Ever wonder why there's no cool animals out there like unicorns and owlbears?4.21 / 5.00 35,074 Views
A rip-roaring dungeon running adventure!4.03 / 5.00 17,038 Views
Keep calm and shoot down mobsters.3.54 / 5.00 16,050 Views
At 10/25/12 09:29 PM, Thief1337 wrote: On the other hand, what Justin Bieber has done? Working hard for producers who give him all the directions and made him a superficial figure for little girls? He's gained international fame and makes a boatload of money. The difference is he's not creating art. You don't feel any pain in what he does. He's a performer for the corporate bullshit that needs to be played in shopping malls and radio stations so people stay in line to the cash register and buy stuff like that. He's a puppet, and once everyone is tired of him, the next Justin Bieber will be made.
I don't know if I entirely agree with this. I mean I do agree that Justin Bieber is WAYYYY too overplayed (I'm completely tired of him), but it's the nature of his business that allows him to gain this kind of fame, as I believe it to be promoting the ideal image of the euro-centric man (or kid in his case). He is an artist and as such shouldn't be attributed to the criticism that the society, that promotes this kind of of behavior, deserves. I mean, if you were in his shoes, would you not do the same?
At 10/26/12 12:54 AM, zelazon wrote: it's the nature of his business that allows him to gain this kind of fame
Because businessmen made his fame. Peformers like Justin Bieber don't simply appear "out of the blue". And whoever means business in his speech isn't really talking about art.
To say that Justin Bieber is an artist because he promotes a persona, an "ideal image" of being, is wicked. Those symbols of success are presented to society, they have been already drawn and tailored many years ago by businessmen who have an economical agenda for the "mainstream" (television, shopping, radio, etc). Whatever that symbol is, they'll promote it, they'll repeat it until we - the masses - accept it and elect it as a symbol of success. We'll name it, we'll categorize it and we'll most likely follow it like sheep. It keeps going until we do it just to be like the others and feel "normal". Like smoking cigarettes when you're a kid.
It's like that other dude who called me a "hipster" (which is another group of masses, by the way). It's the same shit: a label. Anything you do has a label these days.
Do you think this stuff has anything to do with your heart ?
I believe it is a vice to art, as an artist, to have more and more personal aspects taking their place in what is supposed to be your artistic work. The more it's about a person, the less it's art. Art breathes through the perceptions of humanity that sees it and the colors it creates when it captures it. The image Pink Floyd promoted is a strong representation of it:
An artist is the triangle that captures the signals, recreates them in his soul and projects them into vivid colors to whatever direction his vision leads it. He doesn't invent the truth he speaks; he captures it and sends the message. He's the instrument of his own work for his own time. This vivid energy is a beautiful thing. It lives in our hearts, it flies in our own atmosphere and its radiance travels around the world; it is in each and every one of us ! It is NOT outside of yourselves !
They create superficial models for us. They will derive you and me from the truth that circulates in our bloodstream as long as we believe these models are the carriers of our own lives. That is why we keep repeating the same stuff, we keep recreating the same beat and the same music over and over again : because we still think it is the symbol of our success.
"The goal of life is to make your heartbeat match the beat of the universe, to match your nature with Nature." -Joseph Campbell
At 10/22/12 04:13 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: I do it for money
Jeez, I hope I can make that much in the coming year off music.
I've broke even on my new album two weeks ago, got my investment in it back, monetary, Idk if I'll ever make enough to get the hours back.
Though there's this producer I talk to who sales a lot of songs to Konami (DDR,) she gets as much 2000 for one song, 1200 if she just leases it to them.
My main drive for making music is something to fill the infinite amount of time I have, and I like it that people sometimes like something I created. 80% of the time I like what I created and get quite a bit of enjoyment just listening to my own song. Also I have high hopes of leasing for/making money.
At 10/27/12 10:39 AM, Thief1337 wrote: Do you think this stuff has anything to do with your heart ?
At 10/24/12 07:08 PM, NickPerrin wrote: One who completely loves music will pursue it as a source of living income because he does not want to have to do anything else.
You have failed to explain the difference between selling your soul to a businessman for money and wanting to make a living doing music so you don't have to do anything else.
At 10/27/12 02:39 PM, Blackhole12 wrote:At 10/27/12 10:39 AM, Thief1337 wrote: Do you think this stuff has anything to do with your heart ?At 10/24/12 07:08 PM, NickPerrin wrote: One who completely loves music will pursue it as a source of living income because he does not want to have to do anything else.You have failed to explain the difference between selling your soul to a businessman for money and wanting to make a living doing music so you don't have to do anything else.
Seems the three of you are firing blanks. But perhaps I will be too.
Can a musician's intention be made out? Not instantly! Unless one listens to his music and finds that transcendental quality that a lot of songs lack. The intention cannot be made out unless one were to probe him and ask him why he actually makes music, what especially compels him. At this point, all we got was a string of responses to the simple question "why do you want to make music", when in actual fact, the OP is looking for something which compels. Of course, some hit closer to the mark than others, and I'm not saying mine did -- it could be way off tangent for all I know.
Think of an artist or a band that moves you so much that you want to reference their style. Let's pick a video game artist, say, Akiko Shikata, or Hisashi Joe, or Yoko Kanno. Can it be said for them that money is the be-all and end-all? Or, can it be said for them that money is something that comes in its own time, and goes in its own time? Is their primary focus the joy and passion they find in music? Or is their primary focus something else? If their primary focus is the joy and passion they find in music, then hurrah! -- we have even more reason to listen to their songs, because we know that each one of them is going to have a very profound personal touch. If not, what is their art coming to?
At any rate, if they work hard (which I imagine they do), then they do deserve a just wage for an honest day's work, but that may come at its own time and go at its own time. Will they stop making music simply because they do not receive their just wages anymore?
This is the disconnect that, I believe, Thief1337 has been trying to address. Now he may have not used the best words, but neither have I. It's still something that I felt needed to be put across.
At 10/21/12 12:51 AM, midimachine wrote: i do it for the puuUUUUuUUuuUUUuuussay
hahahahahah good one
At 10/21/12 01:54 AM, The-iMortal wrote: It started out as just something fun to do in my spare time. Nothing satisfies me more than when I put effort into a project that turns out better than the last.
Now I do it, partially for fun, but also in hope that, one day, I may be good enough to make music professionally...
At 10/27/12 10:39 AM, Thief1337 wrote: Stuff
To make what I was going to say really, really concise since the stuff I was planning to write got deleted due to browser restarts, it seems like you're doing the following:
1. Saying the artist and the business of marketing the artist are intertwined which isn't what I'm arguing... Justin Bieber IS an artist... popular or not, he would still be an artist nevertheless.
2. Saying that having a heart in creating your music is required of being an artist, which isn't true either. Whether or not someone makes money for their craft doesn't make them any less of an artist then otherwise... they are still creating something, which is better than nothing in my opinion.
3. Trying to put your own context as to why "X" person can't be an artist as comparative to "Y". Some people may not see Pink Floyd as a great artist with respect to how you perceive him to be, so you might judge them to have bad taste or don't know what artist is. Some people hate skrillex for the same reasons too... but you can't judge these artist for not being the type of artist you would want them to be either. They're still perfecting their art as much as we are, and to not give them at least some credit of being an artist is pretty shallow in my opinion.
At 10/28/12 06:38 PM, zelazon wrote:At 10/27/12 10:39 AM, Thief1337 wrote: StuffMore stuff
While I can see where everyone's coming from, has anyone even paid attention to what I said earlier?
At 10/28/12 06:48 PM, TroisNyxEtienne wrote:At 10/28/12 06:38 PM, zelazon wrote:While I can see where everyone's coming from, has anyone even paid attention to what I said earlier?At 10/27/12 10:39 AM, Thief1337 wrote: StuffMore stuff
I read it, but in a lot of cases, you were articulating what you thought we meant in your own words (even though I wasn't one of the people you were referencing)... however so, I'm arguing specifics here, which in the case of theif whom was arguing that the nature of the business shouldn't be attributed to the artist or more specifically, an artist shouldn't really call themselves an artist unless they have higher meaning with their music.
My points specifically (not sure where the confusion herein lies since I was specifically stating this) is that an artist is an artist, regardless of if they make money from it. I am not arguing anything else.
At 10/21/12 12:17 AM, Usernamemyarse wrote:
Boredom, lack of interesting things happening, lack of friends e.t.c.
I can absolutely relate to this, although at the beginning I didn't realy get to do music.
I simply opened it up, played few lines and then closed it wihout saving.
At 10/28/12 06:38 PM, zelazon wrote: 1. Saying the artist and the business of marketing the artist are intertwined which isn't what I'm arguing... Justin Bieber IS an artist... popular or not, he would still be an artist nevertheless.
Justin Bieber's mother, Patricia "Pattie" Mallette, is a Christian evangelist who taught his son to sing R'n'B songs "through the guidance of the church worship team" when he was 4 years old. Basically, this is indoctrination; you come into this world as a Canadian and you're put up by your mother to perform American R'n'B songs and religious songs inside evangelical churches. What a start to someone's life.
It got even worse than that as he got older; he went on to be contacted by Jewish manager Scooter Braun from Raymond-Braun Media Group (RBMG) and Schoolboy Records (Usher, PSY/Gangnam Style) to sign a contract with him and make him another international success. BieberâEUTMs mother, Pattie Mallette, who at the time was living with her son Justin in Stratford, Ontario, said she was at first distrustful of this "pushy outsider" because he was a Jew, among many others in the musical business, approaching a teenager (LOL!).
If you're not convinced by that; Scooter Braun, in an attempt to convince her of his intentions with her son Justin through a three-hour conversation, also had a question for Mallette: "I had seen a video of Justin singing some Christian songs and I found stuff online about how Christian Pattie was, so I said, âEU~Look I just want to bring up something right off the bat: IâEUTMm a Jew, does that make you uncomfortable?âEUTM"
What is Justin doing now? With his manager he recites the "Shema" before huge concerts ("Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is one") and participates in a jewish ritual whenever he goes to play concerts in Israel!
A religion that has nothing to do with his culture nor his roots! Supportive of a state that has persecuted Palestinians inside an Apartheid regime for so many years! What a role model!
That's what you call an artist!? He's not even growing up on his own and making his own vision of things! This is even more wicked than I thought! Let me quote his manager once again:
">"If I donâEUTMt teach him how to be a man, heâEUTMs not going to be able to handle any of the pressure [...] and heâEUTMs going to grow up to be exactly what everybody is expecting him to be, which is the teen star who then gets into drugs and alcohol and blows it all away" (you can read the whole article if you want, everything is in there)
Apart from the fact he has become his father-figure of "education" *cough cough*, Braun even knows what kind of bullshit is surrounding Justin. That answers your question pretty well; it's obvious if anyone was in Justin's shoes WE'D GET INTO DRUGS AND ALCOHOL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! LOL
Besides Justin's indoctrination, as he gets older and older, his career will dissolve and disappear to make place for his replacement like it has always been. Businessmen and managers will be already talking about raising the "next Justin Bieber" and create the new revolution . This pattern has been like that in the music industry for yeeeaaars. Therefore, to say that "having a heart in creating your music is required of being an artist [...] isn't true either" makes it clear you just don't understand what an artist really is.
It's not about being called an artist (another "shit label" mentality that fits the path Justin Bieber took), it's about being an artist.
Poor Justin. I have compassion for him. What a shitty life it must be to live inside a totally false success. It's gonna hurt when he'll face that reality for good.
On the other hand, Roger Waters from Pink Floyd had the balls to make clear statements about organized religion and all the blood that has been spilled in the name of God, using his own vision of things, his own imagery through a definite artistic creation, masterpiece called "Good Bye Blue Sky".
What were the consequences? Everything Justin Bieber wouldn't wish for, especially with a Jewish manager by his side. This kid has no balls and is nowhere close to being an artist. Our standards in modern times are so pathetic and so perverted we end up thinking such kids are artists.
This is bad, this is sad : it should make you mad, lads.
At 10/29/12 06:44 AM, Thief1337 wrote:At 10/28/12 06:38 PM, zelazon wrote: Stuff.Even more stuff.
I swear, Thief1337, I by and large have agreed with what you've said but right now I'm tempted to have you take a history of Kingdom of Herts to the brain.
I can only draw one thing from this at all: whatever we do must be voluntary and come from within. Beyond that... I think I need to PM you.
Why is everybody bothering with this argument? Arguments are rarely settled face-to-face, and never settled online. The time everyone spends thinking of their arguments and typing them could be spent in quality music time, or improving in anything else you'd like to do.
That's why I haven't gotten involved till now. And even now, it's a short post.
Here's my mentality:
WHO CARES ABOUT THE REASONS OTHER PEOPLE MAKE MUSIC? WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF AND CONCENTRATE ON YOURSELF AND YOU WILL IMPROVE AND SUCCEED IN WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. IF YOU WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT OTHERS LIKE A GOSSIP GIRL, YOU WILL REMAIN FOREVER SHIT BECAUSE ALL YOU'VE SPENT YOUR LIFE DOING IS CORRECTING OTHERS, NOT YOURSELF.
disclaimer: anybody who is thinking of replying to my post with a massive refute, don't expect me to spend my time writing up a large reply in return. I am spending lots of time trying to achieve an original, fresh synth lead.
Against my better judgement, I'm going to prod this with a sharp stick and see what growls at me.
At 10/29/12 06:44 AM, Thief1337 wrote: Rants about Justin Beiber, religion, and various other stuff that I can't be arsed to read in extreme detail right now.
Okay, first of all. Summary of Justin Beiber's life that doesn't really seem necessary. Though I do agree poor Justin, that life sounds like it's going to suck.
Second, define "artist". It's impossible to really have a discussion about something when multiple definitions are being used. Get an operational definition if you're going to continue this, damn. For the record, here's the definition of 'artist' according to dictionary.com.
a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
a person who practices one of the fine arts, especially a painter or sculptor.
a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.
a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.
Now that we have that out of the way, I have no idea why you're flipping out about religion in a debate about music. Personally, I think that to be the best artist possible, the music should be (A) the kind of music you want to make, and (B) music that you are truly inspired to make rather than forced.
That said, it's fully possible to be an 'artist' (according to the operational definition I stated) WITHOUT the music coming from the heart. According to the operational definition, Justin Beiber IS an artist, and should not be considered something else. While it also means that the people helping him write his music could be defined as artists, that doesn't mean he is not one.
Now, to answer the OP.
I make music for a multitude of reasons that have already been stated, but since that's not what you're after... the reasons that I am compelled to make music are as follows, in orderly fashion:
-I have ideas that won't leave me alone until I write them down and make them.
-I love being able to entertain people and bring them on musical journeys to places beyond what they have previously imagined.
-I want to improve so I can achieve the first two better, faster, and more easily.
Music is my life, and I hope to make it my life. I want to go into the music or video game industry and make soundtracks, because I want to improve the music there and make it into the kind of music that people will listen to more often - to make the music easy to connect to, and yet have a degree of depth that allows the music to be standalone, deep enough so that people can get lost in it if they listen enough.
My AIM piece is found if you clicky the image.
At 10/29/12 09:04 AM, SkyeWintrest wrote: Second, define "artist". It's impossible to really have a discussion about something when multiple definitions are being used.
The definition you give to an idea will define what you know about that idea, which means the definition goes as far as you see it. Therefore, we should take a look at what those "operational definitions" don't cover instead because to all conscious idea there its shadow, its subconscious part that we actually don't cover. We cannot pretend we know the total area of an idea, to its full extent, only by "operational definitions".
This is where religion gets concerned because music is something uniquely spiritual. It is not only proven through frequencies and waves placed in a specific manner with systematic techniques. One should ask himself the question "what does create these emotions in me when I listen to that particular song?". Very often, songs and compositions have left me wondering "what in that song truly warms my heart? what truly makes it through me and gives me those dreams and visions about my life when I listen to this?".
Those questions need answers. For an artist, it is mandatory to know why. He has to understand what energy drives him to do what he does best, if he wants to leave a mark on this planet. You don't find those answers through scientific research : it's a goal of life, an adventure you live through vivid, human experiences. An artist won't ever cease to learn, and those are mainly the subconscious parts I'm talking about that he has to bring out of the shadow and make conscious through his art. It's like a beast you release from its cage; these emotional beasts live in each and every one of us and they come alive through the inferno of our passions, frustrations, depressions : all of our emotions. And, of course, that's what music is all about!
There is no coming to consciousness without pain. If the artists can speak to that pain and emotion through their art, then they are telling the truth. It comes out of the shadow and it's no longer subconscious for a moment. It's alive. Otherwise, why would most of us feel like they have something to say and make people realize? It's all about facing our own Soul.
Therefore, in face of those psychological events, such claims that the effects and consequences of our artistic creations are just part of a scientific process of neurophysiology that just operates in our brain cells is insulting to our conscience and our artists. It simply can't be the truth!
It is a numinous energy, it is part of a religious behavior. Because... what's the subconscious? Where is it? If it's not something physical, then what is it? Is it that thing we call "God" in such a familiar way? What does it do? Why does it need to tell me something when I dream at night? Who is that "God"?
So in that sense, organized religions try to organize "operational ideas" on what should be our God, who should be our guide in life. Therefore, an artist is not defined by something "operational". But on the other hand, Justin Bieber fits very well in that definition : a robot for the industry, performing for its real producers and managers, left in a void within a world that is not his own. So, of course Justin Bieber can be defined by "operational definitions" ! But he is not an artist. He does everything he can, no matter how absurd his "music" will get, to avoid himself from facing his own Soul. The summary of his life has been necessary to understand that.
I hope these quotes will make much more sense to you guys, by now :
"Star Wars deals with the essential problem: Is the machine going to control humanity, or is the machine going to serve humanity? Darth Vader is a man taken over by a machine, he becomes a machine, and the state itself is a machine. There is no humanity in the state. What runs the world is economics and politics, and they have nothing to do with the spiritual life. So we are left with this void. It's the job of the artists to create the new myths. Myths come from the artists." - Joseph Campbell
"I consider the artist the one who has to introduce us to the promised land in our own land, here and now. It's his vision that brings to us the vision of the spiritual radiance that shines through the world, which many of us do not see. The real message of art is the glory of what we have with us here and now. Not that nature and the world have to be changed, but that nature and the world are already and forever radiant of the divine spirit." - Joseph Campbell
Follow your bliss.
P.S. Joseph Campbell was a historian of mythology (mythologist), a writer and lecturer.
At 10/29/12 11:29 AM, Thief1337 wrote: stuff
1. I still don't see why religion should necessarily have any place in music. Not to say religion cannot be in music, but it does not NEED to be in music. <God> does not need to be in music. Whether music affect emotion or not does not mean that it is religious in nature, as religion is not the only thing that influences emotion.
2. You seem to misunderstand my request for an operational definition. Without a definition people can agree on for 'artist', a discussion/argument over whether a person is an artist or not will get nowhere due to people using different definitions. That is why I am requesting it - so that this discussion can actually arrive at a conclusion other than "we didn't agree".
3. This discussion is no longer necessary within the context of this thread. The thread is about "what compels you to make music". That's the very title of it. Whether music is religious or not, whether Justin Beiber is an artist or not (which still isn't decided because you haven't stated your definition of 'artist' yet), and what exactly music is, is not necessary to answer the OP. I won't complain if you want to continue this discussion, but I thought I might want to get that out there in case other people would rather we discontinue this.
You have a very artistic way of writing. Personally, I'd like it if you made your point a little more clear and concise rather than adding three paragraphs of flowery language, as the bling distracts from the essential messages you're making, and in a debate - the actual point is the most important thing. Digging through all the flowers does get to be a pain eventually.
My AIM piece is found if you clicky the image.
At 10/29/12 11:29 AM, Thief1337 wrote:text
So much for saying Justin Beiber's shit ololol.
PS: You're assuming you know everything about Justin Beiber. How do you know he does not enjoy what he does and allows himself to be manipulated by the industry? As far as I know it could be the other way round. What if he enjoys writing and performing his crap as much as Pink Floyd does? The only difference is the target audience. I mean, you're just jumping in the Beiber hate wagon and slamming him using pretty words without showing any solid proof that he is indeed R2-D2 and is only at it for the monayy.
At 10/29/12 11:51 AM, SkyeWintrest wrote: You have a very artistic way of writing. Personally, I'd like it if you made your point a little more clear and concise rather than adding three paragraphs of flowery language, as the bling distracts from the essential messages you're making, and in a debate - the actual point is the most important thing. Digging through all the flowers does get to be a pain eventually.
People have to learn to dig through things. Like you've said, you just didn't understand what I've said, requesting again for a trite definition of "artist" when I have debunked that whole idea completely. Maybe you should look at the "operational definitions" of what is "art" and dig through from there, instead of relying to some kinds of recipe mats.
I guess it's from those trivial definitions people can look forward to be "artists" or "make music" as a career options. To me, that would be like saying I wanna be a priest in life because it pays me well for the amount of efforts I have to do (like it's just about doing signs with your hands and reciting some words from some kind of book).
I guess all cooks, by "operational definition", are chefs too ! Even the ones at the McDonald's ! lol
I agree it is not necessary to keep up with this discussion if you are off the beam I'm projecting through my words. I wouldn't distract myself from "operational definitions". I'd rather dig deeper and through, instead.
At 10/29/12 11:57 AM, Braiton wrote: PS: You're assuming you know everything about Justin Beiber. [...] you're just jumping in the Beiber hate wagon and slamming him using pretty words without showing any solid proof that he is indeed R2-D2 and is only at it for the monayy.
They are "pretty words" because you only understand them on surface. Dig deeper, Bieber.
At 10/29/12 12:07 PM, Thief1337 wrote: Insults and condescension.
You did not "debunk" the idea of the operational definition, and you are currently either ignoring what I'm saying or are not understanding and refusing to look up what one actually is. An operational definition is one that we agree on that is specific to the context. I've been asking you what YOU are calling an artist, what YOU are defining as an artist. So far you have blatantly refused to actually state what you think an artist is. Keep in mind, the dictionary definition I brought in, I was using as "an" operational definition. Not necessarily "the" operational definition we'll use.
As for learning to dig through things, I agree. People should know how to do that. However, in a debate, people should not NEED to dig through the fluff in order to get to the relevant stuff. Not dressing up your words in a frilly dress allows others to understand you more, and allows for a deeper analysis of the issue which is achieved in a much shorter period of time. Since you apparently want a 'deep understanding' of what music and being an artist is, I assume you can see the logic in this.
Now, as a last thing to say. Please stop the condescension. It is not conducive to a good discussion and is quite frankly offputting. I assume you would not like me to voice much of what you say with sarcasm and "oh yeah preists are totally in it for worshipping God LOL thats just like someone working at McDonalds to eat their food".
My AIM piece is found if you clicky the image.
At 10/29/12 12:07 PM, Thief1337 wrote: stuff not pertaining to Skye's first point
Funnily, I noticed that you did not respond to my point that religion and music are independent of each other. Am I correct in assuming that you concede this?
My AIM piece is found if you clicky the image.
At 10/29/12 12:33 PM, SkyeWintrest wrote:
:So far you have blatantly refused to actually state what you think an artist is.
I have said everything to define what is an artist, even adding words of wisdom at the end to support it. This is the blatant sign of your misunderstanding and inconsistency.
Do I say more than necessary or do I refuse to say anything? You're lost in your mind, somewhere.
For me, it's not just to cure the boredom, but i enjoy doing it. It's a favorite hobby of mine. After i finish a song/remix, i feel accomplished and satisfied. I enjoy it when other people like my songs/remixes, and the goal to become noticed and even have my songs/remixes make it into a game or something gives me even more energy to make music and keep on doing the best i can
At 10/29/12 12:40 PM, SkyeWintrest wrote:At 10/29/12 12:07 PM, Thief1337 wrote: stuff not pertaining to Skye's first pointFunnily, I noticed that you did not respond to my point that religion and music are independent of each other. Am I correct in assuming that you concede this?
Funnily, I noticed that you did not respond to my point that religion and music are related to one and other. I am more than correct to assume that you don't understand the association.
You just keep repeating the same words anybody else would use; pretty much the reason why you just keep asking for an "operational definition", isn't it?
You are off the beam. Sorry to say it.