All this discussion on music has made me think of the age old question that many have pondered in the arts.
Is it possible to be commercially successful and still maintain your artistic credibility?
I have always been interested in the compromise between the art and commercial success. In my architectural world, we are governed by clients, budget, and function. That is not alway true, but more likely a client will not give you free reign to explore your artistic endeavors. But architecture is not really a fair example, because the outcome is more of a collaboration than a singular vision.
How about the music biz? A major label wants hits and chart success. They want the bands or singers they represent to make money for their buisiness. How is this acheived and what is the artist's responsibility to achieve this? (I have read many accounts of labels hiring hitmakers to come in and write songs.)
Or can your art be so good that it wins people over thus bringing comercial success?
It is no secret that major labels and the music business in general is struggling. People no longer look to the radio to find music and MTV forgot about the music. With the web, independent bands are gaining popularity through websites, myspace, and youtube so that many of them don't need the major label to provide the marketing to make them successful.
...to be continued.
*****
Currently Listening:
Starflyer 59 - Not Funny
Kate Bush - Heads Were Dancing
Starflyer 59 - The Boulevard
Charity Empressa - Golden Gate
Over the Rhine - Paper Moon
Keane - Everybody's Changing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Of course, my opinion is yes and yes. In probably every realm there is a potential for selling out your ideals for money, but that doesn't mean that by making money you are selling out your ideals.
I would the answer to your first question is yes, but it is hard. I think this is makes bands such as U2 (obviously), Radiohead, and even Coldplay so special. These bands are pretty big on the world stage because they have found a medium of being artistically relevent and still sell a lot of records. It something a lot of bands want to do, but so few achieve.
I also got some SF 59 coming thru on the ipod.
I think you are correct, bands are tempted to cave to what their record labels want, unless you are U2 or coldplay, etc... like BB said. But how did U2 and coldplay start out, by caving into the commercial side? Or by sticking to their artistic ideals?
U2 and Radiohead are good examples of creating such good art that they win over the masses thus making them (financially) successful.
**Sidenote** How do you define success? I know not all views of success is based on money, but for this conversation when I talk of success, I mean it in finacial terms.
U2 started out with the idea of competing on the world's stage and being the biggest band. This is not a goal for young bands today and many young bands see that idea as counterproductive to their art. But back in the late '70's that was a common ideal. It was making it big, on the airwaves and TV that seperated you from just being another local band. Touring was not as accessible as it is today. There was no free way (internet) to get your music out, unless you made it big.
U2 worked hard. First the won over college radio. Then they slowly won over the american crowd by extensive touring. Then they won over the individual, by connecting with the audience at their shows and through their music.
It wasn't until after the release of their 5th (Joushua Tree) studio album that they began to see significant financial success. Up to that point, some where still living at home or had just bought small homes.
Coldplay is 2 albums away from their fifth. Labels want success right away and Bono has talked many times on the downfall of the music industry is due to the lack of artist development.
Well said. U2 is a band that only comes around once in a lifetime. I don't ever see any band totally achieving what they have acheived. U2 and Coldplay use the pop song as a medium for ideas where as a majority of others use the pop song for a medium as success.
I think this is a question that goes deeper than just music. The internet has given musicians and other artists a forum without having to acheive commercial success. The thing is you don't necessarily make money doing that. People don't want to pay or pay .99 for something on the internet. I'm thinking more of writers. I guess that's what the strike was about somewhat was whether or not the art should be given away on the internet or if the artists deserve some compensation for that. It's an age old struggle I think - truth to your art (and maybe no money) or pursue the money.
Also I think labels hear one big sound and they all go after something that sounds just like it to be their big hit and everything ends up blending rather than a label pursuing something distinctly different.
Publishers used to let a writer go to 4-5 books to see how they developed and oddly enough a 5th book is often when someone MAY break out. But now they expect the big book instantly and will drop you if you don't have strong sales on the first book.
Post a Comment