- thanks
4 days 18 hours ago - great article!
4 days 18 hours ago - ilateral hernia operation and
1 week 6 days ago - nice informations becaouse u
1 week 6 days ago - A sudan man has been forces
1 week 6 days ago - Porn
8 weeks 2 days ago - This site is so
8 weeks 3 days ago - Nice photos and your site is
8 weeks 3 days ago - Discounted UK Tiffany
11 weeks 3 days ago - dder ujhnuj Juicy Couture
12 weeks 5 days ago
For the musicians and the music lovers
There's something I've always wondered about popular music but I'm not quite sure how to ask it so I'll illustrate with examples.
- Eminem's lyrics feature violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and general nastiness -- some people get bent out of joint about this.
- Gwen Stefani took some flak from certain critics singing 'If I was a wealthy girl' when, by their standards she's already loaded and has no right to sing such a thing
- Gangsta Rap talks about cop killing, bitches, hoes and whatever.
In each of these cases there seems to be a notion that the singers are actually presenting their personal opinions on these matters rather than, as with an actor, playing a part. Their are two possibilites on either end of a continuum, it seems. a) the singers actually *are* singing what they feel and believe and b) people are unrealistically projecting the art onto the artist.
Why is this? Denzel Washington can play a crooked cop, Ian McKellan can play a Nazi, Ray Liota can play an all around objectionable mobster and there is no expectation that they are actually investing real feelings and opinions into these parts. They can move from mode to mode without repercussion (ignoring the effects of typecasting on some actors)
Why is this not the case in the popular music industry? ie. why do musicians feel the need to express their raw emotions in their art (as opposed to or in addition to expressing things that are not in their beliefs) AND/OR why does the audience seem so willing to project what the artists present onto their real personalities?
Edit: I am, of course, not expecting that there's an actual answer to this but I'm interested in the discussion seeing as there are quite a few musicians 'round these parts as well as many music lovers.
Comments
This is an excellent question. I will admit to being one of those who associates lyrics with an artist much more closely than a script to an artist. Music appears to certain people, such as myself, as a greater expression of one's will than acting. Perhaps it is because I realize that an actor is but one small part of a movie production process, but a singer is large part of a much smaller process.
In music the lyrics appear to be a more direct output of one person's experiences. The line denoting fiction is much clearer in visual art I suppose.
Personally, I just think it depends. I guess if you write your own material, and are trying to portray yourself as a "serious artist", then yeah, I would expect their lyrics to contain at least a part of their real feelings and beliefs. On the other hand, if they are more out for money than the pursuit of art, then I wouldnt ascribe any particular view to them based on their lyrics, they'll sing whatever the kids'll buy.
There are all sorts of degrees in between this. For example, Meat loaf has been singing about being a teenager for about 30 years now... I'm sure when he started he was singing about something he knew (ie, being a teenager is hard), but now hes just sticking with his formula.
Similarly with happily married singers singing about being dumped/lonely, rich singers singing about how hard it is to be homeless, middle class kids singing about how tough it is in "the hood".
This Space For Rent
Summing it all up in one band, I give you Blink 182. Married and well in their 30's, yet still singing about holding hands, skipping high school classes, and kissing for the first time. Oh, and did I mention that all their songs have 3 chords and sound exactly the same?
But it's not bad, not bad at all. I like Blink and listen to them a lot.
Marg :D *dances*
I'm the cousin of this Geek called Steph...
~~ www.marula.ca ~~
I can really only tell you what I know about this.
When I write my own music, it's *usually* something that pertains to me. Usually. And in those cases you're getting either my viewpoint or my emotional reaction to a viewpoint.
If I write a song that is out of my experience, I can only do it if I can absolutely become the person that is writing the song. Right now, for instance, a song is going around in my head about a particular subject that I've never experienced and I hope I never do, but when I go to write it, my reality changes so that it's the same as if I have experienced it or am experiencing it. So in a way, I'm acting, but only for myself, to maintain the emotional integrity and spirit of the song.
There are subjects I cannot write about, because I just can't change my reality sufficiently. I don't know enough or I haven't experienced enough yet. I wouldn't be able to do it. I couldn't write a song about losing a baby daughter, for instance. The emotion involved escapes me and the song would ring false.
Songs that I just pick to sing that aren't mine (and a lot of artists have, in their repetoire, a few songs they've never had any artistic input on) generally have to resonate with me to some degree. For the most part, I'll shy away from songs that I can't understand and relate to. Oddly, I can very much sing songs about having a daughter or a son...I just know I couldn't write one. Which implies that, for me, at least, there is more integrity needed in the writing of a song than there is in the performing of one.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that while music and film are both able to touch deeply emotional centres in the psyche, the population in general accepts that an actor is different from their work because they see that actor in different films. They see the actor on talk shows, or in tabloids. They follow actors through entertainment news shows. And even if a particular person doesn't do any of that, they instinctively separate the person from the work because there's a knowledge of the person that is separate from the work.
Singers don't get picked apart by the media to the same degree that actors do. They don't get followed by the tabloids, they don't get interviews on all the talk shows until the general public knows their favourite colour, birthday, and pets' names. They are famous *for their music* and not for being famous, you see? So there is *no* dissociation from their work, and there won't be unless they go and make themselves something more like a movie or tv celebrity (like, for instance, Britney Spears).
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Basically, though it's already been said, a musician personally writes his own music, most of the time. An actor rarely writes a script, at least, not in the capacity of an actor.
Actors are more like the fashion models of the arts industry. They get up on stage and allow themselves, their identity to become irrelevant while some other identity supercedes their own. In short, they are nothing but meat with some strange chameleonic (ooo new word) and evocative ability.
My other immediate thought is this: Show me a rap movement (for instance) that consistently sings about anything OTHER than guns, bitches, blowing other people away etc, and then you'll see more attachment of the artist to the music.
The current paradigm that is rap seems to be typically US in nature--the individual surrenders to the over-identity, not the individual contributes and enriches the over-identity (melting pot vs. mosaic)
I would go so far as to say that any european/asian rappers exist because they are mimicking the gansta rap culture, not because they truly have something to say about how hard it is growing up in Les Projets.
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
True, to an extent. But how do, for example, symphonic musicians fit in here. Or dancers in a company? It seems that, of the performance arts, popular music as we've been discussing it here is unique which is what I find most interesting.
To illustrate: how are cover-bands usually perceived? How many cover bands will slowly build up their own repertoire as a means of 'legitimizing' their art form. Various singing groups through the years have been derided because they either don't play their own instruments and/or they don't write their own material.
Why the double standard, in the minds of the audience?
Why can a singer not be known for her singing.. the quality of her voice and the ability to set a mood in song? Why must the act of writing and feeling be attached as baggage?
I'll play you some hip-hop on Monday.. you'll see that the art-form is not all about gangsta rap. Far from it, in fact.
As to ambrosia's point: What you're describing is the musical equivalent of the method. But just as there are many techniques to perform a role there are equally many methods to sing. And indeed there are many traditions of performing arts which do not have the 'problem' we've been discussing -- the theatre, opera, dance, even stand up comedy to an extent.. though it suffers similar stigmas to popular music.
The only other art form that I can think of that suffers as heavily from this phenomenon is poetry. When you read poetry, it's very rare that your first thought is to separate the poet from the speaker/voice in the poem. When people talk about what's happening in a poem, more often than not, they'll say things referring to the poet doing the talking or action, rather than an unnamed person.
The other side of it is that folks like Eminem have no bitching rights whatsoever. He builds his entire image on violence and sex. He has no less right to complain when people assume that that's his real persona than Marylin Manson does. Sure, they may not be that all the time, but if not, then why sing/write like that all the time?
Quinten Tarantino makes exclusively violent movies, or did at any rate. Since that's pretty much all that his movies involve, there's a certain rationality in assuming that he has a tendency or at least affinity for violence in real life.
William H Macy almost always plays a morose, somber, often mopey character in movies. He's usually sad, often drinking, and almost always seems to be a little confused about his surroundings. That's just the kind of character he seems to play. The quiz show child star, grown up, in Magnolia, the father in Pleasantville, and the professor in Oleana to name a few. He plays hapless characters all the time, so there's a stigma built up that he's probably not the best guy to go to a party with, unless you're particularly sad, in which case he'd be great company.
Unfair? Possibly. Unexpected? Shouldn't be. And although pop music seems to be most often talked about in a light such as this, I don't think that it's accurate to say that no other art form has this issue with performers or creative talent.
It's reasonable to assume that Earnest Hemmingway was an incredibly dreary sod, and that Sylvia Plath was mildly insane. It's not necessarily jumping to conclusions. Sometimes it's just pattern recognition.
(side note. Earnest Hemmingway responds to an old joke:
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To die. In the rain. Alone.)
- HB
Ernst.
And Buster: I've heard a LOT of rap so far, probably more than your average gun-toting, pot-smoking, do-rag-wearing, stereotype-exuding gangsta rappa...
I appreciate it as an art form---that's one of the reasons why I hate the most recent excretinns from the industry that have been labelled "rap".
Eminem, deserving to bitch and moan like he does or not, has STYLE. You cannot fault his creative and aggressive rhyming structure, and you CAN forgive his occassional abuse of a word to make a rhyme, because well, he's so far above the pack that a few luxuries can be accorded him. He's the best rap artist out there, certainly a peer of NAS, TCQ, and the Roots.
Anyway, that's my comment for this morning.
Raven
Some people are like slinkies: Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Because it's popular music. Musicians are expected to be actors as well as music-makers. Because the masses, like to believe this and project.
Maybe you don't have enough examples of movie actors doing this in Hollywood. In Indian movies (Bollywood etc), actors have a certain persona and are expected to keep true to their movie personas. 'Superstars', as they are called, are not expected to show diversity in their movie roles but are expected to play the same roles over and over. Some of them even adopt their movie personae to real life and become prime ministers. A reverse projection as, 'you are what you portray'.
And in defense of pop music, I present: 'My Humps' Home Videos
--- insert self-defining witty quote here ---
I think you're falling into a trap--a fallacy about how the public reacts.
Tracey Chapman sings about being a grocery clerk.
Sting sings about being a sailor.
Rob Zombie sings about dismembering bodies.
The Spin Doctors sing about being Jimmy Olson.
3 Doors Down sing about being Superman.
Nobody believes that they are or do those things.
But Eminem sings about something that offends people. And in their indignant state, they have to direct their ire somewhere. They can't direct it at the song, so they direct it at the singer. *Obviously* he's a racist pig, because he sings about it.
Look at the songs/singers people make the claims about, and you'll see that they're only reacting to the negative.
Blaze
--------
A warrior is judged by his enemies,
A man by his friends.
PM me your address. I'll send you a mix CD.
Two words, friends:
Will FREAKING Smith.
"Smart folks don't need to put no cursin' in their rhymes."
Oh Will, is there anything you don't know?
- HB
Does this mean 3 Doors Down is better than The Spin Doctors?
Now.. do add something to the discussion.
I actually play in a cover band. We exclusively cover Counting Crows.. because the music and the lyrics appeals to us. Adam writes about his personal life alot and opens up in his performances.
Gwen Stefani for instance is clearly only in it for the bucks. Altering her "style" to fit the current cool.
The same goes for almost everybody famous who is being controlled by the recordcompany. I personally prefer my music honest.
Sting singing about being a sailor are his real fealings.t That whole CD was about his father recently, and the sailor was a methafor (sp?) for burrying and saying goodbye to him. Eminem rapping about wanting to kill bitches, hopefully, is not talking about what he really wants to do. Unless it is ofcourse a methafor for.. eeuuhh... dunno.
And H-B,
Eminem: "Will Smith doesn't have to curse to sell records. Well I do, so fuck him and fuck you too" :p
I'm gonna eat you little fishie
I would pay good money to see Eminem fight Will Smith. Possibly in some sort of death-cage, or "Thunderdome" if you will. Two rappers enter, one rapper leaves. Then we could use the cage to make oasis fight a pack of rabid wolves.
Anyway, buster said
And to be fair, there ARE a few people like that. Mariah Carey for example. No-one sits and analyses her lyrics and she is widely considered to have a great voice (I know fuck all from fuck all about the technicalities of music, I'm tone deaf, but I'm told she has like a world record range on her voice or something?). Charlotte Church (opera moppet turned crap pop-monger).
Its probably just as well that no-one analyses their lyrics, because its all fairly generic pop crap so far as I've heard, but they ARE known as having good voices.
I guess you could count people like tina turner, shirley bassey and diana ross too. Their fans dont care WHAT they are singing, but they like their voices.
This Space For Rent
That's great. Some very good friends of mine (and one of the best blues bands I've ever seen) do 90% covers and 10% original material.. and I *love* it. Cover bands, however, are, sadly, pretty low on the totem pole as far as musicians go -- only covering on the way to writing their own music according to many of my friends.
See, this is the kind of derogatory statement I just don't get. How can you tell she's in it for the bucks? And if she were, what in god's name is wrong with that? (eg. I *love* my job.. but let's be honest.. I'm in it for the money. I fully expect to be retired and *not* doing my job inside of 10 years) Gwen Stefani is, to me, a very stylish, talented entertainer who does what it takes to entertain with a highly non-conventional style (influenced, of course, by Cyndi Lauper and probably Madonna too).
Re: changing style: I remember a friend of mine who used to rag on bands/singers for changing their style (Alanis Morisette, Metallica, umm. others I can't remember). His idea was that if one style is true to themselves then they should stick to it since it impies that the other style is false. Why must artists be unchanging? Can't they evolve and learn?
To quote Ricky from a Canadian show called 'Trailer Park Boys': "If I can't smoke and I can't swear.. I'm fucked!"
Madonna.
I don't like her songs at all, but I have the highest respect for her as a businesswoman. She's taken a page from the David Bowie Book of Business, and has reinvented herself quite a number of times--but always in just the right way to keep her ahead of the curve. While everyone else is following the trends, she's setting them--and then getting out before they become cliche.
There are quite a number of singers/bands that have evolved and grown into a new sound. But there are far more who have sold out and are just in it for the bucks.
Eric Clapton has (in my opinion) gotten much better as he's gotten older.
U2 has sold out and become pop crap.
Blaze
--------
A warrior is judged by his enemies,
A man by his friends.
I concur with Buster and Blaze.
...can I have a cookie now PLEEEEEEASE??
:( Nobody gives me cookies anymore :(
Marg
I'm the cousin of this Geek called Steph...
~~ www.marula.ca ~~
I agree with you... I've played in numerous original band... but wanted a change.. and it kinda grew out of proportions. but I do miss making original music and am planning on forming a band for that purpose soon.
I didn't say it was bad...
I just wanted to point out that her "style" changes to where ever the big bucks are and/or her record company tells her to change it to. And in the mean time trying to fool kids into thinking she's really like that.
Once again... change is good... keeps things fresh...
I personally just can't stand the "Hmm... where is the money this week" style change.
*gives Marg a cookie*
I'm gonna eat you little fishie
Pssst. Little girl.... wanna cookie?
Blaze
--------
A warrior is judged by his enemies,
A man by his friends.
8O *dances* :D
*munch, munch*
Marg
I'm the cousin of this Geek called Steph...
~~ www.marula.ca ~~