Re: Art and Music
Mmm, what about art as a household decoration? Art (or music) to sell products? Magazines. Background music. Music therapy. Household effects (eg. vases). Entertaining kids. Both forms have many other uses in the day-to-day world.
Thing is, a lot of the music we enthuse about here is of the art-for-art's sake kind or acts as a conduit to hedonistic pleasures. Yet there are many performances created and performed for practical use.
The difference to me is the experience. Music is much more physically demanding (apart from e-ambience). It's based in time so it seems to have a "magic" effect on us because time is a very weird thing once you get down to Stephen Hawking's space/time ideas. Music is also usually much more social and often as a consequence more visceral.
As with music, most people enjoy the work of artists who have a strong sense of rthythm - the ability to draw sweeping lines with steady hand exactly where you want it. Picasso had one helluva groove :)
Both forms have a more heady appeal too - the design aesthetic and resonating with the times. That's why plenty of people enjoy Dylan, Eno(!), Ringo, Velvet Underground, The Sex Pistols etc etc
If I ever find the right people I'd be keen to play original music with a strong sense of symbolism, that tells stories, that has an edge. Not the standard edge-for-edge sake fare but edge that comes from real life. Pumping out standards might take advantage of the writer's great songwriting skills but I find a lot of it too twee by half after a while.
Question is, how can we apply that "outsider" sensibility of the artist to our music?
Last edited by Pollyanna; 10-25-2009 at 06:15 AM.