Is the music industry a reflection of a corrupt society

[magma]

i can sort of see what the OP's getting at

you have to admit there isnt many things these days that aren't exploited and commodified.

yeh, that young busker was certainly exploited when he was given a contract and subsequent multi-million dollar career opportunity

bieber earns a tiny fraction of the money he generates

He also spends a relatively small amount of his labour on pressing CDs, devising marketing campaigns and securing gigs around the world. There's an awful lot more to a pop act than just the singer, it's a massive collaboration and everyone deserves paying for their work. You think the Sugababes are the reason the Sugababes still have charting singles?


Additional: Independent artists, especially electronic ones are in a better position than they've ever been, especially with the levelling impact of word-of-mouth/viral marketing across the Internet. It's easier than ever to be a successful artist without ever touching the industry if you're making niche music like most of us tend to be interested in.

Pop is a totally separate beast.. you shouldn't worry about it too much. The people who buy Justin Bieber aren't lost Venetian Snares fans, they don't give a shit and frankly, if people want to make money off them, they're perfectly welcome. If it takes a team of 40 people to make a pop act that the catatonic majority will swallow and then leave us the fuck alone, then let 40 people get paid. If they can't make the effort to discover and appreciate the beauty of Burial or realise that Björk's made more than just It's Oh So Quiet then fuck them, they deserve what they get.

Good music will always exist and it's more readily available than ever at the moment... we're moving quickly in the right directions. Pop will seem more contrived and desperate as the schism widens... don't worry yourself about it.

[Genevieve]

The whole idea of artistic merit is fucking stupid. You either like shit or you don't. Judge pieces on their own merits, not based on what the artist put into it or their intention. A good sound is a good sound, regardless of the thoughts of some douchbag you'll never talk to.

[fassyman]

i can sort of see what the OP's getting at

you have to admit there isnt many things these days that aren't exploited and commodified.

yeh, that young busker was certainly exploited when he was given a contract and subsequent multi-million dollar career opportunity

bieber earns a tiny fraction of the money he generates

He also spends a relatively small amount of his labour on pressing CDs, devising marketing campaigns and securing gigs around the world. There's an awful lot more to a pop act than just the singer, it's a massive collaboration and everyone deserves paying for their work. You think the Sugababes are the reason the Sugababes still have charting singles?

no i think its a combination of good advertising and large supple breasts.

[xarcane]

Tbh though I've not seen the Sistine Chapel, but I have seen similar commisioned frescos, and whilst I do marvel at the amount of talent taken to create them, I get much, much more out of looking at modern art rather than at that which has been constrained by the commisioner's specifications. For example I couldn't stand in the National Portrait gallery for more than five minutes, no matter how well done, I couldn't look at a sitting room type portrait of someone for more than a few seconds - and where there is art in it, it's what the artist has done of his own free will. The little touches he's put in to show his individualism is the real art in the painting, not the faithful reproduction of colours, and that's the same with the Sistine chapel. It's those things the artisans and artists wanted to put in as a means of their own self-expression that create the artistic spectacle.

Art is that which exists for its own sake, that's still my definition. The carvings on a chair that a carpenter put in that are really of no use to anyone, but were put in simply as a a piece of his own self-expression - that's art. If he makes carvings like a company thinking, "people will like that, that might make it sell for a bit more money", that's not art.

[bright maroon]

The whole idea of artistic merit is fucking stupid. You either like shit or you don't. Judge pieces on their own merits, not based on what the artist put into it or their intention. A good sound is a good sound, regardless of the thoughts of some douchbag you'll never talk to.

this makes a lot of sense too...

I mean who needs solidarity in this world...as long as the money keeps getting to us...whoever us is.

isolation and social-fraction is probably the realest most inspiring place to be..you can even die that way.

[pulkpull]

This thread is epic if only for the claim that the roof of the Sistine Chapel is not art. That's awesome stuff.

Personally I don't think a pile of meat shaped like a disc is a burger unless the guy flipping it is doing it out of sheer love. If he's getting paid the pile of meat shaped like a disc just doesn't taste as good.

[xarcane]

Who the fuck said that? Where did I ever say that? The person who commisioned the roof of the Sistine chapel did not design it, the artist did. If the person who commisioned the roof of the Sistine chapel designed it he would be the artist, not the guy who filled in the colours. Damien Hirst doesn't lug a shark into formaldehyde, he pays people do that for him, yet he's still the artist behind the concept.

[fassyman]

This thread is epic if only for the claim that the roof of the Sistine Chapel is not art. That's awesome stuff.

Personally I don't think a pile of meat shaped like a disc is a burger unless the guy flipping it is doing it out of sheer love. If he's getting paid the pile of meat shaped like a disc just doesn't taste as good.

smart arse comment, proves your actually dumb as fuck

[bright maroon]

wow- I should have clocked how long it would take for Damian Hirst to be mentioned...

now stop bonding with me over stuff people - i'm trying to maintain an amount of apathetic non-solidarity.


sharks and basketballs - where it's at

[xarcane]

I had to do some shit for a fundraiser for cancer research. Just because it was raising money that doesn't mean the stuff that went in weren't my own ideas done for their own sake. I wanted to try and put down how I (and others I talked to) felt about cancer. That was the end-point of my work, nothing more, nothing less. The work simply put down how I felt about cancer and even if it was never used for anything, it still existed for that purpose.

There's a painted fresco commisioned by King George for the Naval college in Greenwich, it's huge, very impressive, covering roof and walls, etc. but in one little corner of the West Wall is the artists self-portrait with his hand out asking King George for more money. King George and his family of smiling happy children are the dominant focus of the piece, many times larger more colourful and intricate than that small corner, but looking at that artist's piece of self-expression in the corner of the painting, it simply had more art in it than the entirety of the dominant theme of the piece, his expression, his clothes, everything spoke to you. The roof is filled with various icongraphic figures, gods, saints, representations of nature, etc. that was all art that came from the artist's self expression, not from the comissioner of the piece. I have not seen the sistine chapel, but i assume the artists and artisans had similar license, in fact I know of Michaelangelo doing a similar self-portrait in his piece so he obviously had license. If it was just a portrait of King George and his family looking like healthy happy saints, there would've been a lot of technique within the piece, but no art.

[xarcane]

wow- I should have clocked how long it would take for Damian Hirst to be mentioned...

now stop bonding with me over stuff people - i'm trying to maintain an amount of apathetic solidarity.


sharks and basketballs - where it's at

I hate Hirst, just used him as an example of how the person paying the commision is considered the artist (in real-world speak) if they designed the shit. Man didn't sculpt that zebra, he paid some small time artists to sculpt it, then put his name on it. I think he more than anyone makes stuff just to sell.

[pulkpull]

People definitely can't take a joke in this thread.

[bright maroon]

Hirst is an ex-wall street banker who decided he wanted to make art - as a joke - farce - who knows...

and so he sells to his billionaire friends...
and he stays on top because it's in their interest - for him to stay on top..


all butchers and dead mothers


I don't really have a fully formed opinion on his work..but it seems disgustingly extravagant.
another high-jack via the top

[herbalicious]

People are stnuc.

[wilson]

I can't decide if pop music caters to public demand, or creates the demand itself. Either way, it isn't the greatest influence for people to be subjected to. I barely know what swagger is but I am conscious of not having mine in check

[wilson]

People are stnuc.

Pretty much.

[collige]

People who have the ability to create art are sacrificing it for commercial gain. Art is by definition made for it's own sake. If you make a song, or paint a picture for money or fame, it ceases to be art.

Something becomes art the second someone calls it art.

[ultraspatial]

I think i get what the OP was trying to get at with this thread, although he stated it like a 13 y.o. punk fanboy shouting "fuck the system". If you want to blame somebody for this whole selling out thing, blame our consumerist culture, the people's mentality etc. It goes way deeper than just the system or corruption imo.
Like magma said, the people buying justin bieber's tunes most probably don't give a fuck about art. They want something to dance to or whatever, they'd take almost anything major labels throw at them (though we kinda enter a moral greyzone regarding supply & demand here).

The artists you mentioned never really sold out. They did pop from the start. Lady Gaga even worked for major labels and artists before she started working on her own stuff.

I say it's a good thing there's pop music because if there's no pop, there are no "underground" scenes either. We probably wouldn't even be on this forum right now if garage didn't get commercially successful.

[magma]

For example I couldn't stand in the National Portrait gallery for more than five minutes, no matter how well done, I couldn't look at a sitting room type portrait of someone for more than a few seconds - and where there is art in it, it's what the artist has done of his own free will. The little touches he's put in to show his individualism is the real art in the painting

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view of 'classical' art... the depth of expression and symbolism within portraits can be amazing. It's not just an exercise in creating a family photo - certainly not many make it into the National are just attempts at that. I've got a portrait of St Francis of Assisi meditating on my wall... almost certainly commissioned for a church; I'm not religious in the slightest but the face is the closest I've ever seen to the feeling of ecstasy... no photo could ever come close, only some Spanish dude in the 1600s painting about religious experience could capture that moment.

Good art is good art, artists find their way no matter what their constraints... sometimes a bit of constraint can help, too... you have to admit not everyone has used the freedom of Modernism as well as Picasso or Pollock (and imagination wasn't invented in the 19th century!)

[knell]

wow, only read the first page of this thread, but....

it's a case of people doing something you like transitioning to a style that the general public likes. that's how the recording industry works.