Music for record collectors and others
Some music gets listened to in high concentration, by large groups of people, for a limited time. The impact is profound, yet doesn’t have any sustaining power for the people who made it. Lots of money is exchanged for various reasons, and then the metaphorical torch gets passed. The artist(s) enter a mass, possibly eternal, state of recognition, mostly to be mocked (often by the same people who once worshiped them) for what they’ve done, ie, a “one hit wonder.”
Other music is hoarded by a smaller group of people, and perhaps is not even listened to. It is acquired obsessively with often the sole purpose of reselling it at a higher price. There is a chance the music is not even liked by most who acquire it. Money is exchanged for the rest of time; the artist(s) responsible for the music never seeing any of it. The torch never really gets passed, and the artist(s) enter a niche eternal recognition for being geniuses.
Are there any real differences between these two scenarios?
Posted in News
October 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am
arent the pleasure and the meaning created along the way you describe quite different ?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Good question. Are they? Do hitmakers take no pleasure in their work? Do others never crank material out simply because they can?
I’m not necessarily trying to prove anything with this post, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the reasons work is done and how people react to that work. I think there are fewer differences within the situation than people assume, and therefore I think it’s important for people to question their own actions – why they are doing what they do.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
i agree with you if we take the creator’s point of view.
but for the public, the listeners, isnt the pleasure in the first case more of a “dyonisian” kind (partying, passionate, related to identification, immediate enjoyment ), and in the latter “apollinian” (taking distance, obsessively collecting, acquired taste ) ? Meaning-wise, the first would be equating music with entertainment; the latter with other considerations : place in the history of music, innovation, for example.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Good points, but I think there is a similar kind of distance in both regards.
Based on what you point out, it seems the audience should also think about what they do, and why they do it.
Lately, I’ve been looking at it from both perspectives. I have regular conversations about music obsessions with other equally obsessed people, and I’m also in a pickle about what music to make, and why even to make it. But that’s my problem.
Thanks for joining in the conversation!
Jon