R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Down

Author Topic: "Major" art and "minor" art...  (Read 11760 times)

malice

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 799
"Major" art and "minor" art...
« on: January 05, 2006, 07:46:24 am »

maxim wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 04:19


bob o wrote:

"The only thing anybody can expect to get paid for is entertainment value."

you amaze me with your cynicism

did your first wife make sculptures only in order to get paid?

and while we're not on your forum in the marsh pit, i'll say this too:

MUSIC IS FREE!




In order to explain one or two things to some of the people that totally missed the cleverness of Bob O statement I wish to start a new thread and make his detractors realize that they should always think twice before disagreeing with the man ( that would apply to Dan Lavry : "you can disagree and be wrong forever... ever...ever...ever....)

In France, we had a very popular songwriter and singer name Serge Gainsbourg that even you americans might have heard of that made a distinction between "minor" art and "major" art that was quite controversial at the time.

to resume : minor art is an art that does not require education to be understood (punk rock would applied) and major art does (like Bob O wife's work, Mozart, Miles Davis etc ). It's not that an ignorant lad could not be "touched" by Michelangello sculptures, it's only that he doesn't have a clue about understanding "why".

Pretty elitist but true nevertheless.

Are american Idol participants artists ?

Well, I'm not sure. Looks like a football team with coaches and an armada of "media specialist" to me.

I would consider most of the music we are working on in our craft as "marketing" more than "art".

Now to respond to maxim and every poster here that really thinks music is indeed free as the air we are breathing, I will say this : Free for you to hear music out of the wind in the trees or the sea waving on the beach, but still there is such a concept as intellectual property.

While you can be an artist in your bedroom, making or not a living out of it is irrelevant to this debate: Your music is free if you, as an artist decide (or not) it is so. If you think otherwise, you are indeed close to retardation.

"The only thing anybody can expect to get paid for is entertainment value."

indeed it is true, and not even remotely cynical.

To close this post, I might remind you that we, as recordists and mixers, are NOT artists (we're not all musicians here, right ?). Merely artisans providing quality tools to the artists when we have the chance to meet them. And it is not everyday, sadly.

malice
Marsh Pit moderator (or whatever smartass title you think yourself clever to have found)

Linear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2006, 08:30:33 am »

It has been said many times that music is the purest form of art. I've always believed this to be true because unlike many other artforms, you don't have to be a musician (nor educated) to appreciate good music - plenty of uneducated, non-musical types appreciate Mozart.

On the other hand, I have been to many contemporary dance performances and I have a tough time noting the exceptional from the exceptionally bad. I (and most others I know) gain a sense of what is good by reading the reviews & counting the standing ovations.

I think to believe that within the artform of music there is 'major' and 'minor' works is being rather subjective and narrow - regardless of the genre (punk, metal & thrash included) there are always those whom are looked up to by their peers as being frontrunners in that particular genre. I guess you could say it's importance is in the ear of the beholder.

Drawing the line between 'major' and 'minor' music based on education and appreciation is not what Bob O meant, nor anyone else who really cares about music and respects others tastes and opinions.

If you have to classify music in this way, then there is alot to be said about the intention of the music that is created. Music for TV and radio ads is music all the same, albeit minor. American/Australian Idol is majorly minor because it's throwaway, prepackaged, convoluted, commercialised, talentless made for tv/money/profits crap. Conversely, music created with passion, hard work and a sense of achievement is 'major', with the level of 'major' in a way decided by peers.

While I do think that Maxim is retarded, if his music is 'major' in his opinion, and if others in that genre appreciate it then it is most definitely not 'minor'.

Mais, ayant dit tout cela, que sais-je vraiment?

Chris

Logged
http://www.linear-recording.com.au

"Fashions change, the laws of physics don't"
Steve Dove

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2006, 09:20:49 am »

Great post Malice.

I'd like to add the idea that anything that is copyrighted or protected is "minor art". It's just intellectual material, like the McDonald's "I'm loving it" song, It was created to provide an instantly recognizable tone that people associate with MCD to sell burgers.

That's no different then the build up of Hillary Duff and Lindsey Lohan on the Disney channel before they let them break out. They are a manufactured item just like a MCD cheese burger. They could obviously be considered "Bb minor artists", but they do serve a purpose in the MARKETPLACE.

1. Minor art is:

MARKETED "Pop" art

2. Major art is:

A love and appreciation of something that holds a TIMELESS and intrinsic value for future generations of the  world.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2006, 11:04:06 am »

The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of major art by giving every creator an equity position in everything they create rather than forcing them to rely strictly on some employer or patron for financial support. It is a basic right to freedom of expression that predates freedom of the press. It is the ONLY property right guaranteed to individuals in the US constitution.

This idea that copyright is purely for the purpose of enriching media corporations is new-speak right out of George Orwell because large media corporations would be the major beneficiaries of any "leveled playing field" where all artists get paid the same government mandated royalty with no exclusive relationships allowed.

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2006, 11:28:41 am »

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 10:04

....is new-speak right out of George Orwell......


i think our society and art in general have become oh too Orwellian.  sort of sad how easy it is to be controled..........
Logged

bbkong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2006, 12:31:35 pm »

Ah, Linear. hehe

An Aussie with a brain.


"Would you like some fries with that iPod?"

Yeah, the state of the industry has hit a low point and we're splitting hairs with sledgehammers as it continues the spiral.

It's funny how the gear keeps getting better and the product keeps getting worse. Orwellian indeed.

At some point craft slips into art, crossing a fine line that even the artist can't pin down since it is by nature a fluid thing.

Major/minor, high/low, the distinctions have become blurred in the avalanch of marketing and there is no litmus test or time to apply it.

It's all subjective, eye and ear of the beholder regardless of the time, effort and training of the artist.

Had a band in last night and there's no friggin way I'd call that art. Nor would I call them artists. Purveyors of moronic noise created with instruments?  That's a lot closer to the truth.

I'm gonna triple my day rate and get another cup of coffee.  
Logged
"ottotune that bastard till he sounds like a sine wave"

Invisible Member

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2006, 01:13:38 pm »




I thought Bob Olhsson was basically saying that when Art becomes a business it ceases to be Art?

Even if that wasn't his intention it certainly caused me to evaulate somethings personally.

I once had a song over at the MARSH critiqued and I spent some time trying to incorportate the comments the best I could. But would it still be considered art if I modified it to meet some predetermined criteria such as "length".

Is all art pretty? No.

So why modify music to be "pretty" or "pleasing" if it is art?

This also makes me think about another thread about what sounds natural to a person verses processed and unreal. A painting is usually considered to be art more often than a photograph taken without color correction and filtering. Movies are more pleasing on average at 24 rather than 29.97...

What do you think?


Peace,
Dennis

Logged

Ron Steele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2006, 01:17:23 pm »

Mr. Thorazine wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 13:13




What do you think?


Peace,
Dennis




"Dude, this is like, a rock song, can you crank up the phones?"

Sure.

"Dude, the phones sound all distorted now."

Yep.


It's only rockin roll....... but I like it.
Logged
 "I have had PLENTY of my posts torched on other boards. It kind of goes with the territory of pushing the envelope. Their house, their rules. Why can't everyone GET this?"

McAllister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2006, 02:23:55 pm »

I do not like the distinction between Major Art and Minor Art. I smacks of egalitarianism; an "o, the reason you don't like it is because you don't have enough information."

Fuck that.

Art is. You like it, or you don't. For reasons you might understand; or not. Period.

There is already too much slicing and parsing and stereotyping and catagorizing and putting-people-in-boxes for us to start doing that crap too.

I'm a musician, not a researcher working on a thesis. I don't want things explained; I don't want to have to have a certain amount of knowledge to appreciate things; and I certainly don't want my opinions of what I like (or don't like) to be devalued based on a demonstration of my knowledge of the topic at hand (i.e. proving that my opinion is a worthy one).

Art is.

Let's go make some.

M
Logged
Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone.

Invisible Member

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2006, 03:16:25 pm »

Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 10:17

Mr. Thorazine wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 13:13




What do you think?


Peace,
Dennis




"Dude, this is like, a rock song, can you crank up the phones?"

Sure.

"Dude, the phones sound all distorted now."

Yep.


It's only rockin roll....... but I like it.



Somebody needs to cut back their visits to Banjo Center Wink

I got some mono headphones if it will help Smile

Peace,
Dennis
Logged

dikledoux

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2006, 05:40:02 pm »

bbkong wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 12:31

At some point craft slips into art, crossing a fine line that even the artist can't pin down since it is by nature a fluid thing.

<and>

It's all subjective, eye and ear of the beholder regardless of the time, effort and training of the artist.

I'm flashing back to my art-school thesis days...  And I believe that BBKong hit the nail squarely on the head.  Maybe I can dredge up the lessons from those days...

High art and Low art can be better defined in terms of the training of the artist, such that a schooled artist brings a quality of intellectualism to their work no matter how hard they try to dumb it down - whereas an unschooled artist will always be working largely from the "gut".  High art and Low art are not to be confused with good or bad art.  You can have bad high art and great low art, and vice-versa.  Muddy Waters is great low-art, Ynqwie Mlmsteen is very bad high art.

Art is the act of expression.  The artwork is the artifact of that expression.  That's how performance art came about, and why theatre and music are arts - there's a level of expression in the performance of the work.  Expression is a creative act by it's very nature.

I believe that Steve A's stance as non-artist is correct in that he himself has said he's not trying to put his stamp on a piece of music, he's not expressing his view of that music or how he thinks the music "should" be expressed.  He views himself as a means for an artist to create a record, which is the artifact of their art.

When an engineer is purposefully working in a collaborative sense, they are in fact contributing to the art.  The engineer that twists knobs, places mics and then says to the band "there, now THAT'S a drum sound", is acting at the level of artist.  The engineer that twists knobs, places mics and then says to the band "is THAT what you were looking for?" is acting as a facilitator, a craftsman, but not an artist.

Both are valid, but the collaboritive effort is only valid if the band was looking for a partner in the art-making process.  Otherwise, the engineer is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and I believe that's the problem Steve A has with the term "producer" and producers in general.

Like anything else, it's my opinion.  It just so happens that one of the things I've had formal training in is art.  I'm probably one of the only knuckleheads in here with an art degree, so I've been through this whole discussion about a gazillion times with people who live and breathe it directly.

dik

[edit: note - I've just realized how gay it looks (NTTAWWT) that I'm quoting SA in my sig...  and then going off on how I think I know what he means.  It's a little stalkerly looking.  Be advised that I'll change my sig as soon as I find something else that strikes me. <g>]
Logged
"The gypsy woman placed a curse upon my head. Because I smelled it, she decreed I would forevermore be HE WHO DEALT IT!" - the Spleen

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2006, 07:00:34 pm »

malice wrote:

"In France, we had a very popular songwriter and singer name Serge Gainsbourg that even you americans might have heard of that made a distinction between "minor" art and "major" art that was quite controversial at the time."

in my mind serge walks a very thin line between art and entertainment, and, one thing, for sure, he's a major provocateur

those distinctions are meaningless

there is good art and there is bad art, and there's suff in between

people will make up all sorts of reasons why they think art is good or bad, but, ultimately, it's very simple:

it either works or it doesn't



"like Bob O wife's work"

i really wish the poor woman was left out of this discussion (by her ex-husband in the first place)

besides, that's a psychofantic assumption



"I would consider most of the music we are working on in our craft as "marketing" more than "art"."

i feel sorry for you, but speak for yourself



"I might remind you that we, as recordists and mixers, are NOT artists"

once again, speak for yourself, you'll find there's a whole bunch of people in another forum who'll disagree with you



" Your music is free if you, as an artist decide (or not) it is so"

ahhh, so you did read some of my posts

i'm glad you agree







Logged

Linear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2006, 07:14:40 pm »

maxim wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 11:00


"I would consider most of the music we are working on in our craft as "marketing" more than "art"."

i feel sorry for you, but speak for yourself


"I might remind you that we, as recordists and mixers, are NOT artists"

once again, speak for yourself, you'll find there's a whole bunch of people in another forum who'll disagree with you



Not likely.

From your posts you have made it clear that a) you don't make a living out of recording and b) you recorded your own work using outside engineering assistance. Fair enough, but you're missing the point.

There should be no debate that an 'engineer' that records another artists work for remuneration is not an artist himself.

Chris
Logged
http://www.linear-recording.com.au

"Fashions change, the laws of physics don't"
Steve Dove

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2006, 07:34:17 pm »

define "art"... just kidding.

the best advice i received about how to approach engineering was "don't fuck it up". maybe that's an art form to some people.

glenn
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: "Major" art and "minor" art...
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2006, 07:38:04 pm »

Cavemen would be dazzled by the Sistine.. they might not grasp the respect part, and might dig holes looking for grubs, but they'd appreciate it.

"Hey dood, nice cave."


M
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Up