Hacker News Reader

>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).

> 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.

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

The indie group is not necessarily more authentic either.

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

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.)

They were never an indie band but they inspired other who were.

Punk doesn't mean indie.. but the simplicity of technique makes it a natural fit

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.

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

It means dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It means being told that instead of deeply personal, complex, and potentially offensive lyrics you're just going to repeat a word or small phrase over and over and over because that sells better doesn't alienate anyone with difficult words or things that might offended them, or might discourage the use (and sale) of that song in commercials, grocery stores, overseas markets, or film soundtracks.

Commercial interests (the desire for as much money as possible at the expense of all else) overrides what would have been deliberate artistic choices in order to maximize profits leading to a landscape of homogenized bland overproduced and unchallenging art.

We've seen many changes in music as a direct result of commercial interests overriding the preferences of artists (and listeners) including the loudness wars, the end of the album as a cohesive work to favor itunes downloads of single tracks, and the lengths of songs getting shorter and shorter to the point where bridges and entire verses are removed.

Not everything you hear on the radio has been fully compromised by commercial interests, but it's a good bet compromises were made and commercial interests have had more influence over what gets heard on the radio than any other factor (talent, skill, popularity, artistry, etc.)

> It means dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

It literally doesn't though. Like, that's not the meaning of the word "commercial" in any sense.

Your favorite indie band is commercial. Your friends who charge $5 for their shows are commercial.

Your issues aren't with "commercial" musicians, they're with musicians who prioritize commercial success over artistic expression.

I don't think is a new phenomenon, and actually think it's a lot less prevalent now than it was in the past. With free streaming services, most people have easy exposure to a much wider range of music, and aren't relying on the radio to dictate their tastes.

There have been dozens of albums from the last few years that have had huge commercial success, and also taken big artistic risks. Happy to provide a list of recommendations if you're having trouble finding good new music.

"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.

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?).

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.

> "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!

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.