[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
RE: My "Pretty Song"...
Great post, Ted. I always love analogies between art
and music...thanks for reinforcing this. The color pallet or crayon box
comparison is wonderful. And this supports my performance
background, having played in progressive rock, art rock, country,
world, traditional jazz, and fusion bands....it is nice to be able to pull
out a different crayons at any point in time, depending on the social dynamics
of the venue. This is why I mentioned having the Real Book at my side at all
times....traditional jazz is just one more crayon or shade of colors to choose
from. It's like being a Swiss army knife of music performance. I just personally
prefer one set of colors at this point in time of my musical journey, which has
less public appeal.
You you, I rather felt that your CD was a mixture of
black with neon colors. :)
Kris
Kris,
In a message dated 7/18/05 4:37:17 PM,
kris.hartung@hp.com writes:
http://box.net/public/khartung/files/298935.html
Personally . . . I rather like it. But then again
I like a little bit of everything
anyway, even polka -- when it's done well
(with feeling, even thought there
might be little imperfections here and
there).
I've been following this thread and have a slightly
different "take" on the
whole "art" vs. "audience approval" thing. I spent
many long years studying
to be a visual artist long before I ever seriously
considered "going public"
with any of my musical nonsense.
The way I
look at it, limiting oneself to only one way of
thinking/working
harmonically/melodically/modally is like choosing to only
use one color
of crayon from the box . . . or only one size of brush (or a
paint roller)
or something as a visual artist. It might be nice for an
individual piece
(or suite of pieces) but not a whole career --
IMHO.
I tend to look at the choice between using ALL BLACK per se, and
using
ALL PASTEL COLORS as more-or-less a choice between avenues of
approach
with equal value/merit/creative possibility. Six of one, half dozen
of another,
as they say. There is nothing to judge there as long as your
artistic motivations
are fairly "pure." Motivations are the key.
In
visual art (or any other) I have no criticism of artists who choose a particular
way of working if that's really who they are, or choose to be . . .
authentically.
Example, I have no problem with any number of painters who
might do most
of their work in a representaional, "realistic" vein. But I
cannot abide Thomas
Kinkade (pardon me if there are fans present)
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/
His stuff is so phony (and so popular too)
really makes me ill.
On a spectum scale of artists' sensitivity, ranging
from total indifference to
total pandering that guy is completely off the
pandering scale. But I digress.
What are we making music for? To be
popular, have the worshipful obessiance
of fans, sexual attraction and all of
that? Or to make something we like, choose
to create, make well and with
pride, to please, express or to satisfy ourselves
in some way? Or, perhaps,
some blurry mix of the two (or other) motives?
Perhaps it is to give others
a good time -- a perfectly virtuous and altruistic
aim in itself.
I
would guess that a lot of us are a mixture. Personally, if I were still doing
my
music in my garage studio as a solitary exercise as I was 20 years ago I
could
be nearly perfectly content to be indifferent to what an audience
might want.
Since I went public, I now (somewhat grudgingly but not entirely)
must face
the fact that I HAVE to take into consideration the new
environment in which
I do what I do -- the physical mechanics of the venue
(the space) the social
mechanics of the people there (the audience and/or
other performers). I try
not to pander. But there is an element to it that
is akin to doing "site-specific
artwork."
For myself, I am soooo very
limited as a musician that any thought of pandering
and any real possibility
of popularity is probably beyond my ability anyway (heheheh).
However, that
still leaves plenty of room to be at least a little sensitive to who
is in
attendance and how much squonk and noise I should try to get away with --
just
how far I can push the envelope with these folks in this venue. Who else
is on the bill?
What sort of musical territory will they be marking out? It
just seems sensible to
at least consider these things.
To me, it's
all comes back to choosing the "colors" your going to paint with . . .
and
that is only a temporary choice. It's not like you have to stick with it
for a whole
career . . . or even a whole evening. If I find myself having
scribbled the air with
blistering, caustic, black tones and dark chords for
most of a set I'l usually give
the audience a reward for their endurance . .
. something "pretty," a piece of
dessert music, a little musical
after-dinner mint, or something.
Hey, I like "pretty" too. Pastels are
nice from time to time.
Best regards,
tEd ® kiLLiAn
"Different is not always better, but better is always
different"
http://www.pfmentum.com/flux.html
http://www.CDbaby.com/cd/tedkillian
http://www.guitar9.com/fluxaeterna.html
http://www.garageband.com/artist/ArsOcarina
http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2845073
http://www.netmusic.com/web/album.aspx?a_id=CBNM_17314
http://www.indiejazz.com/ProductDetailsView.aspx?ProductID=193
Ted Killian's "Flux Aeterna"
is also available at: Apple iTunes,
BuyMusic, Rhapsody, MusicMatch, MusicNet, DiscLogic,
Napster,
AudioLunchbox, Lindows, QTRnote, Music4Cents,
Etherstream,
RuleRadio, EMEPE3, Sony Connect, CatchMusic,
Puretracks,
and Viztas. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Blah, blah, blah.
So???
