What’s Wrong With Being Commercial?

[john]

Hey Gang

 

I thought I would start this topic on being commercial because it’s a topic I see raised a lot, but as a judgement, not a discussion.

 

Commonly it is expressed as anti-commercial, or pro-artist-writing-for-themself, while intoning some moral superiority. The funny thing is that many such artists are happy to cite their love for other artists who they only know of because that artist embraced being commercial at some point.

 

Where it is discussed, debate  gets pretty heated, often invoking a perceived moral high ground.

 

Often I have seen it highlighted by artists who believe in giving their music away for free, even to the extent that they believe all music should be free. All such musicians make their living doing something else to make money and so are quite content to condemn the many artists who scrape a living from the comfort of their home, or the idealism of a youth with no real responsibilities.

 

I find it interesting that commercialism in music became such a dirty word, while being accepted in most other fields, to the extent that the idea that “music should be about the art” is the one and only.

 

To make music to entertain is not a bad thing, is it? At one extreme we can make music for ourselves, and at the other make music purely for others. In the middle there a balance to be had. Ability to make money from music overlaps with making music for others, though they are not the same thing.

 

Strangely, amongst artists, many have come to view it an artist’s mission to make art purely for ourselves. That doesn’t really get challenged. I mean, why is making music (or other art firms) purely for ourselves not seen as self-induldgent?

 

So to this topic:

 

How do you feel about an artist having a right to earn a living from their music? I don’t mean their capability to make a living.

 

Should art be purely about you, the artist? 

 

Where do you come on the spectrum of art for self vs art for others?

 

Is pop a dirty word?

 

What is music for?

 

I look forward to your answers!

 

Cheers

 

John

[lemonstar]

This is good question imho. I will reply at some point.

In short "nothing" but...

[subvibe]

 

Hi

In my opinion Music has become so mainstream in the last few years

DJ,s making millions with Re mixes & high fees for Gigs in places like Ibiza

Home Studios making Hits & Producing on their own labels

I believe that today’s technology has opened doors that were not previously accessible

This also including myself, I have a pile of stuff in my attic but these days I prefer to make music in the digital domain ie DAW Cubase instead of messing with cables, switches etc but this also has a catch to it ! In yester year you had to make do with what you had but now there are countless sound banks effects & VST instruments so sometimes spoiled for choice

 

In my opinion this new technology is also a tool to reach a goal But in all honesty I don’t think this can compare with a Trained Studio Technician that has learned his/her trade from the bottom upwards

Having said that I can imagine that some of the bigger Studios are scratching their heads when they

Hear the quality of production from Artists like Billie Eilish  that are “home” recorded but in incredible detail.

Who will make the next summer hit ? is it important ?   Technology is here to stay so in that respect you can label your self however you feel appropriate  

 

   

[zwolfgang]

I agree @subvibe, technology has really opened the door, now anyone can make a hit with full production quality if they have the dedication and talent, labels are now just there for marketing/distribution really imo.

However, now the marketplace is so crowded you need that marketing in order to be successful, and the only way to do thaat is make music that the majority of people actually like. Kind of a double-edged sword.

Most of the time I make music for me and thats enough, but I do think the need to be commercial to sell your music hampers your creativity, like if youre too "out there" youll never make it anywhere

[subvibe]

2 hours ago, zwolfgang said:

I agree @subvibe, technology has really opened the door, now anyone can make a hit with full production quality if they have the dedication and talent, labels are now just there for marketing/distribution really imo.

However, now the marketplace is so crowded you need that marketing in order to be successful, and the only way to do thaat is make music that the majority of people actually like. Kind of a double-edged sword.

Most of the time I make music for me and thats enough, but I do think the need to be commercial to sell your music hampers your creativity, like if youre too "out there" youll never make it anywhere

 

Yes you are absolutely right

& still we have these one hit wonders that go viral over night

personally i like trying all different styles just for fun & experience 

There are also now so many different genres & what used to be Rock, Pop , Country etc

there are 100s of sub Categories so i suppose a market demand for almost anything !   

[Jays Octave]

You guys can approach the technology to bring the music industry on new hights. But I think the credit must be dedicate to our masters who made music bang.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Jays Octave

[Mahesh]

Nothing wrong at all. To each their own for the way they want to pursue music.

 

That doesn't mean it doesn't muddy up the crowd out there for those who choose the "non-commercial" approach;  But it is what it is. You make decisions based on what matters to you more. And what are the consequences that come with it.

 

 

On 7/7/2019 at 10:53 PM, john said:

Should art be purely about you, the artist? 

 

Google describes art as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Doesn't say that it has to be about the artist.

 

The idea of commercial music (I am generalizing here for the sake of ease in discussing this, I don't believe that's always the case) can fit into this definition too. But how much creativity goes into the art and how much goes into the marketing behind the art could be looked into for further understanding to compare with the other way.

 

Again, not saying one is wrong and the other is right

[john]

3 hours ago, Mahesh said:

Nothing wrong at all. To each their own for the way they want to pursue music.

 

That doesn't mean it doesn't muddy up the crowd out there for those who choose the "non-commercial" approach;  But it is what it is. You make decisions based on what matters to you more. And what are the consequences that come with it.

 

 

 

Google describes art as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Doesn't say that it has to be about the artist.

 

The idea of commercial music (I am generalizing here for the sake of ease in discussing this, I don't believe that's always the case) can fit into this definition too. But how much creativity goes into the art and how much goes into the marketing behind the art could be looked into for further understanding to compare with the other way.

 

Again, not saying one is wrong and the other is right

 

The reason I actually posted was because of criticism (many times) by some indies of artists who make commercial music as "sell outs", assuming a moral high ground as if commercial music is not true art. I have heard it expressed many times in many ways, as if an artist should only do exactly what they want to without consideration for the audience. Fair enough, if people want to restrict their own art (though I would question it), but they should not judge other artists for considering listener/viewer experience.

 

A useful quote from Google. The purpose in the discussion is that we (artists) should discuss such things to try to move them forward in some way. There is no wrong or right regarding the art/music itself, which is exactly the point. However constraining fellow artists by judgement and sometimes bullying is not fair. I am pretty sure we've all seen it happen, online and offline. I rarely see it the other way around. If anything those with a more commercial edge tend to look on thinking "well it's your loss".

 

Similarly, artists absolutely have the right to give away their music for free, but they have to know that impacts those who do not. A bit of sensitivity would go a long way to help. Artists have the right to the opportunity to make a living from their music, without criticism, without being undermined. Neither way is right, and it isn't right for either camp to impose their rules on the other. Both viewpoints should be able to exist side by side. Hell, as an artist, I want to decide what I sell, what I give away for free, when, how often, how much. That is not someone else's call. If I want to make that decision on a song by song, recording by recording basis, that is up to me.

 

In this day and age it would seem smart to try and reduce the times when we undermine our fellow artists.

 

[ImKeN]

If the goal is to sell, then you have to treat your music like a business.

If its just a hobby...well then...you can do whatever you like!

But at the end of the day, we all like to listen to music that we enjoy!

[moptop]

How do you feel about an artist having a right to earn a living from their music? I don’t mean their capability to make a living.

Of course an artist/musician has the right to earn a living from their music if they so choose. Without them the radios wouldn't have much to play and the movies and TV would suffer too. 

 

Should art be purely about you, the artist? 

That depends upon the artist/musician themselves.  If their goal is nothing more than self satisfaction not caring whether their art/music appeals to anyone else..then so be it.  Either way though, whether it's for themselves or for sale, the artist/musician has to please themselves first and be happy with what they are creating. 

 

Where do you come on the spectrum of art for self vs art for others?

Me personally?? I write and create music solely for my own enjoyment. I have no interest in trying to sell my material or getting involved in the mainstream market of the music world. ...but I still like to create some music that has a commercial appeal to it. I like to share it and I do want others to enjoy listening to it. 

 

Is pop a dirty word?

Not to me it isn't. Most of the songs I write are in the style of 60's style pop which is the style of music I like the most.  But I'm sure that the pop you are referring to is the stuff you hear on the radio today...ie. the Taylor Swift, Beyonce'  type stuff which I don't care for but still it's not a bad thing. If these artist's/musicians can make a living by creating music that the masses like then  good for them.    But Oh Boy! do I know that there are plenty of other folks out there on several of the other forums who despise and look down at anyone who  posts a song that remotely resembles something pop-ish, and are not shy about stating their outright disdain for anything pop.

 

What is music for?

That's a question that has an infinite number of answers depending upon who you ask.  There is no right or wrong answer,  I think it's more a personal opinion thing.   For me music is a form of self expression and creativity.  Creating music is no different than someone who likes to do woodworking, painting, car building, gardening, or any other craft that can be enjoyed. 

 

 

 

 

[john]

Some good answers so far, keep them coming.

22 hours ago, moptop said:

But Oh Boy! do I know that there are plenty of other folks out there on several of the other forums who despise and look down at anyone who  posts a song that remotely resembles something pop-ish, and are not shy about stating their outright disdain for anything pop.

exactly what prompted me to ask these questions, because I don’t see the supportive viewpoint aired as often... I think keeping your head down is part of it, haters be haters etc, and moderates etc don’t want involved, so many just let the view go unchallenged.

[BigBubbaBrown]

How do you feel about an artist having a right to earn a living from their music? I don’t mean their capability to make a living.

 

With exceptions I won't get into due to the controversy of them, everyone should have a right to try to earn a living in any way they see fit. If people are willing to pay someone for their music they should be free to earn a living off of it. If someone can make money juggling live chickens on a tightrope he should be free to do so.

 

That doesn't mean anyone's entitled to earn a living in the way they desire. I would love to be able to make a living making video games, for instance, and have the soundtracks of my games open up a secondary career as a musician, but if no one buys my games and no one is impressed enough by my soundtrack work to commission me to write music for them then I'll have to keep my retail job.

 

The people who write music (or software, or draw comics) and give it away freely to say that all music should be written, recorded, and performed for free is along the lines of a hobbyist with a woodworking shop in his back yard saying that all hand crafted furniture should be made purely for the love of the craft and given away freely. It's sheer lunacy.

 

Should art be purely about you, the artist? 

 

It depends on the scope. If you're just at home recording into a computer or a reel-to-reel and couldn't care less if anyone hears it then it's by default all about the artist. If you want to put instrumentals out there you need to factor in what you want other people to feel and how to structure your music to get them to feel that way. If you're a lyricist you need to be able to write lyrics that other people can relate to. In these cases it's less about the artist and more about the intended audience.

 

Where do you come on the spectrum of art for self vs art for others?

 

All art that I make, whether it's music or a video game or a CGI rendering, is initially for myself. If other people like it that's fine and well, but other than that I don't care. It would be nice if I could find a way to monetize my artistic endeavors, but I won't be quitting just because people don't like it.

 

Is pop a dirty word?

 

Pop is a form of social engineering. It has been for at least half a century. I can't go into further detail without getting into forbidden topics, so I'll just say if you don't like the way society is being directed then it's the most vulgar of the dirty words. If you like the current direction then it's not. I'll just leave it at that.

[MikeRobinson]

It's one thing to create "a work of art for your own enjoyment."  Quite another to create a viable commercial product.

 

Every one of us has some set of skills and/or experience that we parley into "our daily bread."  Music-making, really, can be no different.  If your aim is to make a living by consistently producing a musical product that someone will consistently pay for ... after you have first discovered and made contact with that "someone" ... that is now your job.  Creative though it may be.

 

As you "create," you're necessarily thinking of more than just yourself.  You're thinking about your client. 

 

"Commercial" is a good thing.  The coffee-shop that I visit each morning is "unabashedly commercial," and so am I if they suddenly start to screw up.  😄  Likewise the also-favorite commercial restaurant that I keep choosing to come back to at lunchtime.  These folks aren't pulling coffee-shots or making burritos for their own pleasure.  They're doing it to satisfy picky customers like me.  And they're always working to perfect their game, because they always know that I – and many thousands of other folks just like me – "am picky!" 

 

So, go ahead ... "bring on the 'commercial.'"  Strive to write songs for 'picky' people.  Like me.  And – like you. 👍

Edited February 6, 2020 by MikeRobinson

[ShepBranson]

I am a believer that there's nothing wrong with commercial music if it has what music is supposed to be; expression. 

So commercial music that expresses or gives absolutely nothing to you is what gives bad reputation. I think Ariana's first 2 albums were great, then it became BS. 

Now the commercial stuff happening in Latin America (Don't know if it is global) is trap and reggaeton. Which I am not fond of. But here's a song I feel is commercial but good. And here's a piece of shit. 

And here's a "commercial" song by Steven Wilson