Okay, so reading that last post of mine back, there's definitely a case of poor word choice and bad explanation by me, even though I still feel what I intended to say is relevant enough to post here. It's strange that this happens in a GnR-thread, but whatever. This is probably going to turn into a philosophical meta-discussion about what art entails in general, so bear with me.
The word 'musician' was definitely a bad choice in my post above and not at all what I meant. I think the word 'artist', meaning 'someone who (in the present) creates art' would be better there. In order to further get to my point, I think it would be good to get an idea on what I (personally) view as the 'art' in music. The symphony orchestra example above is actually a great place to start. This is a group of musicians, led by a conductor, who will likely perform a piece they have not written themselves. Let's say they're going to play Beethoven's 5th Symphony. A typical orchestra will rehearse for a week (or two) and then perform it once, MAYBE a couple of times and then never revisit it, at least for the time being. Their next programme will feature different music and the rehearsal cycle starts again. There's a certain 'art' in the musicians' craft of people able to play this stuff as a group, but one could also argue that the 'art' is in the performance of the music, and the interpretation of the conductor. The piece, as played at that very moment, by these specific people, will not ever sound the same way again. One could also argue that the 'art' is in the composer's original score, and that this group is simply replicating what Beethoven has written down, but that's a difficult one, because music is fleeting and we could get to the point of 'what is music?' and I'd say since music is experienced by listening, both the performance of this piece and the aural experience of hearing this music played by this group is the 'art', the 'product' of the Symphony Orchestra.
Most, if not all, of the classical recordings you can hear are actually recorded this way. They’re a direct recording of a live performance. The group can then monetise their art even further by releasing it this way, and in turn making the one-off performance available for everyone who couldn’t attend that particular day, and also for those who were there to revisit it.
This is similar to how a jazz band would record their stuff; they’re playing tunes with the whole group at the same time and the recording engineer just hits record when the band is ready to go and they start playing, complete with spontaneous improvisation the band will never be able to replicate exactly (and that’s also not the point of this music). A jazz recording truly is a snapshot of that one studio session, for two reasons: the band is playing everything live on the spot, and due to the nature of the music (improvisation is a huge part of jazz) it will sound different every time the band would play the same tune live yet again.
So very different this is for Band X, who wrote the hit song 'Sweet Jungle Rain' and recorded it, released it on CD both as a single and on an album. Lots of people had a say in how this track came together and they meticulously recorded each part separately. The end result, their 'product', the one they're going to sell as their 'art' is the recording as you hear it on CD, but it has never actually sounded exactly this way when they played and rehearsed the track. (I know, this is getting really into a meta-discussion now, let’s stop..) When Band X plays ‘Sweet Jungle Rain’ live, their goal is always to make it sound as close to the ‘original’ recording as possible, because that’s what the fans want to hear. Including all solos, drumfills and every little nuance. Maybe add an extra ‘Yeah!’ here and there, but that’s about it. From being artists in the rehearsal space, they’re now performers and entertainers, trying to give the audience the show they want.
Where is the 'art', when you're playing the exact same thing again? There's certainly some amount of craftsmanship needed to do this; Band X needs to be able to play their instruments well, but are they really making 'art'? In the sense of the word that they're creating something new(?). If you haven't guessed yet, I would argue that they don't. Their performance is the art, not the music they're playing, because they've already done that before.
Does it makes sense to make a distinction between a 'musical artist' (the violinist playing a work he's never played before, but also Band X recording 'Sweet Jungle Rain' in the studio) and a 'performing artist' (Band X replicating 'Sweet Jungle Rain' live exactly, but also the violinist)? I don't know if it does, it would certainly make for an interesting discussion. Where does a band that only plays improvised music in a live setting fit in?
I’m not writing any of this to demean anyone, or any band whatsoever. Like my previous post, it flowed more like a stream of consciousness and whether it’s important or not will be determined by whatever responses I get. I hope it sparks some interesting discussion, but I could also understand nobody is waiting for this philosophical nonsense.
Haha.
Indeed!
Topic: What was wrong with "Illusion" albums by Guns? (Read 3028 times)
