a 'low' art form it seems like you are equating that to training and skill.
so called 'primitives' (like Grandma Moses) made some amazing art considering their lack of skill in their craft, knowledge of art history, plan of execution and overall knowledge of intended outcome. In the end, none of that 'mattered' because the art created such a set of emotions for those who saw it that it worked as art.
A friend of mine is an accomplished artist and has made his livelyhood at it for years. I asked him what art was and he gave me the best definition I'd ever heard. He said, "It must cause a reaction that is irresistible." Not positive reaction necessarily, not beautiful necessarily but an irresistible reaction....
Is a cover band art or craft? Maybe some of both. I don't typically think of art as being 'low' or 'high' but as 'good' or 'bad'. As far as artists being irresponsible I think, again, since they are just people, they may have tendencies toward certain types of behavior but in the years that I've been around art and music, you meet all kinds. We are always regaled in stories of irresponsibility about artists and they are usually thought of as 'weird' and 'flakey' but I think just as many used car dealers blow off work, show up late, miss appointments etc as bass players... its just that no one really misses them.
I think the total number of amateur actors, painters, sculptors, poets, filmmakers, photographers is equal to or exceeds musicians...
I've worked with all those groups and, well, if there is one stereotype I'd say artists see the world through different eyes and their reactions to and way of approaching the world are different which is a good thing because their vision makes art appreciaters 'see the world with new eyes' which cause that irresistiblility.
Elmore James was not a very good slide player at all... but he was a great slide player. If you heard him for the first time on youtube or myspace you might dismiss him.... at the same time, in a field of glorious wheat, there is a whole bunch of chaff. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 10:00 am
|
|
Actually Michael Jackson was very talented, he was and maybe still is an amazing dancer and for his style of Music was, not sure if he still is, a very good singer.
Now if you want to go down the road of deciding who is the worst or which Art is the worst, I would say that the so called whatever it was that had someone urinating on the Cross of Christ wins hands down over Jackson or Madonna in poor taste any day of the week.
Deciding who is a good artist or not is a personal decision, I may not like someone but 10,000,000 others may.
Someone who sells multiple albums in the millions upon millions of copies didn't do that by chance.
I like the example above regarding Elmore James, sure, perhaps a terrible slide player, but I sure loved listening to him years back when I was in that Bluesy mode. He may have been terrible but I thought he was great !
Sometimes being a great player is over rated ! |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 2:43 pm
|
|
| Our local "New Country" station was forced (as were dozens of others) by Federal Court to be sold by it's parent company last year because it was participating in the Pay Us to Play Your Music scam that was going on all over the country. This is how the crap that you hear on "New Country" radio stations gets played. Thats how they sell millions and millions of records. |
|
|
|
Michael Douchette
From:
Gallatin, TN (deceased)
|
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 30 Jul 2007 6:02 pm Re: Is Music The Lowest Art Form?
|
|
| Matt Rhodes wrote: |
| ...most people who do participate in it for a substantial amount of time have little to show for the time, money, and energy they have expended. |
That's true for any art form. For every one that "makes it", there's several thousand who won't.
| Quote: |
Sure, you might make a couple of CDs or post some songs that a few people actually listen to. You might even score a few gigs. But you still have to have a CD player or computer to listen to it (more energy, more money)... what about painters, dancers, architects, actors, and sculptors? A painter does a painting and it's done. Period. You don't need special gadgets to enjoy it. |
Music is pretty much identical to sculpture and painting. While someone's doing it, others who are there can enjoy it while it's being created. But for it to spread around, the work has to travel, or be recorded in some fashion.
| Quote: |
| Is music a medium for the art world's "bottom-feeders"? |
No, but music seems the favorite "shark attractant". No where else in the arts do the artists (writers and singers) get ripped off so regularly, and still keep coming back for a try at the brass ring. Of all the arts, more people try music, I guess, because it is so easy, and it requires little formal training to get an enthusiastic audience. Often, looks and personality are all that's needed. For painters and sculpters, that's not the case - because most of their audience never meets or sees them! |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 12:54 am
|
|
No it's not,
but some of the promoters are
the lowest lifeforms.
_________________
DLD, Chili farmer. Plus bananas and papaya too.
Real happiness has no strings attached.
But pedal steels have many! |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 2:08 am
|
|
No, thats not how anyone sells millions of records.
Maybe in a few local markets songs get airplay, but that does not equate to anyone handing over $16 for a CD.
regarding Honky Tonk Badonkadonk, we fought that song for 6 months, refused to play it at or monthly big gig. Finally we caved, it turned out to be one of the songs that brought EVERYONE to the dance floor..on a packed Sat night that would be close to 400. We turned it into a version that we could live with then came to enjoy playing it.We brought out our Rocker roots and applied them to this song, as we do many other songs.
This song did not become popular by mistake. Like it or not it does have a signature groove that the song is built on and if you are going to play it , it requires players that can exit the traditional Country mode and dive into that groove.
It's not about the songs that we like as musicians, it's about songs that people like that are PAYING to BUY them or Dance to them.
We are not the ultimate critics of Art or Music. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 1:39 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| We are not the ultimate critics of Art or Music. |
Oh yeah? Sez who?! 
( ) |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 2:20 pm
|
|
| Tony, just curious, if the consumer is not the ultimate critic, then who would that be? |
|
|
|
P Gleespen
From:
Toledo, OH USA
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 5:02 pm
|
|
| Kevin Hatton wrote: |
| Tony, just curious, if the consumer is not the ultimate critic, then who would that be? |
That would be me. I am the ultimate critic.
(actually, I think Tony is saying that we as musicians are not the ultimate critics, but that the consumer is...)
_________________
Patrick |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 8:00 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| if the consumer is not the ultimate critic, then who would that be? |
Art is not made for the consumer, products are made for the consumer. Pop culture, such as pop music, tv shows, movies made in Hollywood and such, are designed and formulated to appeal to the consumer and specific demographics.
Fine art addresses other issues. I work for artists who make art that sometimes sells and other times doesn't and in regards to the piece I'm starting next, the artist knows that it will never sell.
| Quote: |
| As an art form, music seems to require the least amount of training and preparation for entry and participation in it. |
As an art form, music probably requires the most training because it's the most abstract of all the art forms, unless you consider higher math an art form.
| Quote: |
| Yet most people who do participate in it for a substantial amount of time have little to show for the time, money, and energy they have expended. |
If money is what you expected to get in return, for the time and energy spent learning and doing music, you would do better to start a hedge fund. |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 8:18 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| The lowest art forms I've encountered to date are tied neck and neck. They are Madonna and Michael Jackson. |
I don't particularly like what Madonna does, but she certainly understands and has a command of her medium, as did Michael, whose music I really liked. |
|
|
|
Mat Rhodes
From:
Lexington, KY, USA
|
Posted 31 Jul 2007 8:59 pm
|
|
Sorry for the confusion, Chas. I didn't necessarily mean money. I really meant a tangible "product" or manifestation that was more immediate and apparent. Outside of the performance realm, you need more energy-dependent vehicles (i.e. CD Players, computers, Ipods, cell phones, etc.) to bring music to life. Not so much the case with a painting (well, OK, maybe you need a light bulb) where the gratification is more instant and less transitory.
Last edited by Mat Rhodes on 1 Aug 2007 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 1 Aug 2007 2:51 am
|
|
We, as members of the Steel Guitar Forum, being Steel Guitar Players and such, who at many times complain that if we do not hear a Steel Guitar in a song or that we are NOT playing traditional Country Music..
are not the ultimate music critics.
Quite frankly there are more people who do NOT like Steel Guitars and it's sound than those that do...
The great thing about any art form is that it is not intended to be a one shoe fits all and please everyone at the same time.
So Kevin, as clarified above, we as Musicians, or rather somewhere between novice musicians and experienced musicians, are not the ultimate Music critics. You may be a much better Music critic than I am so I will submit to that.
In many circles other Music critics are telling us we stink ! |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 1 Aug 2007 9:37 am
|
|
Matt, I'm not sure I understand the question. The energy-dependent vehicles, music players etc., are ubiquitous, whereas art galleries, or for that matter, libraries that have a great collection of art books, are not.
The gratification from viewing a painting or sculpture is only more "instant" because, we are more adept at processing visual stimulus than aural stimulus, art is (usually) a static medium, whereas music is a kinetic/time-based medium and again, music is the more abstract of the mediums so (in the world according to chas) it can require a more sophisticated "digestion". |
|
|
|
