Support |
Will Brake wrote: > Ultimately, who are we to judge what is good, bad or other. If you've > ever been to an art fair, art gallery or museum, there is all the proof > you'll ever need to qualify the statement 'Art is in the eye (ear) of > the beholder'. > > Do you think there is a big market for David Torn? No, there isn't. But > that doesn't change the fact that he is a creative individual, an > artist. Just because you may choose to play a style/type of music that > might get played on commercial radio doesn't mean you are not creative. > Nor does it mean you are not an artist. It doesn't me you are, either. > <grin, for Cara> > > That being said, commercial radio does continue to pre-digest cookie > cutter crap that is force fed to the masses. That's my opinion. Some of > my clients are huge in that market. Some are more creative than others. > Some are just really good business people and not very creative. Interestingly, i'd say making it in the pop world doesn't mean you suck, or that your music is "cookie-cutter". What it does mean is that your music is *accessible* (that, and you have good business sense and get lucky dealing with the obnoxious sorts that control what's on the radio). You can be creative, unusual, and even challenging in pop music, but it has to be something that can immediately engage most people (i'm ignoring stylistic ghettos here, and also listeners who refuse to listen to anything outside their own stylistic ghetto). Bands like Dave Matthews, Phish, The Flaming Lips, Beck, Radiohead, etc have all had broad mass-market success while being highly personal and creative. Remember that Radiohead's Kid A opened at #1 with NO promotion from their label and nothing radio-friendly! You know where i heard it most? As musak at cooler stores. It's terrific background music. I've been thinking about accessibility a lot lately. I think audiences are smarter than we give them credit for, and we can produce something that can appeal to them AND to us, if we try.