And want to do more.
A true lover of music doesn't think that it's his way or the highway, but rather enjoys and explores music thats all over the map. That doesn't mean that one has to like Miley Cyrus and the Beatles, but it does mean that one can enjoy performing music other than what their original muse inspires.
That was pretty much the point I was trying to get across as well. He makes really varied music and was worried about having to limit it to one single style. So, you're kind of preaching to the choir. As I said in my previous post, my latest full time project is a mish mash of a lot of different ideas genres styles etc... If anything, I'm encouraging him to do exactly what you said...do whatever comes to mind, regardless of how "absurd" it seems. However, I must say... always do things how your gut tells you.. if it's not sincere people will be able to unconsciously tell.. once it's not the fad any more you might as well be the new kids on the block. What's wrong with only doing music that is meaningful as an artistic expression? (in no way am I encouraging sticking to one single style of music or idea... explore them all... have fun with music... play with it, destroy it, change it, form it, mold it to your will... that's more on what I'm talking about)
This opens up three things:
- first it opens up ones musical experience and exposure to different musical ideas, which can only add positive influence to one's original compositions and performances.
Absolutely. I can't argue with that. The more styles of music I've done, personally, the more satisfied i've been with my compositions. There are other projects... More what I was speaking about is how to handle such diversity in one single project and still keep a sense of consistency. An example of this done badly is for instance when Ozzy started doing the whole reality show thing. It was completely inconsistent with the persona that he worked to build for himself over the past several decades. Now, we all know Ozzy as a raving old man who stutters a lot and mumbles all the time with bratty spoiled brat kids and can't figure out how to use the TV remote. Not to say Ozzy doesn't kick ass musically... but it taints his musical expression a bit, because all you can think of is that silly old man who shakes a lot in his mansion and yells at his kids all day to take the dogs out more.
- second, and most germane to this thread is that it allows one to be both a bread-and-butter musician and an original creative talent. What's wrong with riffing on more accessible stuff that people can actually warm up to - it doesn't have to be sellout pop; there's a million forms of music out there that people *do* like - in order to actually pay some bills, while working on your personal muse the rest of the time. This is a formula that has worked for millions of musicians out there.
Nothing wrong with that at all. I consciously write a song here and there that is absolutely as simple and catchy as possible, even *gasp* danceable. While I don't agree with going so far as to have the... music that pays the bills, and the music that YOU enjoy working on... that's fine if you're a composer for film or tv... but if you're trying to create music that's purpose is to be an artistic expression of yourself this is a really questionable way of approaching the whole thing. The point I'm trying to get across to the OP is that, even if you think you're music is too weird, if it's done well, and sincere, it'll have an audience. Look at Frank Zappa.... the guy had a really long and successful career (from the mid 1960s to his death in the 90s, and even posthumously has been raking in the cash through ventures such as "zappa plays zappa" with his son). Even after going totally independent and having to pay for all of his ventures with his own money he had enough left over to throw around. Go watch one of his dvds.... pretty...small crowd *sarcasm*...eh?
What I'm saying is... there's always an audience for really well put together meaningful music. If it means something to you beyond that of just "I made it", chances are, it probably means something to someone else as well.
- third is that the wider one's appreciation of music, the more they'll understand that there's a reason why some stuff is considered avant-garde or underground, or whatever. It's just plain not easily accessible to or outside of popular taste. To be the next Tangerine Dream or Anal C**ts or Yoko Ono and to expect to have the success of Lyle Lovett or Coldplay or John Lennon is just plain unrealistic - and to expect your label's A&R guy to think otherwise is even more unrealistic. Wanna be the next angry young Anal Tangerine Ono Band? Knock yourself out! Find your niche. Wanna make a living to buy the house next to Bruce Springsteen'swith that act? Fuggedaboudit. You may be able to make a living, but it'll never be a huge one.
What's wrong with Avant-garde? To use the Zappa reference again. They played to huge sold out crowds around the world. They have documentaries about them. There are statues in some european cities dedicated to zappa. John Lennon AND Yoko Ono appear on some of his material. He always had enough money to hire full symphonic orchestras to play on half the albums that were done. He did annual MTV sponsored halloween shows to monster sized crowds. He's been dead for over 10 years now, and in going to the Zappa Plays Zappa tour shows... not even being the guy himself (his son), the places are sold out, filled with thousands upon thousands of diehard fans. Not so underground. It's the harder road by far! It's much easier to get a bit of moderate success by strictly doing what you think people want to hear, but there isn't much of a future in that mode of thought. You could be like brittany spears or something of that nature, and you'll be huge... but how huge do you need to be? Do you want to be known for your music, or for the media circus that follows you everywhere you go until you go batshit crazy.
[/QUOTE]
And want to do more.
A true lover of music doesn't think that it's his way or the highway, but rather enjoys and explores music thats all over the map. That doesn't mean that one has to like Miley Cyrus and the Beatles, but it does mean that one can enjoy performing music other than what their original muse inspires.
That was pretty much the point I was trying to get across as well. He makes really varied music and was worried about having to limit it to one single style. So, you're kind of preaching to the choir. As I said in my previous post, my latest full time project is a mish mash of a lot of different ideas genres styles etc... If anything, I'm encouraging him to do exactly what you said...do whatever comes to mind, regardless of how "absurd" it seems. However, I must say... always do things how your gut tells you.. if it's not sincere people will be able to unconsciously tell.. once it's not the fad any more you might as well be the new kids on the block. What's wrong with only doing music that is meaningful as an artistic expression? (in no way am I encouraging sticking to one single style of music or idea... explore them all... have fun with music... play with it, destroy it, change it, form it, mold it to your will... that's more on what I'm talking about)
This opens up three things:
- first it opens up ones musical experience and exposure to different musical ideas, which can only add positive influence to one's original compositions and performances.
Absolutely. I can't argue with that. The more styles of music I've done, personally, the more satisfied i've been with my compositions. There are other projects... More what I was speaking about is how to handle such diversity in one single project and still keep a sense of consistency. An example of this done badly is for instance when Ozzy started doing the whole reality show thing. It was completely inconsistent with the persona that he worked to build for himself over the past several decades. Now, we all know Ozzy as a raving old man who stutters a lot and mumbles all the time with bratty spoiled brat kids and can't figure out how to use the TV remote. Not to say Ozzy doesn't kick ass musically... but it taints his musical expression a bit, because all you can think of is that silly old man who shakes a lot in his mansion and yells at his kids all day to take the dogs out more.
- second, and most germane to this thread is that it allows one to be both a bread-and-butter musician and an original creative talent. What's wrong with riffing on more accessible stuff that people can actually warm up to - it doesn't have to be sellout pop; there's a million forms of music out there that people *do* like - in order to actually pay some bills, while working on your personal muse the rest of the time. This is a formula that has worked for millions of musicians out there.
Nothing wrong with that at all. I consciously write a song here and there that is absolutely as simple and catchy as possible, even *gasp* danceable. While I don't agree with going so far as to have the... music that pays the bills, and the music that YOU enjoy working on... that's fine if you're a composer for film or tv... but if you're trying to create music that's purpose is to be an artistic expression of yourself this is a really questionable way of approaching the whole thing. The point I'm trying to get across to the OP is that, even if you think you're music is too weird, if it's done well, and sincere, it'll have an audience. Look at Frank Zappa.... the guy had a really long and successful career (from the mid 1960s to his death in the 90s, and even posthumously has been raking in the cash through ventures such as "zappa plays zappa" with his son). Even after going totally independent and having to pay for all of his ventures with his own money he had enough left over to throw around. Go watch one of his dvds.... pretty...small crowd *sarcasm*...eh?
What I'm saying is... there's always an audience for really well put together meaningful music. If it means something to you beyond that of just "I made it", chances are, it probably means something to someone else as well.
That's not anyone's "fault". That's life. That's how the universe is put together.
G.
The universe is put together with John Lennon and Lyle Lovett? I'd better start phoning some prominent scientific minds. They've got it all wrong.
