So this was the environment I grew up in. Lots of music, but no commercial musicians (by the simple definition, did they get paid or not). I didn't meet a full-time professional musician until I was a music student in university. In my mind, for me, music was always a vocation, not a profession. Which probably explains my mixed success as a music professional! For a possibly amusing post on this, have a look at this one. The intersection of music and business was one that I usually found troubling. Sometimes these days I am tempted to call myself a 'non-commercial' musician since I only play benefit concerts and compose music without prior commission.
For most of music history, most composers seemed to have no problem combining the two. Bach could write music for the glory of God, but at the same time pester the Town Council for more money. Beethoven could write "from the heart, may it go to the heart" on the score of his Missa Solemnis and at the same time somewhat duplicitously sell the same piece to two different patrons. But I seem to be allergic to commercialism in music. I see a concert by a young trio from Julliard, how they dress, how they chat with the audience and what sort of music they choose to play and I think how little I am enjoying this and how distressing it is that this is what you have to do to be successful in a music career now. I look at publicity photos of very fine musicians and think how desperate they look for our attention. I think how the expressive, aesthetic nature of the music is a distant second to whatever career ambitions the artist harbors.
I think how I prefer an artist who has not got his or her eyes on the main chance, but on the unfolding of the music. But maybe this is just me. Does anyone else have any of these hangups?
8 comments:
"... the expressive, aesthetic nature of the music is a distant second to whatever career ambitions the artist harbors."
Very true, and Juilliard is notorious for breeding this sort of mentality.
I have no problem with even wild ambition (e.g. Wagner). But priorities should be straight, and compromised artistry is worthless.
I'm sure there is room for egoistic virtuosity, too along with wild ambition! But when everyone starts talking about the music 'industry' instead of the art of music, then I suppose pandering becomes the norm.
This was a post which gave me goosebumps because I have often thought about commercial musicians in this way. Sort of a good reason not to respect rock musicians that much, who are almost always playing with the audience, and the bad part is, that makes their audience sometimes completely ignore their music.
But performance can add to the charm of the music, for completely extra-musical reasons. Perhaps not in classical music, but surely rock music. Take Janis Joplin for example. She was a good singer, but she became wildly popular because apparently, she "gave it her all". Sort of like adding colour to a performance, it is an art in itself. Also related to "personality", and mind you, not only sex appeal or vulgarity.
I think that a charismatic performance can add a great deal to classical music as well! But I don't think the reasons are extra-musical. There are great performers in most genres and styles that convince us with the intensity and conviction of their performances. Janis Joplin is probably a good example. In classical music think of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau or Mstislav Rostropovich.
Comercial music is music that sells. That doesn't make it any better or any worse than the stuff that doesn't sell, in terms of quality anyway, because everyone has different subjective tastes. The problem that I feel most comercial music has is that it's watered down for mass appeal, boring, and utterly non-descript. That's exactly how I'd describe Linkin Park and I'd probably throw the term "generically dark" in there somewhere too.
Hi Hicham and welcome to the Music Salon. Actually, I think that I would quibble a bit with your definition of commercial music. This definition is a description from purely economic aspects: music that sells. But one of my fundamental principles on this blog is that, since music is, potentially at least, an art form, the most important aspects of it are aesthetic, not social or economic. There are great and wonderful pieces of music that "sell" but that is not the most important thing about them. I think that two important categories of music in the present context are music created primarily for distribution through commercial channels and with the intention of making large numbers of sales and music created primarily for aesthetic reasons, but also, of course, with an eye to performance and with the hope of audience enjoyment. Stated this way the difference may not seem as stark as the differences in the resulting music...
I totally agree with you Bryan, Music is first of all an art form!!
Thanks, Clara and welcome to the Music Salon. Glad to see people reading these old posts!
Post a Comment