- Author
Message
Spoiler: show
Deakin:Yes that was me. I had a good time. I missed the first two bands which was a bummer as I heard Blues Control was good. I thought Excepter were great. I usually enjoy there shows although... I think the last time I had a chance to see them was when they played with us at Webster. I think those guys are great though. It seems like they are getting better and better at beat production. Everything seemed very related to each other while still keeping that chaos they are so comfortable in. Yeah... I liked it. nothing too deep to say about it. THe new record is great too. I didn't really catch much of the Magic Markers. I went to go get coffee with a few friends inbetween Excepter and MM but didn't realize how far we had gone and by the time we got back they only had two more songs. I guess I just didn't really get enough of there set to really say much at all. but that isn't meant to sound negative in any way. I like that place though. it is so nice and different to chill out by the water in NYC. It almost felt like I was somewhere else.
Spoiler: show
Geologist:hey there, sorry i didn't respond to this sooner. you totally should have said hello at the Gang Gang Dance show! i was not on tour with them i just happened to be doing a road trip/camping trip in scandinavia and as i was heading south down the west coast of sweden, i saw that they were playing a free festival in malmo and decided to show up and surprise them. always nice when playing in a foreign town to see an unexpected friendly face. anyway, i like meeting locals when i travel so i would have welcomed the opportunity. i think you misinterpretted my look. i was not bothered, but i was uncomfortable. it is weird to get recognized and engage in coversation with strangers, mostly because you get this weird feeling of them projecting some kind of identity on you, and it's one that does not really feel like who i am. i don't define myself or my worth as being a member of AC, but when a fan says hello, that is the only common ground. that being said though, i really don't mind it and we like being an accessible band that is on an even field with our listeners. every once in a while you meet someone who is too weird or has a bad attitude that makes you uncomfortable, but its not that often. actually a lot of times people apologize for being so weird, when it's not as big a deal as they thing. it's a strange situation for everyone involved, but once you accept that, you just relax and try and be normal for a second and have a good conversation. the other night in london someone approached us trying to by charlie sheen and then realized it was us and came back and gave me a book and we had a great time talking. so it went from weird to awesome. by the way, i know they opened up our dressing room to the public at the warehouse show, and that book went missing, so if anyone saw a book about prime numbers and unsolved mathematics, please send it back.
why i was uncomfortable in malmo and looked that way was because no one did come up and talk to me, they just stared and pointed and whispered to their friends. that is the absolute worst. within a few minutes of moving to the front of the crowd it became very obvious that most people up front recognized me, and i think people think they are being more discreet that they really are. it's very obvious when you're being observed by others on that scale. i would much rather people come up and say hello and then it's like "hey, we're all at this show, we've shook hands and exchanged proper introductions, now let's watch on of the best bands in the world and have a good time together." but when i'm trying to get into the show and notice people staring, it's hard. the other thing i would say about scenarios such as these, is that it's not a good idea to approach people, or at least me, when the band they came to see is actually playing. i didn't go to the ggd show to be recognized or talk to fans. if i had met people, i would have been stoked, but my main reason for being there was that i wanted to hear them and see their show. if its before, the end, or in between bands, then no worries man, but i don't like when people come up and try and talk to me and then i have to be like, "hey sorry to be rude, but i want to see this show so could you wait until after and then we'll talk?" then i spend the rest of the set worried that i made someone feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
anyway, hope that answers your question. next time, and this goes for everybody, please do come up and say hi.
why i was uncomfortable in malmo and looked that way was because no one did come up and talk to me, they just stared and pointed and whispered to their friends. that is the absolute worst. within a few minutes of moving to the front of the crowd it became very obvious that most people up front recognized me, and i think people think they are being more discreet that they really are. it's very obvious when you're being observed by others on that scale. i would much rather people come up and say hello and then it's like "hey, we're all at this show, we've shook hands and exchanged proper introductions, now let's watch on of the best bands in the world and have a good time together." but when i'm trying to get into the show and notice people staring, it's hard. the other thing i would say about scenarios such as these, is that it's not a good idea to approach people, or at least me, when the band they came to see is actually playing. i didn't go to the ggd show to be recognized or talk to fans. if i had met people, i would have been stoked, but my main reason for being there was that i wanted to hear them and see their show. if its before, the end, or in between bands, then no worries man, but i don't like when people come up and try and talk to me and then i have to be like, "hey sorry to be rude, but i want to see this show so could you wait until after and then we'll talk?" then i spend the rest of the set worried that i made someone feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
anyway, hope that answers your question. next time, and this goes for everybody, please do come up and say hi.
Spoiler: show
Geologist:yes, doctess played on the record and its in the liner notes. ooooooh, looks like someone got caught downloading as opposed to buying it. shame shame know your name. just kidding. kristin plays on every song. she played live as we did the live tracking but there was often a lot of bleed into the piano mics from the other instruments so she often re-did or elaborated on her parts at night when she could have quiet in the studio. we all played in one room so there was so isolation, except josh's guitar amps which we stuck in a bathroom. hehehe, once i went in to use it forgetting that the mics were on and everyone got an audio version of my piss in their headphones. eyvind came in one day and did amazing overdubs on a bunch of songs. sometimes i think it's a shame that the brilliance of his parts don't stick out more on the record, but that's the way we like to mix - make it as much one organic sound as possible. it'd be nice to one day, maybe on the 10th anniversary reissue, do some mixes where his parts are cranked.
i can't think of any standout eyvind anecdotes, at least not that would interest anyone that wasn't there (funny things he said at dinner or whatever). he was only there for an afternoon. we had sent him live recordings of the songs we wanted him on (daffy, bees, fickle cycle, and people) but he never had a chance to listen to them. so he came in and would listen to each track once, then talk with us about ideas, and then just improvise over the song. as scott predicted (he has worked with eyvind many times over the last 10 years), he never hit a wrong note. it was pretty mindblowing to watch. he played violin, viola, and tried some traditional chinese instrument, which we took out because it didn't mix so well. wish we had more time to jam because i'm sure it owuld have a lot of fun. dave and i had been thinking about who to ask to play violin on a few songs that we wanted violin on, and eyvind was our first choice. we'd been big fans of his since first hearing him play violin on a sun city girls recordin the mid-90's. it was kind of just great luck that he was our first choice and that scott knew him and had recorded him a bunch, and that he lived in the seattle area. when i first asked him if he'd be interested his crucial question was what we wanted out of a violin part in a song. did we want it to stand out melodically so a listener would say, oh here comes the violin part, or did we want him to explore the violin and how it would fit into the song (i.e. doing noise, more textural parts)? i replied the latter and he was stoked. that was the ultimate reason we chose him. he's so good at exploring and pushing the limits of his instruments. he can master the pretty and melodic stuff, harsh noise music, trancey drones, etc. if any of you are interested in checking out his stuff, you should check out these records:
compositional: 7 nades, theater of mineral nades, story of iceland
noise: sweetness of sickness, and parts of the 7 nades album
rock: dying ground (a band he did with kato hideki and calvin weston on drums)
drone: live low to the iron age (released under the name "the neti-neti band".
also check out his collaborations with secret chiefs 3 and sun city girls. seriously, the dude rules and couldn't be nicer and more genuine about his love for music.
forgot to say i haven't heard virginal coordinates yet but i really want to. i've heard great things.
i can't think of any standout eyvind anecdotes, at least not that would interest anyone that wasn't there (funny things he said at dinner or whatever). he was only there for an afternoon. we had sent him live recordings of the songs we wanted him on (daffy, bees, fickle cycle, and people) but he never had a chance to listen to them. so he came in and would listen to each track once, then talk with us about ideas, and then just improvise over the song. as scott predicted (he has worked with eyvind many times over the last 10 years), he never hit a wrong note. it was pretty mindblowing to watch. he played violin, viola, and tried some traditional chinese instrument, which we took out because it didn't mix so well. wish we had more time to jam because i'm sure it owuld have a lot of fun. dave and i had been thinking about who to ask to play violin on a few songs that we wanted violin on, and eyvind was our first choice. we'd been big fans of his since first hearing him play violin on a sun city girls recordin the mid-90's. it was kind of just great luck that he was our first choice and that scott knew him and had recorded him a bunch, and that he lived in the seattle area. when i first asked him if he'd be interested his crucial question was what we wanted out of a violin part in a song. did we want it to stand out melodically so a listener would say, oh here comes the violin part, or did we want him to explore the violin and how it would fit into the song (i.e. doing noise, more textural parts)? i replied the latter and he was stoked. that was the ultimate reason we chose him. he's so good at exploring and pushing the limits of his instruments. he can master the pretty and melodic stuff, harsh noise music, trancey drones, etc. if any of you are interested in checking out his stuff, you should check out these records:
compositional: 7 nades, theater of mineral nades, story of iceland
noise: sweetness of sickness, and parts of the 7 nades album
rock: dying ground (a band he did with kato hideki and calvin weston on drums)
drone: live low to the iron age (released under the name "the neti-neti band".
also check out his collaborations with secret chiefs 3 and sun city girls. seriously, the dude rules and couldn't be nicer and more genuine about his love for music.
forgot to say i haven't heard virginal coordinates yet but i really want to. i've heard great things.
Spoiler: show
Geologist: "all the songs on feels are tuned to our friends piano which was out of tune to begin with. dave and i made loops from recordings of him playing her piano and we used those loops in the early songwriting process for feels. so since those loops are premade and can't be tuned, the guitars have to be tuned to the loops. it's not out of tune in any tradional whole step/half step kind of way...we're talking microtonally out of tune after years of not being professionally tuned and subtle natural detuning. kind of like if you played guitar in standard tuning for years but never once re-tuned it to make sure it was right. it would have it's own unique out-of-tune tuning based on what strings you played most often, how hard you played it, the temperature in the room, the humidity, etc...when we went into the studio it ruled over everything we did. even doctess's live piano playing required us bringing in a professional piano tuner, playing him a minidisc recording of our friend's out of tune piano, and having him try to de-tune the studio's piano in exactly the same way our friend's was. without those recordings or the loops dave and i made, you wouldn't be able to get it exact unless you tune to the album while it's playing, and even then, you'd have to know which loop in the album we use to tune, which one chord it is, and because of the way we mixed the loop in, it is almost impossible to separate from dave's guitar. i'll never forget when the tuner finished (we had to wait to start recording until he finished) and he stood up from the bench and went "there you go, the piano's perfectly out of tune."
Spoiler: show
Deakin: You must be speaking of my blueish reddish guitar that I just started using on this last American jaunt. From what I was told it is an old silvertone from the late sixties and was custom painted that way. I found it in a guitar shop in brooklyn for just over $400 which I consider to be a total and complete steal. That and the red tele are my only two guitars that I own. I think that you kind of just need to look and look and someday something will look at you and say "I'm yours" and you will get it. I go to music shops a decent amount and I almost never see guitars that I want. I needed a second guitar for that tour and rushed to music shop the day we left for Boston and there it was, just waiting for me. Kind of a miracle.
Spoiler: show
Deakin: Oh yeah.... absolutely. some amazing stuff has come from that continent.
First off, let me say that I got to see some of the best shit i have seen in a long time last week. As you may or may not know Ali Farka Toure passed away recently. Well by some amazing grace of something this small bar in Williamsburg managed to get some pretty amazing dudes to come over and play for a week long festival tribute to Monsignor Toure. On monday night i got to see Mamadou Dioubate. He is a Kora player from a long lineage of griot (look it up) from Mali. The Kora is a beautiful harp-like instrument and the dude tore it up. I mean.... whew. anyway he played that night with his brother (who works at said bar) who was playing the talking drum. His brother then played on Saturday along with another master Kora player from Mali names Yacouba Sissoko. The end of the night was the talking drum player and about four of his friends just going nuts in this little bar to about 40 people. Both shows were amazing. especially because they were in that setting. Usually you don't get to see musicians from Africa or Asia unless they are playing in sterile arts centers becuase it costs so much to get them over to the states. A friend of mine was recently complaining that they got to see Konono Number 1 but it was at... shit... that prestigious concert hall in D.C.. It's just kind of a bit of bummer, cause you know those guys would rock so much harder in a club (especially a small one) then in a seated theater where everyone is wearing nice clothes and politely clapping.
anyway... there is a lot of great stuff out there and I am no authority, but here are a few things I know and love.
I feel particularly fond of the music that has come from West Africa (Mali being in west africa).
on the poppier side are people like:
Nico - the only album I know is called Eternel Docteur Nico. It may be out of print but shouldn't be that hard to find. really awesome delayed out electric guitar stuff. the song Olga gets me everytime.
King Sunny Ade - another sweet dude. i don't know as much about but he is pretty prolific. he has a lot of stuff. rides the line of having a bit more of a traditional vibe in it. but it is still pretty guitar groove oriented.
Ali Farka Toure - he is a guitar player. I don't know all of his stuff yet, but he some stuff that is in the electrified, larger band groove realm like King Sunny Ade, but he also has some really beautiful acoustic stuff. The last record he did was put out pretty recently on Nonesuch (I think) and was a collab with Toumani Diabate (Kora player). really beautiful. calming peaceful shit. I don't know all of his records my bet is they all have something about them.
ummm.....
Francis Bebey - maybe you would describe what he does as a little more Jazzy or arty or fusion, but i hate all those words. I don't like everything he has done, but one record I know is really great is called African Moonlight. A lot of thumb piano and bass and voice. the voice stuff is this crazy polyphonic throat thing.
Fela Kuti - this guy is another legend. his album Zombi is pretty amazing. This is full band stuff. Grooves. drums and percussion and bass and guitar and horns and voices. good.
Pascal Diatta - Another guitar player. I have one record it is calles Simnade. this is really pretty acoustic stuff. really loopy style of playing with some fun singing on top. when i say fun i mean that it very great way. it just feels good.
S.E.Rogie - really awesome beautiful simple songwriter. I have a record called Palm Wine Guitar Music that is stuff he recorded in the sixties. He sings in english and just plays this very simple beautiful guitar parts. First time I heard it it kind of reminded me of Noah's approach to songwriting. Beautiful things from very simple ideas. he put out a record on peter gabriel's label more recently that i have not been able to sink my teeth into as well, but maybe that is just me.
Ethiopiques series - I can't imagine you would be disappointed in any of these. there are something like 20+ cds in this series now and i have only heard a handfull. 4 and 5 i like a lot. They are kind of a ethiopian jazz. don't that disuade you if you don't like the word "jazz" these are some sweet jams. We got Ethiopiques 4 right before the first tour we ever did in 2001 (i think that is right) anyway it got some heavy heavy rotations in the old previa. 11 is called the Harp of King David. this is more traditional stuff. really deep resonating strings. hypnotic. with really quiet almost whispered vocals. i imagine these are long stories or epics being sung here but i don't know for sure.
Ghana Soundz Vol. 1 - Some great electric guitar based music from Ghana. More 60's stuff I believe.
African Brother Dance Band - this is a tease becuase i don't think you will ever find this record. as far as i know it only exists at dave and eric's house. maybe dave can write in more about this jam, but it is another really great african electric guitar band. but really good. and i know a specific influence for certain period of what dave was doing.
Now if you are talking about the more traditional stuff from villages it is a little more difficult for me to point you in the right direction. i love so much of this stuff but it blends in a bit more and i listen a little less specifically and more just let it roll over me. I have happened across some compilations and collections. I also get a lot less specific of my knowledge of specific areas and tribes.
I have come along a fair amount of stuff from ethiopia that like. there is comp i have called Gold From Wax-Ethipian Urban that I like a lot. this is stuff from modern urban cities but clearly music that has been handed down from generations. in some cases the instruments have been made from things we would consider garbage. some really beautiful storytelling style songs on that one. I have always liked this song called Fanno Mary Armeede.
Dimi Mint Abba & Khalifa Ould Eide - Moorish Music From Mauritania.
this is beautiful stuff. It sounds a lot more middle eastern even though it is west african. This is relatively current. When you read the liner notes you discover that these musicians come from a very old tradition (thousands of years). Then you read that one of the rules of this tradition is that each generation move the tradition forward and add to it. Then you get really inspired and you listen and hear how alive that music is. incredibly and truly psychedelic (at least to me). These people are feeling what they are doing in a very deep way.
I guess that is how I felt watching the Kora players I saw this week. they were feeling their shit in a deep way. Also relaxed. it is so old and yet so current at the same time. it is just what they do. THat is a lot of what i feel inspires me in the music that I listen to. Of course the specific sounds enter in to it to a degree, but it is the ways that you find people relate to making their own music that becomes true inspiration. How could I listen to a group like the one I described above and want to sound like them. They have a few thousand years behind them. It is more to see how they have taken the things that inspired them and were in their traditions and turned it into their own... that is an inspiration.
at least that is how I feel. Let me know if you check anything out on this list and if it hits you. if it doesn't that is cool too.
whew.... didn't mean to write that much.
did i even answer your question?
be good,
josh
First off, let me say that I got to see some of the best shit i have seen in a long time last week. As you may or may not know Ali Farka Toure passed away recently. Well by some amazing grace of something this small bar in Williamsburg managed to get some pretty amazing dudes to come over and play for a week long festival tribute to Monsignor Toure. On monday night i got to see Mamadou Dioubate. He is a Kora player from a long lineage of griot (look it up) from Mali. The Kora is a beautiful harp-like instrument and the dude tore it up. I mean.... whew. anyway he played that night with his brother (who works at said bar) who was playing the talking drum. His brother then played on Saturday along with another master Kora player from Mali names Yacouba Sissoko. The end of the night was the talking drum player and about four of his friends just going nuts in this little bar to about 40 people. Both shows were amazing. especially because they were in that setting. Usually you don't get to see musicians from Africa or Asia unless they are playing in sterile arts centers becuase it costs so much to get them over to the states. A friend of mine was recently complaining that they got to see Konono Number 1 but it was at... shit... that prestigious concert hall in D.C.. It's just kind of a bit of bummer, cause you know those guys would rock so much harder in a club (especially a small one) then in a seated theater where everyone is wearing nice clothes and politely clapping.
anyway... there is a lot of great stuff out there and I am no authority, but here are a few things I know and love.
I feel particularly fond of the music that has come from West Africa (Mali being in west africa).
on the poppier side are people like:
Nico - the only album I know is called Eternel Docteur Nico. It may be out of print but shouldn't be that hard to find. really awesome delayed out electric guitar stuff. the song Olga gets me everytime.
King Sunny Ade - another sweet dude. i don't know as much about but he is pretty prolific. he has a lot of stuff. rides the line of having a bit more of a traditional vibe in it. but it is still pretty guitar groove oriented.
Ali Farka Toure - he is a guitar player. I don't know all of his stuff yet, but he some stuff that is in the electrified, larger band groove realm like King Sunny Ade, but he also has some really beautiful acoustic stuff. The last record he did was put out pretty recently on Nonesuch (I think) and was a collab with Toumani Diabate (Kora player). really beautiful. calming peaceful shit. I don't know all of his records my bet is they all have something about them.
ummm.....
Francis Bebey - maybe you would describe what he does as a little more Jazzy or arty or fusion, but i hate all those words. I don't like everything he has done, but one record I know is really great is called African Moonlight. A lot of thumb piano and bass and voice. the voice stuff is this crazy polyphonic throat thing.
Fela Kuti - this guy is another legend. his album Zombi is pretty amazing. This is full band stuff. Grooves. drums and percussion and bass and guitar and horns and voices. good.
Pascal Diatta - Another guitar player. I have one record it is calles Simnade. this is really pretty acoustic stuff. really loopy style of playing with some fun singing on top. when i say fun i mean that it very great way. it just feels good.
S.E.Rogie - really awesome beautiful simple songwriter. I have a record called Palm Wine Guitar Music that is stuff he recorded in the sixties. He sings in english and just plays this very simple beautiful guitar parts. First time I heard it it kind of reminded me of Noah's approach to songwriting. Beautiful things from very simple ideas. he put out a record on peter gabriel's label more recently that i have not been able to sink my teeth into as well, but maybe that is just me.
Ethiopiques series - I can't imagine you would be disappointed in any of these. there are something like 20+ cds in this series now and i have only heard a handfull. 4 and 5 i like a lot. They are kind of a ethiopian jazz. don't that disuade you if you don't like the word "jazz" these are some sweet jams. We got Ethiopiques 4 right before the first tour we ever did in 2001 (i think that is right) anyway it got some heavy heavy rotations in the old previa. 11 is called the Harp of King David. this is more traditional stuff. really deep resonating strings. hypnotic. with really quiet almost whispered vocals. i imagine these are long stories or epics being sung here but i don't know for sure.
Ghana Soundz Vol. 1 - Some great electric guitar based music from Ghana. More 60's stuff I believe.
African Brother Dance Band - this is a tease becuase i don't think you will ever find this record. as far as i know it only exists at dave and eric's house. maybe dave can write in more about this jam, but it is another really great african electric guitar band. but really good. and i know a specific influence for certain period of what dave was doing.
Now if you are talking about the more traditional stuff from villages it is a little more difficult for me to point you in the right direction. i love so much of this stuff but it blends in a bit more and i listen a little less specifically and more just let it roll over me. I have happened across some compilations and collections. I also get a lot less specific of my knowledge of specific areas and tribes.
I have come along a fair amount of stuff from ethiopia that like. there is comp i have called Gold From Wax-Ethipian Urban that I like a lot. this is stuff from modern urban cities but clearly music that has been handed down from generations. in some cases the instruments have been made from things we would consider garbage. some really beautiful storytelling style songs on that one. I have always liked this song called Fanno Mary Armeede.
Dimi Mint Abba & Khalifa Ould Eide - Moorish Music From Mauritania.
this is beautiful stuff. It sounds a lot more middle eastern even though it is west african. This is relatively current. When you read the liner notes you discover that these musicians come from a very old tradition (thousands of years). Then you read that one of the rules of this tradition is that each generation move the tradition forward and add to it. Then you get really inspired and you listen and hear how alive that music is. incredibly and truly psychedelic (at least to me). These people are feeling what they are doing in a very deep way.
I guess that is how I felt watching the Kora players I saw this week. they were feeling their shit in a deep way. Also relaxed. it is so old and yet so current at the same time. it is just what they do. THat is a lot of what i feel inspires me in the music that I listen to. Of course the specific sounds enter in to it to a degree, but it is the ways that you find people relate to making their own music that becomes true inspiration. How could I listen to a group like the one I described above and want to sound like them. They have a few thousand years behind them. It is more to see how they have taken the things that inspired them and were in their traditions and turned it into their own... that is an inspiration.
at least that is how I feel. Let me know if you check anything out on this list and if it hits you. if it doesn't that is cool too.
whew.... didn't mean to write that much.
did i even answer your question?
be good,
josh
Spoiler: show
thesloth: i was arguing with this guy i know who claimed that anyone in the music industry it mostly motivated by getting paid. i claimed that that was highly untrue cited AC as a big reference. he then asked: then why do they make music?
and i couldn't give a straight answer. it was strange.
anyway, this is probably a really strange question and i'm hesitant about asking, but you guys generally have really spot-on philosophies and beliefs, and i'd like to hear you're take on why you guys (or other musicians) make music.
i hope this doesn't come across as as antagonizing. thanks.
Geologist: i kind of think that comment is so ridiculously ignorant and cynical that it doesn't even deserve a response. you should have just laughed at the guy. sounds to me like he's a big gene simmons fan or something. do you find that he always is the guy in conversations that says the controversial aggro statement just to draw attention to himself? i bet he is. if he's talking about the mainstream industry, such as major labels and clear channel and such, i think he is right, but certainly not on the artist level. i don't have any grand philosophical mission statement about why we make music, it's just something we love to do. certainly as you get older and music becomes your job you have to pay attention to money concerns because we're trying to live and that's not easy as a musician, but there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion as long as you retain complete creative control and never compromise your creative vision because of money. it's an easy trap for bands to fall into, and one we've been accused of given that our records aren't as noisy and freaky as they were when we were younger, but we really don't care what other people think. we know we're doing what we want to do.
Avey: yeah that guy should just be slapped. saying that is like saying you live to make money if you ask me. Why do you like doing anything then? why do you go to the beach? Why do you watch TV? For some reason for us its incredibley appealing and fun to put sounds on tape and to sit around coming up with melodies and listen and play, is that so hard to believe? Weve loved doing it since we were atleast fourteen and it still hasnt become dull. Im sure even if we werent getting any money wed still be sitting around (in our parents basement hehehehe) listening to each others jams. Its also nice to feel like youre atleast doing somthing positive (no matter how small of a thing it is) and communicating with a larger community somehow. Im not often preachy but think about the world without music. I bet even the people who say they dont really have time for music would notice it was gone. It would suck thats for sure. Its probably hard to imagine but there was a time in this part of the world when people played music for free for each other and really just because it was part of a day to day way of living and most likely everyone took the time to listen. It may have been a long long long ass time ago but it happened. Do you think your friend knows there are cultures that are still like this in the world??? You should ask him. .
daevry
Deakin: Wow, I feel like dave and brian pretty much summed it up but I feel I gotta just throw in my words too because dammit if I don't feel passionate about it. I think that there are people in the world that choose professions based on money. I think that is true in almost every line of work. But i also know that in almost every activity that makes money, there are those who do what they do because they have no other choice. I am talking about scientists, artists, teachers... These people, and I consider myself one of these lucky souls, have found that there are certain things that they do because it feels great. Because it feels great to be adding that little part of yourself to the world. Becuase it feels good to discover things that you didn't know existed. Because you can't imagine life without that thing. To me the music that we make together and that I make on my own is part of that journey of living. and it really is on equal footing to having a family or playing sports or travelling or reading or having a satisfying job. I love what I do dearly and the moment that I stop truly loving it, truly needing it, is the moment that I stop doing it. If money was the issue, I would have quit a long time ago. My guess is that your friend has nothing in their life that gives them that kind of satisfaction and cannot imagine that anyone else would. But if you look around, if you read, you will find that there are actually many life passionate people from every walk of life. People that chose their passion, not their paycheck... that chose a positive life view not the idea that their own worth and satisfaction comes from the their material gain. No need to get in an argument with your friend because I imagine it would be a waste of time. instead just say a little prayer for the dude that he may someday feel a sense of satisfaction that goes beyond the material gains of life.
I think too that Dave raised a very important point about the way that our culture views the life of artists. Culture could not exist without the energy provided by artists. The same that it could not exist without scientists, philosophers, historians, bureaucrats. We need story tellers and clowns and painters and musicians. I think that there is some truth in the idea that money has fucked with the integrity of art and therefore with art's place in society. But it doesn't take away from it's ultimate importance.
DoveintheTree: Do you think, then, that true artists must prove their dedication by experiencing adverse conditions before they can be appreciated? Or, can someone whose had some help, and not experienced such situations, produce something just as meaningful?
It's something to think about because it seems that most people respect things that are prefaced by adversity.
Geologist: i think this is only tangentially related to the topic. and a short answer in my opinion is no, artists do not have to prove their dedication through struggle before they can be considered true artists. i think generally it's healthy and makes your art stronger, but that's not true across the board. the beatles didn't struggle for too long before becoming the biggest band ever, and they never stopped kicking ass.
art and adversity - it's a very interesting question. my girlfriend and i actually discussed this for hours the other night after watching style wars. while we both knew graffiti kids growing up in bmore, neither of us could totally relate to that world and movement, mostly because the important era, the era of adversity in graffiti, happened before we were born or when we were infants. we did however find that it was very much analagous to what happened to punk, and what is currently happening with noise and underground bands like us getting more popular.
in style wars, you had a few graffiti artists who lamented the move of the art from illegal subway bombing to respectable art galleries. some writers believed the art was worthless without the struggle and the subversive element, while some were psyched to be able to do their art, make a living, and not worry about running from the cops and tripping on the 3rd rail. the crux of our discussion related to how much worth do you give the opinion that subversive art has to have a strong and continuing connection to adversity and struggle? this is what we agreed upon, and granted there are many exceptions to the rule...
in some artforms, such as graffiti, punk, etc...the root of the form is intrinsically linked to struggle and adversity. for example, graffiti artists came from poor neighbrohoods where most people feel they are forgotten about. they have voices, names, and talent, and the process of subway bombing was a way of making themselves noticed and heard. their parents, teachers, the cops, the mayor...nobody respected them as artists and so they had to subvert the establishment. i think it's undeniable that this sense of struggle and purpose fueled the art. it infused it with a passion and a drive that i believe was necessary to take the art to the level it reached. the same happened in punk music. now when the art becomes respected by certain parts of the establishment, it gets a bit tricky. i completely understand why someone would have the opinion that the art is worthless without the struggle, but, it's not something i can fully relate too. the question must be asked as to why you made the art to begin with...was it because you felt the need to create, or because you felt the need to be badass and underground and subversive? true artists feel the need to create, and those are the people that went on to put graffiti in galleries, went on to make punk records on bigger labels and played bigger shows, etc. again, not in every case - i fully admit there are true artists who also feel an important connection to the struggle. but i think everyone must admit that many people are drawn to underground artforms out of a need to define themselves to others in a social context. those people that have to like the most underground bands, those people that only respect graffiti when it's done illegally, etc. i cannot relate to these people at this age of my life. all of us into underground art had a bit of this need in ourselves to begin with, but eventually you realize, or i realized, that what i love is the art, not the scene, and not the social identity it provides me with.
i believe that worthwhile artists that continue to make art without the struggle are fully capable of evolving; of finding inspiration for their art that does not have to have this intrinsic link to adversity and subversiveness. the danger of dilution of the artform's purity and passion will be present, and it will happen. it's unavoidable when an artform is originally driven by struggle. the struggle is part of the core...but what is the most important part of the core - the struggle, or the talent, or the individual? of those 3 components, i think the struggle is only important in the early phase, while the other 2 are necessary for the art to continue to live. maybe fugazi would disagree with me, but i don't think so. i mean what are we struggling for to begin with? we're struggling for acceptance of new ideas, for our voices and our art to be heard, to change the mainstream...what is wrong with moving towards accomplishing that?
ctc23: i think in some ways that kid has a point though. in this time, isn't money a major point in becoming involved in the music industry? i mean the name "music industry" basically implies it is a business. when music can be released online or produced at home, it seems like all the industry has to offer now is recognition and money. this probably isn't what he actually meant since he later asked "then why do they make music?", and reasons for making music will vary as much as each person varies. i'm not saying this is a bad thing though, why shouldn't people be able to try and make a living doing what they love?
i think that graffiti argument is pretty interesting, and i can understand both sides of it. but when you change the context of the art, it changes its meaning. if something was done illegally and placed in public for everyone, including your peers, to see, that is much different than if people tell you its ok to do this art but instead put it in some gallery and charge a fee to see it. maybe that's good for the artist, now they can maybe make a living off the art they love creating. but that graffiti in the gallery is something very different than the graffiti in a subway.
Avey:I dont think you can really argue that people like the beatles "didnt struggle" just beacuse they obviously didnt have any monitary difficulties after a short existense though. Unless this conversation is only about economic struggle. I think it really depends on what kind of struggle you are talking about. Theres always some kind of struggle to make original, or succesful art isnt there? There are all sorts of conditions that factor into it. i do agree with the fact that its more about dedication then the conditions people are making things in.
daev
Avey: funny thing....i hear school of rock playing in the other room.
Well you can argue that anyone in the music industry is involved in making someone money and so thats sort of why they are involved in the industry. But there is a big difference like brian said between the major, clear channel world, and the independent world where people are really not really dependent on money. You also have to figure that everything involved in the industry...concerts, putting out records,advertising, even mailing shit...costs money and so in a way you are involved in the industry just to be able to do these things and not have to have another job that eats up your time. The whole point is youre not always involved to make money..
daevy
Odemus:Do you think that the rap culture which for the most part promotes a life of excess and bling bling is less legitmate than other artforms? I read somewhere that Jay-Z is worth something like 4.4 billion dollars. These guys that make it to the top flaunt their wealth, and other rappers emulate them. It's a groupthink mentality based on both glorifying the conditions of abject poverty and escaping them.
I'm not a huge fan of rap but I do admire rappers like Jay-Z who come from nothing and basically pave their way to fame and fortune by telling the story of their life. Not to say that he's an excellent role model, but just that I can appreciate his perspective.
Geologist: yes, in terms of the beatles, i meant economically, as i think that is what was meant in the question by struggling. this conversation started about money.
as for graffiti in galleries, first of all, you don't have to pay a fee to see art in a gallery...you only have to pay to take home an original copy of the art, but the art still stays up for a month or more for people to view. as for graffiti being a public artform, that is a different discussion than the one i was getting at. if the intent of the art is to be seen by the public in a public place, then of course that is important, and it's a good point and shows my argument to be slightly myopic. however, you can get permits to do it in public now, and some of the hardcore people don't even approve of that. i believe i acknowledged that taking away the original context and subversive element will change the art, but i don't think that always result in a negative. the art can evolve. it presents a new challenge to the artist. people did graffiti for different reasons, so there is no way to generalize this argument, but i guess i just disagree on the level of difference between the galleries and the subways. for me the difference lies in the motivation for making it in the first place. if your motivation was "i want to do something illegal in the public space and i choose to do art as that thing", then your underlying motivation was not solely to make art, and therefore the context in which you make the art becomes just as important as, if not more than, the art itself. however, if your motivation was first and foremost to make art, and doing it illegal was the only way for you to get it out there and be seen, then the context should not change the meaning and integrity in your art as long as you stay true to your creative vision. perhaps it changes your style and inspiration, but those things should be fluid and open to change in any artist. my point is that i do not argee with people who refuse to recognize that distinction and therefore, refuse to respect art when its taken out of the context that they feel it should be placed in. that decision is for the artist to make.
perhaps this just comes down to a personal decision about what you're drawn to...the art in and of itself, or the context in which it's placed. i respect context, think it's an important aspect of art, and can be used in intelligent and creative ways that add a lot to the art. especially in music i have a lot of respect for the context in which the music was created, but how much i enjoy the music is not based on that at all. i judge what i hear and what i see before i judge what i know.
Geologist:as for the bling bling question...hair metal and such did that as well. the music promotes excess and decadence. i love hip-hop, and i love jay-z, just as i loved guns n roses and skid row back in the day (still love gnr actually). with all music there comes a point where style can be qually weighted with the music and then almost becomes what is sold and marketed as opposed to the music. people like jay-z still make kickass music, and to me that is art regardless of their image. but there is plenty of hip-hop, just like there is plenty of rock, that is diluted and a waste of your time if you're searching for art because the style and the image has become more important. i even think it happens in noise music. no matter how good your music is i feel like you can put on some weirdo mask and run out into the audience while you knock into people and scream in their faces and you'll be popular. those bands have taken a style and image and seem to place more importance on that than the music.
so no, i do not think it's less legitimate than other artforms because the same thing happens in other art and genres as well. i would think its more appropriate to judge the individual and their art rather than the entire genre.
Odemus: i agree with the point that others should respect the decisions an artist makes for their own work, but people are entitled to their own opinions. they should be open minded to new ideas, but if something doesn't resonate with someone, that's just the way it is. like you say, i guess it is a personal thing whether people can accept or look past context to appreciate the work in itself. i just feel that context can add so much to art, i think matmos do a good job with that. i like their music, but the context and ideas behind their songs are just as important to me.
i think that music has more possibilities to escape context though, which can be as important as having a context i guess, since it doesn't inhabit physical space like graffiti or paintings. i don't know if this is something you guys want to happen, but when i'm listening to the AC i don't really feel any context for the songs and just sorta take them as they are.
black666: i think it's pretty much impossible to sincerely appreciate a work of art free from its context. i mean, if, for example, homer's odyssey or whatever were written today, it would just mean something entirely different, regardless of how insignificant the reader thinks context is or how thoroughly the artist had purely aesthetic intentions or whatever. it would probably be read as a piece of neo-classicism or, at least, as being ironic in some way. so, like, in short, i dont think it's possible to judge what you sense free from what you know/believe. words are a perfect example. i can't hear the word "cow" as pure sound--i can't help but include the meaning of that word or whatever else i associate with that sound (for example: the smelliness of cows). i guess u could repeat the word over and over to yourself and it would thereby lose its meaning, but im guessing thats only because it sounds different that way--i mean, the pure sound of 'cowcowcowcowcow' is different from the pure sound of 'cow'. maybe not. i dunno. i guess i have to think about it more.
Geologist: yeah, i just think it's about your personal relationship to the work. since you brought up homer, i'll stick with that as an example, and also speak solely as an individual because as i've been saying throughout this whole discussion, i don't think generalization will get us anywhere. for me to appreciate homer, i don't believe the context is absolutely necessary. it's only necessary for me to understand and appreciate the style. but thematically, the reason homer is a classic is because it's an amazing story that deals with the classic themes of humanity and literature...love, honor, betrayal, destiny, religion. the presence of these themes is what makes homer timeless for me, and reduces the importance of it's context in my appreciation for his work. that holds true for me for most classics regardless of the period and context from which they came. again, i think the context in which art occurs is important and interesting. going back to graffiti, i find the early days in which it was an underground and illegal artform completely fascinating, and have a lot of respect for what those early writers went through to get their art into the world. i just don't ultimately judge the worth of the art based on that context unless it wasn't meant to be separated form the art in the first place. maybe graffiti was a bad example because a lot of those artists meant for their art to be seen in a strict context, but there were many who didn't. my favorite scene in style wars, which influenced my thought on this a great deal, was where one writer was going through his canvas work which he'd done for galleries. as he looked through each one he would say a little tidbit about why he chose to do the lettering a certain way, or what certain shapes represented, etc. his decisions were very personal and had some relation to him as an individual. that was the moment where i realized there was so much more going on in the art than just the idea of subvertring the establishment and getting your name out on every subway line. these ideas behind his pieces were present and just as relevant to the piece's worth when they were on canvas as when they were on the side of a subway car. the context no longer mattered for me because it didn't affect his integrity or his art in any way. it was self-expression on it's most basic level, which is a timeless classic. how someone could refuse to acknowledge the worth of those ideas simply because they disapproved of the change in context doesn't sit right with me.
anyway, perhpas we all agree to disagree. i don't feel like i can keep saying the same things over again in different ways. i would like to say that this is a very interesting discussion, and makes me uite proud of the people on this board. not only does it make me happy that our fans are open minded and intelligent and up for some critical thinking, but i like the conviction as well. if this board turned into a place where everything an animal collective member said was taken as truth and impervious to critique, it would be a sad place.
phantastick:how about this guy, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYWGQMq ... t%20walker
Avey: yeah i think the whole problem with this arguement is that youve turned it into somthing thats about peoples relationship to a piece of art rather then what it means for art to be created in a certain context and under certain conditions and what that means. I guess its kind of impossible not to cause we are all spectators in that way. But noone is going to agree completely on this subject cause it has so much to do with taste and is so subjective at this point. It also has so much to do with where you and your mind are in life and the capability to process things and enjoy things aside from where the art came from. Some people are touched by things because of context for example things made by people in mental assylums or things made by people in concentration camps other people think its shitty art and its only in a museum for that reason and in some ways it is only in a museum for that reason but that doesnt have anything to do with whether "you" think one piece is brilliant or touched you. Bress, you make it sound negative that people would only search for things that are underground and subversive and i do think its lame but i bet this group is an extreme minority and ive also heard you speak sentences like "can you believe this was made when it was" (raymond scott) which means that we are all subject to the context of art blowing our minds somtimes. I think in alot of cases its even hard to not let it mold our opinions about somthing.
But i dont think this has anything to do with the context or situation the art is created in cause you still cant deny the fact that graffiti or the first punk wave or no wave or grunge or the first psychedelic movement or the surrealists or situationists or any artistic movement happened when it did and that says somthing about why those things are what they are no matter who writes about them or who they touch. It doesnt mean that its all going to impress or touch you or anyone else but i think it does say somthing true about its existence.
Da
Avey:yeah and then there is that guy hehehe....he rules....Scott two is sweeet...
daevery
Avey: Phantastick.... have you see this hehehe ruling it!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyRiNZDb ... y%20horses
care of stove freeman..
daevy
Slowlearner: A lot of this stuff reminded me of Roland Barthes, post-structuralist, 'death of the author' type thought... though this discussion could go on for days if we started on that.... This is kinda off on a tangent, but what do you guys think of art that's made by animals? I just thought of this while reading this topic because I heard on Radio 4 recently of someone buying a painting that was made by chimpanzee (or was it a gorilla? i forget) at an auction for a few thousand pounds or something. Do you reckon the guy bought it more because of the context, because it came from a chimp, or because he thought it was a legitimately good piece of art? I've seen the painting in question, and while it does look pretty sweet, it's certainly no rothko Smile
The other thing that I thought of (tangential again, sorry) while reading this is street busking. Not sure if it's the same over in NY or wherever, but in the UK recently (in the last five years or so anyway) it's illegal to busk without a license and now pretty much every tube station in central london has a little Carling beer-sponsored space in the tunnel walkways where licensed buskers can peform with a big Carling logo behind them. In some ways I think this is cool but i used to see pretty awesome buskers all over the place whereas now it just seems to be some guy playing 'wish you were here', i even heard someone doing a harp rendition of that celine dion song from titanic the other day. It's pretty sad cos it makes you think about who the hell it is choosing which busker gets a license and who doesn't.
Geologist: i've said a bunch of times now that i appreciate context and find it very interesting...don't get me wrong. but while i find it fascinating that raymond scott made his jams when he did, i listen to them because they kick ass, not because they're important historical pieces. and while i acknowledge that movements in art are unavoidably connected to the circumstances out of which they arose, i believe there are ideas in the art that are universal and allow them to be taken out of context and appreciated on as high a level, if not higher.
as for art made by animals, yes, i think that dude bought it because it was made by a chimp, but you'd have to ask him to be sure. and that is a prime example of someone who is attracted to context first and art second.
i don't think busking is illegal in new york, right? that's a shame about london. while i often find the majority of busking annoying, i see something sweet every once in a while. are buskers only motivated by money? you gotta play something pleasing to bring in the change now don't you? heheheheh, i'm just kidding, i know people that don't need money that play in the subways. one of my favorite buskers in new york was the steel guitar player from the boggs. he was down there long before he joined that band and then one night we played a show with them and i was like "whoa, it's the dude from the bedford stop."
black666: dont mean to drag this on, but just to be clear: what i meant was that, like, if someone wrote a book today which, for example, started off invoking the greek gods, and in which the greek gods made appearances--that would mean something entirely different than a book that was the exact same, but which was written like 3000 years later (today). or, to be even clearer, imagine if someone "re-wrote" homer's odyssey and published it and stuff--his "work" or whatever would mean something entirely different than the sort-of-original, precisely because of the context.
Avey: I agree with you 666 thats what i was saying too. Homer couldnt of written the odyssey today...it wouldnt happen. The whole reason it is what it is, is because he lived when he did and was influenced by what was around him.
Im not disagreeing with you either bress, like i said im not talking about what it is about art that makes you personally appreciate it...im talking about who made it in the first place. I know for instance that im not into black dice cause of who they are or where they came from...i really just think the music kicks ass and it creates its own context which for me doesnt have anything to do with those guys. But would it sound like that if it wasnt made by those dudes. No it wouldnt.
Ofcourse there are universal attributes to art that can be seperated from its context and that make it enjoyable but what makes art diverse and unique is the fact that it comes from different contexts which on the most basic level is the individual who creates it. So basically i guess what i am saying is that you cant seperate the art from the individual who made it even though you can seperate yourself from the individual in order to appreciate the art. Though i really think somehow you are always connecting to that individual but thats not for me to argue.
If everyone had access to the same universal ideas that makes you appreciate art then anyone could make any kind of art and it would be as equally appreciated at any time in any place. But thats impossible (thank you based god) cause everything is always changing. If we lived in a society like the one in the book "We" for example, the only way diverse art could be created is if somone deviated from the normal way of living and started somthing new unless we truly had no need for art to begin with. Otherwise everything would be the same and i doubt youd appreciate music so much.
There really is no right or wrong i guess cause its impossible to prove but i have to argue that raymond scotts music (just for example) wouldnt be what it was if he wasnt raymond scott who lived then and in that place and therefore you couldnt be into it cause it wouldnt exist. Likewise our music wouldnt be Animal collective if we werent dave brian noah and josh and if we didnt grow up in maryland and listen to the records that we did and watch the movies that we did and had the experieces that we did together. Further more theres no reason for people to like our music because of those facts but in a way even if its an unconcious way they have to cause it wouldnt be any other way...is that confusing enough??
again i just think this is fun i really dont care if im right or wrong cause in a way i dont think there is a right or wrong...
I dont think busking is illegal either but i think atleast in some subway stations people have time slots and you have to register for a specific time and shit. I think busking is like any other musical context in that there are people that are sweet and there are people that arent no matter where you go...maybe though in some cities like new york or london there are just a ton of more people doing it so you see as many crazy buskers as you do the dudes sounding like hootie...
d
Geologist: "you can't separate art from the individual"...exactly! that was my point about the graffiti writers. these guys have themes of self expression in their work that are important and impressive regardless of the context in which the work is presented, and it is precisely the reason i would argue against anyone who discounts the worth of graffiti when its shown in a gallery as opposed to it being done illegally on a subway car. perhaps the disagreement here comes in how we're each defining context.
black666: i kinda suspect there's a difference in my use of the word context from you guys', but, like, i still think graffiti made for art galleries means something different from otherwise similar graffiti made in the street or whatever, which isnt to say that i think one is better than the other because of that, but thats a matter of my personal taste i think.
Geologist: you know what? perhaps we are asking ourselves this question incorrectly. quite the impressive socratic dialogue we are having...constant questioning until the root of the issue and thus the truth is arrived at. generalizations aren't helping the matter. both sides have brought up instances where context matters and where it does not, sometimes in discussing the same example. homer for instance...i think it's a valid argument that to appreciate the style of homer you have to take into account it's historical context, however i think myself and odemus also have valid points about homer and crime and punishment having elements that can be appreciated outside of their historical and political contexts. i don't think either side have given convincing arguments disproving the other, and maybe that's because as dave said, there is no right or wrong...
so maybe a better way of asking the question that encompasses all the examples given is this...are there certain artforms which can only be presented and appreciated in one specific context, and when created or viewed in a different context, they lose their meaning?
Odemus: I guess it depends mostly on whether or not there's an explicit topical reference. As you pointed out, for the spray painting purists, breaking the law is an essential element. I'd also include something like Piss Christ where lack of knowledge about the elements used would render the piece meaningless with respect to the artist's intent.
It's a tough question though and a consensus of what can be considered art becomes rather difficult to reach. A person is compelled to communicate or express a thought, desire, intent or emotion and chooses a medium. An observer can see and discern the results in a myriad of ways.Some forms of communication seem to lend themselves more easily to accurate interpretation. I think music is unique in that there are innate universal qualities, for example it's generally recognized that a minor key played at a slow tempo sounds sad or melancholy. Of course someone else will point out that bright primary colors splashed all over the place lend a happier mood to any given piece.
Maybe it comes down to how much you want to derive meaning through your own personal experience with art or how much you want to find out exactly what the artist is trying to communicate.
Avey:hey yeah i defintely think we are talking about a few different things atleast bress' last "question" makes me think that..also again im not out to prove anyone wrong i just think this is a fun topic and its making me think about some things i havent before..
i know the other problem is that noone is going to agree on what "art" is and i think thats a pretentious conversation anyway (this one probably is too hehehe) so im personally using it very loosely. I dont doubt that people would disagree with what i think is art but i usually dont use that term in regards to things i like (like music or paintings) anyway. An artist to me is someone.....just kidding
anyway
Some people (myself included) seem to be talking about the context in which a piece of art has been created which (from where im coming from) has nothing to do with who is going to listen to it or look at it or read it. Its purely about how an artist came up with an idea and the context that influenced that. which is why you cant deny that adverse conditions is crucial to the creation of graffiti cause otherwise it would have started in gallerys and not by nature be "street art". That doesnt mean its crucial to your enjoying it it just means it wouldnt be what it is.
It seems like other people are talking about the context in which art is presented to people which i do personally think can effect your defintion of it. Its also interesting to wonder if a certain artist has the people in mind he/she is creating for or where and when it will be presented. Like i have a pretty good feeling that Guns and Roses know who they are writing music for and how its going to be presented but i have a feeling John Cage wrote in a totally different way and ofcourse this changes things.
I totally agree that the context in which you listen to somthing in or look at somthing doesnt usually have an over all effect on why you appreciate the basic qualities of the art however i do think it also can be very important...
Nevermind for instance touched millions of people but i doubt most of those millions care where kurt cobain is from or how he wrote those songs or that the record came out in 91 or whatever. They just want to rock. But can you say that Nervermind would have had that overall effect had it been written by someone else or come out in this decade??? I dont think so which is why i think the context somthing is created in is crucial but maybe its impossible to say...
On the other Hand you have a piece like Rites of Spring or somthing by John Cage which is complete silence and id say theres no way to deny that the context you hear these pieces in is going to mold your opinion about them. That also brings up the idea that live music and Recorded music are two completely different types of artforms. You know can you imagine being at the first performances of either of those kinds of pieces or listening to them on a CD? thats like the difference between "Dude put on a CD and stop fucking around" verses "Uhhhhhhhhhhh?". And then i wonder if that context is going to ultimately effect your opinion of the piece as a piece of music after trying to approach it in different contexts. I think silence is definitely an artform that is subject to context.
And in terms of the live music thing being crucial...sure the grateful dead are a sweet band (atleast i think so) and im sure thats mostly why anyone would like them but do you have the experience you have at a dead concert just because they are a sweet band or because its put into the context of a live setting with so many people trading energy etc. I say the later cause theres no way to have that experience driving around in your car listening to the CD. There are tons of bands like that by the way (AC included i would hope) im just using the dead as an expample. Yeah so we really need to figure out what context we are talking about exactly cause noone is going to agree if we are talking about different things. And sure Homer just wanted to write somthing people would read and didnt want to define his eras litereature but he didnt do that just cause he was a good writer.
As far as the graffiti thing goes. Its tough cause i think the fact that the art is by nature street art defines what it is and so it isnt the same thing in a gallery but i dont know how people define graffiti really so i could be full of shit. Sure the people who make it are still in fact artists if its in a gallery and im sure they keep their credibility as street artists by still doing stuff on the street. But art in a gallery isnt street art. Infact i would say that this is how it infact differs from underground music cause the only thing that defines somthing as underground is the fact that it hasnt been embraced by a larger culture and that doesnt have anything to do with why context defines graffiti.
daeveryyy
and i couldn't give a straight answer. it was strange.
anyway, this is probably a really strange question and i'm hesitant about asking, but you guys generally have really spot-on philosophies and beliefs, and i'd like to hear you're take on why you guys (or other musicians) make music.
i hope this doesn't come across as as antagonizing. thanks.
Geologist: i kind of think that comment is so ridiculously ignorant and cynical that it doesn't even deserve a response. you should have just laughed at the guy. sounds to me like he's a big gene simmons fan or something. do you find that he always is the guy in conversations that says the controversial aggro statement just to draw attention to himself? i bet he is. if he's talking about the mainstream industry, such as major labels and clear channel and such, i think he is right, but certainly not on the artist level. i don't have any grand philosophical mission statement about why we make music, it's just something we love to do. certainly as you get older and music becomes your job you have to pay attention to money concerns because we're trying to live and that's not easy as a musician, but there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion as long as you retain complete creative control and never compromise your creative vision because of money. it's an easy trap for bands to fall into, and one we've been accused of given that our records aren't as noisy and freaky as they were when we were younger, but we really don't care what other people think. we know we're doing what we want to do.
Avey: yeah that guy should just be slapped. saying that is like saying you live to make money if you ask me. Why do you like doing anything then? why do you go to the beach? Why do you watch TV? For some reason for us its incredibley appealing and fun to put sounds on tape and to sit around coming up with melodies and listen and play, is that so hard to believe? Weve loved doing it since we were atleast fourteen and it still hasnt become dull. Im sure even if we werent getting any money wed still be sitting around (in our parents basement hehehehe) listening to each others jams. Its also nice to feel like youre atleast doing somthing positive (no matter how small of a thing it is) and communicating with a larger community somehow. Im not often preachy but think about the world without music. I bet even the people who say they dont really have time for music would notice it was gone. It would suck thats for sure. Its probably hard to imagine but there was a time in this part of the world when people played music for free for each other and really just because it was part of a day to day way of living and most likely everyone took the time to listen. It may have been a long long long ass time ago but it happened. Do you think your friend knows there are cultures that are still like this in the world??? You should ask him. .
daevry
Deakin: Wow, I feel like dave and brian pretty much summed it up but I feel I gotta just throw in my words too because dammit if I don't feel passionate about it. I think that there are people in the world that choose professions based on money. I think that is true in almost every line of work. But i also know that in almost every activity that makes money, there are those who do what they do because they have no other choice. I am talking about scientists, artists, teachers... These people, and I consider myself one of these lucky souls, have found that there are certain things that they do because it feels great. Because it feels great to be adding that little part of yourself to the world. Becuase it feels good to discover things that you didn't know existed. Because you can't imagine life without that thing. To me the music that we make together and that I make on my own is part of that journey of living. and it really is on equal footing to having a family or playing sports or travelling or reading or having a satisfying job. I love what I do dearly and the moment that I stop truly loving it, truly needing it, is the moment that I stop doing it. If money was the issue, I would have quit a long time ago. My guess is that your friend has nothing in their life that gives them that kind of satisfaction and cannot imagine that anyone else would. But if you look around, if you read, you will find that there are actually many life passionate people from every walk of life. People that chose their passion, not their paycheck... that chose a positive life view not the idea that their own worth and satisfaction comes from the their material gain. No need to get in an argument with your friend because I imagine it would be a waste of time. instead just say a little prayer for the dude that he may someday feel a sense of satisfaction that goes beyond the material gains of life.
I think too that Dave raised a very important point about the way that our culture views the life of artists. Culture could not exist without the energy provided by artists. The same that it could not exist without scientists, philosophers, historians, bureaucrats. We need story tellers and clowns and painters and musicians. I think that there is some truth in the idea that money has fucked with the integrity of art and therefore with art's place in society. But it doesn't take away from it's ultimate importance.
DoveintheTree: Do you think, then, that true artists must prove their dedication by experiencing adverse conditions before they can be appreciated? Or, can someone whose had some help, and not experienced such situations, produce something just as meaningful?
It's something to think about because it seems that most people respect things that are prefaced by adversity.
Geologist: i think this is only tangentially related to the topic. and a short answer in my opinion is no, artists do not have to prove their dedication through struggle before they can be considered true artists. i think generally it's healthy and makes your art stronger, but that's not true across the board. the beatles didn't struggle for too long before becoming the biggest band ever, and they never stopped kicking ass.
art and adversity - it's a very interesting question. my girlfriend and i actually discussed this for hours the other night after watching style wars. while we both knew graffiti kids growing up in bmore, neither of us could totally relate to that world and movement, mostly because the important era, the era of adversity in graffiti, happened before we were born or when we were infants. we did however find that it was very much analagous to what happened to punk, and what is currently happening with noise and underground bands like us getting more popular.
in style wars, you had a few graffiti artists who lamented the move of the art from illegal subway bombing to respectable art galleries. some writers believed the art was worthless without the struggle and the subversive element, while some were psyched to be able to do their art, make a living, and not worry about running from the cops and tripping on the 3rd rail. the crux of our discussion related to how much worth do you give the opinion that subversive art has to have a strong and continuing connection to adversity and struggle? this is what we agreed upon, and granted there are many exceptions to the rule...
in some artforms, such as graffiti, punk, etc...the root of the form is intrinsically linked to struggle and adversity. for example, graffiti artists came from poor neighbrohoods where most people feel they are forgotten about. they have voices, names, and talent, and the process of subway bombing was a way of making themselves noticed and heard. their parents, teachers, the cops, the mayor...nobody respected them as artists and so they had to subvert the establishment. i think it's undeniable that this sense of struggle and purpose fueled the art. it infused it with a passion and a drive that i believe was necessary to take the art to the level it reached. the same happened in punk music. now when the art becomes respected by certain parts of the establishment, it gets a bit tricky. i completely understand why someone would have the opinion that the art is worthless without the struggle, but, it's not something i can fully relate too. the question must be asked as to why you made the art to begin with...was it because you felt the need to create, or because you felt the need to be badass and underground and subversive? true artists feel the need to create, and those are the people that went on to put graffiti in galleries, went on to make punk records on bigger labels and played bigger shows, etc. again, not in every case - i fully admit there are true artists who also feel an important connection to the struggle. but i think everyone must admit that many people are drawn to underground artforms out of a need to define themselves to others in a social context. those people that have to like the most underground bands, those people that only respect graffiti when it's done illegally, etc. i cannot relate to these people at this age of my life. all of us into underground art had a bit of this need in ourselves to begin with, but eventually you realize, or i realized, that what i love is the art, not the scene, and not the social identity it provides me with.
i believe that worthwhile artists that continue to make art without the struggle are fully capable of evolving; of finding inspiration for their art that does not have to have this intrinsic link to adversity and subversiveness. the danger of dilution of the artform's purity and passion will be present, and it will happen. it's unavoidable when an artform is originally driven by struggle. the struggle is part of the core...but what is the most important part of the core - the struggle, or the talent, or the individual? of those 3 components, i think the struggle is only important in the early phase, while the other 2 are necessary for the art to continue to live. maybe fugazi would disagree with me, but i don't think so. i mean what are we struggling for to begin with? we're struggling for acceptance of new ideas, for our voices and our art to be heard, to change the mainstream...what is wrong with moving towards accomplishing that?
ctc23: i think in some ways that kid has a point though. in this time, isn't money a major point in becoming involved in the music industry? i mean the name "music industry" basically implies it is a business. when music can be released online or produced at home, it seems like all the industry has to offer now is recognition and money. this probably isn't what he actually meant since he later asked "then why do they make music?", and reasons for making music will vary as much as each person varies. i'm not saying this is a bad thing though, why shouldn't people be able to try and make a living doing what they love?
i think that graffiti argument is pretty interesting, and i can understand both sides of it. but when you change the context of the art, it changes its meaning. if something was done illegally and placed in public for everyone, including your peers, to see, that is much different than if people tell you its ok to do this art but instead put it in some gallery and charge a fee to see it. maybe that's good for the artist, now they can maybe make a living off the art they love creating. but that graffiti in the gallery is something very different than the graffiti in a subway.
Avey:I dont think you can really argue that people like the beatles "didnt struggle" just beacuse they obviously didnt have any monitary difficulties after a short existense though. Unless this conversation is only about economic struggle. I think it really depends on what kind of struggle you are talking about. Theres always some kind of struggle to make original, or succesful art isnt there? There are all sorts of conditions that factor into it. i do agree with the fact that its more about dedication then the conditions people are making things in.
daev
Avey: funny thing....i hear school of rock playing in the other room.
Well you can argue that anyone in the music industry is involved in making someone money and so thats sort of why they are involved in the industry. But there is a big difference like brian said between the major, clear channel world, and the independent world where people are really not really dependent on money. You also have to figure that everything involved in the industry...concerts, putting out records,advertising, even mailing shit...costs money and so in a way you are involved in the industry just to be able to do these things and not have to have another job that eats up your time. The whole point is youre not always involved to make money..
daevy
Odemus:Do you think that the rap culture which for the most part promotes a life of excess and bling bling is less legitmate than other artforms? I read somewhere that Jay-Z is worth something like 4.4 billion dollars. These guys that make it to the top flaunt their wealth, and other rappers emulate them. It's a groupthink mentality based on both glorifying the conditions of abject poverty and escaping them.
I'm not a huge fan of rap but I do admire rappers like Jay-Z who come from nothing and basically pave their way to fame and fortune by telling the story of their life. Not to say that he's an excellent role model, but just that I can appreciate his perspective.
Geologist: yes, in terms of the beatles, i meant economically, as i think that is what was meant in the question by struggling. this conversation started about money.
as for graffiti in galleries, first of all, you don't have to pay a fee to see art in a gallery...you only have to pay to take home an original copy of the art, but the art still stays up for a month or more for people to view. as for graffiti being a public artform, that is a different discussion than the one i was getting at. if the intent of the art is to be seen by the public in a public place, then of course that is important, and it's a good point and shows my argument to be slightly myopic. however, you can get permits to do it in public now, and some of the hardcore people don't even approve of that. i believe i acknowledged that taking away the original context and subversive element will change the art, but i don't think that always result in a negative. the art can evolve. it presents a new challenge to the artist. people did graffiti for different reasons, so there is no way to generalize this argument, but i guess i just disagree on the level of difference between the galleries and the subways. for me the difference lies in the motivation for making it in the first place. if your motivation was "i want to do something illegal in the public space and i choose to do art as that thing", then your underlying motivation was not solely to make art, and therefore the context in which you make the art becomes just as important as, if not more than, the art itself. however, if your motivation was first and foremost to make art, and doing it illegal was the only way for you to get it out there and be seen, then the context should not change the meaning and integrity in your art as long as you stay true to your creative vision. perhaps it changes your style and inspiration, but those things should be fluid and open to change in any artist. my point is that i do not argee with people who refuse to recognize that distinction and therefore, refuse to respect art when its taken out of the context that they feel it should be placed in. that decision is for the artist to make.
perhaps this just comes down to a personal decision about what you're drawn to...the art in and of itself, or the context in which it's placed. i respect context, think it's an important aspect of art, and can be used in intelligent and creative ways that add a lot to the art. especially in music i have a lot of respect for the context in which the music was created, but how much i enjoy the music is not based on that at all. i judge what i hear and what i see before i judge what i know.
Geologist:as for the bling bling question...hair metal and such did that as well. the music promotes excess and decadence. i love hip-hop, and i love jay-z, just as i loved guns n roses and skid row back in the day (still love gnr actually). with all music there comes a point where style can be qually weighted with the music and then almost becomes what is sold and marketed as opposed to the music. people like jay-z still make kickass music, and to me that is art regardless of their image. but there is plenty of hip-hop, just like there is plenty of rock, that is diluted and a waste of your time if you're searching for art because the style and the image has become more important. i even think it happens in noise music. no matter how good your music is i feel like you can put on some weirdo mask and run out into the audience while you knock into people and scream in their faces and you'll be popular. those bands have taken a style and image and seem to place more importance on that than the music.
so no, i do not think it's less legitimate than other artforms because the same thing happens in other art and genres as well. i would think its more appropriate to judge the individual and their art rather than the entire genre.
Odemus: i agree with the point that others should respect the decisions an artist makes for their own work, but people are entitled to their own opinions. they should be open minded to new ideas, but if something doesn't resonate with someone, that's just the way it is. like you say, i guess it is a personal thing whether people can accept or look past context to appreciate the work in itself. i just feel that context can add so much to art, i think matmos do a good job with that. i like their music, but the context and ideas behind their songs are just as important to me.
i think that music has more possibilities to escape context though, which can be as important as having a context i guess, since it doesn't inhabit physical space like graffiti or paintings. i don't know if this is something you guys want to happen, but when i'm listening to the AC i don't really feel any context for the songs and just sorta take them as they are.
black666: i think it's pretty much impossible to sincerely appreciate a work of art free from its context. i mean, if, for example, homer's odyssey or whatever were written today, it would just mean something entirely different, regardless of how insignificant the reader thinks context is or how thoroughly the artist had purely aesthetic intentions or whatever. it would probably be read as a piece of neo-classicism or, at least, as being ironic in some way. so, like, in short, i dont think it's possible to judge what you sense free from what you know/believe. words are a perfect example. i can't hear the word "cow" as pure sound--i can't help but include the meaning of that word or whatever else i associate with that sound (for example: the smelliness of cows). i guess u could repeat the word over and over to yourself and it would thereby lose its meaning, but im guessing thats only because it sounds different that way--i mean, the pure sound of 'cowcowcowcowcow' is different from the pure sound of 'cow'. maybe not. i dunno. i guess i have to think about it more.
Geologist: yeah, i just think it's about your personal relationship to the work. since you brought up homer, i'll stick with that as an example, and also speak solely as an individual because as i've been saying throughout this whole discussion, i don't think generalization will get us anywhere. for me to appreciate homer, i don't believe the context is absolutely necessary. it's only necessary for me to understand and appreciate the style. but thematically, the reason homer is a classic is because it's an amazing story that deals with the classic themes of humanity and literature...love, honor, betrayal, destiny, religion. the presence of these themes is what makes homer timeless for me, and reduces the importance of it's context in my appreciation for his work. that holds true for me for most classics regardless of the period and context from which they came. again, i think the context in which art occurs is important and interesting. going back to graffiti, i find the early days in which it was an underground and illegal artform completely fascinating, and have a lot of respect for what those early writers went through to get their art into the world. i just don't ultimately judge the worth of the art based on that context unless it wasn't meant to be separated form the art in the first place. maybe graffiti was a bad example because a lot of those artists meant for their art to be seen in a strict context, but there were many who didn't. my favorite scene in style wars, which influenced my thought on this a great deal, was where one writer was going through his canvas work which he'd done for galleries. as he looked through each one he would say a little tidbit about why he chose to do the lettering a certain way, or what certain shapes represented, etc. his decisions were very personal and had some relation to him as an individual. that was the moment where i realized there was so much more going on in the art than just the idea of subvertring the establishment and getting your name out on every subway line. these ideas behind his pieces were present and just as relevant to the piece's worth when they were on canvas as when they were on the side of a subway car. the context no longer mattered for me because it didn't affect his integrity or his art in any way. it was self-expression on it's most basic level, which is a timeless classic. how someone could refuse to acknowledge the worth of those ideas simply because they disapproved of the change in context doesn't sit right with me.
anyway, perhpas we all agree to disagree. i don't feel like i can keep saying the same things over again in different ways. i would like to say that this is a very interesting discussion, and makes me uite proud of the people on this board. not only does it make me happy that our fans are open minded and intelligent and up for some critical thinking, but i like the conviction as well. if this board turned into a place where everything an animal collective member said was taken as truth and impervious to critique, it would be a sad place.
phantastick:how about this guy, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYWGQMq ... t%20walker
Avey: yeah i think the whole problem with this arguement is that youve turned it into somthing thats about peoples relationship to a piece of art rather then what it means for art to be created in a certain context and under certain conditions and what that means. I guess its kind of impossible not to cause we are all spectators in that way. But noone is going to agree completely on this subject cause it has so much to do with taste and is so subjective at this point. It also has so much to do with where you and your mind are in life and the capability to process things and enjoy things aside from where the art came from. Some people are touched by things because of context for example things made by people in mental assylums or things made by people in concentration camps other people think its shitty art and its only in a museum for that reason and in some ways it is only in a museum for that reason but that doesnt have anything to do with whether "you" think one piece is brilliant or touched you. Bress, you make it sound negative that people would only search for things that are underground and subversive and i do think its lame but i bet this group is an extreme minority and ive also heard you speak sentences like "can you believe this was made when it was" (raymond scott) which means that we are all subject to the context of art blowing our minds somtimes. I think in alot of cases its even hard to not let it mold our opinions about somthing.
But i dont think this has anything to do with the context or situation the art is created in cause you still cant deny the fact that graffiti or the first punk wave or no wave or grunge or the first psychedelic movement or the surrealists or situationists or any artistic movement happened when it did and that says somthing about why those things are what they are no matter who writes about them or who they touch. It doesnt mean that its all going to impress or touch you or anyone else but i think it does say somthing true about its existence.
Da
Avey:yeah and then there is that guy hehehe....he rules....Scott two is sweeet...
daevery
Avey: Phantastick.... have you see this hehehe ruling it!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyRiNZDb ... y%20horses
care of stove freeman..
daevy
Slowlearner: A lot of this stuff reminded me of Roland Barthes, post-structuralist, 'death of the author' type thought... though this discussion could go on for days if we started on that.... This is kinda off on a tangent, but what do you guys think of art that's made by animals? I just thought of this while reading this topic because I heard on Radio 4 recently of someone buying a painting that was made by chimpanzee (or was it a gorilla? i forget) at an auction for a few thousand pounds or something. Do you reckon the guy bought it more because of the context, because it came from a chimp, or because he thought it was a legitimately good piece of art? I've seen the painting in question, and while it does look pretty sweet, it's certainly no rothko Smile
The other thing that I thought of (tangential again, sorry) while reading this is street busking. Not sure if it's the same over in NY or wherever, but in the UK recently (in the last five years or so anyway) it's illegal to busk without a license and now pretty much every tube station in central london has a little Carling beer-sponsored space in the tunnel walkways where licensed buskers can peform with a big Carling logo behind them. In some ways I think this is cool but i used to see pretty awesome buskers all over the place whereas now it just seems to be some guy playing 'wish you were here', i even heard someone doing a harp rendition of that celine dion song from titanic the other day. It's pretty sad cos it makes you think about who the hell it is choosing which busker gets a license and who doesn't.
Geologist: i've said a bunch of times now that i appreciate context and find it very interesting...don't get me wrong. but while i find it fascinating that raymond scott made his jams when he did, i listen to them because they kick ass, not because they're important historical pieces. and while i acknowledge that movements in art are unavoidably connected to the circumstances out of which they arose, i believe there are ideas in the art that are universal and allow them to be taken out of context and appreciated on as high a level, if not higher.
as for art made by animals, yes, i think that dude bought it because it was made by a chimp, but you'd have to ask him to be sure. and that is a prime example of someone who is attracted to context first and art second.
i don't think busking is illegal in new york, right? that's a shame about london. while i often find the majority of busking annoying, i see something sweet every once in a while. are buskers only motivated by money? you gotta play something pleasing to bring in the change now don't you? heheheheh, i'm just kidding, i know people that don't need money that play in the subways. one of my favorite buskers in new york was the steel guitar player from the boggs. he was down there long before he joined that band and then one night we played a show with them and i was like "whoa, it's the dude from the bedford stop."
black666: dont mean to drag this on, but just to be clear: what i meant was that, like, if someone wrote a book today which, for example, started off invoking the greek gods, and in which the greek gods made appearances--that would mean something entirely different than a book that was the exact same, but which was written like 3000 years later (today). or, to be even clearer, imagine if someone "re-wrote" homer's odyssey and published it and stuff--his "work" or whatever would mean something entirely different than the sort-of-original, precisely because of the context.
Avey: I agree with you 666 thats what i was saying too. Homer couldnt of written the odyssey today...it wouldnt happen. The whole reason it is what it is, is because he lived when he did and was influenced by what was around him.
Im not disagreeing with you either bress, like i said im not talking about what it is about art that makes you personally appreciate it...im talking about who made it in the first place. I know for instance that im not into black dice cause of who they are or where they came from...i really just think the music kicks ass and it creates its own context which for me doesnt have anything to do with those guys. But would it sound like that if it wasnt made by those dudes. No it wouldnt.
Ofcourse there are universal attributes to art that can be seperated from its context and that make it enjoyable but what makes art diverse and unique is the fact that it comes from different contexts which on the most basic level is the individual who creates it. So basically i guess what i am saying is that you cant seperate the art from the individual who made it even though you can seperate yourself from the individual in order to appreciate the art. Though i really think somehow you are always connecting to that individual but thats not for me to argue.
If everyone had access to the same universal ideas that makes you appreciate art then anyone could make any kind of art and it would be as equally appreciated at any time in any place. But thats impossible (thank you based god) cause everything is always changing. If we lived in a society like the one in the book "We" for example, the only way diverse art could be created is if somone deviated from the normal way of living and started somthing new unless we truly had no need for art to begin with. Otherwise everything would be the same and i doubt youd appreciate music so much.
There really is no right or wrong i guess cause its impossible to prove but i have to argue that raymond scotts music (just for example) wouldnt be what it was if he wasnt raymond scott who lived then and in that place and therefore you couldnt be into it cause it wouldnt exist. Likewise our music wouldnt be Animal collective if we werent dave brian noah and josh and if we didnt grow up in maryland and listen to the records that we did and watch the movies that we did and had the experieces that we did together. Further more theres no reason for people to like our music because of those facts but in a way even if its an unconcious way they have to cause it wouldnt be any other way...is that confusing enough??
again i just think this is fun i really dont care if im right or wrong cause in a way i dont think there is a right or wrong...
I dont think busking is illegal either but i think atleast in some subway stations people have time slots and you have to register for a specific time and shit. I think busking is like any other musical context in that there are people that are sweet and there are people that arent no matter where you go...maybe though in some cities like new york or london there are just a ton of more people doing it so you see as many crazy buskers as you do the dudes sounding like hootie...
d
Geologist: "you can't separate art from the individual"...exactly! that was my point about the graffiti writers. these guys have themes of self expression in their work that are important and impressive regardless of the context in which the work is presented, and it is precisely the reason i would argue against anyone who discounts the worth of graffiti when its shown in a gallery as opposed to it being done illegally on a subway car. perhaps the disagreement here comes in how we're each defining context.
black666: i kinda suspect there's a difference in my use of the word context from you guys', but, like, i still think graffiti made for art galleries means something different from otherwise similar graffiti made in the street or whatever, which isnt to say that i think one is better than the other because of that, but thats a matter of my personal taste i think.
Geologist: you know what? perhaps we are asking ourselves this question incorrectly. quite the impressive socratic dialogue we are having...constant questioning until the root of the issue and thus the truth is arrived at. generalizations aren't helping the matter. both sides have brought up instances where context matters and where it does not, sometimes in discussing the same example. homer for instance...i think it's a valid argument that to appreciate the style of homer you have to take into account it's historical context, however i think myself and odemus also have valid points about homer and crime and punishment having elements that can be appreciated outside of their historical and political contexts. i don't think either side have given convincing arguments disproving the other, and maybe that's because as dave said, there is no right or wrong...
so maybe a better way of asking the question that encompasses all the examples given is this...are there certain artforms which can only be presented and appreciated in one specific context, and when created or viewed in a different context, they lose their meaning?
Odemus: I guess it depends mostly on whether or not there's an explicit topical reference. As you pointed out, for the spray painting purists, breaking the law is an essential element. I'd also include something like Piss Christ where lack of knowledge about the elements used would render the piece meaningless with respect to the artist's intent.
It's a tough question though and a consensus of what can be considered art becomes rather difficult to reach. A person is compelled to communicate or express a thought, desire, intent or emotion and chooses a medium. An observer can see and discern the results in a myriad of ways.Some forms of communication seem to lend themselves more easily to accurate interpretation. I think music is unique in that there are innate universal qualities, for example it's generally recognized that a minor key played at a slow tempo sounds sad or melancholy. Of course someone else will point out that bright primary colors splashed all over the place lend a happier mood to any given piece.
Maybe it comes down to how much you want to derive meaning through your own personal experience with art or how much you want to find out exactly what the artist is trying to communicate.
Avey:hey yeah i defintely think we are talking about a few different things atleast bress' last "question" makes me think that..also again im not out to prove anyone wrong i just think this is a fun topic and its making me think about some things i havent before..
i know the other problem is that noone is going to agree on what "art" is and i think thats a pretentious conversation anyway (this one probably is too hehehe) so im personally using it very loosely. I dont doubt that people would disagree with what i think is art but i usually dont use that term in regards to things i like (like music or paintings) anyway. An artist to me is someone.....just kidding
anyway
Some people (myself included) seem to be talking about the context in which a piece of art has been created which (from where im coming from) has nothing to do with who is going to listen to it or look at it or read it. Its purely about how an artist came up with an idea and the context that influenced that. which is why you cant deny that adverse conditions is crucial to the creation of graffiti cause otherwise it would have started in gallerys and not by nature be "street art". That doesnt mean its crucial to your enjoying it it just means it wouldnt be what it is.
It seems like other people are talking about the context in which art is presented to people which i do personally think can effect your defintion of it. Its also interesting to wonder if a certain artist has the people in mind he/she is creating for or where and when it will be presented. Like i have a pretty good feeling that Guns and Roses know who they are writing music for and how its going to be presented but i have a feeling John Cage wrote in a totally different way and ofcourse this changes things.
I totally agree that the context in which you listen to somthing in or look at somthing doesnt usually have an over all effect on why you appreciate the basic qualities of the art however i do think it also can be very important...
Nevermind for instance touched millions of people but i doubt most of those millions care where kurt cobain is from or how he wrote those songs or that the record came out in 91 or whatever. They just want to rock. But can you say that Nervermind would have had that overall effect had it been written by someone else or come out in this decade??? I dont think so which is why i think the context somthing is created in is crucial but maybe its impossible to say...
On the other Hand you have a piece like Rites of Spring or somthing by John Cage which is complete silence and id say theres no way to deny that the context you hear these pieces in is going to mold your opinion about them. That also brings up the idea that live music and Recorded music are two completely different types of artforms. You know can you imagine being at the first performances of either of those kinds of pieces or listening to them on a CD? thats like the difference between "Dude put on a CD and stop fucking around" verses "Uhhhhhhhhhhh?". And then i wonder if that context is going to ultimately effect your opinion of the piece as a piece of music after trying to approach it in different contexts. I think silence is definitely an artform that is subject to context.
And in terms of the live music thing being crucial...sure the grateful dead are a sweet band (atleast i think so) and im sure thats mostly why anyone would like them but do you have the experience you have at a dead concert just because they are a sweet band or because its put into the context of a live setting with so many people trading energy etc. I say the later cause theres no way to have that experience driving around in your car listening to the CD. There are tons of bands like that by the way (AC included i would hope) im just using the dead as an expample. Yeah so we really need to figure out what context we are talking about exactly cause noone is going to agree if we are talking about different things. And sure Homer just wanted to write somthing people would read and didnt want to define his eras litereature but he didnt do that just cause he was a good writer.
As far as the graffiti thing goes. Its tough cause i think the fact that the art is by nature street art defines what it is and so it isnt the same thing in a gallery but i dont know how people define graffiti really so i could be full of shit. Sure the people who make it are still in fact artists if its in a gallery and im sure they keep their credibility as street artists by still doing stuff on the street. But art in a gallery isnt street art. Infact i would say that this is how it infact differs from underground music cause the only thing that defines somthing as underground is the fact that it hasnt been embraced by a larger culture and that doesnt have anything to do with why context defines graffiti.
daeveryyy
