First off, I'd like to say hi all. This is my first post. I'm a college student interested various things (at the moment, primarily literature and physics), but most importantly I have an unquenchable passion for music.

Lately my taste has been rather eclectic, ranging from genres including grindcore, eighties hardcore punk, ambient electronica, and poppy modern indie, and I've begun to wonder what the role of the musician or artist is.

What raised the question for me was my recently perked interest in the Smashing Pumpkins, and my fascination with Billy Corgan's approach to songwriting. If anyone's even just two or three years older than I am (I'm 18, soon to be 19), then you've probably heard about the eccentricities of Billy Corgan and his tendency to be controlling of the band situation. Admittedly, his approach is not unlike multiple other musicians, including the perfectionist Eagles, the cranky Maynard James Keenan, and the apparently slightly crazy Rivers Cuomo, only to name a few (all mainstream, by the way).

But what's peculiar to Corgan is his interest in making 'good' songs. That is, rather than writing anything that appeals to him, from the little I've read of him he seems concerned with maintaining this "perfect band" image, and constantly keeps the audience in mind while he's writing his music. Or, I could be misinterpreting the interviews with him I've been browsing on Google. His approach is similar to Cuomo of Weezer, who apparently carries around a gigantic binder chock fulla notes on every major pop song in history in order to derive the perfect formula for a hit pop song.

And I guess I can't decide if this irritates me or if I admire the dedication. On the one hand I want to be a hipster teenager who says, "Man, any REAL musician wouldn't care about being succesful. He should just try and make something new, man." On the other hand, I love performance artists, specifically eighties glam rockers like David Bowie and Klaus Nomi, and I recognize that part of what makes music, for lack of a better term, good is how the audience receives it and how much the song catches- worded differently, how catchy the song is.

Granted, both approaches have their downsides. Being too artsy can be annoying and produce lame crap, whereas being too considered with being pop can make an artist a sell-out and produce lame crap. So, to wrap things up, I'm just interested in hearing everyone's ideas on what the role of the musician should be, and whether or not this criteria determines for you what bands you enjoy and don't enjoy.

Thanks for lettin' me in the community and reading this lengthy post!

well, i think you wouldn't have to look too far to find both.

quite obviously, the pussycat dolls were conceived in order to move records, thus they are entirely aware of their audience. i don't think anyone would disagree with this.

on the other hand, i'm pretty sure deerhoof doesn't mind that they're not exactly tearing up the charts.

Er, no, I think you misunderstood.

I'm quite aware that the manifestations of what I mentioned are out there in large numbers. What I was asking is what you guys personally thought the role of the musician should be.

sorry, i actually did answer your question when i first wrote out that post, but then i went back and erased it. twice. silly.

basically, i don't think there is a right or wrong in the methods of composition, what matters is the finished product. if you think one method yields a better product and you want to call that a method superior, that's up to you.

I don't really think there is a right or a wrong way to make music or do anything for that matter. Of course there is the traditional methods that have seemed to work for a given majority, but then there are all the cases where that isn't true.

Whatever works for a given individual should be how they go about doing it. What I mean by works is that it produces the product they want. If they want to be a showman, so be it, if they want to merely play out ideas in there heads, so be it, if the whole thing is some big formula well I guess that is ok too.

I think you already know the answer to your question. There's important merits to all different styles of song writing. There's no reason for you to concern yourself with the process except out of curiousity. As a fan, your concern is obviously the finished product. I mean, if you like it, who gives a fuck? If all songwriters used the same approach then we wouldn't have the rich diversity we do. From Mozart's writing on a whim to Beethoven's painstaking studies to Coltrane's endless hours of scales to the Master Musicians of Jajouka to Jimi Hendrix to Jimmy Page to Billy Corgan there will be as many songwriting techniques as there are songwriters themselves. There's nothing intrisically bad with setting out to write mainstream pop songs. In fact, a good pop song may be the most elusive goal out there. When I was in college I went through a very deep exerimental phase where I listened to very extreme noise music almost all that time and definitely at the expense of music I would later learn to love. I don't regret it because it helped me develop my music appreciation in the long run. But like I said, the proof is in the pudding. You can tell good music from the phonies.

it basically boils down to whether or not you want to be a musician who plays music that people will go out of their way to see. or an entertainer who plays songs to hold a crowd's attention.

Well, clearly I do. The reason I'm asking isn't to determine what kind of criteria I will hereby have for bands. I know what I like, and if someone insults a band I like, I'll defend the band and argue it's merits. I'm not asking your opinions to be persuaded one way or the either. It's merely out of curiosity.

Plus, I should add, questioning the role of the artist in general isn't a bad thing. I think it raises the question 'what is art?', and, as annoyingly philosophical as that is, it's proved to be one of the hardest questions I've had answering.

But I get the vibe that these kinds of questions aren't what floats your collective, figurative boat, so didn't mean to bother you guys with it.

part of understanding art is realizing it's not really definbale

You quoted me out of context there. I never said that examining the song writing process is a bad thing. In your initial post it does sound like it influences your opinion of the finished product though.


So your question is 'What is the role of the musician?' To make music. 'What should the role be?' is that it? Whatever he wants it to be.

As for 'What is art?' IMO, anything anyone calls art is art.