smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Kerry Kompost <kerry_kompost@yahoo.com> |
| Subject | Re: The Grate Debate |
| Date | Tue, 15 May 2007 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I wrote:
>>I believe that lasting art is created
from desires of the heart, not the needs of the
pocketbook (get a day job!).<<
Splitsville Rob responded:
>Desires, meaning what, exactly?<
Meaning the burning, internal desire to create
something -- music, whatever -- that accurately
reflects who YOU are, as a person/musician/artist,
deep down inside. Something that, if created with an
open heart coupled with a thinking mind, will last
forever, that won't become disposable (like so much of
the pop music in my not-unconsiderable collection).
The desire to stand out as a unique artist, one
willing to create what they WANT to create, regardless
of the laughable financial rewards, regardless of
whether it "fits" certain stifiling genre
classifications. The desire to have people KNOW it's
YOU when they hear your changes or read your lyrics.
It boils down to desiring the establishment of a
musical presence you can truly call your own. It's a
lofty goal, but it's do-able, with a LOT of
self-editing and a LOT of hard work. And, even then,
chances are 99.9% of the music-loving population is
going to HATE you for even TRYING!!!
My favorite artists have always been able to skate
freely among multiple musical genres, like, for
instance, Andy Partridge, who is more than capable of
seamlessly blending traditional Beatle-based pop with
jazz (ie. "Ladybird" from the Mummer album, or
"Miniature Sun" from O&L), to stunning effect. Or the
way Mike Keneally throws everything into his musical
soup, but, you know, when you STUDY his stuff you
realize the man possesses an incredible gift for
songcraft (as well as a playful heart). Or the way
Joni Mitchell doesn't give a shit if you like her
jazz-pop-experimental leanings, or the way Steely Dan
crafted a rock/fusion vibe, or the way ELP rocked-up
some seriously classical changes (which STILL move me
deeply to this day).
Tell me any of these artists aren't utterly,
undeniably unique. I've always -- apparently naively
-- assumed that this was the goal of ALL artists, even
pop songwriters.
When I first joined this list ten years ago (gasp!),
Andy Bopp's Myracle Brah was THE SHIZZIT (cue Gene
"Cornbread" Pillsbury rap beat) with the album "Life
on Planet Eartsnop". Remember that?
I've gotta ask this question of the old timers: how
many of you still play that album on a regular basis?
Now, this is NOT an attempt to slam Andy Bopp; I will
say right here and now that the dude knows how to
craft a fucking song, no questions there. In fact,
"She's So Young" from the album in question is an
amazing feat, in my opinion. I love that tune,
especially, it's SO "Something New"-era Lennon, it's
just scary.
I remember enjoying "Life on Planet Eartsnop" for
maybe five, six spins. By then, the hooks stopped
standing out and the overriding influences began to
become obvious (something I try to avoid at all
costs), and I started looking at the album as more of
a Rutles-type statement rather than the unique,
individual voice of a passionate original artist. I
ripped "She's So Young" for my MP3 player (along with
"Whisper Softly", which has always nailed my ass to
the floor), but, as a whole, I've never gone back to
the record for second helpings; once was enough to get
the gist, to reveal the motivation. IMHO, of course.
Has this record -- espoused so heartily by this list a
decade ago -- stood the test of time? Is it A) an
incredible artistic statement by a unique artist, or
2) the product of a rabid, intelligent, exceptionally
talented fan who was driven to re-create the music
that moved him as a young lad?
I'd venture to say it's #2, and, while there is
absolutely nothing inherently wrong with trying to
re-create music that moves you, it IS artistically
wrong to flat-out co-opt someone else's vision (in
this case, the Beatles) and call it your own. There is
no real lasting value in a knock-off, but there is
real, lasting value in an original. Sure, the
knock-off might be a blast, and a well-crafted
knock-off might even approach the original, but, for
me, I want the original vision, not a watered-down
version.
Okay, now, let's see if this post is too long...
kErrY
www.myspace.com/kompost
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.