steve wrote:

LutherBlissett wrote:Does this preclude "commercial art" from being or becoming simply "art"? I say no, you seem to say yes.

Preclude? No. Encourage? Enable? Equally no.

It is possible for great art to be made with commercial intent. It is possible to build a house under water. Neither is as easy or as likely as under different circumstances, and we shouldn't pretend the difference itself is unimportant.

I wholeheartedly agree with all this.

Intention is neither a necessary nor sufficient determiner of what is possible to be considered good art, yet it goes a huge distance to determining what is likely to be considered good art.

LutherBlissett wrote:
Intention is neither a necessary nor sufficient determiner of what is possible to be considered good art, yet it goes a huge distance to determining what is likely to be considered good art.

Why argue for a "necessary and sufficient determiner"? No one here is saying that commercial interests and great art are completely irreconcilable, only that they are *almost* always irreconcilable in practice. I can give you a raft of empirical evidence to back up this assertion, but I don't feel like doing so.

And why worry about what is "considered to be" good art? Why don't we just focus on what *is* good art and fuck what other people think about it?

steve wrote:I still don't see how art can serve anyone but the artist.

Well, I think 99% of artists(made up statistic, but you know what I mean) are aware of this:

steve wrote:This points to my perception of music as a vehicle of communication (sometimes unwittingly so). Music allows us to understand something about the people who make it. I believe this is its most important attribute.

on a very cognizant level, and it informs their method of production.

steve wrote:Situations requiring compromise come up much less frequently in less-scrutinized independent environments.

Well, I'd say that the compromises are just different. Even in extreme cases, though, of things like art brut, where the artist isn't influenced by the compromises made to the audience or the means of distribution, the art itself may be subjected to the commercial process. This changes the context of the art, and the context of the art can influence the communication experience with the audience.

In this day and age, I can't see how patronage is preferable than a "free market" situation.

In fact, patronage seems to be the main thing that defines something as serious art, rather than entertainment or stuff that the plebs do. Not surprising seeing how the patrons of the arts centuries ago selected what was art and what was craftsmanship by means of their pockets and courtly standing.

Having to sell yourself fucking sucks, and attracts arseholes, but at least the regular folk get some sort of crack of the whip instead of just tickets to the Royal Opera to see what a "genius" is like. Bleh.

from Pitchfork wrote: labels are teaming up to put out a series of compilations aimed at seducing the newbie listener over to our way of life.

I think this is what is sticking in everyone's throat. Intentional marketing and full-blitz PR to attempt to "attract" and "seduce" people who have not previously bought non-mainstream music to buy shit from Matador and Sub Pop is disingenous and outside the realm of the indie, diy ethic. Plus it is a waste of time and money.

As steve points out, people like what they like, and find what they want. They do not respond to broad marketing initiatives by Viacom. It is disingenous.

These comps are going to sink beneath the waves. In my years in music retail, I saw hundreds of these things come and go. The worst sellers were the ones that were trying to cross over from one genre to another. Unless there is a bona-fide hit on a comp. that you can't get anywhere else, nobody will play these on the radio (college or commercial) and nobody in any record stores will order and stock them. Complete waste of time and money.

The show was called "The Target Shoots FIRST"

Info available via google, of course.

-

In reference to this idea of creating "indie" NOW! compilations:

If you're stupid enough to go along with it, you're stupid enough to buy it.

-

In defense:

SST had a compilation a long, long time ago. It was called "the Blasting Concept." It served a great purpose, in that it turned me on to Saccharine Trust, and let me actively avoid Wurm.

But that was a very different time, and a very different musical atmosphere, and also wasn't the most commercially viable product,
in that the cover looked like this:

I like comps! When I was a teenager, that's totally how I discovered new bands. The $8 double cd comp from an indie label was my consumer guide before the internet. "What's Up Matador" was where I first heard Silkworm, Chavez, Pavement, Yo La Tengo, Railroad Jerk, Thinking Fellers Union Local 282, Run On... All bands I couldn't live without.

Label samplers have been a staple ever since there were labels, and they're not a terrible thing. Warner Brothers made amazing ones in the seventies, oftentimes with unreleased or single only tracks from people like the Kinks, Hendrix, and Neil Young. Stiff Records had a great one.

This "indie" marketing push seems weirdly anachronistic if anything. For all intents and purposes, it's so much easier to put free songs up on myspace or a label's website than it is to pay to press CDs. Plus, then you can give them away for free. But I often forget that most people don't use the internet to download music, percentage-wise, I think it's only 33% or something. I think the other two-thirds is who they're reaching to here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm employed by one of the labels that are purportedly contributing to these purported comps. But I hadn't heard anything about these things until the Pitchfork story so I'm not at all sure if this is a definite thing these labels are doing or not.

It's a fair point that something like this could be a 'gateway'. I can't push Silkworm and Low on the kids immediately when they are used to MOR and sometimes it needs a few interim bands to sweeten the deal. This stuff gives them a shove in the right direction and their curiosity does the rest. I know this because I have used this tactic on other forums and it works surprisingly well.

Not something to lose sleep over anyhow.

the$inmusicisallmine wrote:
These comps are going to sink beneath the waves. In my years in music retail, I saw hundreds of these things come and go. The worst sellers were the ones that were trying to cross over from one genre to another. Unless there is a bona-fide hit on a comp. that you can't get anywhere else, nobody will play these on the radio (college or commercial) and nobody in any record stores will order and stock them. Complete waste of time and money.

DGC RARITIES VOL. 1, anyone?

If these are rarities, why have I seen a used copy in literally every record store I've ever been to?

gcbv wrote:SST had a compilation a long, long time ago. It was called "the Blasting Concept." It served a great purpose, in that it turned me on to Saccharine Trust, and let me actively avoid Wurm.

nicholas wrote:I like comps! When I was a teenager, that's totally how I discovered new bands. The $8 double cd comp from an indie label was my consumer guide before the internet. "What's Up Matador" was where I first heard Silkworm, Chavez, Pavement, Yo La Tengo, Railroad Jerk, Thinking Fellers Union Local 282, Run On... All bands I couldn't live without.

the way i differentiate these compilations from what is presented in the pitchfork article is...

most 'indie' labels have sampler cds or compilations in their catalogs. 99% of the compilations i have in my cd collection were throw-ins that i received along with other records i ordered through a label's website or mailing list. they were mostly unsolicited, and most generous. your compilations were sold to you through the labels and consisted solely of artists on said label, but in both instances it was a single label offering you the chance to explore the depth of their artists for less than the cost of a standard album. it was not a group of labels (with aid from warner group, hence the original "redefine major" poll i guess) combining only their best-selling artists.

like you said, gcbv, the sst comp. wasn't a very commercially viable product. the NOW! series is the epitome of commercially viable. it is also a gross, unethical (at least in the 'indie' diy sense) marketing ploy; cleverly disguised, but in actuality an attempt to cash-in on an entire culture by packaging it for mass-appeal. it's not a case of a kid liking black flag or pavement (sorry for generalizing!) and wondering about their fellow labelmates. it's a case of supposed arbiters of underground culture doing business with the very companies they began their careers reacting against, and pretending it's for the benefit of the musicians they represent.

i hope that makes sense. i have a tendency to write poorly when the topic is something about which i am adamant. one would think the exact opposite would be more likely...