I've noticed a pattern from years of analyzing music. It seems that the music that is created in the hopes of doing the most good is often the least desirable to listen to. Sure, this is just my opinion but I think CD and ticket sales support this. Personally, I've found myself, on many occasions, singing along to a song whose lyrics I totally disagree with simply because the beat or hook was so darn catchy (see Jay Z or Little Wayne (trust me, I'm not throwing my hard earned dollars to "make it rain" in nobody's strip club - but damn if I don't sing the joint when it comes on )). On, the flip side, I've turned from many a radio station playing music with lyrics that were right on point - all because the music was just not appealing. This is just my personal experience so don't be offended but this is best exemplified by my love/hate relationship with Gospel music.
I'm a Christian who believes in Jesus and loves to read the Bible. But Gospel music just does not do it for me. As a producer, I find so much of the music dated. As a songwriter, I find many of the lyrics lacking in originality (The Bible has over 1000 pages in it people. Surely, there's more to talk about than "He's been good", "I'm blessed", and "It's gonna be alright". ) And though there are a few gospel artists like Fred Hammond that I find totally original, for the most part I find the "Inspirational" genre quite uninspiring.
And is this the way that it's supposed to be? Should I be more inspired by Jay Z then Donnie McClurkin? And why is it that I am? Is it because the Devil controls the music industry and therefore his people get all the cool toys to produce with? Are we all just pawns of the evil record labels who have trained us to love what they tell us to? Or, is there really a serious gap in the quality of "positive" and "negative" music.
Maybe it's a little of both. However, as creators of music (or other art forms for that matter) how do we ensure that our music "for good" is up to par with the worldly standard? Because it seems to me, that if we want to make music that will affect the masses, then we have to make music that will actually "reach" the masses. What do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Why is "Good" Music so Bad?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I disagree. It really depends on the criteria you choose in deciding who is good and who isn't.
As a gospel song writer myself, I find that many Christians, especially those who like worship songs, tend to focus more on the words in a song rather than the melodic construction around it. Afterall, it's all about worshipping God through song and I think it's the lyrics to the words that appeals to most Christian and gospel music fans.
Hey there. Thanks for the comment. Really appreciate it.
I agree that what we consider "good" is rather subjective. But I find even the lyrics of gospel songs to lack in originality often times.
I'm glad you run a lyrics site. It would be cool to browse through different songs to see how many times the same message gets recycled.
I sometimes wonder if a songwriter or artist should necessarily be so aware of trying to make a statement or consciously try to have some sort of effect with his/her work.
If you believe that the definition of art is that it's a reflection of society, then an artist is someone who holds the mirror up to us. I tend to think that a good artist is someone who is able to tell us stories, someting about OURSELVES, to be the one to articulate all the things we feel or think but can't quite say ourselves. And they're capable of capturing the human condition so that we have that instant shock of recognition of ourselves in it, "Yeah, this cat KNOWS about my life, this song is about ME." Is it a piece of work that someone can relate to?
But I've always felt that maybe the artist while creating shouldn't be too conscious of the audience or be concerned with what they think. You know, just do what you gotta do and then let the work speak for itself. And perhaps there aren't a lot of folks who have that kind of talent to do that, to aptly reflect the human condition.
Eric from MD
Well said Eric. I think this is exactly the dilemma. If art is to have an affect, then the artist must have some insight into the human condition. At the same time, if your work of art isn't appealing, then how will it ever be effective? And if your purpose is to affect change, then I think it requires you to be mindful as to how you'll be received by those you target.
Using the gospel industry as one example,I think the problem is that most gospel artists are torn between trying to reach listeners in the world and simultaneously satisfying the strict demands of their church-based fans. And, the two standards are so far apart, you almost have to choose which group you'll target.
I'd be interested to know whether visual artists have the same struggle thinking about intended audience. Or do they simply create a product and then find the right audience for it?
Just some more disjointed thoughts.
You know, I was thinking that your critique of gospel's lack of originality may have something to do with it being an old traditional form. Much in the same ways that the blues hinges on that simple but fantastic chord progression. Or that traditional folk songs have many verses but the chord progression never alters, ie, it's all A-A-A-A-A, and not A-B-A-B-C-A-B or anything.
So maybe gospel is waiting for something or someone new to come along, to make the genre evolve. I read a really interesting interview with rock legend Warren Zevon who said that he had a theory about music and art. Essentially, he said that all art forms die eventually. Either it evolves or it dies. And as an example, he cited classical music. It was his belief that there hadn't been any major compositions put out in the last half century, no real movements emerging. And he thought the same would happen to rock and roll at some point, it would stagnate and die out unless it somehow evolved.
And in some respects, I can sort of see it. Rock music has changed since the 60's and 70's. You can hear influences of punk, some metal, in today's rock, a blending of rock genres. Some bands added rap influences in their rock.
But I think we're in a period of stagnation now and that's why "good" music is so bad today. It all sounds the same. And while there are some rap influences in today's rock, there really isn't enough cross pollination like we had in the 60's and 70's when you'd hear black and white artists on the same radio station. Everything is so homogenized and broken down into target audiences. The evils of corporate radio, ya know?
Also, I really believe that at the core of any song is its melody, a signature riff, and a groove. Or else the song isn't going to be so memorable. It's even better when you have some meaningful lyrics to go with a killer melody.
Eric from MD
That makes a lot of sense: evolve or die. I think some art forms suffer when their torch bearers value "tradition" over creativity (jazz, gospel, classical). Interestingly, this doesn't seem to have affected country adversely. And it has both a strong sense of tradition and is run by a huge corporate structure. Not sure why it's such an anomaly.
i couldn't resist jumping in on this ...
in regards to the gospel music genre as a whole, Eric from MD is on point: we must evolve or stagnate and die.
but i think maybe people like us -- those who are moved by innovation in art, esp. music -- are dissatisfied with music that is supposed to be "good" because it tends to be prescriptive ... which gets far away from *genuine*.
you sit down and already have an idea of what the sound *should* do, and what the words *should* evoke and how the two together should elicit a particular response. everything you create is focused on your audience and not the purity of the art itself.
in this kind of artistic process, nothing comes from the soul. often, the end result is not even art -- it's a product. "what you, the artist, think the people want."
in the end, it's like getting a flat Picasso print instead of the original which has heaps of paint that show how many layers and shades of brown go into making a face on canvas.
with a print, you can't be amazed at the technique of reproducing a flat surface. it is mere duplication. you can, however, be *slain* about an original because you see how ingenious it is to heap paint onto a flat surface and stroke it in such a way that any viewer believes it is really a face ... and not paint.
the truth is: many contemporary artists like to create toward something that will drive sales, or be hot and popular with the twenty-somethings (one of the biggest purchase crowds), or something that simply goes viral because it's catchy and feeds pop culture or slang.
as an artist, i realize i am in a season where i can value what is traditional while staying open to how my muses use that sense of tradition to help me find "something new."
a good gospel stomp-down hallelujah river hymn is good food for the soul. after all, aren't most worshipers trying to get to a place where they have baptized themselves in the belief that their Jesus is truly going to save them from whatever threatens to harm? it's pure emotion -- and emotion is one of the most powerful reasons that anyone invests in anything.
people don't really buy products; they buy emotions that are associated with those products. they way something makes you *feel* is THE reason the money exchanges hands.
honestly, i think that's what makes tradition work in the mass market, too.
but until you escalate a piece of music to a place where the tradition of a thing -- in this case, the salvation and feel-good component of gospel music -- makes a listener hungry for the art of that same thing, you're in a still place. nothing moves beyond what is flat. the song itself is one-dimensional and gets no love.
as an artist, i realize i have my father the frustrated artist's music in me. he's a superbad somebody, artistically. but he is an old man now whose dreams have died, and despite my differences with him, i know the greatest gift he has ever been able to afford me is music -- all that he has sung and all that he'll never have the courage to sing. it's a bitter paradox that someone so filled with song has never truly learned how to *sing*.
he likes to paint himself in these "safe" corners and divide gospel music into contemporary and "old school." he doesn't do contemporary, he says. as a result, he is intimidated by many artists who are creating here and now. (i have been trying to give him the science of Kim Burrell's voice for three years now.)
contemporary lyrics, he says, are too packed and the music is too secular.
he may be right about packed lyrics, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
what i want to know is why can't this issue just be about the ingenuity of the music -- who or what is making you think about (and feel) the possibilities of music in some way you've never dared to before? my father's response to modern music has made me hesitant to always categorize music.
close the door on what is right before you, and you close the door on your own soul.
So many good points Blue.
I feel like I could make a separate blog off of each paragraph :)
I hope you stick around and contribute much.
I think your thoughts reveal a basic conflict between tradition and innovation. Certain art forms pride themselves on tradition: gospel, jazz, country (though country seems to have found a balance recently between tradition and being modern). In general, though I think the two work against each other: like Blue said, when an artist is given a prescription of how a song should sound, it takes away from their creativity.
Then going back something Eric from MD said, certain innovative artists can find a way to break the tradition. Look at Miles Davis' impact on jazz. Or, Kirk Franklin's undeniable impact on gospel.
Post a Comment