Artistic Integrity

Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

You are visiting a friend’s house, and you see that on each wall in his living room has a beautiful still-life oil painting in a framed canvas. You tell your friend how awesome these paintings are, then to your suprise, he says “Yeah, I get compliments on them all the time, but to tell you the truth, I made them from these oil paint-by-numbers kits I found at the hobby shop.” your friend adds, “I saved a lot of money by using these kits rather than buying original paintings at the art gallery.”

My question is, do you feel art and artistic integrity are really related at all?

My personal view is that if I see a piece of art that I enjoy, it has already made an impression on me…and so if I later find out that it didn’t take a significant amount of artistic talent to create, it doesn’t bother me at all. I just like what I see.

I’m curious as to how many people feel this way about music? Do you need to know how much talent was involved in able to judge if a track is good or not.

example: I’ve listened to a trance tracks that I love, but then later found out that the track was made with entirely with acid pro loops.
Nevertheless, I love what i hear.

For you is art/music independent of artistic integrity?

a friend of mine tricked me the other day by asking me if i liked what he had playing on his amarok, i thought about it for a second, and said it’s not bad.

then he told me it was nine inch nails.

i won’t be hangin with him any more…

on topic overall, i think Art gets in the way of Music too much.

Yah people who listen to NIN are no good. cough

… anyway, I understand this is an ever-so-slightly different topic, but I just started a thread regarding artistic integrity the other day in this very subforum! :P

Yeah I piggy-backed from your topic. However, since I like to remind myself how honest and decent I am, I give YOU the intellectual credit of this topic thread. I just sampled a couple ideas from the other thread to come in with a different angle to the question. :D

I don’t like artists. Can’t trust 'em.

I gotta say…

This topic opened my eyes.

I realised I’ve allways been very strict on people who use loops straight off sample CD and I don’t have any artistical respect for that kind of behaviour… But then… One of my greatest ever idols “prodigy” uses long beats ripped straight from rap records so I guess this thing is not that black and white afterall.

Though if I had known that the beat in Charly is originally STRAIGHT from MeatBeatManifesto’s Radio Babylon, I might have losen a bit of respect for prodigy.

But still that does not hinder the artistical experiece that I get off from Charly.

So I think in the end it really does not matter. What matters if people like what you have created. But when it comes to acid loops… erm…

good topic…

Does it matter how it is done…

[quote="#<0x0000562854e96380>, post:6, topic:21867"]



So I think in the end it really does not matter. What matters if people like what you have created. But when it comes to acid loops… erm…



good topic…



Does it matter how it is done…
[/quote]

What’s weird is it can get deeper than that. I used to criticize the artistic (or musical) integrity and originality of songs if they sounded too familiar to other songs…“Oh this sounds too much like With or Without You! Or this sounds like Ziggy Stardust!”

But how could this outlook hold up if I hear and love the song that was created after the track it supposedly sounds like? Then I’d end up being criticizing the originality of the song that was released before the “sound-alike” song. The chances of this happening could be low, but it’s possible, especially if I was still an originality nazi.



But as far as acid pro loops and people who paint by numbers…I figure, If I’m complimenting your music or art, and you borrowed the talent from elsewhere, it’s best to tell me that it’s been appropriated. It’s not like I’m going to delete the song off my mp3 player, or throw my coffee on your paint-by-numbers picture because I think it would make the painting more original.</0x0000562854e96380>

When I hear music that I later find was just a mish mosh of looped breaks and stolen melodies, whether it sounds good or not, it really turns me off.

So many people say they create (and I use that term loosely) music when they are just getting bits and pieces of songs and simply sequencing them together.

It is a lot like video editing. I didn’t really create my videos. I screen captured video games and took bits from movies.

I don’t hear producers say “Hey I am an audio editor…” I think so many people fall into this category…

I understand your point of view, but since I see you’ve mentioned ‘stolen melodies’, I’d like to point out that there are many people who hear melodies as a form of musical communication. When someone else hits the “nail on the head” with a the perfect melody that communicates a particular feeling or mood, is it really stealing to communicate the same idea? One example, take the ‘Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star’ melody. This is basically the same melody as ‘Bah, Bah Blacksheep’ and also the Alphabet song. There are so many traditional/folk/troubadour etc. songs that evolved over time by borrowing each other’s melody and even lyrics as well. Everything from Greensleeves to Irish/English Drinking songs…
In the USA, we sing “My country,’ tis of thee…” to the same tune as the UK’s national anthem, “God Save the King” And there are a handful other countries that use this same exact melody for their patriotic music ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen#See_also )

Why do many countries use this melody? My opinion is the melody particularly communicates a majestic mood for the lyrics that they have applied to it.

Heck, there is even something majestic about the melody of the old English drinking song that The USA national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, was penned to be sung with.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner )

I think while many people may genuinely feel that using previous melodies, loops, breaks, is wrong or counter-productive, there are plenty others who genuinely don’t care as much on originality than what the music itself will communicate to the listener.

With the digital age, we hear this idea of using previous musical material to communicate a mood in more evolved ways (ie breaks, melody, bassgrooves) Now it’s more like “Oh, I love this Beatles melody!..and, I like the mood it creates when i place a clip of Jay-Z rapping on top of it”

However, with that being said, I’m not trying to discount the grave sin of, let’s say, ripping off a chip-tune, and using it in your own music while knowing that you are going to make a lot of money off it. Back in the olden days, when money wasn’t as much associated with music, troubadours shared melodies and lyrics, then traveled on to eventually share with the next troubadour.
Money is now involved, so it’s not twinkle, twinkle little black sheep and share great melodies fantasy-land anymore.
But that doesn’t mean the human desire to communicate particular feelings via powerful, tried-and-true melodies/chord progressions/lyrics is gone.

That’s just a way for untalented idiots to create something that seems to have meaning. But which in the end turns out to be just utter rubbish. Creating from other peoples creations is like speaking another ones words as your own. You might say wise things but really have no clue what you are talking about.

This is something I’ve actually thought of my whole life. But have not understood it until now.

Thank you one more time. Reading that so well put in words was awesome…

It’s very common for humans to speak other words as their own, even when it comes to day to day conversation. Sure, maybe you yourself aren’t one to drop situational phrases like “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”, “You’re barking up the wrong tree”, “Be careful what you wish for…” “Beggars can’t be choosers…” etc. But I highly doubt, that like using other peoples words to communicate a certain piece of wisdom, people would essentially do the same in their artistic/musical creations without having a clue what they are talking about or trying to get across in their creation. Whether they are talented or not, average salt -of-the-earth people are going to create works of art and music with whatever they have laying around that they identify with. I really don’t think they are striving to create things that seem ‘to have meaning’ as much as finding things that have meaning to them, that in turn, is included in their creation. And at least to them, it isn’t rubbish, so chances are, it might not be rubbish someone else out there. People may feel they have a right to call them untalented idiots, but I think it’s important to consider their intentions. If they are making mashup on the computer because they love making mashups that’s one thing. But if they mashup and use things that they in turn claim it to be their own, and brag about how they are a great musician, this is another thing. But to throw a blanket statement and call anyone you uses other’s creations an untalented idiot, is too extreme in my opinion. These are humans doing what they do.

[quote="#<0x00005628549d7ab0>, post:11, topic:21867"]

This is something I’ve actually thought of my whole life. But have not understood it until now.



But I still think it is important to create new feelings. I think this can also be used as an advantage in music making. Meaning to experiment with melodies and how to find different ways to that same door. Some subtle changes in the melodies might give a whole different way.


[/quote]

Yeah, I’m right there with you man. I’ve been finding this out recently as well. And I absolutely agree about creating new feelings.

I don’t want people to think that I’m trying to say that musicial/artistic innovation and originaly is not important. I just felt it needed to be said that you can’t knock humans who use things that already articulate what they want to express in their creations. They are people too…just doing what average people tend to do.</0x00005628549d7ab0>

I’m going to put and end to the whole originality debate right now: There is no such thing as originality in music anymore. Everything in music copies, mimics, satires, and tributes music from long past. Sure there are innovations, but for the most part, music has been rehashing the same concepts over and over again for centuries. To make music that is 100% original, you would have to use a scale other than the 12 note chromatic scale, nonstandard instruments, and you’d need to quite possibly invent some sort of basic musical concepts other than rhythm and melody… oh wait, it still wouldn’t be original because you’d be making sound, and that’s been done before. Tough luck!

That being said… Artistic integrity is a different topic entirely. The argument that artistic integrity should solely be judged on originality is laughable at best, and explains why we have so many suicidal artists in the world. There is only so much ground that can be broken in process before one actually has to start creating from the heart.

I got into a discussion with a certain IRCer earlier today where the topic of breakcore came up. He argued that breakcore artists simply use “easily learnable tricks” to “impress” their audience. I disagreed… I think this is such a broad statement that it could apply to any genre. And really, it is true for most genres: There is a LARGE amount of really soulless music being made. There are a TON of artists that focus only on their technique, and don’t really bother composing a song with feeling that reflects their views, their struggle, or their feelings. However… This does not apply for every artist in ANY genre. In fact, it’s pretty hard to distinguish which artists are making their music more to show off technique, and which are making music with their souls and their unique artistic vision put into it. I guess the more you enjoy a specific genre, the more you can identify with which artists are truly telling a story, and which are doing nothing more than wanking off on their listeners.

So how do we rate artistic integrity? Is it something that anyone but the artist themselves can truly judge? Quite possibly, the answer is “no”… but there are certain things that truly seem to weigh on the morals of the audience and the fellow producer. I, for instance, think that artists like Timbaland don’t deserve to be looked at as skilled producers because of their “lets just loop the stolen sample with an added beat” methods. But that’s a personal value of mine… not of the producers. So, for me, who doesn’t believe in calling others’ art my own, Timbaland gets no respect. However, this is not a strictly defined value. I personally see no issue in using short samples, or even the occasional loop, in a song that doesn’t center around that sample. I also don’t see an issue with making a sample the center of a song if it’s sufficiently mangled, so as to parody or even tribute the original, as long as it doesn’t just sound like the track is playing note for note. I have these skewed values because I see the latter as a creative process. I see it as self expression. I’m not expressing myself by playing a jazz riff from a song straight, by itself (and claiming it’s mine). I am, however, expressing myself if I turn it into something unique that only I would have come up with. If I had a bass guitar, I may have indeed played it. My original point in this paragraph, however, is that Timbaland obviously has different morals. He sees sample ripping as fair game. Unless someone does it to him. Thus is the capitalist value system. But perhaps he’s justified, because he’s telling a (valid?) story with those ripped samples?

My point in all this is to illustrate that we all have different value systems. Artistic integrity isn’t a black and white issue. (Though some would disagree COUGH) It’s something that everyone has their own views on. Which ones should we decide to hold on to? Our own. Should we impose them on others? No. This was the point of my other thread. Every time someone tries to convince me Timbaland is an amazing producer, I have a right to disagree… and I can defend my view if they’re attacking it, but I won’t try to force it on them. I realize full well that they have a right to their opinion. Just like when people try to tell me that Trent Reznor is a corporate pig, I can kindly disagree and be on my way.

Even moreso, if someone claims that music I listen to has no soul, I can be assured that it may not for them, but it does for me, and it almost certainly does for the artist that made it. I can also be humble enough to admit when I enjoy music that has no soul. :P (but that is only for me to decide)

I need to remember this…so then I don’t go pushing my school of thought on others who aren’t inclined to ever agree. Because now that you mention it, there are always going to be people that criticize the validity of certain pieces of art and music based on originality/technique/skill etc. I’m one to notice art in a more subjective manner than objective.

Byte… you agree the world isn’t black and white, yet you dare to make
the bold statement that originality doesn’t exist anymore… HOW COULD
YOU EVER KNOW!?

are you psychic? can you see the future? or even a week from now?
and even so, even if ‘original’ means something pure like ‘something
that has never been done before’ than originality on its own doesn’t
exist, which would make the use of the word obsolete.

no matter how I try to twist your words, dear Byte… you are wrong,
from a very basic philosophic point of view :)

I was simply playing the devil’s advocate on that one BotB. Might I say that I also believe that everything is original in it’s own way. Originality is quite possibly the most subjective topic I’ve ever discussed… and to discuss it properly, one must first take a look at their own notions of originality. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of just how stubborn their own views on art and creativity are. You’re very right though, not all things are black and white. The reality of such things are just about as varied and unstable as the human condition itself. And that’s because this construct that we call “originality” is a solely human concept. One that is rooted in things like greed. The reality is, everything is but a stepping stone to something else, and noone should be forced to reinvent the wheel again unless they very much want to. What do the trees know of originality? They are all unique, yet so very much the same.

Nothing is the only thing that is truly Original.
being headstrong about that is all that matters in music.

time exists only as a gimmick of Cartesian devices. in truth it is only relative to itself, and nothing else.

everything exists Right Now. originality is a scam.

striving for originality is based in insanity.

Actually the concept of time existed centuries (if not millennia) before Descartes ;)

Still a great point to make though! Becoming something you are not often is just a cop out from being what you are. If you are what you are, you’re going to be stuff nobody experienced anybody be before - calling that originality is good enough, no? Time, schmime :P