PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Performing for Nothing, your views?

Pat, no offense was taken and I never thought you inferred what I do isn't art.

I do understand art for art's sake. My wife is a fine artist.

On the other hand, I've seen and heard a lot of attempts at fine art that in my opinion are not fine art at all, even if they are original. Note I said "In my opinion" because art is subjective.

My wife is a trained fine artist, and thanks to her, I've learned a lot about the subject and how to appreciate art. I've been to some of the world's finest art museums like the Metropolitan, MoMa, Chicago, US and British National Galleries, Tate, Prado, Sofia Reina, Ufizzi, Pitti, Budapest, Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh, and dozens of others, plus regional galleries and numerous road artist shows. I've seen great art, and I've seen what is supposed to be great art but to me was either kitsch or B.S.

Just because it's original, doesn't make it art either in the music business or the visual arts. And conversely, just because it's popular doesn't me it isn't art.

And where do you draw the line.

Is Hopper's "Night Hawks" art or illustration? Is Paul Simon's "The Boxer" a pop song or art music? These and so many others seem to straddle the line, and whatever category you put them in, I like them.

Jackson Pollock is considered to be a fine artist, but to me his work looks like a house painter's drop cloth, and for my way of thinking, there is too much left to chance to be fine art - others have the right to disagree.

On backing tracks.

I make my own backing tracks, planning the arrangement, recording each instrument into a sequencer live and in real time, and sometimes augmenting them with parts extracted from BiaB. What I like to do most in BiaB is to record the top line of a part I want to add, let BiaB do the "Mule Work" of adding the harmony parts and import that into the sequencer. BiaB harmonizes just like the Berklee Correspondence course taught me how to do it.

Is arranging music an art? I don't care, and if so, are my arrangements good enough to cross that line? I like to create my backing tracks and I'm very proud of my work.

If arranging for a sequenced backing track isn't art, then what Nelson Riddle did with an orchestra isn't art either.

If I go out and if the band has backing tracks, I'll evaluate whether they are karaoke tracks or not, and evaluate them along with the rest of the music. I can't help it, it's what I do. I analyze and look for both the good and bad in every piece of music I hear.

To me music is a continuum, from kitsch to art. That Muddy Waters 12 bar blues song is a different kind of art from that Prokofiev Symphony, and although I know the Prokofiev is much more complex, and takes much more knowledge of music theory, I still like Muddy Waters. So where do I draw the line between pop and art? Jethro Tull, Yes, Moody Blues, Gino Vanelli, and so many others seemed to cross that line, but still, it's hard to define where that line is.

In the end, it all comes down to personal taste.

To me there are only two kinds of music, good music and music written and/or played for someone other than me.

Another musician may not want to hear backing tracks, and that's OK. I don't want to gaze at Jackson Pollock or a Mark Rothko work because they don't do it for me.

Beethoven, Mozart and so many others did works on commission - artists or illustrators?

I think Dave Brubeck's "Blue Rondo ala Turk" is a piece of fine art, but anything I've ever heard Ornette Coleman did never spoke to me.

Who should be the arbiter of what is great art? Who has the right to say Pollock is fine art and Rockwell is not?

I've never been able to draw the line. I recognize obvious kitch, and also fine art but where to draw all the lines in between is something I've never been able to do.

I've heard great groups with backing tracks, and I've heard great soloists playing in front of an orchestra reading charts - live backing tracks?

I've heard many of the greatest symphony orchestras in the world playing cover songs by dead European composers. Cover bands.

Two weeks ago the local blues society came out to our gig as a "Hooked On Blues" event. Many of the members are musicians. Nobody seemed to mind the backing tracks, because the applause and the looks on their faces told me they enjoyed the music very much.

There are so many tools to making music, whether you use backing tracks, use BiaB right out of the box, or are a purist using only hand made acoustic instruments, or play in front of an orchestra reading charts, or whether you cover someone else's material note for note, if you have an audience you must be at least OK. If you have a dedicated audience you must be good. Whether it's art or not? Who cares? Whether you pass an emotion from yourself to the audience, you should care.

And IMHO there is nothing wrong with being an entertainer either, List, Paganini, and so many of the greatest musicians of all time were also entertainers.

This has been all my personal opinions on art, and I don't think any one person or committee should be the arbiter of what is art or not, so feel free to have another equally valid opinion.

Insights and incites by Notes