Different definitions of "commercial"
Leo Breebaart
> I have no axe to grind either way on this issue, but it strikes me as a
> fairly narrow definition to clasify *all* music that sells well as
> commercial.
Hmmm. I always thought the very definition of e.g. "commercial product" was:
"something that sells well". I don't quite see how this can be a "narrow"
definition -- all my life I have seen the word only used in this sense.
Usenet is the one place I know of where it is regularly defined as
synonymous to "sell-out/un-creative".
> 1) Commercial music - music that gets the largest amount
> of commercial air space on the largest radio stations.
>
> Now I can not say what happened in other cities, but with the exception of
> "Money" Dark Side Of The Moon recieved relatively little airplay on largest
> commercial radio stations here in Madison.
If you use this definition, then how *do* you describe the success of
groups like Pink Floyd and Rush? They sell millions of albums, play
to sold-out stadiums world-wide. Simply because Michael Jackson gets
played *more* on the radio you would call Jackson commercial and Floyd
not? And what would you then call a group who doesn't sell milions
of albums *at all* and gets *no* airplay? "Even less commercial"?
> It seems to me that for the more popular artists in any field of music
> selling out would be impossible under the "sell a lot of albums" definition
> of commercial since they already were commercial.
You are forgetting that music can be commercial for a lot of different
reasons, e.g. as Rod Johnson pointed out: because it panders to the
audience, or because it simply is the greatest music ever made.
When she moves from one end of this spectrum to the other, an artist can
be accused of selling out, even though she indeed remains commercial at
both times. What's impossible about that?
> The other definition I can think of and possibly more alligned with my
> current definition of "commerical" would be:
>
> 1) Commercial music - music that was written with the intent of
> getting the largest amount of commercial air space on the
> largest radio stations.
Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
If you want to have meaningful discussions about music, you have to
separate 'author's intent' from the actual attributes of the finished
product as perceived by an audience.
> I never got the impression from Pink Floyd
> that they were intending to produce a highly successful commercial album
> with Dark Side Of The Moon. I got more of the impression that they were
> simply trying to produce more of what there fans had become accustom to.
Surely that is exactly the same thing as the New Kids On The Block are
doing, right?
> If simply selling a lot of albums constitutes an album being commercial
> then would it not be possible for an album to sell poorly when released
> (i.e. Styx II), thus being non-commercial, then later sell lots of copies
> and become commercial?
I would say that the music had always been *potentially* commercial.
> Something about a definition that would define commercialism as transient
> seems inconsistent to me.
Not to me. Things go in and out of fashion. So does music. What was commercial
way back when may be unsellable to today's audiences. What is commercial in
Europe may not be in Zimbabwe. "Commercial" is an attribute of music, yes, but
it is by its very nature (or at least by my definition, of course) linked to
the audience of that music, and to the culture in which it is produced. You
cannot hold up a piece of music out of context and say: "this music is
commercial, for ever and ever, amen".
> Wouldn't such a definition mean that *all* music no matter how bizzare,
> cultish, or off the wall today is potentialy "commercial" since in the
> future it may become immensly popular?
Yes it would. And the keyword here is 'potentially'.
If in fifteen years Rai-music is all over the top 40, then a piece of Rai-
music made today could well become very popular then, and may be commercial
*by the standards of that time, fifteen years from now*. But for our culture
*today*, making rai-music is simply not going result something commercial.
Since most of our discussions center on the music of *today*, not on the
music of the future, so it's perfectly reasonable to talk about
commercial or non-commercial, while excepting as given, and irrelevant
to the discussion, that all non-commercial bands are really just Whitney
Houstons waiting to happen.
Nirvans is already #3 in the Dutch charts, by the way...
> It seems to me that a definition of "commercial" as any album that sells
> more than "X" copies is simply not alligned with the common definition
> of what most people mean when they call something commercial. I suppose
> that such a definition may be more fun for those with really outlandish
> tastes as it allows them to think of themselves as "cool" and "hipper
> than thou" by casting almost every kind of music as commercial except
> for this really small band that *I* discovered.
On the contrary, it is *your* definition of 'commercialism as intent' that
allows people to show their coolness by saying that on the one hand
Pink Floyd is great, regardless of how much success they have, because they
never *intended* to be commercial, while on the other hand Whitney Houston
stinks since we all know she only does it for the money.
--
Leo Breebaart (leo @ ph.tn.tudelft.nl)
Bernie Rauscher
>> The other definition I can think of and possibly more alligned with my
>> current definition of "commerical" would be:
>>
>> 1) Commercial music - music that was written with the intent of
>> getting the largest amount of commercial air space on the
>> largest radio stations.
>
>Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
>relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
>he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
>Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
>..... Stuff Deleted ...
>.....
>On the contrary, it is *your* definition of 'commercialism as intent' that
>allows people to show their coolness by saying that on the one hand
>Pink Floyd is great, regardless of how much success they have, because they
>never *intended* to be commercial, while on the other hand Whitney Houston
>stinks since we all know she only does it for the money.
I beg to differ, --intent is everything. The intent guides and shapes the work.
I think this applies to all the arts as well as music. Whatever the definition
of "good", I think this is valid.
As for "cool" friends holding Pink Floyd above Whitney Houston because
"we all know she only does it for the money", you might ask of them: would
you do your job for free? I suspect more than a few people in this country
can't answer "yes" to the question. In those cases, so much for cool.
Erland Sommarskog
>Hmmm. I always thought the very definition of e.g. "commercial product" was:
>"something that sells well". I don't quite see how this can be a "narrow"
>definition -- all my life I have seen the word only used in this sense.
>Usenet is the one place I know of where it is regularly defined as
>synonymous to "sell-out/un-creative".
Well, if we had met in the mid-seventies when I was a angry young man
and you had asked me about what I meant with "commercial", I would
have given you what you call the Usenet definition, so this definition
certainly is more spread than this forum. But maybe you grew up in
some sheltered place? :-)
And way back then, I would also have told you that I hated commercial
music as hell. But since then I have become old and wiser. I haven't
changed my definition of "commercial" very much - with commercial in
case of music I still mean something which was made to make profit.
The difference is that I have realized that something still can be
made for profit, and still have an artistic value. And even more I
have realized that commercial music can be good, just as well as
non-commercial music can be bad, regardless how much artistic value
it has. "Good" and "bad" here of course relates to my listening
experiences.
And I have also realized that many of the groups I hailed in my teens,
were just as commercial as many acts as I swore over.
>Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
>relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
>he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
>Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
It is very true that in most cases we don't know the intent. We do
know it some cases, though. Some artists are actually quite frank
about that they want to make success. In some cases they say the
opposite, but since there is a market in seeming non-commercial, they
might be lying.
Take a band like Gentle Giant. Surely fans of so called "progressive"
music would be tempted to call them "non-commercial". But at least
with the latter albums, they made enourmous efforts to make it big.
They tried various styles including the awful failure "Giant for a
Day", and their very good final album "Civilian", which was - new
wave! But when they didn't get the success, they gave up, which I
am surely not the only one to complain.
Or take Roxette. Almost from the very start of his career, Per
Gessle has always aimed at becoming big in the rock business.
And he succeeded, almost right from the start, first in Sweden,
then internationally. And why not? He certainly has the talent.
And from this reasoning follows that I believe that "Dark Side of
the Moon" was made to make money. If EMI/Harvest hadn't believe
it would sell, they would never have distributed it.
But there is no problem with this - unless you introduce some syn-
thetic thesis that "commercial" => "decreased artistic value".
And commit the fallacy that everything is black and white. Music
is either "commercial and not art" or "art and not commercial".
Most often there is a mixture.
Take "Dark Side of the Moon". Of course Pink Floyd had some artistic
intent. Or take Roxette's "Look Sharp!" which I recently have been
enjoying. It's intent is to entertain, beside the one of profit. There
is maybe no intention of what we could call "art" - but even the
the intent of the "art" side of the moon is the end the same, namely
to entertain. This "commercial" => "no art" and vice versa is stupid.
If Per Gessle hadn't cared about the bucks - do you think he would
have produced anything like "Dark Side of the Moon"? Of course not!
Artists are more or less commercial, but the absolute majority of them
also the make the music they like, with commercial regards taken.
>On the contrary, it is *your* definition of 'commercialism as intent' that
>allows people to show their coolness by saying that on the one hand
>Pink Floyd is great, regardless of how much success they have, because they
>never *intended* to be commercial, while on the other hand Whitney Houston
>stinks since we all know she only does it for the money.
Which reminds me: I certainly hope no one believes that the Pink
Floyd that made "Momentary Lapse of Reason" and toured it was in
it than for something else than the money.
--
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - som...@enea.se
Leo Breebaart
> But there is no problem with this - unless you introduce some syn-
> thetic thesis that "commercial" => "decreased artistic value".
Which is what nine out of ten readers of r.m.misc do, again and again
and again.
This discussion about definitions has been qute interesting so far,
and it shows that there *are* many people on the net capable of
(a) talking about this reasonably, and (b) distinguishing nuances,
subtleties.
It's just the black/white attitude that keeps pissing me off.
> Artists are more or less commercial, but the absolute majority of them
> also the make the music they like, with commercial regards taken.
Amen.
Edward Thomas Keller
I agree that any music that sells well is "commercial" by a technical
definition, but I have to admit that I also do -- almost unconsciously --
attach a negative connotation to the word. This gets back a little to what
someone said about the Artist's Intent(tm). The closest thing I think you
can get to this is by observing what music is being made at the time an
artist releases a piece of work. If it's obvious that the artist is just
fitting into an existing style that is already quite popular, I would call
that "commercial" (in the negative sense ;-). New Kids, Air Supply, Manilow
are all (IMHO) decent examples of this, as are metal bands that are doing
nothing the expand that music's horizons ("No names avoids flames" :-), etc.
etc. ad infinitum. For instance, when the Police's first album came out in
the UK, it was massively successful, thus commercial in the technical sense,
but I think few people would have guessed on style alone that this sparse,
reggae-influenced pseudo-new-wave punk with the unusual voice would be
so successful. I would therefore not call the Police (at that time) a
commercial band.
Another, even better example: A friend of mine sort of lumps 60's music
together in one big bin, instead of acknowledging a progression over time
in its sounds. Thus, the Beatles' Revolver and Sgt. Pepper albums "sound
just like other 60's music," and are thus commercial in the negative sense.
I can't deny the commercial success of these albums, but they broke major
new ground and certainly can't have been aimed at the fast buck.
Of course, if a band has a new sound (so, for the sake of this argument,
uncommercial), then attains major success with that sound. There are bound
to be imitators. So three years later this band is still plodding along, only
now they are surrounded on the air-waves by sound-alikes; are they commercial
by my bad definition now?
Well, probably not, if they really are the ones that popularized the sound, bu
t if they still sound the same 3 years later, they're stagnant as hell, so
who cares? (-:
Anyhow, just my thoughts.
Peace
Edward
************************************************************************
* "I'm sitting here, in the abandoned brain, * Edward Thomas Keller *
* waiting for take-off in it. * Tree...@cup.portal.com *
* They say it's never gonna work again, * *
* but I can spare a few minutes." * The Whethermen *
* -Robyn Hitchcock * *
************************************************************************
Jeff Beck
>l...@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) writes in answer to a previous post:
>>Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
>>relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
>>he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
>>Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
Well, lots of times you can get a pretty good idea of what the artist was
trying to do when they wrote the song. Some of the more "poppy" REO songs
come to mind... besides, most musicians try to make music that will 'sell'
as well. What's the use of putting out an album that won't even pay for
its own production and printing costs? I don't know of many musicians that
would put out an album they really liked if they knew it would never sell
>As for "cool" friends holding Pink Floyd above Whitney Houston because
>"we all know she only does it for the money", you might ask of them: would
>you do your job for free? I suspect more than a few people in this country
>can't answer "yes" to the question. In those cases, so much for cool.
I don't think that is a valid question. I don't know ANYONE that would
do their job for free. I mean, you have to have money to live on.
Now, if you asked some musicians who make, say, 20K or less a year if
they would be willing to take a job that pays 50K or more and they said
"no", well, then that might be reasonable.
--
******************************************************************************
* Jason Bold - Madison,WI: [(rutgers||ames)!uwvax||att!nicmad]!astroatc!bold *
* "Is this the real life, is this just fantasy?" - Freddie Mercury - RIP *
******************************************************************************
Bernie Rauscher
>In article <1992Jan6.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> b...@oddjob.UChicago.EDU () writes:
>>l...@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) writes in answer to a previous post:
>>>Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
>>>relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
>>>he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
>>>Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
>Well, lots of times you can get a pretty good idea of what the artist was
>trying to do when they wrote the song. Some of the more "poppy" REO songs
>come to mind... besides, most musicians try to make music that will 'sell'
>as well. What's the use of putting out an album that won't even pay for
>its own production and printing costs? I don't know of many musicians that
>would put out an album they really liked if they knew it would never sell
It depends what you mean by "sell". There are a an awful lot of 7" records
(some bad, some good, a very few great) that limit their horizons to a
particular scene. There is a lot to be said for not trying to be all things
to all people. These records do sell in the literal sense, but nobody makes a
living off them (although they probably hope to one day).
>>As for "cool" friends holding Pink Floyd above Whitney Houston because
>>"we all know she only does it for the money", you might ask of them: would
>>you do your job for free? I suspect more than a few people in this country
>>can't answer "yes" to the question. In those cases, so much for cool.
>I don't think that is a valid question. I don't know ANYONE that would
>do their job for free. I mean, you have to have money to live on.
>Now, if you asked some musicians who make, say, 20K or less a year if
>they would be willing to take a job that pays 50K or more and they said
>"no", well, then that might be reasonable.
Once again, it's a matter of degree, -- and I admit I didn't make that
distinction in my previous post. Perhaps a better question is would
you work a day job or live on much less than your peers to support your "true"
calling, assumed to be what you do now? I'm asking the suspected "cool"
person if they live by the standards they to apply to entertainers. It's
a very cynical question when you consider that being "very well off
financially" is "very important" to nearly 3/4 of American college
students (and this statistic has been steady since the early '80s(this is
in a recent Harpers Index)).
If this is the question, I suspect that some (maybe many) of the
readers can answer yes. Another variations is: would you still work your job
(same responsitilities and same hours) if your were independently wealthy.
Once again, I think you'll find people who would.
To my mind, a more interesting question is: why do people in a capitalist
society (it goes way beyond USENET) conclude Commercial Music == Bad Music?
go away and leave me alone!
>
>> The other definition I can think of and possibly more alligned with my
>> current definition of "commerical" would be:
>>
>> 1) Commercial music - music that was written with the intent of
>> getting the largest amount of commercial air space on the
>> largest radio stations.
OK, then the most non-commercial music is written with the intent of
never being heard by any one? Lets get a grip here - everyone that
writes and records music for a living writes every song with the idea
that it will be their biggest hit. If you don't think it will sell, why
take the time and effort to record it? Would Heurikon take the time to
develop a software or hardware product if they didn't think anyone would
buy it?
Music is a business - no one sets out to write flops.
If you really _need_ a standard for "commercial music", how about this:
What I say is commercial is commercial and what I say isn't isn't. That
seems to sum up most attempts to define it.
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcar...@encore.com
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization." -Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC
Leo Breebaart
>>>> Since we can never look into an artist's mind, I simply cannot see the
>>>> relevance of defining "commercial" in terms of the artist's *intent* when
>>>> he wrote the music. Most musicians have the intent to make 'good' music.
>>>> Should we therefore start calling all such music 'good'?
This statement sparked a lot of replies and discussion, and for the most
part I have nothing much to add to it.
The one thing I did note, was that a lot of people still seem to believe
that in many cases you *can* derive some useful information about a
record or song, by listening to what the author says about what his intent
was.
I still dispute that. To me it is very similar to how artists in interviews
are *always* proclaiming that their latest album (i.e. the one they are
currently having to plug) is "the best thing" they have done yet.
I do not doubt for a minute that the majority of them (a) really means
this -- it is only logical to feel the proudest about a just finished
product, and (b) are aware that it would be stupid to say anything else,
PR-wise, even if e.g. the members of the band were not even on speaking
terms when this "best thing" was created.
And it is exactly the same with 'intent'. Most of what is being said is
probably honestly meant, as well as a 'good thing' to say, commercially.
But all that does not tells us anything about what the actual product is
going to be like, *unless we at least listen to it first*.
> To my mind, a more interesting question is: why do people in a capitalist
> society (it goes way beyond USENET) conclude Commercial Music == Bad Music?
Generlaize the question slightly: why do people feel that True Art can only
be produced by a divinely inspired artist who keeps writing/painting/composing
because of some maniacal Inner Drive, and who would (to quote a famous Dutch
essayist) *keep on* writing/painting/composing even if he was all alone on a
deserted island?
The Vincent van Gogh idea, you know. And I do not know the answer.
As that same essayist then went on to say (in anticipation of some of
the previous remarks in this thread): the artistic, creative process is a
mosaic, made up out of a number of differently colored stones and pebbles.
To hold up one particular pebble to the light and say "Look, this is
*it*", is senseless.
Erland Sommarskog
>I agree that any music that sells well is "commercial" by a technical
>definition, but I have to admit that I also do -- almost unconsciously --
>attach a negative connotation to the word. This gets back a little to what
>someone said about the Artist's Intent(tm).
Yes, yes, but did you read my article which appears in the References
line the header of your article?
What I tried to say that I use the word "commercial" to mean intent,
but I also said that there is not necessarily something negative
with that. There used to be a time when I believed that, but not
anymore.
James Preston
}OK, then the most non-commercial music is written with the intent of
}never being heard by any one? Lets get a grip here - everyone that
}writes and records music for a living writes every song with the idea
}that it will be their biggest hit. If you don't think it will sell, why
}take the time and effort to record it?
}Music is a business - no one sets out to write flops.
Sure, but the popularity of a piece of music or an artist is not an
either/or proposition; there's a whole continuum. I take it from what
you write that if you were the president of a record company, any artist
that didn't sell as well as Michael Jackson would be dropped. Or maybe
anytime an artist's album didn't sell as well as the previous album, you'd
drop him.
The above is just as clearly absurd as the statement, "everyone . . .
writes every song with the idea that it will be their biggest hit."
It is possible to write a song (or to produce any work of art) that
you personally like, and that you feel SOME of the public will like,
but that you don't think by any means will be your "biggest hit". It
is possible to be content with SUFFICIENT profits from your work, rather
than to need the greatest possible profits. It is possible to be "an
artist", to be true to your own artistic ideals, to produce what YOU
want to produce and have it sell well enough to make it profitable while
not deliberately engineering your work in an effort to make it sell as
much as possible.
To me, this is what separates "commercial" from "non-commercial". Artists
like New Kids on the Block or Madonna quite clearly tailor what they produce
in specific ways with the specific goal of selling absolutely as much of
the product as they possibly can. One doesn't have to look into their
minds to know their intent. Artists like Queen, on the other hand, (at
least in the beginning), or The Police (to use another poster's example)
were not so obviously deliberately trying to appeal to the widest possible
audience. They seemed much more to be trying to produce what they themselves
valued and felt had meaning. Obviously, they (and the record producers)
believed that the product had SOME commercial appeal, but I'll bet lots
of money that no one involved in Queen's first album was trying to make
something that would sell like _Thriller_.
Whether something is "commercial" really needs to be judged beforehand,
and it can only be done on a relative basis. Taking examples from a
different artistic endeavor, let's compare two movies, _Hudson Hawk_ and
_Driving Miss Daisy_. Which one made the most money? I don't have the
figures, but my guess would be the latter. But which one is more commercial?
I think most people's "gut reaction" would be that _Hudson Hawk_ is far
more commercial. It was clearly designed to have mass appeal and to pull
in mega-profits. That it failed to do so surely chagrined those involved.
_Driving Miss Daisy_, on the other hand, surprised those who made it by
doing better than expected. I don't believe that they started that movie
by saying, "This oughta pull in as much as _Die Hard_." I don't believe
that they were shooting for "their biggest hit", as wcarroll wrote. I
believe that they wanted to make a nice little movie that would appeal
to enough people to earn a reasonable profit. They weren't looking for
great commercial success. That the movie ended up being so popular doesn't
suddenly make it a "commercial" movie, at least by my usage of the term,
and it certainly doesn't make it "more commercial" than _Hudson Hawk_.
--James Preston
Clayton Glad
> Artists like New Kids on the Block or Madonna quite clearly tailor
>what they produce in specific ways with the specific goal of selling
>absolutely as much of the product as they possibly can.
Surely you mean to qualify this. NKOTB, for example, couldn't get anyone
outside of their audience of 10-16 year-old suburban girls to buy one of
their records on a dare. Is it "commercial" to so alienate all but one
demographic slice?
Besides, I'm still not sure what aside from the subsequent sales you take
to be such obvious evidence of commerical design.
>Artists like Queen, on the other hand, (at least in the beginning),
>or The Police (to use another poster's example) were not so obviously
>deliberately trying to appeal to the widest possible audience.
But, if anything, these groups appeal to a *wider* audience than does
NKOTB.
No one can sell everything to everyone. Queen and the Police have their
target audiences just as NKOTB and Madonna do. If you want to say that
their music is "less commercial" (or, "sounds great!") you'd have to
claim that their albums aren't designed to sell to those audiences.
Saying that some popular artist with loads of corporate support is
any more or less commerical than some other artist with loads of
corporate support is just another way of identifying with one demographic
group rather than some other.
-- Clay
Mason Jones
>In article <1992Jan6.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> b...@oddjob.UChicago.EDU () writes:
>>l...@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) writes in answer to a previous post:
>
>trying to do when they wrote the song. Some of the more "poppy" REO songs
>come to mind... besides, most musicians try to make music that will 'sell'
>as well. What's the use of putting out an album that won't even pay for
>its own production and printing costs? I don't know of many musicians that
>would put out an album they really liked if they knew it would never sell
I know literally hundreds. I could post a list of several pages of
artists who released albums not giving a damn whether or not they would
sell. If you release an album with 500-1000 copies, they're eventually
going to sell. Maybe very slowly, but the word will get around and
they'll sell. The ones I've released have sold quite fine, but I didn't
really care that much -- I wanted to get the music out there. If you
find the people who released albums not caring about the sales, you'll
find the really honest music.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Mason Jones, H&A Computer Services, San Francisco, CA (415) 434-3517
...{uunet,sun}!hoptoad!dante!mason or dante!ma...@hop.toad.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mason Jones
>
>I still dispute that. To me it is very similar to how artists in interviews
>are *always* proclaiming that their latest album (i.e. the one they are
>currently having to plug) is "the best thing" they have done yet.
>
>I do not doubt for a minute that the majority of them (a) really means
>this -- it is only logical to feel the proudest about a just finished
>product, and (b) are aware that it would be stupid to say anything else,
>PR-wise, even if e.g. the members of the band were not even on speaking
>terms when this "best thing" was created.
>
>And it is exactly the same with 'intent'.
The problem with this is really what the intent is -- unfortunately,
many bands will say that their latest release is the best one yet
even if they don't believe it, as you said. The question one must
logically ask, then, is "Why the hell would they release something if
it *wasn't* the best thing yet?" One of two reasons spring to mind:
1. Their record company said "get this done by this date
or else." They did what they could, but they can't fight
their record company.
2. They suddenly realized that they've lost it, and this is
now the best they can do.
Either way, if they weren't concerned about the money, they would just
throw in the towel.
I suspect that many more bands than you think probably get caught
in situation number 1, for various reasons. The big record companies
aren't going to let a band dick around for months in the studio, eating
up time and money. For various reasons, then, bands can easily end
up releasing something they don't particularly think is their best
release yet. That's one big problem with the major labels, of course,
and the reason why many bands, when they sign to a major label, suddenly
seem as though they've lost all their talent. They haven't, it's just
that they've lost control.
Derek Tearne
>
>Take a band like Gentle Giant. Surely fans of so called "progressive"
>music would be tempted to call them "non-commercial". But at least
>with the latter albums, they made enourmous efforts to make it big.
>They tried various styles including the awful failure "Giant for a
>Day", and their very good final album "Civilian", which was - new
>wave! But when they didn't get the success, they gave up, which I
>am surely not the only one to complain.
Now that was a great band - and I totally agree with your comments.
Do you ( or anyone else ) know how many of their records are available
on CD. as my tapes are getting a little worn out now and my few
vinyl discs are a long way away!.
I have got "Playing the fool" Live on CD and
They were supposed to release "Gentle Giant" but I have heard no more.
Bit about commercialism
If this [the net definition] means that the most *artistic* content is
contained in the *least* commercial music (and vice versa) then the most
accomplished musicians/artists should be playing music that nobody
(including themselves) wants to hear!
Somehow that doesn't seem right to me.
Also this *selling out* business seems to work both ways. Take
Nik Kershaw - a gifted and talented artist who started out by playing
some very commercial songs and being screamed at by lots of teanage girls.
Therefore pure commercialism and no talent? (Wrong)
When he started putting more songs on his albums which showed his true
talent he was slated by the media/reviewers for trying to get a *serious*
image! Listen to Radio Musicola for another side of the story (Why can't
they let us do it like Joni does it?) His first three albums contained
some pretty good stuff!
Lets just get on with listening to the music and forget about these other
value judgements based on non musical considerations - remember Mozart,
Handel, Strauss etc where all in it for the money and so were the Sex Pistols!
--- Derek.
--
Derek Tearne de...@fivegl.co.nz | If you don't try it for yourself
3/16 Trafalgar Rd, Milford, Auckland.| you'll never know how much fun it
New Zealand. | is (or isn't).
Ken Josenhans
>Surely you mean to qualify this. NKOTB, for example, couldn't get anyone
>outside of their audience of 10-16 year-old suburban girls to buy one of
>their records on a dare. Is it "commercial" to so alienate all but one
>demographic slice?
Sure, if you get enough of that demographic slice. In the last list
of the world's highest earning entertainers (from Forbes? Fortune?),
New Kids were at the top of the pile, beating out Madonna, Michael
Jackson, Steven Spielberg, Charles Schulz and all the rest.
--
--Ken Josenhans
BITNET: 13020KRJ@MSU Internet: 1302...@msu.edu
William Spencer
>In article <39...@astroatc.UUCP> bo...@astroatc.UUCP (Jeff Beck) writes:
>> What's the use of putting out an album that won't even pay for
>>its own production and printing costs? I don't know of many musicians that
>>would put out an album they really liked if they knew it would never sell
You don't ever really know if it'll sell! Some exceptions, but if *you* like
it, maybe someone else will. No Commercial Intent means "this is what we
like, what we do, only one way to find out what people think of it."
A definition of truly commercial is to be the same as something proven to sell
or is selling. I don't think the proven successful approach works very often
any more. Therefore you have talent scouts going around looking for stuff that
"isn't commercial," even though they want to sell records.
bill S.
David Vessell
>To my mind, a more interesting question is: why do people in a capitalist
>society (it goes way beyond USENET) conclude Commercial Music == Bad Music?
I recently thought this over whilst knee-deep in the infamous 'davE abuses
his MonsterCard again' flamefest in rec.music.industrial awhile back. I
made the mistake of commenting that my CD collection contained, among
other things, Liza Minnelli next to Ministry next to Kylie Minogue.
My gripe is not with the artists. Being one who dabbles in music myself,
it's not something that most people do just for the money for the most
part. Even the most derivative artist, provided he has any control over
his situation, might try to be just like, say, Led Zeppelin because he
thinks they're reelly kuul. No real harm in that. If he does it really
really well then there's still some merit to it. Even if he's not that
good, if his heart is in the right place, then it has merit. The old
Artist's Intent[tm] thang, as someone earlier succinctly put it.
No, my gripe is, and always has been, with the music industry as a whole,
the way the multinational corporations who own the major labels treat music
as just another commodity that can be bought and sold. If they can find a
mediocre artist who has very wide appeal (the Lowest Common Denominator
thang), the record company will expend a lot of energy to make sure that
eveyone eventually starts thinking that This is Good Music. Buy it. It
Will Make You Look Cool. And more deserving, more esoteric artists get
ignored because They Have No Mass Appeal. There's No Money In It.
There are exceptions, of course. How many alternative acts has Sire
Records been able to sign and foster because of the label's one true money
maker (Madonna)? Could Mute Records have afforded to go on their
tremendous industrial music CD reissue campaign without the commercial
clout of Depeche Mode? And of course the indie labels are always on the
periphery....
The fact is that most people who claim to be musically enlightened probably
also are more inclined to distrust the monolithic face of big business
aiming to exploit the masses rather than serve them. To a large part, I
agree. But rather than flame, I try to suggest. I don't know how many
Negativland fans I've created just by playing them "The Playboy Channel".
People aren't stupid. They know what they like. But if they're not
exposed to true alternatives to slick cheap commodity music, they'll never
know to ask otherwise.
And, of course, if one truly LIKES Barry Manilow, so be it. The man has
more musical integrity than a lot of other artists....
Oh yes, and I will continue to keep my Kylie Minogue disk in the same box
as my Ministry disks. (I can see the headline now....EAST BLUFF APARTMENT
SPONTANEOUSLY EXPLODES, THREE DEAD =-)
--
========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.========
"'Cause I can see the future, and it's a place....
about seventy miles east of here...." ---Laurie Anderson
(David Vessell) (Bradley University Computing Services) (da...@bradley.edu)
Craig Burley
I have got "Playing the fool" Live on CD and
They were supposed to release "Gentle Giant" but I have heard no more.
They've released "Gentle Giant", "Acquiring the Taste", "Three Friends",
"Octopus", and "The Power and the Glory", in addition to "Playing the Fool",
at least. I haven't heard if any others have been released. And, no, I
don't know who "they" are offhand -- two days ago I had all these CDs in
my briefcase with me here at work, but as of today I had only "Playing the
Fool" which you already have. Let me know if you need catalog numbers or
some such thing.
--
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
David Vessell
>OK, then the most non-commercial music is written with the intent of
>never being heard by any one? Lets get a grip here - everyone that
>writes and records music for a living writes every song with the idea
>that it will be their biggest hit. If you don't think it will sell, why
>take the time and effort to record it? Would Heurikon take the time to
>develop a software or hardware product if they didn't think anyone would
>buy it?
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I haven't met many programmers who are as
protective of their code as musicians are of their songs. While I agree
with your general sentiment, anyone who calls himself an artist then sits
down and says "I'm going to write a hit" has his heart in the wrong place.
>Music is a business - no one sets out to write flops.
True. Art is useless if there is no audience for it to affect. On the
other hand, I'm not going to throw myself off the top of Geisert Hall if I
don't score a Billboard hit in this decade. I think many share my feeling
that if SOMEONE gets domething out of it, then it's worth it. Negativland
just got whopped with a lawsuit, the settlement of which is more than the
band has ever made over ten years (about $80K). They're still doing their
thing. They still have day jobs. They do it for the sake of doing it
first, and for money second. It's not that unusual.
>If you really _need_ a standard for "commercial music", how about this:
>What I say is commercial is commercial and what I say isn't isn't. That
>seems to sum up most attempts to define it.
That's about the closest thing to a concensus that we're gonna reach, to be
sure.
kenneth.lang
Gentle Giant
Acquiring the Taste
Three Friends
Power & the Glory
Octopus
Playing the Fool
Free Hand
Personally, I'd like to see Living in a Glass House , since I can't even find
it on vinyl.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
** Ken Lang AT&T *
*"The dust blows forward and the dust blows back on the toads of the *
* short forest and every newt in Idaho."- A sampling of Don Van Vliet & FZ*
Derrick Rowlandson
>In article <1992Jan14.0...@fivegl.co.nz> de...@fivegl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
> I have got "Playing the fool" Live on CD and
> They were supposed to release "Gentle Giant" but I have heard no more.
>They've released "Gentle Giant", "Acquiring the Taste", "Three Friends",
>"Octopus", and "The Power and the Glory", in addition to "Playing the Fool",
>at least. I haven't heard if any others have been released. And, no, I
You forgot FREE HAND, which is also available. SUpposedly they are to release
Free Hand and Power and teh Glory on a single CD sometime this year.
Derrick
David Ewing
I read somewhere that "The Power and the Glory" and "Free Hand"
are going to be released on one CD in the near future. I realize
that they are currently available individually. Does anyone
else know about this ?
******************************************************************************
David A. Ewing
David...@SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM || ew...@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM
******************************************************************************
sir Ola Rinta-Koski
>They've released "Gentle Giant", "Acquiring the Taste", "Three Friends",
>"Octopus", and "The Power and the Glory", in addition to "Playing the Fool",
>at least. I haven't heard if any others have been released.
"Free Hand" is also out on CD. A rumor has it that "Power And The Glory"
and "Free Hand" will be re-released on one CD this year.
>And, no, I
>don't know who "they" are offhand
"They" are either Capitol Records (in USA) or Line Records (in
Germany). "Playing The Fool" is on Castle Communications (the sublabel
is Essential Records).
--
sir ola rinta-koski ! "Samaten ihmetytt{{ idiootit, jotka yritt{v{t laulaa
jmt 1 a 57, 02150 espoo ! nuotin vierest{ osaamatta, tai v{{r{ss{ rytmiss{.
o...@vipunen.hut.fi ! Sellaisia on, mutta eiv{t kaikki ole sellaisia."
! -- Kuisma Lappalainen
Philip Kime
>
> I have got "Playing the fool" Live on CD and
> They were supposed to release "Gentle Giant" but I have heard no more.
>
>They've released "Gentle Giant", "Acquiring the Taste", "Three Friends",
>"Octopus", and "The Power and the Glory", in addition to "Playing the Fool",
>at least. I haven't heard if any others have been released. And, no, I
>don't know who "they" are offhand -- two days ago I had all these CDs in
>my briefcase with me here at work, but as of today I had only "Playing the
>Fool" which you already have. Let me know if you need catalog numbers or
>some such thing.
The've also released Free Hand.....I got it on import in Glasgow lst
weekend.
James A Demes
>on CD. as my tapes are getting a little worn out now and my few
>vinyl discs are a long way away!.
>I have got "Playing the fool" Live on CD and
>They were supposed to release "Gentle Giant" but I have heard no more.
From Noteworthy Music's Fall 1991 catalog:
Acquiring the Taste [1971] - POP 842917GH - $7.70
Gentle Giant - POP 842624GH - $7.70
Octopus - CBC 32022 - $8.03
Three Friends - CBC 31649 - $8.03
Phone number: 1-800-648-7972
--
UU UU Jim Demes (de...@brahms.udel.edu or de...@freezer.it.udel.edu)
UU UU 1106 Christiana West Tower /----------------------------------|
UU DDDDDDD Newark, DE 19717-7814 / |
UUUUUUUU DD (302) 738-1736 / FOR RENT - CALL NOW! |
DD DD After Jan 18: / |
DDDDDDD (302) UDS-1736 /--------------------------------------|
Dave Scidmore
>When he started putting more songs on his albums which showed his true
>talent he was slated by the media/reviewers for trying to get a *serious*
>image!
Having listened to, and read a lot of what was said about, what used to be
called progressive music in the 70s, I noticed the same phenomena. The bands
that often got bashed the worst by reviewers were those who let the listening
public know they were accomplished at playing their instruments. For a great
while it seemed as if being able to play complex music well was held by many
reviewers as a sign of bad taste, being labeled as pretentious, overblown,
or any of a number of other endearing terms. I never could figure out what
bands like Yes and ELP were doing to earn the scorn of so many reviewers.
--
Dave Scidmore, Heurikon Corp.
dave.s...@heurikon.com
Clayton Glad
>Having listened to, and read a lot of what was said about, what used to be
>called progressive music in the 70s, I noticed the same phenomena. The bands
>that often got bashed the worst by reviewers were those who let the listening
>public know they were accomplished at playing their instruments. For a great
>while it seemed as if being able to play complex music well was held by many
>reviewers as a sign of bad taste, being labeled as pretentious, overblown,
>or any of a number of other endearing terms. I never could figure out what
>bands like Yes and ELP were doing to earn the scorn of so many reviewers.
Really? It's pretty easy to figure out if you read and know the reviewers
well. Someone like Dave Marsh can't stomach prog-rock because it deviates
from his rock-as-catharsis philosophy. Robert Christgau, like lots of
reviewers of other genres, makes "mere virtuosity" complaints.
[By the way, it's not quite fair to call these biases; they're *values* and
reviews would be void without them.]
It's also pretty easy to see that reviewers who disliked misplaced
technique did not disparage any rock musician who could "play complex
music well." Most of the critics who took ELP to task for their bombast
and Yes for their overweening compositions had nothing negative to say
about Henry Cow, (early) Soft Machine, or Can, for example.
The standard complaint about the best-known prog-rock bands wasn't
that they could play complex music, but that they played complex music
just for the sake of showing that they could play complex music.
Pointing out that technically gifted musicians often have nothing to
say predates the prog-rock era by quite a few years.
-- Clay
bill coderre
|>I never could figure out what
|>bands like Yes and ELP were doing to earn the scorn of so many reviewers.
gl...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Clayton Glad) writes:
|Most of the critics who took ELP to task for their bombast
|and Yes for their overweening compositions had nothing negative to say
|about Henry Cow, (early) Soft Machine, or Can, for example.
|The standard complaint about the best-known prog-rock bands wasn't
|that they could play complex music, but that they played complex music
|just for the sake of showing that they could play complex music.
|Pointing out that technically gifted musicians often have nothing to
|say predates the prog-rock era by quite a few years.
Boy, what a good point. It is also the standard criticism of most
"guitarist" albums as well -- each track of some of these albums is
filled with bzillions of noises, but the lyrics? Oi. They should stick
to instros.
My simple complaint against most of prog is just that I dislike
bilious, tedious, fatuous sentiment. The prog I don't like is rife
with it. That that exact set of prog is also enormously commercially
successful is secondary, but does indicate that I don't like what most
of the record buyers do -- apparently they like that sentiment. Goodie
for them.
Me? I'll take the Hampton Grease Band any day of the week. Not because
nobody's ever heard of them, and not because they have tracks that are
a skillion times more complex than anything Genesis ever did, but
because I frankly love hearing 26 minutes of alternating screed, free
jazz, pop song, and bad scat singing that derives its lyrics from a
travel brochure. (A song called "Halifax", which fills all of side 1
of the double-album. Then again, the whole album only has 6 songs on
it.)
mr HEINOUS
heinous music for heinous people
Erland Sommarskog
>It is possible to be "an
>artist", to be true to your own artistic ideals, to produce what YOU
>want to produce and have it sell well enough to make it profitable while
>not deliberately engineering your work in an effort to make it sell as
>much as possible.
>
>To me, this is what separates "commercial" from "non-commercial". Artists
>like New Kids on the Block or Madonna quite clearly tailor what they produce
>in specific ways with the specific goal of selling absolutely as much of
>the product as they possibly can. One doesn't have to look into their
>minds to know their intent.
Sounds like a witch trial to me. "You don't have ask the accused. We
know she is guilty."
The fallacy is here that you believe that if Madonna would have
produced something else if she was not in it for the money. But
let me take another example which I know more about, namely Roxette.
Surely Roxette is a very commercial act. But I can tell you that
if Per Gessle hadn't cared about the cash, the music wouldn't have
been very different. The lyrics would have been in Swedish and
funnier, but c'est tout.
>Artists like Queen, on the other hand, (at least in the beginning), or
I think this article tells us more of your tastes than which artists
are commercial and which are not. I don't know what you mean with
"in the beginning", but "Killer Queen" from their third album was
a major hit. How do you know whether that's commercial intent or Art
which happened to sell? The fact that you like Queen, but not Madonna
is hardly an evidence.
>but I'll bet lots
>of money that no one involved in Queen's first album was trying to make
>something that would sell like _Thriller_.
I don't take that bet. It is too easy for you win. When "Queen I" was
produced, there were some ten years left before "Thriller" would be
released.
By the way, "commercial" does have not to mean "intended to sell as
much as 'Thriller'".
Ray Shea
In article <12...@heurikon.heurikon.com>, Dave Scidmore writes:
> I never could figure out what
> bands like Yes and ELP were doing to earn the scorn of so many reviewers.
My own particular view on this phenomenon is that techical proficiency
for the sake of technical proficiency is, to me, useless. If the music
doesn't say something to me, I see little point in listening to it.
If someone like, say, Joe Satriani has so much talent, you would think
he could use this talent to say so much more with his music, but
when I hear it, the only message I come away with is "boy, Joe
sure knows his scales."
--
Ray Shea The shopkeeper said to George's friend, "You've
dosed your monkey, haven't you?" His friend
(415)940-2527 just smiled.
ntmtv!sh...@ames.arc.nasa.gov -- from "Curious George Does LSD"
Dave Scidmore
>My own particular view on this phenomenon is that techical proficiency
>for the sake of technical proficiency is, to me, useless. If the music
>doesn't say something to me, I see little point in listening to it.
>If someone like, say, Joe Satriani has so much talent, you would think
>he could use this talent to say so much more with his music, but
>when I hear it, the only message I come away with is "boy, Joe
>sure knows his scales."
I suppose that the contention is that those reviewers who complained
about Yes or ELP (or Joe Satriani) found nothing of redeming value in
thier music and so it seemed to them that they were just playing fast
for the sake of playing fast. I can not argue with their having that
particular opinion, however my impression was that their complaint
transcended simple like or dislike of that particular style of music.
Some reviewers seemed to automaticaly give a negative review to anything
that required technical proficency to play as if that alone were a mark
against the music (rather than the music not saying anything to them).
When a reviewer gives blanket bad reviews to any music that is
complicated or fast then I would begin to suspect a bias against
technical competence.
For my part I was initialy attracted to the "progressive" music of
the seventies by what it said to me. At the time I was not in a
position to judge how difficult the music was to play, I just
liked the way it sounded. At the point where I did start to appreciate
how difficult some of the material was to play I also recognized that
all areas, and all types, of rock music are full of talented musicians
who could play the same material as Yes, ELP, or Satriani, they simply
choose to play *thier* music instead. Technical competence allows any
musician to translate his or her ideas into music more easily, that holds
true for Thrash and Ragae as much as it does for Progressive Rock or
Jazz Fusion.