[manachar]

"Art that doesn't sell is just a storage problem."

Had an artist tell me this once and it stuck with me ever since. He was referring to paintings, but has generally held for every other artistic endeavor.

Looking through history art has always been commercial - it's just the audience that changes.

For music, musicians who got paid used to be focused on the tastes of just the wealthiest folks who liked to go and be seen at symphonies. Nowadays, it's the artists who can fill stadiums (and get fans to buy lots of merch) that make the most bank. As such, it is often those musicians who provide a sellable brand that do best. To many, this can feel fake and plastic. But like any product designed for mass consumption, it's essential.

Looking at the symbiotic dance between artist and viewer/reader/listener is really something special, and helps to provide context for changes in trends.

You could be the best guitar player in the world, writing the best guitar solos of all time, but if you can't get people to pay for it, it's just a storage problem for your guitar.

[coldtea]

>Looking through history art has always been commercial - it's just the audience that changes.

Well, not exactly in the same way. Commercial is not about "catering to an audience", it's about catering to mass audiences, and the compromises that entails.

For example, an "artistic" indie group catering to just a tiny minority is not just "as commercial" as a pop production, unless we stretch the term beyond recognition).

There's a huge difference in attitude and approach. The artistic group would rather lose money than incorporat some elements that aren't in their vision. A pop artist on the other hand would more often than not just do whatever the producer or writing team wants to get on the fads of the day and sell more.

It's not just the audience that changes, but the methodology, the marketing involved, the perception of their work by the artist, and most importantly the lack of the kind of defiance that characterized artists who'd rather lose lots of money and stay poor than compromise on their vision (or who even made a point of not selling out on purpose).

[andsoitis]

> For example, an "artistic" indie group catering to just a tiny minority is not just "as commercial" as a pop production, unless we stretch the term beyond recognition).

But that indie band is not necessarily more artistic.

[ipaddr]

Authentic is the correct word here. Authentic bands offer a realism that is opposite of the collective market driven mass media song writing.

[greatwave1]

The indie group is not necessarily more authentic either.

[coldtea]

Than mass-marketed commercial pop by commitee? Oh, yes, it will be...

[greatwave1]

I know the phrase "mass-marketed commercial pop by committee" produces a visceral reaction, but nothing about it is inherently inauthentic.

"Mass-marketed" just means that something is widely promoted. Many of the most creative, influential, and authentic musical groups are "mass-marketed".

"Commercial" doesn't really mean anything in this context, as presumably everything that you listen to on the radio/streaming services is commercial.

"Pop" is descriptive of the style of the music, not how it's produced (there are indie pop groups).

"by committee" means that multiple people contributed to it. Do you think the only valid creative process is one where somebody works in isolation? If so, that disqualifies pretty much every band / non-solo act from meeting your standards for authenticity.

[msla]

Indie can be a pose. Punk can be a pose. Anything can be a pose.

If there's one thing the music world should know by now, it's that.

(Hell, one of the best-known punk groups, the Sex Pistols, was a boy band put together by Malcolm McLaren. Sid Vicious was McLaren's idea.)

[coldtea]

"Artistic" in the sense "more concerned about art" not "having more art in their results" (which can't be measured anyway).

So, like "arthouse movies". An arthouse movie could be much worse done than a mainstream good movie (like, say, the Godfather). The art in the term is not about the level of artistry, but about the approach.

[Juliate]

Commercial doesn't mean that it's for mass audiences, it just means that it sells, or that people buy.

Small or large or mass audience targeting (or not targeting) is an adjacent matter to making commerce or not.

Commerce is at root a relationship between someone who provides and someone who provides something else in return.

Artistic vision, craft, authenticity (why, how, what am I doing/saying this?) are orthogonal matters to commerce (what/how do I get in return?).

[ryandrake]

Far be it from me to try to define art, but at some point I imagine an artist must stop and ask him/herself "Is my work an original thought? Am I telling a story here, sending a message, engaging with an idea, being provocative, being honest, making my audience feel something, or is my work... mass-produced background mall muzak? A soulless sculpture for some corporate headquarters?" Pop music has always been right in the middle, toeing close to that line between "mostly art" and "mostly commercial product". Where the difference between what the artist wants to say and what the audience wants to see/hear is blurry. I'm sure when you enter that world, surrounded by producers, business people, investors, execs, marketing, focus groups, event organizers, you feel the pressure to go along with the flow and just build a formulaic consumer product.

I don't think art that doesn't sell is lesser than art that does sell. I know, tell that to an artist who wants to make a living... but I really think you have to measure a work along more than one axis. How good something sells is a different dimension than how good something is. If that wasn't true, Thriller would be the best music ever and the Toyota Corolla would be the best car in the world.

[scns]

> "Is my work an original thought? Am I telling a story here, sending a message, engaging with an idea, being provocative, being honest, making my audience feel something, or is my work... mass-produced background mall muzak?"

One of your questions aligns with my personal definition of art. Art is 100% subjective i.e. personal. For me music needs to touch me emotionally, and since i love to dance it is a huge plus if it makes me move too. Visual art needs to astonish me, in one word: Wow!

[scns]

Music is entertainment, if we leave music for spiritual rituals. Some of the highly revered classical music of Bach or Händel was background or dance music for parties hosted the nobles who employed them.