My fellow Cake Sheriffs! I have certainly missed you during the (what felt like eternal) time period in which I didn't have a steady internet connection. I'm glad to see that this blog is still alive and kicking, and I'm sure that my absence wasn't too sorely missed, if noticed at all.
Now that I'm back on the online, I've spent a little bit of time here and there, bouncing between blogs, figuring out what topics and discussions I had potentially missed out on. In my searches I stumbled upon a dialogue that I wish I could have been a part of, and was inspired to share some thoughts that I don't think were touched upon.
First I want to extend a warm congratulations to Cake Police extended family CULTS for garnering some sick press over the past few weeks! Regardless of how anyone feels about their music and/or how the cycle of press was created, its always a good thing to see friends (or I guess friends of friends in this case) succeed. Another congratulations is in order for garnering a pack of haters. Having haters is generally the first indication that you're doing something well, so uh... keep up the good work I guess.
Aside from well-wishing though, I wanted to comment more on the argument I observed that at its core was between progress vs. tradition, in regards to the music industry. Removing the band CULTS from the equation, the debate was centered on what system is better for musicians and listeners alike: one where bands are weathered and tested by playing live shows and building grassroots followings, OR one in which bands can be catapulted into the world-wide spotlight without necessarily proving themselves in a live setting, or otherwise.
The thing that disgusts me the most about this whole debate is the assumption that there needs to be a connection between LIVE music and RECORDED music. For decades, live music and recorded music have been looked at as almost one in the same. Bands of nearly any genre have followed a pattern of recording songs as they play them live, and playing songs live as they are on their recordings. It disappoints me to think that people still hold onto this tradition, and won't accept the separation of these two ideas. Its 2010. Any kid with an ounce of inspiration can pirate recording software, buy a great mic for $100, call up their friend who plays drums, and record a rock album that rivals the quality of any major studio. The same can be said about almost any genre of music. The power to record music is finally in the hands of the musicians, and no longer exclusively with the record labels. This is called progress. I love seeing live music, but really wouldn't give a shit if I never got a chance to see my favorite bands play live again. Why? Because I respect recording as an art form, and am grateful for the albums (result of recording, not playing live) that have changed my life. Do I need to see the music performed live to fully appreciate it? Shit no.
The debate between these two systems also seems related to the way music is distributed today. Critics of the way music is distributed via the press via the internet claim that the older way of doing things was superior: finding out about bands via shows, then perhaps looking them up via their label or the internet to find out more about them. Although I find it hard to believe that anyone SERIOUSLY feels that way (how many bands have we discovered through Napster?), this way of thinking is nothing but archaic to me, keeping power in the hands of those who have ALWAYS separated musicians from listeners: labels, venues, booking agents (sorry Cory), and corporate radio. Why would anyone argue for a system that rewards coincidence (happening to be at a show and seeing a band) over choice (being exposed to tons of music and choosing the best)? People love to hate on popular websites such as Pitchfork Media because they feel the site has too much taste making power. The beautiful thing about Pitchfork, though, is that through the powers of the internet, they are able to expose readers to SO MUCH music in the period of a week, that it empowers the reader to select and choose the new music that they like best. Go to any given show, and you'll see 3-4 bands. Go to any given website, and you'll have thousands of bands to listen to and evaluate based on your own unique standards. If there is one point I wanted to make with this whole post, its that the internet is creating a more direct relationship between musician and listener.
Regardless about how you feel about whatever the internet's next new thing may be, realize that the internet is the future, and resisting it is totally fruitless. This is the information age! Just because we listen to our parent's music doesn't mean we have to find out about music like them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So. Are you conluding that the art of musicianship, since you're obviously very into art, is now irrelevant? That indeed there is a de-evolution in music?
ReplyDeleteWell, aside from being irrelevant to the conversation, I would say that musicianship is just as irrelevant now as its always been. Is musicianship even an art though? To me its more of a craft: a skill that can be practiced and perfected and is judged by universal standards.
ReplyDeleteHasn't that always been the question, though? Why do more people like to listen to Nirvana more than guitar master Yngwie Malmsteen? Why are indie rock singers historically worse than any other genre that's ever existed? Does the anti-heroism in rock music really need to be explained?
You know this as well, but the art of being a musician is all about what you have crafted out for yourself, and then how far you decide to take it with your skill. Nirvana wrote better songs, and malmsteen played crappy songs lightning fast.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the fun in making records if you don't get to play it? That's cool you made a album on your laptop and put it on itunes, but i'd much rather have the music project that never left my garage.
Speaking of garages... I guess since it doesn't matter how you ACTUALLY sound, you wont be needing the use of THE space.... EVER! Smoochies!
And this coming from someone who has actually toured for years on end and built a grassroots following! Heretic!
ReplyDeleteGreat post.
No, more like someone who plays music because I love it, not because i'm trying to build a following. Yes, this is a good post.
ReplyDeletewho is johnny utah?
ReplyDeletei think the challenge is equally great whether you catch a big break via internet or slowly gain exposure over a decade.
reacting quickly -and skillfully- enough to ride a wave of internet hype sounds super hard to me. PRESSURE!
enduring years of minor-league status just to gain respect in your own damn city sounds super exhausting. SO DISCOURAGING!
perhaps he who excels in one situation doesn't have what it takes to excel in the other.
I was talking about Brian.
ReplyDeleteWhar are you going to get it through your skull... I AM A F.B.I. AGENT!
ReplyDeleteChuckles..."Aint it wild."
Good post, Ryan. This was thought-out and well composed and you even make a good case for pitchfork, which is a hard thing for me to admit, being decidedly "anti," myself.
ReplyDeleteultimately it all comes down to taste and what one wants to get out of music. see for me, nothing can ever trump a good live show because of that dynamic between the artist & the audience.
what really separates great musicians from mediocre ones, I think, is not their proficiency level at hitting the "right" notes at the right time or anything, but rather how they are at expressing, "HEY THIS IS HOW I FUCKING FEEL" and have those people right in front of them come back with, "YES! THANK YOU! THIS IS HOW I FEEL TOO." and it's gotta be raw and more importantly profound, in some way. it must be sound that speaks to the human experience. and it should be right there in front of your face so the audience and artists can emote together with movement and noise.
you just don't find something that primal in an mp3. none of this has to do with that cults song or pitchfork, really, except that (for now anyway) those two entities exist behind a cold screen and not here in the real world.
madget_nightly FTW!
ReplyDeletePreacherman. ive never heard such a homoerotic explanation of a rock concert. that is kind of amazing and extremely emo at the same time
the first post up there is so sassy and smells like a soppy dead vagina
professor ryan soloman also ftw save for bringing back bland memories
The problem with this entire debate is that it assumes one perspective must supplant the other. However, the transformations in the construction of music as well as the music industry are not dichotomous. In our times, both the production and the consumption of music is determined by niche markets. Anybody can make music with a plethora of various tools, and anybody can access the kind of music they want to hear. This is the democratization of sound. The democratization of sound does not require a deterioration in quality. However, it CAN lead to less engagement in the creative process of generating music as well as its consumption.
ReplyDeleteObviously, advances in technology will always lead to these debates. Yet we must remember not to delve in too deep. Nuance is always present in these matters. For example, the access that the internet gives us to new music is often no different from that of the old record companies, radio stations, etc.: a listener will only hear the music of the few websites she visits, just like in the "old days" when Top 40 dominated. In order to ensure that the consumption of music does not degenerate into the force-feeding of audible mulch, the listener must act as an individual. We must stop blaming a system and start acting for ourselves.
Similarly, we must act more as individuals when it comes to creating music. By acting as an individual, the musician can become an artist. Otherwise, the professional musician is merely a musician, not an artist. The democratization of music production has NOT created an environment in which the amateur musician is equal to the professional musician. However, it has caused a situation in which the amateur musician can be an artist of audio as much as a professional musician.
All of the issues above stem from a debate that assumes one answer holds more power. But changes in the production and consumption of music will always hold positive and negative traits. By acting as individuals in all our musical endeavors, whether it be consumption or production, will give us the power to decide what we enjoy without the interference of oppressive forces such as the profit-driven music industry, media, and our peers.
Those who are nostalgic for the old days should remember that the new methods of consumption and production do not diminish the quality of music but give us more access, which means we hear the less-than-desirable music that would have gone by the wayside in years past. Those who praise modernity should keep in mind that the industry has not changed as much as you think: Top-40 has become the homogenized blogosphere.
so that's my piece for the night. i haven't slept in a couple days, and i'm writing like i'm trying to complete a fucking international relations paper. what i really wanted to say was:
DON'T BE SUCH A FUCKIN' PANSY AND ACTIVELY FIND WHAT YOU LIKE TO LISTEN TO. DON'T ACCEPT THE INTERNET AS THE FUTURE BUT USE IT.
and
DON'T BE SUCH A FUCKIN' PANSY AND BE AN ARTIST WHEN YOU MAKE MUSIC. QUIT MAKING SHIT THAT'S BEEN DONE. THAT'S WHEN MUSIC GETS BORING AND TECHNOLOGY BECOMES POINTLESS.
DON'T DO THE SHIT THAT OTHER PEOPLE DO. DO WHAT YOU DO, THEN FIND OUT LATER THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT TOO.
Thanks for responding everyone, some great stuff in here. Madget's point is super important... be careful what you wish for. It frustrates me to see bands like Clap Your Hands praised for the novelty and simplicity of their debut, then slammed for pushing their vision further and catering to a more dedicated audience. I clearly have my fair share of hate for fucking pitchfork too.
ReplyDeleteRyRy... I can vibe on your yearning for musicians to communicate their passion in a live setting, but man, there CAN BE something that primal in an mp3. This is part of the reason I hate laptops. Those shit speakers are responsible for so many people having a distaste for mp3s. Hook your shit up to some dank speakers, put on a Godspeed! album, crank up the volume and tell me that's not RAW!!
Farmz... you are a sneaky devil. Thought you were some dude in silent comedy or something...
rock and roll real estate. to play garage rock, you need access to a garage. same goes for arena rock. basement rock rules. moon rock could happen, and if it does RUSH has a contract with NASA to be the first to do it. ocean rock couldn't really happen, all that water is heavy.
ReplyDeletethis debate is a fucking dead end who cares
ReplyDeleteno offense ryan
ReplyDeleteyacht rock?
ReplyDelete"The problem with this entire" world "is that it assumes one perspective must supplant the other. "
ReplyDeleteVery good use of my words, curran. :)
ReplyDeletethanks dad! :D
ReplyDeletesure.... yacht rock. i'd be there's a lot of yacht folk.
ReplyDelete