Thoughts prompted by the recent demise of the one-gloved wonder

Bob-Dubery

I find the continuing brouhaha about MJ's death and the alleged hows and whys quite irksome. Mostly because I think it misses the point of his life and works. Surely all that should matter, or not, to most of humanity is the music that he laid down?

My thinking is that all we're entitled to of the artist is the art that they put in the public domain, and that the person (or the way the person presents themselves) and the art don't necessarily have a lot to do with each other and that you can admire one and dislike or be indifferent to the other.

John Martyn's music touched me orders of magnitude more than Michael Jackson's ever did. Yet I'd have probably kicked him out of my house based on what I know about him - and nobody, including Martyn himself, has ever done anything but confirm the tales of the drunkneness, the fighting, the wild temper. But I don't hear any of that in the music or in his playing.

Richard Thompson once said that Jerry Lee Lewis was a terrible man who made marvellous music.

I read a biography of Nick Drake that left me thinking about how he seemed to lack for nothing in life bar a solid kick up the arse to jolt him out of his self-absorption (well... that and somebody to tell him that smoking that much hash that often was probably not a very good idea. Which may be implied in the kick up the arse). I didn't feel that he was anybody that I'd particularly enjoy as a person - but I very much enjoy the small body of music that was released in his life time.

Should it make any difference to most of us that Martyn was a drunk and a brawler? That Drake was massively depressed and probably over-indulged. That Michael Jackson was trying to not look like his dad and, in my opinion, trying to buy the childhood that he was never allowed to live? Is that really any of our business? Is it even something that we need to address and to try to revise perceptions of? Does it really matter that Freddy Mercury had AIDS? That Jerry Lee Lewis married his teenage cousin? That Marilyn Manson has studs inserted in his unmentionable bits? That Jim Morrison got through large amounts of whisky in a day?

Does it change anything? Does it make Martyn's records worse? Does it make Jackson's records the best ever recorded?

Are we entitled to anything but the art? Is there anything else by which we should judge the artist?

Judging the person is a different thing, and perhaps the same separation should apply. If I go and write a song about how all we should remember of the singer is the songs, and that song sucks chunks then I hope that some of you would find it within yourselves to concede that I do have one or two redeeming features, though songwriting is not one of them. IE the art can suck but the artist can be OK.

And art shouldn't excuse the person either. If Gary Glitter could write words like Cohen, play guitar like Martyn etc etc he should still have gone to jail - though I might have bought a few more of his records than I did. IE a number greater than zero.

Spyke

A very interesting point raised Bob. I do agree with you that the artist and the art should be considered separately.

Modern pop culture and the advances in technology and communication put us in closer contact with those we admire (even if it's only for their art) and thus puts their private lives under the microscope.

It's actually a sad state of affairs when you consider that it works both ways, how Britney used her virginity to sell her music or how Amy's drug abuse scored her 'popularity' (probably notoriety actually). 'Artists' making money without even producing art. We will not enter into the boy band discussion here...

I feel it's easier for us as artists and musicians ourselves to differentiate between what is important and what isn't with regards to artist's personal lives. Many aren't afforded that luxury, they just see one package.

Bob-Dubery

Spyke wrote A very interesting point raised Bob. I do agree with you that the artist and the art should be considered separately.

Well I kept an internal debate/argument going in the traffic this morning. It leads to interesting questions around the context in which we should view art. There is, for example, a school of English poetry that arose during WW1. Taken out of that historic context that poetry may seem odd or just have no potency at all. So at some point maybe we have to take some account of the artist's situation or times (if not their unhygienic habits).

Maybe there are artistic statements that rely on the artist's own anguish or hang ups or broken heart or drug habit, or require knowledge of those circumstances to "decode". So is that even art?

And so it can lead on to questions like

What is art anyway?
Why does it matter?
Does it matter?
So what?

Personally I think that art DOES matter, but I can't say exactly why. Sometimes I think that great art leads to loftier thought, to considering oneself as a part of the great universe/creation/whatever. Sometimes I think that great art can crystallise emotions or thoughts that I can't crystallise by myself.

Spyke

I'm of the school that believes that what art means to me is probably different to what art means to you.
Interpretations differ. Hallelujah is a song that I can relate to, to others it's nonsensical blabber. I however do not have the same appreciation for Kurt Darren's Kaptein. Yet both can be described as art in the raw sense thereof.

DonovanB

Art is the science of effective communication.

IOW if you have a point to make in your art, and you can effectively communicate that then you have succeeded.

[deleted]

Bob Dubery wrote
Maybe there are artistic statements that rely on the artist's own anguish or hang ups or broken heart or drug habit, or require knowledge of those circumstances to "decode". So is that even art?

And so it can lead on to questions like

What is art anyway?

Why does it matter?

Does it matter?

So what?

Personally I think that art DOES matter, but I can't say exactly why. Sometimes I think that great art leads to loftier thought, to considering oneself as a part of the great universe/creation/whatever. Sometimes I think that great art can crystallise emotions or thoughts that I can't crystallise by myself.

Bob, have you read any Susan Sontag? Against Interpretation would be a good one to start with, if these topics interest you.

Bob-Dubery

DonovanB wrote Art is the science of effective communication.

IOW if you have a point to make in your art, and you can effectively communicate that then you have succeeded.

Depends on how you define "point".

I mean what is the point of "Visions Of Johanna" or "Like A Rolling Stone"? I am intrigued by the former and adore the latter but I haven't a clue what the point of either of them is. I sometimes experience the invocation of profound emotion when listening to Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" (not actually what he called it, but what it's commonly called) but what's the point of it?

Songs like "I'm Not Marching Anymore" or "Blowing In the Wind" have a point, but not all great art has an obvious point to it.

And points get missed. A large number of people have misconstrued Springsteen's "Born In The USA" (including at least one Presidential candidate). I hate to think what some people might construe from some of Randy Newman's songs.

Richard Thompson wrote this
God never listened to Charlie Parker
Charlie Parker lived in vain
Blasphemer, womaniser,
Let a needle numb his brain
Wash away his monkey music
Damn his demons, Damn his pain

And what’s the point of Albert Einstein
What do we need Physics for?
Heresy’s his inspiration
Corrupt and rotten to the core
Curse his devious mathematics
Curse his deadly atom war
....
Shakespeare, Isaac Newton
Small ideas for little boys
....

Various "points" may be discerned and various conclusions drawn on the basis of that little lot.

(For the record, Thompson is a huge fan of Charlie Parker's music)

DonovanB

to put it simply, if I draw an apple and you say, "Nice orange." I have failed.

Banditman

Sometimes art makes a point which may be social, moral or political. Sometimes it just is what it is (take "I am the walrus" as an example.)

Going back to your original point, I would agree that the artist's personal life is of no personal concern to me. Perhaps the problem is that we live in a time where many choose to merely be entertained. We live in a time where craftsmanship is not held in proper regard by an increasing mass of willfully ill-educated people. It's a "me want now" world of instant gratification: the consumer wants it now & the producer cares little for long-term legacy in comparison to making as many bucks as possible as fast as possible. What's often desired is fame of any form as long as it's fame, or perhaps the description is "being known". How (for example) would Bob Dylan fare in an Idols contest - we can all guess the answer to that.

If you look at the names and hollow shells so many people "aspire" to being like, it's no wonder that we're so lost. That someone makes good music does not make them an authority to follow at all costs in all walks of life. That someone is a flawed human being like the rest of us does not affect the way I live my life nor my appreciation of their talent if they have it. Artists - like politicians - are often just a reflection of (or mittor for) the sociaety we live in, and it's a naiive individual who is shocked by their failings.