Yes and yes. I learned a long time ago not to judge other people's taste with my own self-reference criteria. I think it is much more important that people are passionate about SOMETHING. I wonder much more about those people who don't seem to care much about anything. So if someone wants to choose let's say U2 or Maroon 5 as their favorite band...who am I to judge?
On the second part, I think most of the time creative genius is limited. This is why so many bands first albums are the best. This is true with any kind of artistic genius. And since I am more comfortable talking about visual arts, I will switch to this type of art to further my point.
Furthermore, because I just was in Holland, I will pick two Dutch artists. Was Van Gogh, who painted 900 paintings and sketched thousands of drawings, a better artist than Vermeer who only painted 36? I personally would say no. There aren't too many Van Goghs out there. (And why would anyone want to be like that tortured man?) Most are more like Vermeer who have a few moments of creative brilliance, and struggle to find these fleeting moments the rest of the time.
Great thoughts. When I discussed this with Dan last week, we both batted around the idea that an overwhelming percentage of super-bands only have one album, and it would be very difficult to tag such a band as a favorite where: 1) they have a limited discography (10-15 songs); 2) a minimal chance to produce another album or go on tour together; and 3) generally made their mark or established their legacy with a different band. It seems that it would be very limiting to call such a band "your favorite". Instead, it seems more logical to call that album "your favorite". I agree with you that it is not anybody's place to judge another's taste, but I personally would not choose a super-band as my favorite artist.
I have a very "smart" answer for that, but its a cheat in that most every band has that "one album" that represents the apex of its talent (aka Sgt. Pepper's, Pet Sounds, Oops I Did It Again, etc). But enough cheekiness. I think Misty makes a very astute observation on Van Gogh/Vermeer regarding creative brilliance (both being equal). However, I probably attribute the difference in production more to their unique motivations and approaches to their work rather than Vermeer only fleetingly able to achieve brilliance. I may be dead wrong, but my guess is that in the time it took for Vermeer to produce one painting (equally inspired by brilliance), Van Gogh could crank out 10 or 20.
As it relates to music, I think the answer to creative capacity is both a function of innate talent and the unique environment in which every artist finds themselves. Many guitar players have the desire and the work ethic to be the next Hendrix, but hardly any of them even approach him. I view talent as the cap to creative capacity, whereas the environment (which is far more important) provides the means to reach capacity. I think in this regard that a band's first two or three albums usually will result in a band reaching its creative apex (though not its creative capacity), as it is usually within this period that a band runs its course with regard to creative growth. They in a sense will have made a bargain as to what kind of band they want to be and what internal and external pressures they will live with. I think it is the rare band that continues to try to push itself beyond this period.
Circling back to answer the question, I don't believe any one album is reflective of a band's creative capacity, unless like Brian Wilson, you literally go insane trying to top Sgt. Peppers.
Yes and yes. I learned a long time ago not to judge other people's taste with my own self-reference criteria. I think it is much more important that people are passionate about SOMETHING. I wonder much more about those people who don't seem to care much about anything. So if someone wants to choose let's say U2 or Maroon 5 as their favorite band...who am I to judge?
ReplyDeleteOn the second part, I think most of the time creative genius is limited. This is why so many bands first albums are the best. This is true with any kind of artistic genius. And since I am more comfortable talking about visual arts, I will switch to this type of art to further my point.
Furthermore, because I just was in Holland, I will pick two Dutch artists. Was Van Gogh, who painted 900 paintings and sketched thousands of drawings, a better artist than Vermeer who only painted 36? I personally would say no. There aren't too many Van Goghs out there. (And why would anyone want to be like that tortured man?) Most are more like Vermeer who have a few moments of creative brilliance, and struggle to find these fleeting moments the rest of the time.
Great thoughts. When I discussed this with Dan last week, we both batted around the idea that an overwhelming percentage of super-bands only have one album, and it would be very difficult to tag such a band as a favorite where: 1) they have a limited discography (10-15 songs); 2) a minimal chance to produce another album or go on tour together; and 3) generally made their mark or established their legacy with a different band. It seems that it would be very limiting to call such a band "your favorite". Instead, it seems more logical to call that album "your favorite". I agree with you that it is not anybody's place to judge another's taste, but I personally would not choose a super-band as my favorite artist.
ReplyDeleteI have a very "smart" answer for that, but its a cheat in that most every band has that "one album" that represents the apex of its talent (aka Sgt. Pepper's, Pet Sounds, Oops I Did It Again, etc). But enough cheekiness. I think Misty makes a very astute observation on Van Gogh/Vermeer regarding creative brilliance (both being equal). However, I probably attribute the difference in production more to their unique motivations and approaches to their work rather than Vermeer only fleetingly able to achieve brilliance. I may be dead wrong, but my guess is that in the time it took for Vermeer to produce one painting (equally inspired by brilliance), Van Gogh could crank out 10 or 20.
As it relates to music, I think the answer to creative capacity is both a function of innate talent and the unique environment in which every artist finds themselves. Many guitar players have the desire and the work ethic to be the next Hendrix, but hardly any of them even approach him. I view talent as the cap to creative capacity, whereas the environment (which is far more important) provides the means to reach capacity. I think in this regard that a band's first two or three albums usually will result in a band reaching its creative apex (though not its creative capacity), as it is usually within this period that a band runs its course with regard to creative growth. They in a sense will have made a bargain as to what kind of band they want to be and what internal and external pressures they will live with. I think it is the rare band that continues to try to push itself beyond this period.
Circling back to answer the question, I don't believe any one album is reflective of a band's creative capacity, unless like Brian Wilson, you literally go insane trying to top Sgt. Peppers.
Wow, you guys are amazing. I will need some time to respond to this...
ReplyDelete