art for the sake of art

this is a thread i started on the pdx-pop list, an e-mail online forum to stir up the shit and see if anyone wanted to argue with me. just as i suspected...

tyler: music and art suffer greatly when viewed through the lens of greed. i'd rather go to free shows with unknown bands and experience a sense of community than pay for an "act" that thinks it is worth something monetarily. that's just me - a poor artist that believes in art for the sake of our culture.

a lot of us would really love to quit our day jobs and be professional musicians. i know i would, but at the sake of what? so many of my friends over the years have tried to model their "art" after the beatles, or the clash, or the strokes - but these things are no longer even art (in the case of the strokes, it never was). they have become consumer products that sell folgers coffee or gap clothing. they sell an idea of cool that is only on the radio to sell products, not because it is good music.

i wish we could create a paying music scene in portland that allows for artistic expression without shaping our art towards what we think is going to sell. until that happens i will keep my day job and continue to give away my music for free.

greed has corrupted everything in this world and will continue to do so, that is the nature of greed - always needing more. the best thing we can do as artists or the "soul" of the people, is to not buy into the culture industry, nor try to reflect it in an "independent" way.

---------

I got signed to a record label for the first time in my life this year, and I spent about a week sitting with the contract, debating myself. on the one hand, it was going to make everything I do with music much easier, and on the other hand, even though my "deal" includes 100% creative control, it meant working on a team where there'd be pressure to change what I was doing (even though, in the end, it was my call to make).

Because I *do* do the business thing as *well* as the artist thing, I've had to really seperate the two in order not to have the marketing aspect affect my art. People talk about wearing different hats, metaphorically, but I've literally changed clothes before in order to help myself tell the difference between "now I'm planning the PR campaign for the album" and "now I'm writing the SONGS for the album". :) And I've had to tell the business-side of *myself* to fuck off sometimes and let me be an artist.

I think the ONLY thing that makes it possible to keep this seperation going on is a strong awareness of the conflicts of interest between the two sides. And the best formula for awareness is the kind of intelligent though-provoking discussion that's happening on this list right now, and again, I want to thank you for that. :)

On a personal note, the top 5 shows I've seen include a basement show, a
house concert, a free show at this underground club that got shut down DURING the gig and the band ended up taking it outside with a bunch of extension cords, and then a $80-a-head show at the Greek Theatre in LA, and Neil Young on this latest ("Greendale") tour, which was worth the $120 to be right up front. And I ain't rich, but it was WORTH it. I couldn't tell you if American Analogue Set for free in a basement in San Diego was *better* than Neil Young. They were both fan-fucking-tastic, amazing shows. Of course, if you think about the ticket price, AmAnSet was a better DEAL. But if I'm just thinking about the "art"? Neck-and-neck.

myrrh larsen

-------------

Has music gotten as bad as poetry, where there are more producers than consumers? I don't think it has, and there are generally non-musicians in the audience when I play, but perhaps it's trending that way.

The cynic in me reads this that you are trying to exploits bands by justifying why you shouldn't have to pay for their hard work at making music. If you want to support a band, give them money so that they can spend a little more time making music and a little less time flipping coffees. (Or get your non-musician friends, who have money, interested in giving their money to the band.)

I mean I'm all for community and I play and host shows in living rooms and basements, but I'm not really interested in *only* having people from that community listen to my music. I'd much rather it reached more people.

-?

--------------------

hey man...don't kid yourself about the free venues "where are is placed
above greed". those venues ARE making money on alcohol....it's just the artists who aren't getting paid. the venues are totally making money. these ideas aren't revolutionary about rebellion and rage and all...those are some of the oldest ideas around. something revolutionary would be seeing musicians not spending their hard earned money getting drunk and living the rock and roll lifestyle when they could be honing their craft and making albums and making a living doing what they love.

to me, selling out means working a job i don't love so i can have money to live. no thanx.

tommy
the wanteds

----------------

then again if you pay to go to a show at a venue part of the door cover will go to local sound people, booking agents and the artists - all people who still probably do not get paid near what they're worth.

Hey, maybe I'll have to start giving away studio time too despite the fact that I have monthly bills, debts and need to eat...

From Larry Crane
Founder/Editor: Tape Op Magazine

---------------

Wow, there are so many points here that I disagree with I don't know where to start. I think that, in general, what I disagree with is the idea that if you're charging admission for your shows and selling your cd's and the like, then you must be greedy. You mentioned The Beatles in your last post as an example of "real" art, but they made tons of money. So did a lot of the people who invented rock and roll.

I appreciate the idea of putting art above the dollar for sure, but I don't quite understand the logic you're using to make some of your points. Think about how much great music wouldn't have been made if the creators hadn't been making a living from it. I'm sure that you like plenty of bands who make money from their music and who probably never play(ed) free shows. The issue of art vs. commerce is waaay too complex to reduce it to such black and white terms.

-Cameron
two guys band

---------------------

Wow, I admire your passion. I love art. I have been to great museums, and seen incredible masterpieces. Have you ever seen the detail of the Sistine Chapel? Oh, and musically the works of Mozart and Bach, are incredibly moving. In a more modern sense I love Arvo Part. His choir work for the Passion is about the most sorrowful music I have heard.

Hey, guess what? They were all commissioned works. I guess they all sold out. Their talent must be questionable. Gasp! You see the thing is many amazing artists have to quit their creative lifestyle because it is just to damn expensive. They end up playing in their bedrooms, when they have time after their 10 hour workday.

I am as poor as many other Portlanders. I am fairly well known at many clubs and could get into some of these venues for free. I never do. I always pay the door. It's called support. If I like a band and they are selling cdr demos for $10 I might buy it. If the band sucks I wont. That is simple economy. Don't get me wrong. I love the Twilight! I love that they don't charge a door. Many people can come see me if they are broke. Saving my friends the cover allows them to
have money to buy a beer or two... Wait, maybe that would increase alcohol sales... And the club would make money...

Again, I appreciate your angst. I just find your view to be very narrow and misguided. I wish you well and hope to sample your art at sometime. I will be sure not financially support your art, less I offend you in some way.

-Cheers.

---------------

I know I should let this go, but...

Most of us (including myself) don't make a penny off music. Anything we do make goes into the kitty to finance the next recording, so we CAN share our songs with everyone. Also, I'm pretty sure 90% of the bands in Portland have free MP3s online, so there you go. In addition, most of us do play free shows on a regular basis anyway for reasons you mentioned above. Believe me, we all want to be heard or what's the point if you can't share dontchaknow. But recording is expensive and if we couldn't scrape up some scratch to make it
happen, well WTF?!
BTW, I caught Richard's sarcasm in the earlier email. I was trying to play along. I guess that didn't translate...

- Darin

--------------------------

The notion that *playing in a public park for money goes against the nature of a "public park," * this holds no water when there is a scheduled event at the park, for which organizers are paying for use of the park, paying for advertising, etc. Surely, no one would expect the food vendors to work all day and provide their food for free. It's not as if Tyler asked if he could charge $$ if he showed up at
the lake front in a cardigan to serenade teenage girls. There was also an assumption that got lost early in the thread about playing covers without paying the fees. This is a potentially valid argument, but the assertion was made entirely on the assumption that William hadn't paid his fees, etc.

That said, William, since you are playing at the request of a non-profit, you might consider charging minimal to no fee. I've moved from the corporate world to the non-profit world and the budgets are MUCH smaller for events, PR, etc. Since most non-profits are geared toward breaking even and providing some kind of service t others, you now have the opportunity to decide whether or not you want to donate your time to the organization that hired you.

Since, I mentioned working, I must assert that neither making money for your art (Tyler) nor working a day job (Tommy) constitute selling out. We do not live in a Utopian commune where food and shelter are free. And yes, there's gear(!), vehicle expenses and insurance, medical insurance to cover the arms you make music with, etc. Whichever way you manage to make some money, you can't avoid supporting someone else in the process. More information available in
your economics textbook. I wonder how many people who throw around 'selling out' judgements have ever tried raising / supporting children while still working to make it as an artist. Philosophy doesn't really fly with a starving 2-year old.

Jay Caruso, you read my mind RE: Commissioned Works!!

Back to work.
-Justin

-------------------------

I agree with Cameron for most of these points, but I must also say it doesn't have to mean your greedy if you charge for your CD's and shows. Our band uses a lot of money just to put on shows (freebies to throw out, promotion items like flyers, etc...) and we don't have day jobs. We want people to experience our music and enjoy our shows, but it's unrealistic to be able to keep going without making back at least what we spend.

As of now, when we play local clubs we don't charge extra for the tickets. We only charge what we have to pay back to the club. Our style of music isn't suited to a caf=E9 or something similar, so clubs are one of our main outlets and can't be eliminated. People will pay to be entertained.

That's why they buy DVD's, go to plays, baseball games, etc. A truly entertaining live band is offering more than just a song and it costs a
lot more too.

-Brandon

--------------------

I generally don't contribute to these discussions, but, this thread
really sticks in my craw. I just think that it is so incredibly short-sighted
and naive to suggest that anyone who has the "audacity" to try and make a
living doing what they love should be branded a "sell out." I mean, I can't
believe that anyone on this list should ever have reason to be called that, or,
that anyone else should have the nerve to level that charge. Sell out? I
haven't used that phrase since I was a freshman in high school and I got mad at
Pavement for getting famous! Now, doesn't that foolish? Shouldn't we all,
shouldn't everyone in the world, have the right to make a living doing what
they love? Isn't there room in your Marxist utopia, Tyler, for that?

I'm not trying to put you down and I'm not being flip here. If you can manage
to live your life and create your art and give it away for free and, at the end
of the day, have some time for yourself and some peace of mind and, maybe,
some money left over in your pocket along with your principles, that is fantastic. But, perhaps, a better way to lead others toward this path would be to explain how you manage to do it, rather than calling everyone who doesn't live by your example a sell out.

Before I sign off and go back to anonymity, I have one more thing to say: Tom Waits. What about Tom Waits? He makes his living playing music. Can you really tell me that he is not valid as an artist for that? Has he not consistently challenged himself and his collaborators and his audience? Has he not taken chances and pushed boundaries? A few years ago, I paid $50 to go see a Tom Waits concert. It was maybe the best performance of anything that I have ever seen. I would have paid double what he charged and it would have been worth it and his stature as an artist would never have been cast in doubt.

Now, I would like it if everyone would play nice around here.
Thank you.
Tony

---------------------

So let me get this straight...as long as you steal the equipment for your
art, then its ok to steal. But if you earn the money to buy your equipment,
for your art, by playing gigs or selling albums - then that's bad? I don't think the 100 bucks Bill might make for this gig constitutes greed. Never mind sacrificing for your art, have you ever bought anything for your art?

Harrumph!
Money doesn't kill art, people kill art.
-Scott

-----------------------

funny huh?

Posted by Tyler at September 15, 2004 05:07 PM