JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Are Artists and their ART under appreciated by the Public?

I have believed for awhile that people just expect to get Art for Free and don't have any appreciation of HOW long and hard the artist/songwriter etc. had to work to get that art out to the people. It's sad that nobody has been able to explain to the General Public anything about this. I think eventually it will be a problem AND the art will get watered down more and more and less people will do it. Just my opinion.....Art and the Artists are JUST Taken for Granted....not a pretty picture...eh?

I'm not sure that's the case.. in fact, I believe some "artists" are overpaid beyond belief, even now.

I think that is part of why art is taken so much for granted now. Artists have had a long run in the last century up untill now, where they have exploited mass communication to the maximum, even if they've had very little or nothing to contribute with.

I'm not saying artists shouldn't get reasonably paid for what they do, but earning millions on three chords, bad behaviour and good looks is not something that I applaud.

But of course everything is relative to what you mean by "art" and if you have anyone particular in mind. There are certainly examples of both over- and under appreciated artists.

I feel that the average guy has NO Idea how hard we all work to bring beauty into the world. TO THEM they just put on the Radio or video or go to a movie and like magic it's all there. Nobody appreciates things fully until they don't have it anymore.

Art is subjective..and so is reward or compensation. I don't believe I just said that. Well if it's reward you want..get what you can and run.

Pricing is really only related only to supply and demand and scarcity. Nobody cares how hard you work to make your art.....only whether they want it or not. My wife paints pictures and works very hard on them (and they are very good) but she is lucky to get $50 for the ones she sells. A Picasso, which may only consist of a few lines and a couple of hours work, could easily sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The value has nothing to do with how hard each artist worked to produce their painting. Picassos are in demand, and there is a limited supply (or they are scarce, to put it another way). There is no intrinsic value in either person's painting. They cannot be used for anything other than a wall hanging. Collectors only collect Picassos for bragging rights and because they think the value will increase.

Think about how much gold or diamonds would be worth if there was a generous supply in everybody's yard. Nobody would care about them at all. You couldn't give them away. Just another rock. Only their scarcity makes them valuable.

Music isn't any different. There are roughly 3,000 good musicians for every 1 who has a high level recording contract in the USA. The supply is so great that nobody even thinks about running out of musicians. The only ones who make a lot of money are those at the top of the heap, who are famous and have huge draws for concerts and music sales. Most other musicians (even those on tour playing with the top people) make very little. No amount of telling the public how hard working they are will change the laws of supply and demand.

I found that through half or more of 6 decades of playing for people, (spent a lot of time writing and recording when not in bands), that people really did appreciate my music, (art if you wish).

In fact, many were envious that they could not do what is players and singers did. An to write songs? Most people said they would give anything to be able to do that.

Many times, people came up and thanked us, (or me when solo), for playing.

I actually think many people might not think us music types appreciate how hard it is to work their jobs that they might even hate, or just have to do, for they can only do labor work, or whatever job they work hard at, to deliver us goods and services.

I have NO idea about the public not appreciating what we do. That sort of talk hasn't been my experience of observation at all, since I first played on a little stage in 2nd grade, right up through recently, when people brought blankets to sit on in a park in Delaware City, and told us afterwards how much they enjoyed us. THAT IS Appreciation! They know we didn't snap our fingers and have instant abilities, and learn all the songs by magic that day. Most envy those that can provide music and entertainment. That is appreciation! Clapping doesn't happen when someone is not appreciated. Our work? Do we know and appreciate their work? The ones that come out to see and hear us, and the ones who download even for free, (because WE put it there for free for anyone to grab)?

Sounds like Barry might be bitter over something?

I am damn appreciative of those who certainly appreciated me and all I have ever played with, and saw at concerts and coffee houses.

The Public made it possible for us to play out! They show up!

We do have a generation growing up that expect things for free and are not ashamed to take it for free even if it is not offered for free. They've grown up in a time of plenty and have every thing given to them, mostly by parents, so they have not learned the work ethic of their forefathers. They feel the world owes them a living without having to work for it. And then you have those that will take the talents of others, use it to make themselves rich, while paying nothing or little to those that produced that product or art.

Don't do it for the money. Money should be a possible side effect of creating music that moves your soul. For a lot of us, any money received for our hard work is promptly put back in so we can continue this wonderful dance of creation.

cultivate fans not customers. fans will give you more than you ask for. customers will look for freebies and drop you as soon as another music salesman comes by with a deal. fans can make you rich. in more ways than one. customers are fickle, fans are loyal. fans will stick by you when times are hard, customers will run as soon as the wind blows a different direction.

it may seem that folks want music or art for free, but they will pay gladly for a connection. that's what music is. a connection between the singer/writer and the person listening.

One of my favorite shows is SOUTH PARK. They always seem to make the right observations about cultural things. They have an episode called 'Guitar Queero" (Not what you'd think) that is about the boys getting a new "Guitar Hero" game. They all gather round to see who will be the top "guitar players."
Each have their little plastic guitar toys and are playing it like they think real guitars are played and cheer and yell for each other. The song is "CARRY ON MY WAYWARD SON" by Kansas.

Randy Marsh, one of the kid's Fathers, has his real Les Paul and amp in another room, and starts playing the actual song. The kids look at him like he is totally crazy, ignore him and go back to their game. Very funny, but very true.

To make music now, you don't have to go through the trouble of learning to play, getting in bands, struggling in clubs, dealing with the realities of life. You go to the computer program or I Phone app, downloaded for free or $2.99, do your plug ins with the virtual instruments, stack your virtual drums, do the virtual keyboards, sing into your computer or phone's Microphone, add your own processing and effects, record you singing it on your phone, and have it on your YOU TUBE channel getting hits in an hour.

This is what a majority of people think IS ART. They can do it themselves. Same for painting, poetry, writing books, blogs, photoshop, photography, etc. It is a do it yourself world. So ART is devalued because everyone can do it. it might not be any good, it might actually suck. But that is all relative. But for the most part, yeah, it is very devalued.

And it is everywhere. People go to sporting events and concerts and don't listen to anything, they are talking their own videos pictures and selfies. Recently I was involved with a show with Country Artist Kelly Pickler. Standing both backstage and around the room, I was taken by how many people were on the floor, with their backs turned to Kelly, taking Selfies of themselves with Kelly in the background.

Anybody under the age of 30 (and a whole lot over that age) are on their cellphones constantly. And when it comes to activities, art, making THEMSELVES a part of the action, is what it is all about. Read Facebook and see how self absorbed all these people are.

But before you go "well that is MAB just being all doom and gloom," there are some bright spots. That is what brings them to the CULT OF PERSONALITY. They are drawn to some people who stand out from the crowd. And those, for the purposes of our discussions are ARTISTS.

They are drawn to some people. Some artists develop niches, go to "CROWD FUNDING" or "KICK STARTER" campaigns. Some develop local or regional followings. They use the Internet but there is something more about what they do. Someone who is amazingly instinctive, have a connection WITH their fans and use that to their advantage. There are things about them, both on and off the stage that attracts people to them. And that following builds.

OUR SONGS, and things we develop can become part of those. That is the simple message I preach all the time. There is not a lot of hope to monetize what you are doing in any rate because everyone is doing the same thing. But you up the level of your odds. Finding several artists, being part of a community or creating it yourself, both on the Internet and in REAL LIFE, is part of that.
Simply "writing the songs' is not enough. We have to do more, and being part of a community all 'ups the level of the odds."

So is art devalued? Of course. Everyone does it. WE just have to find ways to make ours stand out there. All goes back to the same word: RELATIONSHIPS. If you look at it in another way, that is exactly what BRIAN has done here. Built a community with like minded people involved. The down side is that everyone does the same thing. We are all "SELLERS" instead of "CUSTOMERS." Finding the customers are the key. And artists are the delivery vehicles we need. Making our art something special in a world full of average.

MAB

PS: Doug, in my lexicon, "FANS ARE THE CUSTOMERS." You have to "Customize' things for them. Music, approach, public persona. Most people are "listeners" and "disinterested parties." The "Fans" are the "Customers" that buy your specific product.

Well,
Google WHO DOES ALL THE WORK by Archie Campbell. I think he has the answer.

I wasn't referring to fame or money. JUST How would a movie be without the background music creating different feelings in the watcher. How the world would be without any new songs in say 5 years....lol....Just that kind of thing. I also think that the Power Boys underestimate their audience a bit. They Dumb the songs down and maybe their audience isn't quite as dumb as they SEEM....lol
How about no new TV Shows for 5 years.
Also....I'm not bitter but I like to ask questions and prod different things. I wrote a song called WHY and it deals with this. I was always in trouble by asking that pesky question of my teachers and bosses and wife WHY...my mom used to say because she was the Mother....the Teachers said because "I SAID SO" and my bosses just fired me over and over and over again....lol Even in the Army when in basic we came to some creek and they made us walk through it....I'd ask why not go around it? They just made me low crawl around a cinder track and unfortunately DIDN'T fire me....SOOOOO............

I don't think the general public owes any attention whatsoever to an artist. When I hear that an artist works hard, I think it's admirable, but I sure don't view it as an invoice that I should pay. It is not up to the general public to value an artist, it's up to the artist to create value.

Is art undervalued by the general public? I don't think so. I think people love art and find plenty of it, everywhere. Why should it cost a lot of money when there is so much of it to be found?

It is exactly what it's worth. And worth is all about individual opinions. The answer to this question will never apply to more than one individual.

Barry,

The problem I have with your reasoning is that you just seem to think people will stop writing and recording songs. For movies, or television shows, or anything. And you seem to think the "Big boys" all are just one monolithic entity and are controlled by one giant corporation. They are not. They are competing entities and they respond to the marketplace.

It's the same thing I say when people talk about "how dead" everything is? What drugs are they smoking? There are things going on all over the world. There is more and more art and music, more artists going on every minute of every day. That's why there will never be a shortage, never be an end. You might feel that things are 'DEAD" or that "everything is garbage" but the people who are putting it out there don't feel that way and neither do the people that consume it.

They may be wrong in many of our opinions, but that is neither here nor there. There is simply never going to be any shortage.

MAB

Whatever you say Marc....
I feel different....just ME and I'm not trying to change anybody's opinion. I've taken things for granted till I didn't have them anymore.....It's just a philosophy question. My question doesn't mean anything except something I've been thinking about SO don't make it more than it is....Good Conversation....lol
I NEVER appreciated my MOM until she died when I was 19. I never appreciated my Freedom till I had to go in the Army in 1967.

I never appreciated a Great Song until I heard one (Subjective yes) I never appreciated peace and quiet till I left Manhattan.

Just some musings on my part and we don't need to be so serious about it......Sun came up this morning and SO DID I so Life is Beautiful TODAY....

When people go to concerts don't most of them want to hear the classics? Their hits? Same thing on the radio. People want to hear what's familiar. If for some reason there's fewer and fewer songs being released on the radio I don't think the public would notice unless someone points it out to them on facebook.

Your South Park reference was spot on Marc. Reminds me of this. LOL

http://tinyurl.com/Bowlingipad

Marc,

I don't think modern life devalues art by making it too easy for everyone to "be an artist." If anything all iphones and ipods do is give some people something fun to do with their time. Only if they're kids like on South Park or delusional will they think what they are doing is anything more than having a little fun. What does happen though, is that whereas you had some people buying music, now they are playing with toys. That much I agree with.

In fast the reality of it seems to be that modern life makes clear that real artistry involves an "x factor" that all the ipods and iphones won't change one bit. Even if they came up with a tech that you could strap onto a persons brain, like in some episode of "Fringe" --and then the person just needs to *think* music--I wager that this would have little impact on art, other than to point out how most people just hear "crap music" in their heads, and have no idea how to turn those crap ideas into perhaps shinier things, nor have any desire to. They would simply have one more new toy to bore their neighbors with.

Now there are some people who are actually really talented with new technology and find their artistry via that, and that is legit. All paths that lead to beauty are good paths.

Mike

The only people I ever cared about in terms of appreciation was other musicians. While it was nice having 'fans' back when I played guitar/keys in bands, I never put much stock in compliments from the audience. Many of them were drunk at the time, anyway, lol. But if another guitar player came up to talk shop and say "Man I really dug that solo on song X, did you use lydian mode in the middle part?" Then, I was in seventh heaven because here is someone that understands and is truly interested in my art.

The same now with songwriting. I am more interested in what other songwriters and musicians think than the public in general. For me, that is the payoff.

Peace,
TC

Hi Barry,

Well, the problem is with your question. It is too generalized. To be fair, I think some artists are undervalued, yes. It's just gonna happen when life gets this big.

How does one measure value, anyway? One artist might get more value out of someone's smile than selling a ton of product that they don't really care about.

Define value, and then we can really talk about this. Is it selling product?

Also, as Kolstad points out, the word "artist" is rather a big umbrella as well.

You mention film composers. They should be an asterisk, insofar as their artistry is usually thought to be of a subservient nature--they are serving the movie. In other words, the more artistry a film composer has, the less likely you should notice his/her music, insofar as the object of "scoring" is to be felt and not consciously noticed.

But for the most part, I agree with Mark K and Ben. Most artists find their place in the world, and can find happiness at whatever "level" that is.

We all have artists we love that are undiscovered by the public at large. Having worked at a record store for twenty years, I can tell you one thing for sure. For many folks, the value of enjoyment one gets from an "undiscovered" artist diminishes in direct proportion to the general public discovering that artist en masse, later on down the line.

It's almost as if "value" is like "energy" in that it seems to remain constant in the universe.

Mike

I saw the recent Spider-Man 2 and the end credits rolled over a "song" by three prominent modern artists. It was some synth loops and a kiddie lyric. I had the misfortune of watching the end credits of Silicon Valley yesterday and the "song" playing was a clown rap/cursing over loops. Mark is right...art is becoming devalued because everyone feels they can do it. They can't. Most can't paint, write, sing, dance or sculpt worth a damn and public posting forums don't change that, they just expose it.

Where Mark wobbles a bit is his relentless emphasis on networking. Dude, some people don't have the nature to kiss every ass they meet in a corporate music hub. Even if they did, that wouldn't make them a talented artist. I'm not going to name the person but he was recommended recently as an example of talent and networking. I listened to several of his songs and they were terrible. Embarrassing even. Lotta Facebook connections, though. But since this is a thread on the value of art, I'm guessing this guy wears a Stepford grin everywhere and spends ten hours a day at workshops glad handing. But I can't imagine anybody being genuinely impressed by his songs.

Anyway, McArt has been around for ages...I again direct you to Raymond Chandler's classic essay The Simple Art of Murder. A great examination of commercialism and art.

Not about Value....but about the under appreciation of it.
I guess I'm not making myself clear but what else is new.
Good Discussion though.

For instance IF People were able to watch a horror movie with NO score and then with....they'd get more appreciation of HOW much the score adds to the movie..

Ten Great Films without musical scores

Psycho, Halloween and Jaws all have great scores. Jerry Goldsmith's theme for Chinatown is better than anything I've heard by a recent artist. Victor Young' s score for Shane is wonderful. But I can't remember anything about scores for recent movies. Maybe that's why they're not valued.

It seems like faulty logic to me to think that art is devalued because "everyone thinks that they can do it."

Devalued how, because it cheapens what is called "art" as a whole, or because those who practice art allegedly don't follow others who make art in the same field? Both?

Because the definition of "art" is different to everybody, it's difficult to talk about. It seems though, that those making this argument are including just about everything in their definition of what "art" is, so as to deem much of it bad art, and then come to the conclusion that art is then devalued. Whereas others hold that art must pass more rigorous tests to be called that, or that simply art is "in the mind of the beholder" (to paraphrase Ben) and then is simply too subjective to pin down. Kinda like Ricky's experience of the flying plastic garbage bag in "American Beauty."

How exactly does some guy making a picture or a piece of music on his Ipod cheapen art, exactly? If it turns out to be something really good, it transcends whatever medium produced it and is thought of as legitimate art, no matter what tools were used. Nothing is cheapened. Rather, "art" is enriched, insofar as there are then new avenues, new mediums between people and it, people and art.

How exactly does millions of people playing with toys and calling that whatever they want to call it, cheapen art? My appreciation of great art remains intact while I am fully aware of the millions of people who either act out there artistic fantasies, and/or play with toys and call it "art" to themselves and within their little clicks.

If we define art to be a tougher club to get into, we would come to no such conclusion that art is "cheapened" but that our concept of what art is is either threatened or challenged.

Also, it's just not true that these people who are "cheapening art" are doing it exclusively at the cost of not appreciating legitimate art.

If what we are really just talking about how people choose to spend money, that's a different conversation, and aesthetics takes a backseat. The way the money pie gets sliced up has certainly changed. People are forking out money for tools that let them experience "art making" for themselves. But it's not the "art making" that cheapens art. If anything it's the re-directed money expenditure that takes money out of the hands of artists and into the hands of Mac and Windows.

That's why I say it's so very important to define what we mean by art, artist, and value here, otherwise it's not even a real debate, because we simply have different ideas, different "definitions" of what art and artist and value are. Value is especially tricky. It can purely mean money to some, while to others, it means something purely aesthetic.

Mike

You completely Miss the point here.
I'm done as I can't get my point across.
Some of you are answering a different question that I posed.
But that's ok.....People sometimes see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.....Believe what you see or see what you believe.
SO.....I'm moving on.

I hope this is not directed at me, because I am trying to help ground the conversation in terms we can all agree upon.

And in all fairness, Barry, you do not really ask a question but make a statement, and so we have been agreeing and disagreeing on your comment, and it has been slippery because art, artist and value "appreciation" can mean different things to different people.

I am sorry if anything I have written has made you frustrated, but note that I am just trying to help us all agree on what we are talking about.

You say:



Specifically, you say, "AND the art will get watered down more and more and less people will do it"

and this is what I, Marc, and Couch have been talking about. In all fairness, we haven't veered off the path. Some may actually be agreeing with you?

No question was really asked, and the art being "watered down" part is what some folks have found interesting to comment on. It seems like Marc Barnette and Couchgrouch agree with that, and I do too, but wouldn't say that art per se, has been watered down, just how we look at it might be challenged. I may have a more elitist view on what art is, than others. The point is, though, that we are completely and unabashedly on topic, here.

Mike

I don't think I "miss your point" Barry, I just think you are asking the wrong question.

The right question might be "when did the public ever appreciate (or over-appreciate!) artists and their ART"? I think you have asked this same question over and over again and you always seem to get the same type of answers. Maybe you keep asking the same questions because you just don't like the answers you are getting.

So, the public doesn't appreciate the majority of artists who are just sort of OK at their art. So what?

Mike, I'm an uneducated rube so your post went right over my head, haha. Here's how I would explain it: The Milk Carton Kids. They were on Conan last week and their performance was great. I downloaded their CDs for free from their site. And...they're gifted players with great harmonies. Their songwriting is a definite weak spot. They sound like Simon and Garfunkel but the songs aren't there.

So, maybe art isn't valued as much because it isn't as good. This is similar to the other discussion but it's true. It's not just that any boob can download some samples and rap crap over them and call it a "song", but they're also praised for it. That devalues art. Somebody buys a songwriting for dummies book, writes a verse, chorus McLove lyric, posts it and now he's a songwriter? That devalues art. Sure art is an ethereal term but what's bad is bad. I saw a report on cnn awhile back on inner city kids and poetry. Those kids rattled off some poorly conceived political crap and we're all praised for it. It wasn't artful or creative, it just criticized "The Man". That devalues art and those kids will grow up thinking they're poets because they spout trite political BS.

Standards are falling but because art isn't easily defined it can't be proved definitively. Hell, it took generations to prove tobacco smoke was bad and you can't even get people to agree that drinking 40 oz of sugary soda might be a bad idea.

So yeah, art is no longer valued like it was...it's barely even recognized.

Everyone is an artist now, at least in Nashville. Everyone writes, sings and plays.

Couch, that some people choose to play with toys and call it art doesn't make it art. It becomes art by cultural consensus, and therein lies the problem, because highbrows like me refuse to call most of it art in the first place. Critics have been arguing this stuff since Warhol's soup cans. Is it art or not? Cultural/critical consensus is not the number of sales. Pop culture and art have some things in common, but lets not confuse one with the other, if it's art and appreciation we're talking about..

When I say "highbrows like me" I speak rather ironically in that I tend to like more art and more new art (music, etc.) than most people. But because I have particular feelings about what is and is not art, no amount of mediocre stuff is going to "water down" what I feel is art, devalue, or make me think that the majority of it is "under-appreciated."

So in essence, Couch, if you think about it, we're really not disagreeing on anything other than how we define "art."

I don't disagree about the Milk Carton Kids..but gosh, man, you talk about them as if there's no chance they can write great songs! For now I will enjoy their great everything else.

Mike

in other words

Oh, good heavens. I've been off-line for two weeks, and only have a limited time to catch up and can't read everything.

But it seems that Aaron has become the "voice of reason" in this thread???

Love that pic!!!

Midnite

They Think they are.

Barry, Love Ya Bro...But you know that:-)

But if you start a thread, that you know is a little...

Then you have to follow the entire thread, and ALL of the most recent responses, and not just respond to one(singular) one.

Will send you a PM...

Midnite

Oh my Midnite..Don't stroke Aaron for reducing a conversation to title/hook? Typical songwriter.. (I tease you, Aaron.)

But seriously, I don't think anyone would admit that these arguments boil down to "stop liking what I don't like" but in essence, that is it. We all like what we like, and we can call what we like "art" or not and it doesn't mean a damn. It is what it is and we like what we like, but even though we can't agree, we are at least civilized enough to tolerate each others' likes and dislikes.

However, I can understand how Barry feels frustrated because he wanted a conversation about whether or not the public at large is under-appreciating art and artists. He got that, but it went down some other avenues that these things always seem to end up at, while not really straying too far from this "watering down" aspect he talked about.

We are not in a room, together, so these talks can be frustrating, but we are all civilized here and we all mean well and all have something to bring to bring to the table. And most importantly, we all pretty much tolerate each others' music and art.

Mike

Oh my, back at'cha Michael...:-)))))


It's not about censoring.

It's about trying to sum up 300,037 word discussion in a "Hook".

And I think Aaron did that very well, so I just wanted to give him his props:-)

Carry on...Full speed ahead and damn the Cameros...

Midnite

Smiling..

See, if we were in a room, you'd have gotten that that was a joke. I thought "typical songwriter" and a grinning smiley would put me in the Borscht Belt..but no..

..have you tried the veal?

Mike

Thinking that blurb is the voice of reason devalues reason. Sheesh.

Hehe

Well, the topic really doesn't make sense to me. people appreciate the things that they like! They like it after all. There are (believe it or not) people who like Michael Bay movies. I wasn't a fan of the Transformers trilogy but I know people who love it. How am I gonna tell them that it sucks? I can't really because it's just a useless opinion. If they like it then that's good for Michael Bay! It's not gonna wreck my life if people like something that I don't like so live and let live.
And that's all there is to say about this topic. Now on to thinking about more important things like what would this forum and posters be like in a paralell universe. I saw that Fringe was name dropped earlier. Paralell universe exist!


Edit:'im not really sure how to guage whether musicians are under appreciated.

Midnite,

I edited out the censoring part of my reply to you just about a minute after I posted, so you must've caught my post and replied super fast! But regardless, I apologize for leaving you saying "it's not about censoring" when I had quickly deleted the statement yours was referring to, and leaving you looking like "what is he talking about?"

For the record I wrote something along the lines of "we're all tolerate each others' music, let's not be intolerant towards free thought" or something real close to that--but I quickly realized it was bull hockey and you were doing nothing of the sort by praising Aaron for a well timed tension relieving laugh.

Mike

Aaron,

This is true. The only way to know is to ask them personally "how they feel" about that.

Some artists have killed themselves for not selling as many records as they thought they should. Phil Ochs for one..

If Nick Drake would have not overdosed on antidepressants in '74, he would have seen his records become very popular some twenty years later. Nick's problem was that each song had a different tuning, and he flopped at touring because he was too soft spoken to talk while he tuned, and folks would get restless, and that would cascade into nervous performances..so his records never sold while he was alive because there was no system in place to generate an interest without him touring.

Trying to convince folks that musicians in general are under appreciated is tough because like you point out there's no way to prove it. School teachers and housewives are easier to understand, since the former makes dirt and the latter squat--in terms of wages and salary.

The best we can do..the most honest approach..is to just ask ourselves. Personally, I've always felt appreciated, as a musician. When I busked, it meant just as much to me when someone just stopped and listened. Now I make demos and my clients really appreciate the effort I put into them.

The changing landscape of music may change the amount of money that an artist makes, but if that's not what we're talking about with "being appreciated" then again..I agree with you and think there's no way to generalize an answer for that..let each musician tell his tale..

Mike

When a three year old child draws a picture, it is art, at least to his parents, though it may not be great, but with encouragement that kid may become a great artist later in life. But if a person draws the same crude drawing at thirty as that three year old, then I don't believe it deserves to be called art.

I agree Michael.

This is a recent story, Puddle of Mud was playing in Ontario and they were playing in bars. The lead singer didn't show up to one show because he was in another bar getting drunk and apparently talking about how they'd play in front of 20 thousand people and now they play bar gigs. He was depressed and drunk. I guess he probably thought he was under appreciated.
The bar gig he skipped out on is the bar where Billy Talent performed before they were discovered and Finger Eleven also plays there. I guess he thought he was too good or something.

Here's a thought: what if it isn't the songs and songwriters that are "worse" these days, but the listeners?

I know a lot of people believe it's all about talent scouts not doing their jobs, or labels promoting lousy artists, or any other argument that points to the makers and purveyors...but what if most people actually like the new music they're buying?

Are we all just baby birds wishing for better worms?



Sometimes you absolutely slay me. Hilarious.