KVR Audio

Internal Exodus · Post by **Internal Exodus** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:51 pm

A question that has been plaguing my mind lately is in regards to many a great artist having (usually more than one) particular quirk that seems to be out of the mainstream (ie homosexuality and/or odd sexual practices/tastes, cult member/leader, death by suicide, etc). Although I know that this isn't a requirement to make music (far from it), does anyone else feel as though it lends a certain... is the word validity?... to the artists works? In my young teens, if I heard that a particular artist, for instance, happened to be gay, it would immediately put me off to their work and heavily influence what I heard. Now that I'm a bit older and wiser, I can usually put that aside and listen to a piece for what it is. However, I've also noticed that some of these unorthodox characteristics have lent an additional undertone or feeling to them after I hear about these quirks. Foolish, I know, but for some reason, it still adds that underlying element to that/those works. Thoughts?

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:59 pm

couldn't it just be we all have our quirks, but those in the spotlight have theirs made more public?

Internal Exodus · Post by **Internal Exodus** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:07 pm

very true--I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking more along the lines of the less....universal (I don't think this is the right word, but can't find a better one at the moment). For instance, although (again, by no means a requirement to make awesome music) alcoholism tends to be a very tragic issue for musicians and non-musicians alike, not many are suprised nowadays when Muscian X goes to rehab for Substance Y. Again, I know there are tons of great musicians out there that never have an issue with this and still make some of the best music around, but it seems to be a rather common (in a certain perspective) thing in many musicians' lives. Wish I could find a better way to explain it or give a better example.

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:22 pm

Maybe you should just stop reading up all the trivia on the artists you like

Seriously though, I never cared too much about those quirks - I realize most people have some kind of quirk in some way, and the percentage might be even higher with "artists" as a little bit of eccentricity certainly helps with people noticing you (plus of course eccentric people might also have a higher need to express themselves).
In addition I guess being in some kind of art business promotes eccentricity as well. Hell, I think at least nowadays people even stage things to make themselves look more eccentric...

Cheers, Jo

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:24 pm

Regarding what has come up in the meantime:
"Stars" usually have very stressful lives and very easy access to drugs - it's not surprising at all...

Internal Exodus · Post by **Internal Exodus** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:34 pm

Yeah, I was looking for a better example but that was all I could come up with. I guess a better one would be if you found out one of your favorite artists was into doing "stuff" with farm animals. As far as the trivia goes, you can usually find some very helpful techniques by reading up on them. I never said it made me dislike the music, just changed the perception I had previously sometimes (for better usually, but sometimes worse).

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:59 pm

Well, my first post applies to that, I guess.

deastman · Post by **deastman** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:14 pm

This seems like a difficult topic to debate, given a complete lack of any statistical evidence on the subject. Artists are somewhat unique, only in the sense that the "average" person is not driven by a compulsion to create art. Beyond that, I think you'd find that artists are just like everyone else. If you try to lump together everything which you consider outside of the mainstream (wearing black, homosexuality, beastiality, substance abuse, being a liberal) and say that it applies more to artist than to other people, well... thats simply ridiculous. Just because you happen to be familiar with the backgrounds of select artists as individual examples of the human race, it does not follow that an equal sampling of non-artists out of the 6 billion people on the planet would yield less so-called "deviants".

Now get back to making music!

Internal Exodus · Post by **Internal Exodus** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:40 am

By the same reasoning then, it would be presumptuous to assume that artists' lives didn't have some sort of impact on their music, or that everyone interprets things in different ways, and thus conveys those events, as they experienced them, in different ways than others (be it art, music, political rantings, morning conversations while jogging, etc). I think I know of a better way to phrase this:

Does a previous conception of a song change and, if so, do you enjoy a piece more or less once you find out what it was really about? For instance, there was a particular song by Erasure that I always assumed was about a woman until I learned that Andy Bell is gay. Or another one would be "How to Destroy Angels" by Coil--once I learned the significance of the time signatures and not only the instrumentation, but what those instruments were made of, I was able to enjoy that piece on a much more "Oh okay--now I get it" type of level.

Again, anyone else with thoughts on this or other personal examples?

Sicklecell666 · Post by **Sicklecell666** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:00 am

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:10 am

sickle is the ultimate lovable c**t!

emdot_ambient · Post by **emdot_ambient** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:13 am

Somehow the words "loveable" and "c**t" don't really just leap into my mind when I think of Sickle. Those are both really girly adjectives.

"Intriguingly intense" is probably more accurate.

But if I think about the artists I most admire, their specific "quirks" are not what comes to mind.

Eno (definitely full of quirks but no single outstanding one)
Fripp
Edgar Froese
Peter Baumann
Klaus Schulze
Morton Subotnick
Philip Glass
Terry Riley
Steve Reich
Mike Oldfield
Vangelis
JM Jarre
Jon Anderson
Ian Anderson
Todd Dockstodder
Ralf Hutter
Florian Schnieder
Richard Pinhas

I don't think many of these are known foremost by their "quirks" . . . most of them I don't even know of any "quirks." Yet they're all brilliant in their own way.

Yeah, a couple of the great artists I admire are notorious for certain things: Syd Barrett first and foremost; Fats Waller as the king of excess; Miles Davis; Charles Mingus; Charlie Parker . . . there are plenty of examples of artists who were haunted by personal demons at least part of their life. But I know way more non-artists haunted by their own demons. Face it, it's everywhere.

Internal Exodus · Post by **Internal Exodus** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:15 am

Exactly. Again, as I first stated, not all artists have shocking or even that peculiar of quirks, but once you hear of them should they exist, do they change your perception of that particular piece?

And thank you very much for the invaluable input Sickle. Now....

god dammit, I had the perfect picture to post in retort.

Sicklecell666 · Post by **Sicklecell666** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:50 am

Internal Exodus wrote:god dammit, I had the perfect picture to post in retort.

Try this one:

FaX · Post by **FaX** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:54 am

- f**king grow up !

Artists and their quirks