BuffettNews.com

Jahfin wrote:To me, there's a difference between signing a record deal in order to get your music out there and compromising your principles in order to receive wider exposure.

I guess I just feel that in today's environment, there is no difference. BOTH compromise your principles - the "selling out" (for lack of a better term) occurs the moment you decide to let a major corporation (label) run your career.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with people on labels. I actually think "artistic integrity" and "commerce" can co-exist. It's possible to write honestly and then once the song is written want to sell it.

I just think that once it's written, whether you "sell" it to the label owned by Seagrams or sell it to VW is just a minor distinction.

then there's the case where the original artist no longer owns the rights to "his" song. somebody else may have sold the song for commercial purposes.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:But in 20 years will anyone really consider REM a legendary band. I say no.

I think it depends who you ask.... if you ask the average music fan, probably not. If you ask a bunch of musicians, probably yes.

Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:then there's the case where the original artist no longer owns the rights to "his" song. somebody else may have sold the song for commercial purposes.

Isn't that what happened with "Revolution" (I think) and Nike?

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:To me, there's a difference between signing a record deal in order to get your music out there and compromising your principles in order to receive wider exposure.

I guess I just feel that in today's environment, there is no difference. BOTH compromise your principles - the "selling out" (for lack of a better term) occurs the moment you decide to let a major corporation (label) run your career.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with people on labels. I actually think "artistic integrity" and "commerce" can co-exist. It's possible to write honestly and then once the song is written want to sell it.

I just think that once it's written, whether you "sell" it to the label owned by Seagrams or sell it to VW is just a minor distinction.

The difference to me is, I don't associate "Rock n' Roll" with Cadillac or "Who Are You?" with CSI. By not lending their songs for commercials, R.E.M., Neil and others that have chosen this path don't run the risk of having their songs associated with commercial products. Like I said, it's much easier for artists to give in to the amount of money offered to them to have their songs licensed for commercials than it is to say no to them and stand by their beliefs than it would to compromise their artistic intergrity by doing so. If the Rolling Stones want to sing for Microsoft they should by all means do so, if Neil choses to "sing for Nobody" he should be also be allowed to do so. I may be in the minority but I greatly admire him for it.

LIPH wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:then there's the case where the original artist no longer owns the rights to "his" song. somebody else may have sold the song for commercial purposes.

Isn't that what happened with "Revolution" (I think) and Nike?

yup.... and a couple of other sacred songs that i can't think of off the top of my head.

doesn't michael jackson still own the beatles catalog?

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:But in 20 years will anyone really consider REM a legendary band. I say no.

I think it depends who you ask.... if you ask the average music fan, probably not. If you ask a bunch of musicians, probably yes.

Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Although they rose from the whole "D.I.Y." punk/new wave movement of the early 80s it wouldn't be fair to say that only punk musicans were influenced by their music. Not to mention their music bares little or no resemblence to that style of music whatsoever (unless you're enough of a fan to have heard their b-sides or see them in concert).

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

I wouldn't say that's true across the board. I can't play a note or carry a tune in a bucket but I'll be the first to admit when a band has made a substantial contribution to music whether I like them or not.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:

LIPH wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:then there's the case where the original artist no longer owns the rights to "his" song. somebody else may have sold the song for commercial purposes.

Isn't that what happened with "Revolution" (I think) and Nike?

yup.... and a couple of other sacred songs that i can't think of off the top of my head.

doesn't michael jackson still own the beatles catalog?

Yes, he does.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

Live2ski, would you mind checking your attitude when you log in?

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

He makes a good point though.

meisinger wrote:

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

He makes a good point though.

Being?

live2ski wrote:Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

Would be if that's what I said... but I didn't say that.

I'm simply stating that, in my personal experience talking with bunches of professional musicians, they tend to be more appreciative of other acts' contributions to the larger picture, regardless of that act's level of commercial success or whether that act falls in their genre.

I see numerous pop music fans dis rap and hip hop as non-relevent while even the most hardcore jazz players and writers I know dig it for its innovation. Many people last year didn't understand why the Clash was being inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame, but all the musicians did.

Maybe my experience is unique and of the famous and successful musicians and producers and A&R guys I've talked with I happened to get just the open-minded ones.... but still - that's been my experience.

It's an idiotic statement from Alice. Politics and social issues have always been a part of music. And this is isn't necessarily _insert rock star name here_ saying "vote for so and so" it's more of we think this is bad for this reason, or this is good for this reason etc, now this should be a starting point, people need to do their own homework on issues

But mainly the artists' intentions is to bring awareness.

Now Alice can be the 18 year old rebel all he wants, but sitting from courtside NBA games and exclusive golf courses, he needs to look in the mirror a little harder before making such assinine comments.

live2ski wrote:

meisinger wrote:

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

He makes a good point though.

Being?

Simple. It's very easy for a person to like a song. It's a whole other story to really understand why you like a song. I would liken it to eating a good gumbo. I may like the taste, but have no real understanding of what it takes to make gumbo taste good. I have no idea how to make it. I just like it. I heard a great interview with Frank Zappa and he was talking about a conversation with his music teacher when he was a child. He told the teacher that he liked a certain song and the teacher asked him why he liked it. Zappa didn't know so he played it for the teacher. All the teacher said was "Cycle of 5ths". Zappa looked it up and sure enough, that's what he liked about the song. I think that's the point Lee was trying to make. Even if you don't like a song, a more than rudimentary understanding of what the artist is doing and why the artist is doing it, helps you appreciate it a bit more.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

Would be if that's what I said... but I didn't say that.

I'm simply stating that, in my personal experience talking with bunches of professional musicians, they tend to be more appreciative of other acts' contributions to the larger picture, regardless of that act's level of commercial success or whether that act falls in their genre.

I see numerous pop music fans dis rap and hip hop as non-relevent while even the most hardcore jazz players and writers I know dig it for its innovation. Many people last year didn't understand why the Clash was being inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of fame, but all the musicians did.

Maybe my experience is unique and of the famous and successful musicians and producers and A&R guys I've talked with I happened to get just the open-minded ones.... but still - that's been my experience.

I see what you're saying but I again emphasize that viewpoint can't be confined to musicians only. I have an appreciation for music in general even though I can't play a note and readily admit to an artists' contribution to music whether I like them or not. In other words, a deeper appreciation of music is not limited to just musicians.

Jahfin wrote:
I see what you're saying but I again emphasize that viewpoint can't be confined to musicians only. I have an appreciation for music in general even though I can't play a note and readily admit to an artists' contribution to music whether I like them or not. In other words, a deeper appreciation of music is not limited to just musicians.

Of course it's not. I'm speaking in generalities.

meisinger wrote:

live2ski wrote:

meisinger wrote:

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Depends on the musician. A punk musician, yes. Another genre probably not.

Most musicians would bristle at the suggestion of being in a genre. Musicians generally are a lot more capable than the general public of recognizing the musical value of things in all genres. they're also more capable than the average person of appreciating the musical contribution of something they don't like.

Blah Blah Blah, Just because I am a musician I am better than you all. Dude that has to be one of the most egotistical things I have heard all day.

He makes a good point though.

Being?

Simple. It's very easy for a person to like a song. It's a whole other story to really understand why you like a song. I would liken it to eating a good gumbo. I may like the taste, but have no real understanding of what it takes to make gumbo taste good. I have no idea how to make it. I just like it. I heard a great interview with Frank Zappa and he was talking about a conversation with his music teacher when he was a child. He told the teacher that he liked a certain song and the teacher asked him why he liked it. Zappa didn't know so he played it for the teacher. All the teacher said was "Cycle of 5ths". Zappa looked it up and sure enough, that's what he liked about the song. I think that's the point Lee was trying to make. Even if you don't like a song, a more than rudimentary understanding of what the artist is doing and why the artist is doing it, helps you appreciate it a bit more.

So what you are saying is that only politicians are really the only ones educated about politics enough to vote?