poker and the art of song writing

in a recent discussion i stated the following, "i'll be happy when one of these singles hits number one... mmmmmm, charts in the top ten... well, i'd settle for hot one hundred... ok, actually, if i could make enough to eat and pop out another record by the end of the year, that wouldn't just make me happy, that'd be amazing!"

i thought about this process of my settling and decided to flesh it out a little bit.

first, i think for an artist to aspire for riches, fame and the adoration of fans is all well and good, but a little much to ask as far as the issue of satisfaction is concerned. on the other hand, the idea of 'art for art's sake' is a little too far the other way. I mean, if writing a great song automatically means riches beyond measure, wouldn't it be motivating to just write something for no reason other than the monetary value, and further, wouldn't that lead to lower quality throughout the music industry? the answer is yes and yes, and yes, this has already happened.

my brother-in-law once quoted (though he was quoting someone else) regarding PhD candidates, 'a dissertation should be your first great work, not your only'. i'm sure i've messed up the quote a bit but its rather true in the field of songwriting also. i think its fair to call a one hit wonder a one hit wonder, but not necessarily a song writer. in the same way, like the case of mallonee, the lack of a hit does not define the quality of the song writing.

as far as 'art for art's sake', i think it should be restated, 'art for me'. i might write the best songs ever, according to me, but if people can't get down with what i write enough to give me a little something something to survive on, maybe i should return to hobby music and get on with surviving through a different avenue.

i think the aim should sit somewhere in the middle. i would not object to millions of dollars in bonds, stocks, properties and numbered bank accounts, but i do, and have, objected to crawling towards homelessness and starvation in pursuit of my art. i think it best to do as the aforementioned mallonee recommended to van gogh and '...deal your best hand out in the marketplace and let the chips fall'.

this record is my attempt to do just that. i don't want to starve. i don't want to be homeless. i want to live a good life, but i don't need millions of dollars to do that. i would like a roof over my head and food on the table and hope that i can write well enough to do just that. maybe i can't, but i've taken more than a year of dedicated writing to get this thing off the ground and one weekend in early february will be the teller of whether the hand i deal in the market place is good enough to warrant that.

i no longer have the record companies to rely on. i've got me. i've got the internet, but i'm not the only one. its exciting and its humbling but i, for one, am excited to see how this 6/8 off-suit plays out.

a rant against the river

I recently found myself in a discussion about bob dylan on a blog. It made me think a bit... but the fueling fire really limited my ability to respond much more than with some insights about the novelty of the post as opposed to the integrity of the discussion.

I must say, Joe Carter, in a previous post, made a compelling point, 'Because the stakes are so low and passions run so high, music is one of my favorite things to argue about.' To me this is frustrating because it is like playing poker for 'fun' where there is no money on the line. If the stakes are that low no one feels the need to actually defend their chips they just play on luck. In this discussion they just like to take their few moments to rant and interpret however they please. Especially the least credible.

Its not an offense to music, because music doesn't care much for reason, but to reason itself. There are forces in music not to be reckoned with, Mozart, Bach and now the beatles. Its rather embarrassing that the beatles are set upon the plateau with the other two, not because the beatles were not great, but because they were not nearly as great as Mozart or Bach. But all three of the aforementioned entities sit outside the realm of discussion. They are all respected, they are all heralded with a level of genius that cannot be argued with, we no longer have the right to hate them.

Typically there are mediums where this is expected: pitchfork media is my favorite example of 'a bad review makes me want to buy the album'... but also music critics in all too many news syndicates. I was astonished that it appeared on first things but also appreciate the appreciation of art and history and faith in this particular entity. I'm not mad, i'm happy actually! Usually i can appreciate whatever is being said in first things, but rarely feel qualified to offer my insight, however, on a joe carter vs. bob dylan, i had a lot of fun. I don't think ill of any of the participants, i have enjoyed the discussion and also carter's humility. its good to have fun with low stakes, just as long as we keep that fun off the poker table.

new radicals... wha?!?

i'm surprised.

week after week. month after month i sit and listen to the only new radicals record. i'm comfortable with gregg alexander's ability to write great songs and consequent getting them published, however, he writes great songs.

the edge of u2 wishes he wrote get you give... and to me it serves as constant inspiration. maybe it is an awareness of the trials involved in a pursuit through poverty, tours and the new york bar scenes; but regardless, for some reason, 'you've got the music in you' still pushes me to write, record and keep on the path.

We don't all get the chance at fame. we don't all get the chance to see our dreams realized to the point where we never need to work again... but its nice to find inspiration in such places where we continue to press on with said hopes.

its better to hope.