I just read this about the White Stripes and it mystified me

[rutang]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's more that a band's first album contains their best songs written over the span of several years (usually), while the second album usually contains an equal number of songs written in a few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are dead on with this analysis. I'd also guess that most bands get worse at writing once they are rich & successful. It's hard to be angst driven when you're driving a $100,000 car and banging 10s on the daily.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Music is art, and art can and should be delivered to the audience in whichever state and by whichever means the artist sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Art is for the audience, I'm the audience, and I say it's crap. If he doesn't like it, then he should just play it for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's such a stupid thing to say. if artists worried about the opinion of every loudmouth who thought like that we'd never get anything even remotely good.

historically, artists set the trends and styles and whatnot. if you, as an audience member, aren't on board, then too bad

sure, the artist could suck, but in the case of Jack White, that's unlikely. chances are you just don't know what you're talking about.

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A very common scenario is that the band shows up at the studio with 12 songs and the producer or label rep says "seven of these songs are crap" and the band has to write the rest of the album there in the studio with the label dorks breathing down their necks.

This is one reason that bands' first albums usually kick ass and the following ones have only a few good songs... the first one was recorded before the label paid too much attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more that a band's first album contains their best songs written over the span of several years (usually), while the second album usually contains an equal number of songs written in a few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both scenarios takes place all the time. I say this as a musician who has seen it in person and with many friends. That's why I said it was "one reason". Your point does not, however, address the original point of why they would be writing songs in the studio.

So yes, good point, but not what we are talking about.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Music is art, and art can and should be delivered to the audience in whichever state and by whichever means the artist sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Art is for the audience, I'm the audience, and I say it's crap. If he doesn't like it, then he should just play it for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's such a stupid thing to say. if artists worried about the opinion of every loudmouth who thought like that we'd never get anything even remotely good.

historically, artists set the trends and styles and whatnot. if you, as an audience member, aren't on board, then too bad

sure, the artist could suck, but in the case of Jack White, that's unlikely. chances are you just don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]


since when did art stop being a subjective matter?

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Music is art, and art can and should be delivered to the audience in whichever state and by whichever means the artist sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Art is for the audience, I'm the audience, and I say it's crap. If he doesn't like it, then he should just play it for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's such a stupid thing to say. if artists worried about the opinion of every loudmouth who thought like that we'd never get anything even remotely good.

historically, artists set the trends and styles and whatnot. if you, as an audience member, aren't on board, then too bad

sure, the artist could suck, but in the case of Jack White, that's unlikely. chances are you just don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]


since when did art stop being a subjective matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
The choices so far:
Art is completely dictated by the tastes of Artists, and consumers of art must align their appreciation accordingly
- or -
There are no objective criteria through which one can gain an understanding of and appreciation for art. It's just subjective.

Choice #3:
Perhaps the public's perception of quality in artistic expression is informed by the tendency of good artists to create art that is outside the limits of currently and objectively defined acceptable structure and content. The artist then creates more art as a reaction to the audience's feedback, creating a dialogue out of which both artist and audience grow in their ability to appreciate and create.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Music is art, and art can and should be delivered to the audience in whichever state and by whichever means the artist sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Art is for the audience, I'm the audience, and I say it's crap. If he doesn't like it, then he should just play it for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's such a stupid thing to say. if artists worried about the opinion of every loudmouth who thought like that we'd never get anything even remotely good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, did you totally miss the point.

[jeffnc]

This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

Just because an artist has a "vision" doesn't mean the vision is very "good". Plenty of artists have done things they themselves later thought was crap. Even if they didn't, their audience might, and their audience might put up with it because they like other aspects of their art. (Or then again they might just be blindly following some fool who told them it was "good".)

For example, I really like the Stripes' music, and I absolutely hate the "low fi" trend. I buy Stripes music anyway, in spite of the recording technique, because I think the music trumps the recording usually.

In my opinion, anyone who does like "low fi" is juvenile and faux-hip. And my opinion is just as valid in the context of the entire artistic system as any other opinion, including that of the artist. If the artist doesn't want there to be opinions on his work, then he is free to keep it out of the public domain.

[thecincykiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's your sense of art history, Tonto?

Nevermind that your premise is false (and the product of much too much opinion and far too little thinking) but you have to admit that if this were true, there would be no such thing as art. At least, not as humans have been defining it for a few millenia or so.

You're confusing artistic conversation with capitalism.

I suppose that's an easy thing to do with someone like Jack White, who helps to head up the current sphere of pop musical culture and whose face isn't uncommon to see in the grocery aisle next to a whole slew of Hollywood stars who have commodified their entire lives for your bored veiwing.

But...not getting into all of that...wasn't the purpose of this thread to ask about the musical process itself? To get back to that for a moment, White might have been taking advantage of an inspirational burst by writing most of those songs in one fell swoop. It happens, and it happens a lot to an artist who has been creating for a while. Essentially, inspiration is elusive, but the more it gets tapped, the more it can sort of be funneled and anticipated.

So it doesn't surprise me too much that he wrote all of those songs (or at very least saved the bulk of his energy for the studio) in those few weeks. When you're making something like an album, which generally requires some cohesion in its concepts and lyrics and phrasing to really make it all gel, you kind of want to get it all out with a reasonable amount of timing. Taking a long time gets trickier, especially if you're still really growing as an artist, because there will be more inconstencies in your work, both artistically and technically speaking.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's your sense of art history, Tonto?

Nevermind that your premise is false (and the product of much too much opinion and far too little thinking) but you have to admit that if this were true, there would be no such thing as art. At least, not as humans have been defining it for a few millenia or so.[ QUOTE ]


I admit no such thing. If you think a little more flexibly you'd probably feel the same way.

You're confusing artistic conversation with capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Public art goes through an evolution with or without money (or whatever barter form you want.)

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, anyone who does like "low fi" is juvenile and faux-hip.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like a few bands that use cheap recording equipment. It has nothing to do with liking lo-fi and everything to do with their music. Am I still a poser?