-
EVH, yes. Also joyous on stage, if not in his personal life it seems. That joy is about the only thing that makes Van Halen videos worth watching, to me. Although I have to admit, I preferred Van Halen with David Lee Roth than Sammy Hagar. That way over the top quality just kind of suited the music and the times.
Originally Posted by ruger9
I really like Mike Stern's playing, I just don't like the chorus-y sound. The trio record that recently came out with he, Harvie S and a drummer whose name escapes me right at the moment is pretty astonishing stuff, especially for a pickup gig with a band that had never played together before. Stern's drug of choice, as I understand it, is sobriety. He was heavily into drugs during his first stint with Miles Davis and cleaned up after Miles fired him. Apparently MS used to go to meetings with Jim Hall, according to an interview out there on YouTube somewhere.
-
02-25-2023 12:26 PM
-
Everything intended for consumption needs to be packaged for consumption. An audience that pays to hear music is owed the respect of music it can listen to. Originally Posted by drbhrb
-
Why? Honest question. Originally Posted by StuartF
-
Think about it... and keep in mind the spectrum of "music it can listen to" means know your audience. It would be just as disrespectful to play "above" what the audience can listen to as it would be to play "below" what the audience can listen to. Originally Posted by ModesSchmodes
It is musical impedance matching - maximum transfer of "pays to hear" occurs when the music matches the taste of the audience.
-
No Shit Sherlock ? Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
She's done great stuff with Darrell Scott and Tim O'Brien too. She did also pursue a degree in nuclear physics and almost sold her bass to go study or do a post-doc in Eastern Europe (she didn't sell and I don't know if she went cause that must have been not long before the corona circus). Originally Posted by Cunamara
She's still playing nowadays, and has apparently been giving a masterclass the past week or so.
It shouldn't even be needed to think about it. The brunt of an audience doesn't pay to come see you do circus tricks (*), but to enjoy music, and that means they have to "understand" it at the emotional level. Does anyone go to a concert to understand music at the analytical level (I suppose if there are, they'd be on this forum)? Originally Posted by pauln
(* OK, I'll admit this will depend on the kind of music we're talking about, I know a lot of my supposed fellow classical music lovers only pay for the circus act and/or to be seen. )
-
IDK... music is art, right? How many painters over the centuries painted so people would like it, as opposed to painting what was in their soul, and then people were drawn to it because it was so true? Originally Posted by pauln
Andy Warhol strikes me as the former, Claude Monet strikes me as the latter.
-
If I dare... sometimes it seems to me that Julian can do more than he needs
-
How many of them died poor and forgotten, and how many of them are not remembered for the "lowly" jobs they took that paid the bills (portraits, silly stillives and whatever else their skills allowed them to for which photography didn't exist yet)? Originally Posted by ruger9
Also, a painter making a painting is like a musician making an album. Not really the same thing as playing a concert in front of a live audience who pays for that 1-time experience.
-
That's irrelevant to the art. To the REASON for creation. I'm just saying not all creation is designed for people to appreciate/purchase, much art is created by artist because they MUST. Sometimes people come around to appreciate it. Your take on the whole seems to be hinged on commercialism- making money/being popular. Originally Posted by RJVB
-
I think that when he plays as a sideman (or at least on par with another soloist) the restriction implied in such context makes him more selective... Originally Posted by ccroft
when he is alone or the only leader he seems to throw in everything he knows and his vocabulary and technical abilities are so vast that sometimes it sounds to me like musically everything is changing all the time - like sporadic strokes of brush here and there that do not always make an integral picture.
-
I can’t even tell anymore. Originally Posted by princeplanet
No Shit Sherlock ?
-
Be that as it may, the original question that started this accolade was whether you can expect people to pay for something they don't appreciate. Originally Posted by ruger9
Getting paid for your art IS commercialism. If you just create art for art's sake, because you MUST or some similar reason then you probably don't do it for the money.
-
Almost none. Van Gogh and a few other madmen. Most artists made a living from their work. The still-lives and portraits were their art. A few were rich, like Cezanne. Originally Posted by RJVB
-
It's true. I was a studio assistant to a successful artist in NYC for about 5 years. Awesome day gig! Originally Posted by ruger9
Anyways... I asked him about trying to design for sales. He told me it doesn't work, because by the time you can recognize a trend it's already too late to capitalize on it. You just have to do what works for you and hope the audience shows up. This was also true of Warhol in his earlier days, and just about any artist who's name we might know.
He was talking about 'Art' and not commercial art of course. Same thing in music I think.
-
I dunno. I remember an interview when someone asked Warhol why the soup cans. Originally Posted by ruger9
he said ‘I like soup.’
you look a bit deeper into his bio and this takes on a deeper emotional significance. but… I don’t know why it needs to me more complicated than that. Are Warhols soup cans better if we know this? I don’t think so. You like them or you don’t.
monet why the lilies and ponds? ‘I like lilies.’ Fine.
People bring their bullshit into it but why is this the artists problem?
Van Gogh paints the stars because he liked the stars. Later on he cut off his ear and stuff. Ooh tortured genius. Makes the normies happy I guess because it makes the art less threatening somehow, more amenable to conscious analysis or something to talk about.
trivialises the creative process all this chit chat though. Just look at the picture
its why I don’t really like conceptual art, if you have to explain it, if you can explain it, maybe it’s simpler and less work to have the explanation without the broken TVs or the pile of bricks or whatever. But I’m just an old fashioned dude who likes abstract expressionism, the basic bitch that I am.
of course music is like that.Last edited by Christian Miller; 02-26-2023 at 04:59 PM.
-
Music is the most abstract, the Queen of the Arts Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Not a comprehensive list, and certainly simplistic
but done to show music is abstract expression at
a fundamental level that other arts clearly aren't
Sculpture - people and objects
Painting - people, scenes, objects
Dancing - people in motion
Literature - people and situations
Theatre - people and situations
Film - people and situations
Music - except for some occasional intentional mimic
of automobile horn honks, bells and thunder, scoring
for real cannon fire, etc... the elements/relationships
of musical do not reflect concrete things of our world
I count lyrical content as literature, rather than music
-
You are making the assumptions that all music is created with the primary intent of being consumed (if not a byproduct) and that all music is paid for which we all know is not anywhere near the case! Originally Posted by StuartF
-
I don't read it as assuming either of those things; more as an "if, then" statement. Originally Posted by drbhrb
"Everything intended for consumption" is conditional and does not include music not intended for consumption.
But,
if some music is intended for consumption,
then "An audience that pays to hear (that) music is owed the respect of music it can listen to."
-
Music is more abstract of course that other arts but it only gives it more possibilities to express ambivalent meanings. Originally Posted by pauln
Music still has contents and in many cases very concrete (not necessarily objects or people but sometimes even so).
Abstract painting is in a great deal a social artistic program, reaction - rather than a style.
Pure abstract painting would be just a design and decoration.
And even great artists like Rothko could not avoid it (I saw his paintings (which for me were like prayers) used as decorations in McDonalds - partly it is because with all its intensity of meaning it has a decorative quality in it).
Proabably any painting is decoration after all - be it early frescos, Rembrandt or Monet... but the question is if decorative element is subject to meanings and contents that go first, or vice versa... this is what makes difference from design to me.
But nevertheless I find that in music there is also a movement that is smewhat similar to abstract painting
In my opinion there is also a movement in music that is somewhat similar to abstract painting - like Zimmer for example, for me it is not music, but the highest level sound design - that means I cannot just listen to it separately...
Julian in some cases also sounds this way, and sometimes Bill Frisell - though I love them both.
-
Originally Posted by ccroft
Music has slowed waaaay down. I think you can capitalize on trends now, because it takes so long for shifts...
If you think of chart topping music from a generation ago, there's like 5 years between Michael Jackson's "Bad" and Nirvana's "Nevermind."
Popular music today really doesn't sound any different that it did 20 years ago.
Visual Art is weird...it's like the whole history of Art exists simultaneously in real time. People still geek out over photorealism, for example. Art seems to have reached the stage of where you just need to be really good at what you do, not groundbreaking. Perhaps the envelope has been pushed as far as human's perceptions will allow?
-
Everything, all the time, everywhere. Music and art lost their guides and their boundaries when they were digitised. It is all available, with no paths and no walls. The expertise of those who could show directions and dead ends is derided or ignored. Aesthetic experience has been replaced by sensation. Attention is a lost art.
-
I love him and listen to a lot of his albums very regularly. I went to see Julian Lage with Nels Cline a few years ago after their album "rooms" came out. As great as the playing was, and as much as I am a fan of slightly avante garde jazz it was tough. Felt like both were just wandering around the neck hoping the other would play something interesting. Maybe it was my ear, but I know my ear is more developed than 75% of the 300 people watching (Danny Devito was one of them). Originally Posted by spencer096
I felt that way about a few things I heard with Jim Hall and Pat Metheny. It's not for everyone and what I find uninteresting may inspire some greater genius than me. A lot of times I find when two great guitar players play together it's often less than the sum of the parts.
-
And it is hard to hear the bass in that video. Maybe there is some glue there holding the tune together but I can't hear it...just guitar and drums. He's amazing and if he drops a few things I don't care for, that's fine...it's probably me. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
At 2:14 there's a great quote, from a great musician and guitarist, which rings true on that topic: Originally Posted by AaronMColeman
If that doesn't give us hope what will !!
Reply With Quote
anyone selling an ibanez pm120?
Today, 01:33 PM in For Sale