Bill & Mike,

Interesting thoughts both, though I tend to both agree and disagree.

I think Dave and I are coming from an artistic point of view while others may come from a more commercially viable point of view. Those are two vastly different approaches. It does not mean they cannot be mixed and are mutually exclusive, however as it applies here they are exclusive.

IMO a true artist creates art fot art's sake and the financial rewards that may or may not come from it does not enter into the equation. VanGough is the perfect example of this (however out there in left field he may have been). The general public's or anyone else's acceptance of the work has ZERO to do with either the quality or validity of that artistic work. Again Van Gough...

The next thing is we as musicians are coming from a totally different place than the general listening audience is coming from. Once someone becomes involved in something and becomes technically proficient at something they loose the ability to JUST enjoy something on a totally emotional level. We are watching and listening for what riffs, progressions, mixes etc the artist is doing rather than a neophite who just watches, hears and says "cool tune." We have a more advanced way of listening to the work and try as we might we cannot get away from that, because it now is part of what we know and who we are.

I think an artist must first and foremost connect with themselves and what they wanted to say, if the general public and peers then like it and connect to it, then that's the icing on the cake. If it is commercially viable beyond that, that's the cherry and whipped cream on top of it.

In short, I do not believe art is definable, however commercial art is.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 06-28-2003).]