Musical Integrity

[eFestivals]

there are squillions of examples of films, music, paintings, books, etc, where having a message is of no importance

most of it doesn't interest me

Yup, I'm with you. Stuff that's "for entertainment only" is just that.

Integrity doesn't come into it anywhere, aside from whether it meets its intended purpose of being entertaining (which is of course subjective - so it needs to entertain the intended audience or numbers, whatever the creator was intending).

[worm]

there are squillions of examples of films, music, paintings, books, etc, where having a message is of no importance

Edited November 9, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

How do you judge the sincerity involved in a work of fiction?

Edited November 9, 2010 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Thinking about this, it's trying to have some sort of lyrical integrity that makes it so hard for me to write lyrics. I've been in a band on and off for 15 years now and must have written getting on for 100 songs by now (of varying shades of dreadfulness). I can only think of 2 songs in all that time that i've done the lyrics for that I felt happy with. To me lyrics are a chance to engage people and talk to them about something that matters to you, and i've never really managed to get that accross properly in anything i've written. A big part of getting a new album for me is (after a couple of listens) sitting down and reading the lyrics along with it. If they're well written then it adds so much more to my enjoyment than. It can be whole songs or just single lines. Possibly my favourite line of all time is in Elbow's Mexican Stand Off "Your sweet reasurances don't change the fact, that he's better looking than me". Just utterly brilliant.

My ramblings above are a big part of why I dislike dance music. The total lack of effort into putting any kind of heartfelt message into the lyrics means I just can't get into it. Whilst I might like a song that's filled with lyrics that are there for the sake of the song having lyrics, the chances are I won't love it.

Edited November 9, 2010 by feral chile

[llcoolphil]

Given that your appreciation has absolutely no impact upon the music being consumed, isn't wanting 'integral music' just buying into an identity rather than the music itself?

It's pretty much self-empowerment and a producer's wet dream to have people deciding their type of brand on the basis of something so unmusical and arbitrary - fantasy, you might even say.

[eFestivals]

I knew nothing of Robert Tressell when I first read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists in my formative years

that's hardly surprising. It's a famous book - made more famous by John Major () - but the author himself is somewhat anonymous. Did he actually write anything else?

John Major eh.... talk about a man who completely missed the point.

Edited November 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

It might devalue my opinion of the writer (though I doubt it). Do we think less of a person for doing a job they dont like to earn some cash rather than simply doing a job they love? And going back to the point above, if we accept that culture determines what we do and dont like/feel comfortable with/similar ideas, aren't all songwriters whose work we get to hear publically simply writing to the culture - and is that any different to writing to the market? (Stockhausen is a good contrary example, cheers rfs!)

Should we respect Blunt more than Sinatra then, say?

Would you enjoy his work less if you nothing of the author?

That's my point - if Im creating my own meaning from an artefact, isn't the creator's motivation irrelevant?

I knew nothing of Robert Tressell when I first read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists in my formative years, but that didn't affect the impact the book had on me. Now I know something of the author and the history behind the various editions of the book that have been published, I can take views on its importance in the canon, but that is more to do with the outside interference with the work, than the work itself.

Edited November 9, 2010 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

But the book taps into something pravalent in modern times, a cultural value - a desire for freedom from oppression, resistance to social control, a desire for nonconformity. Just as a lot of music taps into the same value system.

Hmmm .... I'd say that these sorts of cultural outputs pretend to satisfy the human need for individuality and nonconformity, but actually do the opposite - make us all more conformist and less individual, even if we like to pretend to ourselves it's the opposite.

For (a very simple) example, 'rockers' put on a leather jacket and grow their hair and believes it makes them nonconformist, but what they're really doing is conforming with the norm for 'rockers'. If a 'rocker' wanted to REALLY be non-conformist they'd dress like (say) a spinboy and have nicely preened hair.

Anything which is trying to sell anyone a promise of individuality is invariably doing the precise opposite.

The most amusing thing I've seen in my 45 years is how Thatcher sold people an individualist dream, and via which people are now far more similar and drone-like than they've ever been.

Edited November 9, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

that's hardly surprising. It's a famous book - made more famous by John Major () - but the author himself is somewhat anonymous. Did he actually write anything else?

John Major eh.... talk about a man who completely missed the point.

[worm]

I was going to try and advance the point that when people talk about integrity in music, they actually mean 'my taste is better than yours' but the buggers at work made me do stuff today!

Edited November 9, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

The author was a painter (as in 'and decorator')not surprisingly and Tressell wasn't his real name - the surname was a reference to his work. I know he was Irish and moved to England and it was his daughter (or his wife - daughter I think) who got his manuscript published after his death. It's a famous book in the sense of people have heard of it, but its famous in other circles because of the trials and tribulations people went through to get an authentic version published without all the socialism taken out and the ending changed. He has nothing else published, though it wasn't easy to be a writer in his circumstances tbf

It's a very long time since I read it, and while I remember a little about what I found about about Tressell, I don't remember much.

But based on what you've said, I guess that Major fell in love with one of those edited versions rather than the real version.

[worm]

If a piece of work is any good, it maintains its relevance and withstands cultural change, probably because it taps into the human condition.

Edited November 9, 2010 by worm

[feral chile]

It is always of it's time Feral. Social equality et al are values of a certain space and time - they aren't universal. The human condition is ever changing and the meaning of a text requires you to have knowledge of the cultural temporality into which it was conceived.

To say that a text is relevant now without a reference to other cultural factors of its time is akin to rewriting history in this era's own image.

[feral chile]

Hmmm .... I'd say that these sorts of cultural outputs pretend to satisfy the human need for individuality and nonconformity, but actually do the opposite - make us all more conformist and less individual, even if we like to pretend to ourselves it's the opposite.

For (a very simple) example, 'rockers' put on a leather jacket and grow their hair and believes it makes them nonconformist, but what they're really doing is conforming with the norm for 'rockers'. If a 'rocker' wanted to REALLY be non-conformist they'd dress like (say) a spinboy and have nicely preened hair.

Anything which is trying to sell anyone a promise of individuality is invariably doing the precise opposite.

The most amusing thing I've seen in my 45 years is how Thatcher sold people an individualist dream, and via which people are now far more similar and drone-like than they've ever been.

[llcoolphil]

It's a very long time since I read it, and while I remember a little about what I found about about Tressell, I don't remember much.

But based on what you've said, I guess that Major fell in love with one of those edited versions rather than the real version.

[feral chile]

[quote name='llcoolphil' timestamp='1289331851' post='3450438'

Im loathe (I say loathe ) to start a discussion I cant take much part in for a while - out tonight soon and away from a PC all of tomorrow - but can we describe

as cultural values? Aren't they some universal form of the human condition? Is there a culture that doesn't desire freedom from oppression or resistance to social control somewhere within it? Whilst aspects of the human condition might be ever changing, aren't there some aspects that remain universal across every single culture and across time?

[worm]

Is there a culture that doesn't desire freedom from oppression or resistance to social control somewhere within it?

[worm]

there are no rules here. If integrity doesn't mean shit to you, then fine.

[dakyras]

No music you can buy has integrity. It's written/recorded for money.

Edited November 9, 2010 by dakyras

[ampersand]

No music you can buy has integrity. It's written/recorded for money.

[brighteyes]

what about this

[ampersand]

“We didn't all get into music for a job! We got into music to avoid a job, in truth - and get lots of girls.”

Paul McCartney

[ampersand]

i'm not trying to compare, i'm starting a new question. band starts up to have fun life and get fanny! where's the integrity there?

[dakyras]

I expect this is one of your 'drive-by' posts and I shouldn't get drawn in, but:

Rubbish! Artists need to eat ... so if they're giving their life to their art and providing a service (I'll let you decide what kind of service that is, pleasure? cultural?) then there has to be a value to it. Obviously, the internet has made things easier to get music distributed and at relatively zero cost, but without the use of good producers (cost), good studios (cost) and a hundred other things (not to mention promotion), can you guarantee quality music? Not all music you can buy is designed to create income ...

The cliche 'its all about the music, maan' is easily derided, but its true ... the music needs to be real, it needs to exist for its own sake. Its a really tough question as to what exactly is the integrity we are trying to discuss, but to me, its generally artists who do not pander to large money making music corporations. They can be signed to a major, but they are not allowed to put out formulaic, blandly lyrical, meaningless, paint-by-numbers bollocks.

When Nirvana signed to Geffen, I thought 'hold on a f**king moment!', but the music was brilliant, the production is ace etc etc ... In Utero also showed that it was the artist in control and that matters.

When bands like the Manic Street Preachers can be signed to Sony and put out The Holy Bible, it shows that a band can do what they want ...

Take That just wouldn't be allowed to write songs about the holocaust, or serial killers, or socialism ... but I don't know if they lack integrity? They just haven't a clue about any of that, Sing a pretty song, make a pretty penny. Shite. Empty, soulless, pointless shite. Its un-art.

[dakyras]

If I see a Picasso, it hasn't lost any integrity to me ... even though its been 'bought' by someone for x million.

Its the 'system' that forces us to pay for the music ... if the system does not control the artist, then the artist maintains integrity.