Friday, May 13, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Qucik Link Corner
So in my first post I stated that the record industry uses formulas, well here's one piece of evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
For Doom the Bell Tolls.
I have a bit of a dilemma i want to talk about. MF Doom happens to be one of my favorite MC's of all time, but I have a few concerns.
I want to start out by saying MF Doom's music has to be an epitomizing example of the essence of Hip-Hop. His beats are raw and dirty recordings, very laid back and particular. His lyrical acrobatics are almost unmatched. They are an eclectic expression, encompassing many ideal maxims and points of view of reality. He often makes references to film, music, television, etc. that show a diverse experience and well rounded understanding of art.
Where my dilemma begins is in live performance. I feel live performance to be one of the most important factors in music. Now MF Doom is a great live performer...if he shows up. I was at Rock the Bells I believe in 2008, in which he didn't show up for a booking. I am generally very understanding and didn't think much of it, other than the fact I missed Mos Def (grrr). Anyway, after looking into this, I discovered that he is known for not making it to shows regularly.
My problem is how do I continue to appreciate MF Doom's music while he blatantly disregards his fans and obligations to event promoters. I don't know him personally, so I can't say much about him as a person, but I'm not sure what to think about this.
I want to start out by saying MF Doom's music has to be an epitomizing example of the essence of Hip-Hop. His beats are raw and dirty recordings, very laid back and particular. His lyrical acrobatics are almost unmatched. They are an eclectic expression, encompassing many ideal maxims and points of view of reality. He often makes references to film, music, television, etc. that show a diverse experience and well rounded understanding of art.
Where my dilemma begins is in live performance. I feel live performance to be one of the most important factors in music. Now MF Doom is a great live performer...if he shows up. I was at Rock the Bells I believe in 2008, in which he didn't show up for a booking. I am generally very understanding and didn't think much of it, other than the fact I missed Mos Def (grrr). Anyway, after looking into this, I discovered that he is known for not making it to shows regularly.
My problem is how do I continue to appreciate MF Doom's music while he blatantly disregards his fans and obligations to event promoters. I don't know him personally, so I can't say much about him as a person, but I'm not sure what to think about this.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Show Me what YOU Got.
Today I want to talk about the fad of parodies that has been going on for some time now.
It seems nobody can go out on a limb to express themselves without an avalanche of parodies. Now I don't want others to think that I take an extreme stance against parodies. In fact, there are many parodies that I think are well crafted and are entertaining. I have much respect for those who have put work into their art such as Mel Brooks, The Wayans Bros., etc. However, there are many who stake their claim to fame by parodying anything under the sun without any thought. They flock to those who take things seriously as a parasite clings to its host for survival. These people could be someone random, or someone who has built a name for them self.
Making an effort to takes things seriously takes quite a bit of work, motivation, and consideration. One goes out on a limb and shows weakness for a moment for the purpose of reaching out to others. I feel the people who parade around with their half-assed parodies fall into two categories. For one, they do not understand what it takes to produce something genuine and of quality. Secondly, these people have nothing to show for themselves. They lack the confidence and ability to actually produce something worthwhile. Their insecurities prevent them from even taking a stab at something. It is almost as if they have to destroy the expressions of others just to crutch their own insecurities. If these people are so well understanding of why things are so bad, then why haven't they taken it upon themselves to produce something solid.
It has been said that "Dying is easy, comedy is hard." I'm well aware of how difficult it is to captivate an audience and make them laugh. However, I think these cheap attempts at parody and comedy don't really carry the weight. Just because comedy is hard, it's no excuse to be lazy and take the easy way out. If you can't handle comedy, maybe you should try a different hobby.
It seems nobody can go out on a limb to express themselves without an avalanche of parodies. Now I don't want others to think that I take an extreme stance against parodies. In fact, there are many parodies that I think are well crafted and are entertaining. I have much respect for those who have put work into their art such as Mel Brooks, The Wayans Bros., etc. However, there are many who stake their claim to fame by parodying anything under the sun without any thought. They flock to those who take things seriously as a parasite clings to its host for survival. These people could be someone random, or someone who has built a name for them self.
Making an effort to takes things seriously takes quite a bit of work, motivation, and consideration. One goes out on a limb and shows weakness for a moment for the purpose of reaching out to others. I feel the people who parade around with their half-assed parodies fall into two categories. For one, they do not understand what it takes to produce something genuine and of quality. Secondly, these people have nothing to show for themselves. They lack the confidence and ability to actually produce something worthwhile. Their insecurities prevent them from even taking a stab at something. It is almost as if they have to destroy the expressions of others just to crutch their own insecurities. If these people are so well understanding of why things are so bad, then why haven't they taken it upon themselves to produce something solid.
It has been said that "Dying is easy, comedy is hard." I'm well aware of how difficult it is to captivate an audience and make them laugh. However, I think these cheap attempts at parody and comedy don't really carry the weight. Just because comedy is hard, it's no excuse to be lazy and take the easy way out. If you can't handle comedy, maybe you should try a different hobby.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Yeah I get it.
Seeing as how I have taken it upon myself to criticize those investing the money to put out entertainment, I feel I might as well show some good faith.
It hasn't always been the companies demanding conformed obedience from the artists. In fact in the past, musicians were granted almost indefinite time in the studios. This happened up until I believe the 70's or 80's where bands and artists took advantage of this freedom racking up the costs of production. They would spend weeks and months drugging their minds living the "rock star" life. In the end the songs they came up with were half-assed at best. Don't get me wrong, I know there are bands who used this time to perfect their songs, but there are many cases in which this time was abused and ended up requiring more sessions in tight time constraints.
In the film industry, there was a time in which budgets for filming had no cap. This was quickly remedied. A clear example, which I think was the reason for instating budget caps, was a film called "Paint Your Wagon." This film cost over 18 million dollars. How they spent this much on a musical is beyond me, but whatever. This film ended up flopping at the box office beyond a loss for money. In fact, I think the lifetime gross still hasn't made it past the break even point. I don't know why this is, because I think there is nothing more entertaining than Clint Eastwood attempting to sing.
The point is, in the end, these companies are running a business. Learning from their past mistakes, after being taken advantage of numerous times by these "brilliant" "god-like" artists, companies have taken risk management into account. I don't think anybody would continue investing money into lost causes, just because you think your "bright" idea is God's gift to the world.
It hasn't always been the companies demanding conformed obedience from the artists. In fact in the past, musicians were granted almost indefinite time in the studios. This happened up until I believe the 70's or 80's where bands and artists took advantage of this freedom racking up the costs of production. They would spend weeks and months drugging their minds living the "rock star" life. In the end the songs they came up with were half-assed at best. Don't get me wrong, I know there are bands who used this time to perfect their songs, but there are many cases in which this time was abused and ended up requiring more sessions in tight time constraints.
In the film industry, there was a time in which budgets for filming had no cap. This was quickly remedied. A clear example, which I think was the reason for instating budget caps, was a film called "Paint Your Wagon." This film cost over 18 million dollars. How they spent this much on a musical is beyond me, but whatever. This film ended up flopping at the box office beyond a loss for money. In fact, I think the lifetime gross still hasn't made it past the break even point. I don't know why this is, because I think there is nothing more entertaining than Clint Eastwood attempting to sing.
The point is, in the end, these companies are running a business. Learning from their past mistakes, after being taken advantage of numerous times by these "brilliant" "god-like" artists, companies have taken risk management into account. I don't think anybody would continue investing money into lost causes, just because you think your "bright" idea is God's gift to the world.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
"Keeping it Real"
Being my first post, I want to point out what I intend to accomplish in this blog.
It seems there is some confusion between entertainment and expression. The main concern of companies is making the sales. This concern trickles down to the artists forcing them to compromise their expression. I feel all forms of art ought to make a a genuine statement. Even if the sole purpose of the said expression is to entertain, I feel the entertainment itself should be genuine.
I guess the phrase "keeping it real" was coined by Hip-Hop artists, but I feel my comments on this statement encompasses all genres and mediums, i.e. rock, punk, pop, film, television etc.
One would believe that such a statement implies being the opposite of fake. However, in the entertainment industry, there seems to be a bigger concern of making the sale than there is maintaining integrity. These companies have designed formulas that appeal to what they call the under 25 over 25 audience. Once new talent is recognize and retained, these artists are forced to compromise their genuine expressions to "fit the bill" of the company's formulas. Basically in film, music, and television, these companies are attempting to target and prevent offending a large population, rather than satisfying a particular niche. In marketing, this idea is absurd. In fact, developing a product to fit the particular needs of a segmented population is much more successful than trying to make a "one-size fits all" product.
These formulated expressions are detrimental to not only expression, but to the populations that are being targeted. When these companies treat expression like the result of an equation, the authenticity becomes nonexistent. When this occurs these expressions become empty and weightless. This in turn helps solidify the ignorance of the populations consuming such formulated products. Basically these companies are conditioning their target to desire these formulas by constant exposure. I feel it is offensive that these companies treat consumers like sheep while converting artists into prostitutes.
It seems there is some confusion between entertainment and expression. The main concern of companies is making the sales. This concern trickles down to the artists forcing them to compromise their expression. I feel all forms of art ought to make a a genuine statement. Even if the sole purpose of the said expression is to entertain, I feel the entertainment itself should be genuine.
I guess the phrase "keeping it real" was coined by Hip-Hop artists, but I feel my comments on this statement encompasses all genres and mediums, i.e. rock, punk, pop, film, television etc.
One would believe that such a statement implies being the opposite of fake. However, in the entertainment industry, there seems to be a bigger concern of making the sale than there is maintaining integrity. These companies have designed formulas that appeal to what they call the under 25 over 25 audience. Once new talent is recognize and retained, these artists are forced to compromise their genuine expressions to "fit the bill" of the company's formulas. Basically in film, music, and television, these companies are attempting to target and prevent offending a large population, rather than satisfying a particular niche. In marketing, this idea is absurd. In fact, developing a product to fit the particular needs of a segmented population is much more successful than trying to make a "one-size fits all" product.
These formulated expressions are detrimental to not only expression, but to the populations that are being targeted. When these companies treat expression like the result of an equation, the authenticity becomes nonexistent. When this occurs these expressions become empty and weightless. This in turn helps solidify the ignorance of the populations consuming such formulated products. Basically these companies are conditioning their target to desire these formulas by constant exposure. I feel it is offensive that these companies treat consumers like sheep while converting artists into prostitutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)