Search options (Page 13 of 24)

hype should come from you having already released stuff that people liked. no one needs a thread specifically for hype; announcing that you're doing something should, if you're good enough, automatically hype people up. this place has a weird entitlement complex where all new musicians feel like they deserve just as much hype as people who've been doing this for years.

my first full-length got exactly 1 reply, and that's how it should have been.

I just really like the song

Stream is live!

Some thoughts on this fr srs now:

(SCROLL DOWN TO LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T NEED A PROOF FOR MY OPINION)

Honestly, I don't think we get to dictate this. Art is FUNDAMENTALLY a personal experience for both the artist and the audience; it's a sharing of SOMETHING that cannot be described through simple communication methods (i.e. small talk, etc.), and as a result, the artist has to turn to something beyond the scope of mere description. In short, an artist is someone who has a concept/idea that can't JUST be talked about. Impersonal art is kind of an oxymoron; impersonal art is simply CRAFT, which is way different than ART, in that craft simply requires skill, whereas art requires craft PLUS something personal to say. This is why we often talk about pop music as though it is impersonal -- we like to think that music so all-encompassing CAN'T be the work of an individual with an interesting idea, because it applies to everyone, and if it applies to everyone, then it's not personal (this is NOT true, and is a whole other discussion). Craft can BECOME art by being such an amazing display of skill that the craft and the craftsman are inseparable, in which the craft itself becomes the personal statement (this is how it used to work way back in the day).

But something that we often forget when we're discussing our relationship with our own art is that art is also a dialogue. That is; art (and music) does not exist in a vacuum, and it CANNOT exist without an audience. It doesn't matter if that audience is one person or a million people -- art without an audience is simply craft. What matters is that there remains a DIALOGUE at the end of it. This dialogue is important because it is pretty much how we define whether something is "art" or not. Think about it: how many art pieces have you seen and NOT made a judgment on? Even saying "this shit sucks" or "it's not worth discussing/it's not worth my time" is a judgment. I'd guess the answer is ZERO, because the dialogue defines the art.

(TYING THIS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUOTE NOW)

We don't get to dictate how personal our art is because doing that with your own art is NOT A DIALOGUE. It's a MONOLOGUE. And the only use of a monologue is to tell THE AUDIENCE what you're thinking at the time -- NO ONE uses monologues to tell themselves what they're thinking unless you're Charlie Kaufman. We can ramble on and on about what our music means to ourselves, but at the end of the day, the judgment lies with the audience -- the monologue only serves as a reference point to others. As artists, we're supposed to be CONVINCING the audience that our works mean something profound to ourselves that absolutely NEEDED to be shared, and then the audience can judge whether or not we fulfilled what we promised. But because we're artists, we have to do this THROUGH OUR ART.

This is why I don't like talking about my own work and what it "means to me" -- doing that essentially lets everyone else know that my work isn't good enough to do that on its own, and if I need to explain to people what my music means before they even listen to it, I've failed as an artist (to be frank, I don't think that my music really SAYS anything). This is also why I really dislike it when people put in backstories or overly-descriptive song titles in their music; too often, it's there to cover up for the fact that the music doesn't actually convey what the artist wants it to convey. Basically, it shouldn't be about how we feel when we listen to our own music (this is a monologue, it is meaningless in the end); it should be about how OTHERS feel IN COMPARISON to how we feel about our own music.

I guess this is just a really long-winded way of saying that I don't like talking about my music. (Then why did you even respond in this thread (GAWD you're thick))

EDIT: Essentially, this thread (to me) is a long list of monologues -- it's only interesting in comparison to what others think about your music (which is the point, I guess).

so yeah it's kind of easy to figure out that all we do down here in San Diego is dance

I don't mean to be that jaded jerk here, but pop stars using basic waveforms in their songs is definitely NOT co-opting chiptune. I'm pretty sure the producers in question don't even really have any clue what "chiptune" is; the sounds sound cool and so they're going to use it. Definition arguments aside (let's REALLY not get into this guys), I don't think chiptune as a form is co-optable, and chiptune as an aesthetic is such a slippery slope that anyone using basic waveforms could be called "chiptune."

I think the connection to the use of dubstep in music is questionable. Dubstep is foremost a form, secondly an aesthetic. That's why you can have stuff like Burial coexisting in the same genre space as Skrillex; the aesthetics are completely different, but the form is the same. I don't think that's the case with chiptune -- in fact, it could be argued that the form is so connected to the aesthetic that an artist can't make a song with chiptune in it; they have to make a CHIPTUNE SONG. And yes, there's a difference.

If anything, the use of these basic waveforms in pop music is less CHIPTUNE BECOMING MAINSTREAM and more producers running out of ideas for weird-ass sounds to put in their pop music. We had the funk-ass instrumentals with Timbaland, and we had the hyper-produced euro-pop with David Guetta (and like every K-Pop song in existence (it's so good omg)), and now producers are getting back to their roots, except we had about 10-20 years of context to cover for the fact that yes, these producers didn't even put any fundamentals in their waveform, shut up, it's music. Everyone's already singing about the end of the world and the collapse of civilization -- we might as well collapse the resolutions of waveforms with it.