WHY are less people listening to music? (1 Viewer)

[John Watson]

Yeah, we need more tortured artists.

There's too much freakin' freedom in our society!

Will, you opened a can o' worms

 

[MarkHastings]

I guess there's alot of artists that you don't respect.

Yes, very true. I'm not saying I don't like them, I just can't say that I would consider any of them to be true "artists" if they can't do it on their own.

I love the arts, I just have a hard time loving the artists.

That's all.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

CD almost killed off music listening for me.

 

[Will_B]

I just can't say that I would consider any of them to be true "artists" if they can't do it on their own.

What does "on their own" mean?

I'm not advocating pro-drugs here, rather I'd like to point out to you, Mark, that while much of our music is generated by people in the usual higher-brain-function state of mind which Westerners tend to remain in for most hours of the day, there is a vast tradition of music generated from different states of mind - and by that I do not simply mean by drugs. There is of course a wide range of states of mind (we cycle through various states of mind every day, affected by our environment, our emotional state, and on and on).

In religious traditions you have music that is created from, and meant to bring about, excstacy for example from chant. In Native American traditions you might find rythmic drummings which are designed to alter one's state of mind, into one which may be more expressive in some ways and less expressive in others.

What I am pointing out by giving two examples that have nothing to do with drugs is that the nature of creativity, or how our minds work depending on what state of mind we are in, and how our states of mind depend largely on our environments, means that there is no clear cut way to say that one's mind is doing something creatively "on it's own." We're always acting in response to something, whether it is from the food we eat, the air we breathe, the setting we are living in, the sounds we are hearing, the emotional contact we are having or have had from others, and on and on.

It appears you are suggesting that you draw the line at what "legitimately" influences us somewhere AFTER the food we eat, the air we breathe, the setting we are living in, the emotional contact we are having or have had from others, and on and on, but BEFORE one eats or drinks or inhales some food, liquid, or plant which are known to affect people rapidly. That's an interesting line to have drawn, and it is even one I'd generally endorse, but I'd ask you to recognize that it is a cultural distinction that you have drawn when you define _that_ as "NOT on one's own," but you'd endorse everything else "AS one's own."

Perhaps this line is drawn there because the affects of drugs is so rapid, whereas everything else is slower. For a person to be a master at their art, they need to be able to appreciate what they are sensing, and certainly it is easier to appreciate our feelings, our emotions, our environment, etc., because their pace is more gentle than drugs, which arrive quickly, and easily wreak havok on people because in our culture we are not accustomed to that kind of rapid pace - even rapid emotions can startle us, but we more or less manage that despite its speed (though heartbreak affects us all, doesn't it?).

The better artists learn how to manage that expression...they becomes "masters" as they learn to call forth the state of mind that serves their art best, or express what such states of mind have informed them of. So I have deep respect for people who done this through the appreciation or sensing of their environment and experience.

But I'm not entirely willing to cut off those artists who acheived their art when they took drugs, whether it is the bluesmen on heroin or whatever, they still were able to relate the experience through their art. Though many did not remain "masters" for long.

Put it another way, are people who are dancing less creative because they are not doing it on their own, as their state of mind flows from the music? I'd argue that creativity in general is not an act of creating something, but it is the act of expressing something, and that is talent. Not the creation itself, but the ability to convey. There are lots of druggies, but how many convey creativity through art? I'd say even a druggie artists is still an artist, and they still did it "on their own" - albeit often to ruinous conclusions for their own lives.

 

[Seth--L]

I'd also like to talk about this. Putting drugs aside, most if not all artists (music, film, fine arts, literature) are inspired by something. A lot of the time it's another piece of art. Most of the time it's their life experience. You seem to want artists to come up with a truly original idea, totally uninfluenced by things outside of their mind. That never happens.

 

[MarkHastings]

I went to school for art and I now am a designer. I also play keyboards in a successful local band.

I can come up with the most creative things and all without even touching drugs. This is why I have such a bad attitude toward people who think they can be "creative" while "on drugs". :rolleyes

They're just not tryin.

 

[Andy Olivera]

If it's coming from their brain, whether distorted or not, it's still creativity and it's still coming from them. Drugs alter your perception and put you in a different state of mind, but you are still perceiving and your mind is still processing those perceptions, so how can it be argued it's not your creativity?

Further, I'd argue that "trying" to be creative will ultimately fail. Creativity is the product of imagination and imagination can't be forced. It's influenced by your environment and perceptions, but nobody can control what comes out of it. The process of creativity is simply running what comes out of your imagination through your brain with the intention of molding it into something you can use.

Dreams operate in a similar fassion to drugs, in that you have no conscious control. Your mind is processing everything your imagination spits out using all your past perceptions. Does that make dreams an invalid form of creativity?

 

[TommyT]

I also think MTV had a lot to do with this too, look at the pathetic state of videos compared to the 80s. Today, they're all simply photo-shoots w/your Aguileras, Careys, Snoops, RKellys, Spears & JLos just posing for the cameras in skimpy outfits (or naked) while lip-synchin' the tune. Videos actually used to be a creative medium; my choice for the greatest is Wrapped Around Your Finger by the Police. It still astounds me that they got all those candles to burn together!

But FM radio is just as much to blame. About 10 yrs ago a Buffalo News reporter did a survey of Western NY State radio stations & the results showed that just about all of the domestic stations surveyed got poor marks in the area of playlists. What it proved is that radio stations play the same stuff every day & that NO ONE notices or cares enough to notice! In fact, the local 'classic' rock station got an F. The survey was conducted again a year later & the same station did even worse (an F-) because they'd made no attempt to improve, IE, they could've cared less that they sucked! The station that got the highest mark, an A, was a Toronto, ON, station that played all cutting edge music AND put local acts, both Canadian & American, into rotation, something that major American FM stations would never do because they think there's no $$$ in it.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I can come up with the most creative things and all without even touching drugs. This is why I have such a bad attitude toward people who think they can be "creative" while "on drugs".

Agreed. I can tell you what it does to jazz musicians despite popular lore. We almost lost one of our best saxophone players, Joe Henderson, to heroin in the 70s and 80s. He came back but it was a long road back. He spoke about this with me while we were working on New York Reunion. He said that drugs inhibited his creativity and he was a much better player once he was "straight". Kind of puts in perspective the joking between Jay Leno and Kevin.

Unfortunately we lost Joe eventually, but he left a great body of work...

 

[DaveDickey]

This is the most insightful forum thread I've read in years...very nice!

Lee, You mentioned the great Joe Henderson and how he indicated that drugs inhibited his creativity. That sentiment is a common opinion of musicians who have been able to recover from the "creative cloud" of drugs. Stevie Ray Vaughan is one of the best examples of this.

Dave

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Clear Channel and MTV killed (popular) music.

Audiophile mentality killed jazz and classical, by shifting the emphasis to sound quality over performer and performance.

CD is the biggest boon to local artists ever. Bands that never could have afforded vinyl pressings can afford to make (burns, and also small aluminum runs) albums to sell at their shows and in local shops.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Here is story on the popularity of DVD which also plays a role in the shift away from music:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95558,00.html

CD is the biggest boon to local artists ever. Bands that never could have afforded vinyl pressings can afford to make (burns, and also small aluminum runs) albums to sell at their shows and in local shops.

This is true and you could point to a number of technologies that have lowered recording barriers for cash-starved bands. Look at what I am doing these days-making an audio test CD with little or no budget. The just over $1K Alessis allows one to make superb sounding recordings and burn as many CDRs as one wants. We just got a classical guitar musician to perform on the jitter CD in exchange for a few copies of his work. He wins, we win. And we will be able to share our efforts with a few people for just the cost of mailing or dropping off the disc.

 

[Nick White]

I would imagine that a musician is more likely to perform poorly when under pressure like that. I've got several friends who are jazz musicians and used to play in a group myself, years ago. Pressure to perform "well" usually hurts more than it helps. The musician can't relax, and they're so caught up in making the recording sound nice that they don't connect with their audience nearly as well.

I've heard this same sentiment expressed from many many rock bands. This is why some bands will refuse to do a live album. If they knew they were being recorded, they know that they would never perform with the same energy that they normally do. They'd be standing still and focused on their instruments as opposed to jumping around and putting on a good show.

So I guess I'd agree with the sentiment that audiophile mentalities often miss the point.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm not sure how improved sound quality would hurt musicians; in my mind it helps them by making details of great events more transparent which creates pressure for a better performance.

It hurts the art form by shifting the emphasis towards the recording and away from the art. I can't count how many audiophiles I meet that only have a dozen or two classical and jazz recordings, and they are often all of recent vintage of lesser artists..."demo" material.

The old cheapskate with piles of scratched-up, warped, old Columbia, Mercury, and Blue Note vinyl records and a one-piece stereo is far more of a music fan than these audiophiles that wouldn't know art if it bit them in the ass.

 

[Holadem]

The same goes with alcohol. Why do we need to drink to have a good time? - It's called laziness - We're always looking for the easy way out and not doing things that involve thinking.

...

--
H

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The old cheapskate with piles of scratched-up, warped, old Columbia, Mercury, and Blue Note vinyl records and a one-piece stereo is far more of a music fan than these audiophiles that wouldn't know art if it bit them in the ass.

I think you have twisted perspective on audiophiles perhaps due to the writing in Stereophile and Absolute Sound. While these journals speak a lot about equipment, many audiophiles like myself spend less than 20% of our time on equipment and 80% on music. Most audiophiles I know spend far more money on their CDs and vinyl than on their stereo system. There are exceptions but I think that is less than 5% of the people who consider themselves audiophile.

I base this on 20+ years working with people in audio, mostly on an unpaid consulting basis. There are audiophiles who are forever tweaking their system with the latest and greatest interconnect, power cord, etc. but if you go to the Home Entertainment shows, you see where there is more emphasis on software. It was interesting to spend a few days in 2001 at the New York City HE show...there was lots of interest in equipment but the room selling CDs and vinyl was mobbed every hour. Some retailers actually sent a person back home on the plane to retrieve extra inventory.

There does tend to be the same few demo CDs played at these shows, but that is just the dealer and designer's commercial wishes to show his new gear in the best light.

Again, a lot of great jazz and blues recordings have come back in print solely due to the vinyl revolution (arguably started by Mike Fremer at Stereophile) and audiophile labels obtaining rights for a reasonable investment and then doing a first-class mastering.

As music fans, we whould thankful for audiophile interest in my humble opinion.

 

[Nick White]

Apologies. I thought Lee was referring to live recordings. My post still has some merit, I think, though.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I think you have twisted perspective on audiophiles perhaps due to the writing in Stereophile and Absolute Sound.

My perceptions are based on real-life experiences with real individuals.

I canceled my Stereophile subscription years ago. Occasionally I read an article or two at a friend's house. I've never even touched an issue of TAS, let alone opened one up and read it.

While there are of course 'audiophiles' who are driven by a real love for music, in my experience there are far more that are driven by a love of gear and reproduction of state-of-the-art recordings. Music is much greater than this small-minded mentality.

My experiences are every bit as valid as yours. All of ours are.

 

[BrianB]

I simply feel that redbooks are not really high fidelity enough for music lovers

that suggest a certain "snob value" of the audiophiles out there. I think Michael's spot on in my experience.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

reproduction of state-of-the-art recordings

I don't see how this is inconsistent with great music. Engineers can make the music listening experience far more enjoyable with a more natural sound.