does "true" art have a future in our society?

[Black Winter Day]

it seems like in the past fifty years or so, much of american and eastern european literature, art, and film have become seriously shallow, or "dumbed-down", if you like. of course, this should obviously be of no surprise to anyone here -- nevermore IS an example of art that contains credibility and depth. it is also obvious that their music has no place in our society other than the underground scene that truly appreciates what they are all about (i.e. US). it is a great pathos of today's world, i know it, you know it, the band knows it. however, everyone knows that conformity and money are not high priorities of the band, which enables them to continue creating true musical art in it's highest forms. luckily, we have caugh on to this. MANY others have not.

look at the books that sell nowadays - books based on movies, books from oprah's book club, the suspense novels that tell unoriginal, formulated stories without depth or character. but at least those are books -- magazines are what people read today, and even that is a chore for most of them.

of course, none of this is new or truly insightful. what i am really getting at is this: take a look back roughly fifty years ago -- the book selling the most copies in america was "catch-22" by joseph heller. "the catcher in the rye" came out around that time also, and it sold well.

in the 60s and 70s, there was very good rock music popular at the time, led zeppelin, black sabbath, rush, etc. music that has lasted to this day. and all was good, the truly talented bands sold well, and everyone was happy (even though there were some bands that didn't get the recognition they deserved, but that is a given in ANY consumer-driven sciety).

then something happened along the way.

flash-forward to the world of today. there are bands around now that are much more talented and well-crafted than any band that ever existed in the 60s or 70s. yet, topping the charts are nickelback and creed. magazines and novels without depth own the world of written art, while true genius writers such as martin amis and david foster wallace struggle for dimes.

my question is: what went wrong? and when? when did our society become so mediocore, so gutless? where has our TASTE gone?

and more importantly. . . where does it go in the future?

credible, intelligent art will probably always be underground in a democracy that shuns brilliance and encourages mediocrity. we all know that, and have known it for quite some time. yet we have to let it happen, there is nothing we can do about it, except hope that the ones who are creating true art never give up, and keep striving in whatever it is they believe in and want to show to the world, even if it is just to a meager handful. WE must do as much as they do, keep fighting the good fight, and keep doing what we believe in, homogenized bastards be damned.

but, most importantly, we must strive on the knowledge that it is WE that know the secret, the gem in the fire-lit cave. the world does not know. yet we do. there is no revolution in the making; art will probably stagnate for decades more, until something comes along much like the times of the renaissance in europe did. then, THEN, it will all make sense. our secrets will be opened to the world. maybe they will all see the light.

or maybe not. maybe our society is DOOMED to this mediocrity.

frankly, though. . . who cares? like i said, WE have seen the diamond in the rough, WE taste the forbidden waters that run through the desert, WE know where atlantis is hidden, it is right under OUR noses. . . and that is good enough for me!




thank you for your time!

 

[Dragonlord]

hmmm yep i hear you.
BUT although that was my point of view a couple of years ago,i can't totally agree.
First off,you said that "there are bands around now that are much more talented and well-crafted than any band that ever existed in the 60s or 70s".Any band?no fuckin way.I don't see any beatles around.no black sabbath either.no led zep.nah,and i don't blame today's groups for that,these times maybe were easier for rock bands as they had a whole unexplored area at their feet.
You also said that quality bands sold well then.I bet many great bands were left unnoticed by the masses-just talk with an old rock freak and he'll tell you names you've never heard of.Sure,some of the bands that sold well then were of great quality-but not all.There were crap pop shit back then like today and all.
And today things aren't THAT different.There are still quality bands that sell.Red Hot Chilli Peppers and System of a Down are two that I just thought of.Also Radiohead had a huge success with their OK Computer album,and it's a masterpiece.Rage Against The Machine were huge,another very good band.

argh i have some more shit to write on this topic but it's too late...need some sleep...if i feel like it i might continue tomorrow

 

[[_NevermorE_]]

very interesting ideas... i think that ''true'' art started fading out gradually since some assholes realised that rock 'n' roll sells and tried to take it under their control and make money. ever after they manipulated the audiences and brainwashed them, telling them what to listen to etc. (empty-V) NO... ''true'' art doesn't belong here, NOT in this stupid world we live in. I'd better agree with you... we're the lucky ones that taste the forbidden fruit!

 

[Black Winter Day]

oh, you're leaving, that means no rebuttal until tomorrow. however, until then. . .

Originally posted by Dragonlord
First off,you said that "there are bands around now that are much more talented and well-crafted than any band that ever existed in the 60s or 70s".Any band?no fuckin way.I don't see any beatles around.no black sabbath either.no led zep.nah,and i don't blame today's groups for that,these times maybe were easier for rock bands as they had a whole unexplored area at their feet.

well, this argument *could* go down to personal preference, however, i find bands like nevermore and dream theater MUCH more advanced than any "older" band i have ever heard. but i won't go into this much, since it is not really part of my "argument".

You also said that quality bands sold well then.I bet many great bands were left unnoticed by the masses-just talk with an old rock freak and he'll tell you names you've never heard of.Sure,some of the bands that sold well then were of great quality-but not all.There were crap pop shit back then like today and all.

i've already touched on that: "(even though there were some bands that didn't get the recognition they deserved, but that is a given in ANY consumer-driven society)." despite this, bands like led zeppelin and the beatles GOT RECOGNITION! do you see any mainstream bands with an inkling of these bands' credibility? i think not.


And today things aren't THAT different.There are still quality bands that sell.Red Hot Chilli Peppers and System of a Down are two that I just thought of.Also Radiohead had a huge success with their OK Computer album,and it's a masterpiece.Rage Against The Machine were huge,another very good band.

i am sorry that you thought of the red hot chili peppers. they would come to my mind as a band that have succumbed to what the masses want; tasty pop-morsels. just look at the band's older days, they are nothing like they were. either they felt the need to "progress" into the pop sound, or they were influenced by the masses. in this, we may never know. as for radiohead, i find them boring and not at all artistic, although some may see it that way. but that goes into personal taste. if people see this stuff as genius, that is fine by me. but, even if so, there are plenty of bands out there MUCH better than radiohead, yet get .0001% of their fame. same goes with rage (who i don't see as trulely 'artistic' in their music, just a mediocore band with strong political views). in short: if THIS is all the popular music scene has to offer, then that only proves my point further.

 

[Black Winter Day]

**waits for dragonlord**

 

[jimbobhickville]

yeah, I think many of the bands around today have much more talent than any of the oldies. The only examples that come close are Rush and Yes. Those that were mentioned were very influential, yes, but more talented than bands like Nevermore, no.

 

[Black Winter Day]

i feel the same way, jimbob

 

[Dragonlord]

argh sorry i'm off to a greek music concert...i'll try and reply later,you got some strong points there

 

[ProgMetalFan]

I feel the same way as Black Winter Day and jimbob.

 

[creepindeath66]

Originally posted by ProgMetalFan
I feel the same way as Black Winter Day and jimbob.

me too

 

[ledmag]

bands from the 70's that kicked ass and nevr really poped out

Hawkwind

Pentagram

Ehria heep

Captain Beyond

Many many more.


The Tull memebrs, they are very talented, in difrerent ways than nevermore. They are all multifaceted as well. They play damn near anything you put in their hands,.

John Paul Jones can contend with near any musician today, NEAR being the key word. You name it, he plays it. Very good musician
Better than Page ever thought about being all around.

Blame Zep for part of the reason music sucks so bad, they are the guys who brought the big ticket prices, and they raised album prices as well. They opend ppls eyes to just how much money one can make in the biz.

Great essay BWD, as usual.


Other than what ive said up above, I agree with BWD.

 

[MeierxLink]

so uh.....anyway

"True" art is up to the individual. In terms anyone can understand...If someone likes something, that is "true" art to them. If "you" have a different understanding of what "true" art is, that is your idea of it. Not everyones. "Your" idea of true art is not necessarily what true art "IS" Individuality means we all are different. I may like Nevermore, you may like Nevermore, but I don't condemn those who don't like Nevermore. Nevermore isn't for everyone. In conclusion, blow me if you don't like what I like. I like it, I understand it, I feel it. Screw off.

On that note...


"Azathoth"



When age fell upon the world, and wonder went out of the minds of men; when grey cities reared to smoky skies tall towers grim and ugly, in whose shadow none might dream of the sun or of Spring's flowering meads; when learning stripped Earth of her mantle of beauty, and poets sang no more save of twisted phantoms seen with bleared and inward-looking eyes; when these things had come to pass, and childish hopes had gone away for ever, there was a man who traveled out of life on a quest into the spaces whither the world's dreams had fled.

Of the name and abode of this man but little is written, for they were of the waking world only; yet it is said that both were obscure. It is enough to know that he dwelt in a city of high walls where sterile twilight reigned, and that he toiled all day among shadow and turmoil, coming home at evening to a room whose one window opened not on fields and groves but on a dim court where other windows stared in dull despair. From that casement one might see only walls and windows, except sometimes when one leaned far out and peered aloft at the small stars that passed. And because mere walls and windows must soon drive to madness a man who dreams and reads much, the dweller in that room used night after night to lean out and peer aloft to glimpse some fragment of things beyond the waking world and the greyness of tall cities. After years he began to call the slow-sailing stars by name, and to follow them in fancy when they glided regretfully out of sight; till at length his vision opened to many secret vistas whose existence no common eye suspects. And one night a mighty gulf was bridged, and the dream-haunted skies swelled down to the lonely watcher's window to merge with the close air of his room and make him a part of their fabulous wonder.

There came to that room wild streams of violet midnight glittering with dust of gold; vortices of dust and fire, swirling out of the ultimate spaces and heavy with perfumes from beyond the worlds. Opiate oceans poured there, litten by suns that the eye may never behold and having in their whirlpools strange dolphins and sea-nymphs of unrememberable deeps. Noiseless infinity eddied around the dreamer and wafted him away without even touching the body that leaned stiffly from the lonely window; and for days not counted in men's calendars the tides of far spheres bore him gently to join the dreams for which he longed; the dreams that men have lost. And in the course of many cycles they tenderly left him sleeping on a green sunrise shore; a green shore fragrant with lotus-blossoms and starred by red camalates....

~H.P. Lovecraft 1922

MeierxLink

 

[lizard]

"Art" is perhaps too broad a panorama to nail down. It can encompass so many things and means different things to different people.

1. But* a band which was very talented but too eccentric for the masses was Budgie.

with song titles like "Rape of the Locks," about having to get a haircut, to album titles such as "If I were Brittannia I'd Waive the Rules" and song titles such as "Hot as a Docker's Armpit," it is probably safe to say they would never reach mass acclaim.

music has evolved so much over the last 40 yrs it is probably not fair to compare new bands to old; like comparing apples to oranges. both have their merits. Very similar to sports arguements when you try to compare current athletes to those of the past.

2. True, people don't read like they used to. too many distractions for the dumb.

I have a theory which goes like this: everyone knows that more intelligent people tend to be more successful economically than those with lesser intelligence.
those economically well off people tend to have fewer children than those not as well off.
the Darwinian in me can only come to the conclusion that therefore, the less intelligent are breeding at a faster rate and one day will choke out the more intelligent through sheer weight of numbers. this is a scary thought and though I won't live to see the inevitable (?) conclusion, it still bothers me.

and humans are far too complex for this simple analysis to apply to everyone absolutely.

(and by the way, I'm poorer than dirt. I have a documented learning disability which has made it hard for me to focus on things I find boring, like work ) but I've only got one kid, so I guess by my theory, I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[Dragonlord]

aaaalright let's get down to it.
my first post was written kinda late,just before i went to bed,and somewhere in my mind i confused art with good music.and i think that red hot chilli peppers still write good music with depth-even if it's pop,so what,beatles were the first pop band.can't pop be artistic?
as for radiohead,listen to exit music from ok computer-then listen to dream theater's dissappear.you'll either laugh or get angry with the similarities.
speaking of dream theater,they are making world tours,they earn enough money from the band to make a living for them and their families...this isn't exactly what i call "unsuccessful".and by the way they have said in liquid tension interviews that with dream theater they must compromise,they must be more melodic and catchy..can this be described as true art?
another good band from the 70s is deep purple.one of their greatest hits is black night.listen to the blues magoos track nothing yet from a couple of years earlier,the main riff is the same.

I'm with MeierxLink.the whole "true art" topic is very complex and up to everyone's self.a musician can write catchy pop music that really expresses his feelings and makes him feel complete.how can someone say that this man is not an artist because his music is not heavy as fuck?one song that i really like is oasis' wonderwall.it's pop.it's one of the biggest hits of the last decade.big deal,i like it.
you can't say what expresses the feelings and amazes the minds of the masses.if britney spears does,then that's true art to them.for us it's nevermore...you can't judge art-and most of all because you aren't in the mind of the artist.
as for books,tom robins sells millions.so does milan kundera,so does stephen king.these are people that i perceive as "true artists"-and they are famous and rich.

closing,i understand what you're saying-i've thought it myself quite a few times.but i think it's like lemmy says-old things are good only in memories and photographs.i don't think things have changed THAT terribly for the worse.if you think about it,you'll see that more people are into music today-even with mp3s,cd-rs etc...a few decades ago you needed to buy the record in order to listen to a band.and today things are so much easier for musicians-and other kind of artists.they have much better access to the public,this way true artists have a chance of reaching a small but existing group of "fans".

and about lizard's theory:if that was true,keeping in mind that we come from apes,clever people would never have shown up in the first place.most of the greatest artists and scientists were broke.

 

[lizard]

I'm not saying the intelligent people will not still rule, the intelligent will always have the economic power. but look at today's society's decay. already the inner cities are relegated to the dispossessed, the poor, the junkies. the rich increasingly barricade themselves in communities with private security to protect themselves from what they perceive as the lesser classes, even if they don't use that term.
as these polarizations continue to occur, on an ever widening scale, that's why I have this goofy theory.

btw, I like the old chili peppers AND the new, have they compromised, maybe, but at the same time they've become excellent songwriters and Frusciante's guitar playing is imaginative, and his harmony singing is an ingredient which adds depth and quality to their sound.

 

[Black Winter Day]

Originally posted by Dragonlord
how can someone say that this man is not an artist because his music is not heavy as fuck?one song that i really like is oasis' wonderwall.it's pop.it's one of the biggest hits of the last decade.big deal,i like it.

i'm sorry if you inferred from my post that i think that a band has to be "heavy as fuck" in order to be artistic. that was never the intention. nevermore was just the example i used because it is common ground for all of us.


you can't say what expresses the feelings and amazes the minds of the masses.if britney spears does,then that's true art to them.for us it's nevermore...you can't judge art-and most of all because you aren't in the mind of the artist.

THAT is where i totally don't agree. the only 'artist' britney spears is is a 'con artist.' she knows what will sell: her looks and however many videos she can get on mtv. sure, hitler expressed feelings that amazed the minds of the masses. does that make him right, or worth following? and like i said earlier, compare britney spears to janis joplin (or any other popular female performer of the 60s or 70s). that is my point right there. is this how far society has digressed in 'artistic' popularity?


as for books,tom robins sells millions.so does milan kundera,so does stephen king.these are people that i perceive as "true artists"-and they are famous and rich.

good point

 

[famousamoswillkillyou]

I think the Chili Peppers do have some interesting qualities, and they're just not nearly as ridiculous as many of the other bands out there. There are some alternative bands out there that I can tolerate. But only a few. And Creed and Nickelback... what can I say? Those are probably my two most hated bands. Creed is lame. Scott Stapp sounds exactly like so many other lead singers it's ridiculous, yet he claims to have invented his own sound. And Nickelback is incredibly low quality music. Their songs are poorly written and just as poorly performed. Now, it would be interesting if more people were into the likes of Nevermore, but I guess they'll never understand us and we'll never understand them.

 

[dreaming neon darkspot]

I think it's better that we have bands like Nevermore that are more underground than other bands.The mainstream has their Creed,Nickleback and Linkin Park,but we have the kind of music that really puts thought into one's head about the lyrics and the complexity of the music.We have music that involves intelligence(see if the guitarist of Nickleback can write like Jeff Loomis),the Mtv-heads have music that is maketable and easy to swollow.
I can name 2 of the vocalists that Scott Stapp is ripping off-Layne Staley and Jim Morrison...I'm sure there are more,though.

 

[Black Winter Day]

Originally posted by Dragonlord

closing,i understand what you're saying-i've thought it myself quite a few times.but i think it's like lemmy says-old things are good only in memories and photographs.i don't think things have changed THAT terribly for the worse.if you think about it,you'll see that more people are into music today-even with mp3s,cd-rs etc...a few decades ago you needed to buy the record in order to listen to a band.and today things are so much easier for musicians-and other kind of artists.they have much better access to the public,this way true artists have a chance of reaching a small but existing group of "fans".

i was not referring to the advancements of technology and exposure of music today, just the "artists" (ironic, is it not?) of today.

and about lizard's theory:if that was true,keeping in mind that we come from apes,clever people would never have shown up in the first place.most of the greatest artists and scientists were broke.

this is true, and only brings out my points further. it is obvious, yet society falls for this trapping nearly every time

 

[lizard]

and sure, Stapp and a hundred others are all ripping off Eddie Vedder, just like in the 70s into the 80s, every metal singer had to be able to wail like Robert Plant. this stuff goes in cycles and circles. There's also a whole school of guys who try their best to sound like Rob Halford, without the leather and stretched out sphinter