I read this article in Paste Magazine the other day, and found it to be really thought provoking…maybe more so for those of us who grew up in the church. I can’t say that I fully agree with his approach to art….but it’s a great discussion to start. I’d love to hear what you think about what he has to say here.
Go check out His stuff here and here.
I grew up in church. For the first 15 years of my life or more, I was singing church tunes every Sunday and Wednesday. By the time I got to high school, I had learned all the songs and was playing along on the guitar. And it’s clear to me that this intimate knowledge of church songs influenced what kind of songwriter I am. When I first started realizing this fact I was paralyzed with horror I wanted to hide all the stuff I was embarrassed by. But I just had to say to myself, “Dude, you are who you are, and you have to be cool with it and own it.” I mean, until I was 14, I was only allowed to listen to Christian music. For me, the purpose of music back then was much different than it is now. What I understood about music, from the culture I grew up in, was that its purpose was to tell people about religion, to “spread the good news.” So it was pretty utilitarian. Officially, no music existed for its own sake. It existed for the sake of proselytizing. Part of the reason why my lyrics are so literal and concrete is because of this situation in my childhood. As I was developing as a songwriter, I had a lot of conflict with this idea. Even in the early years of Pedro the Lion, I was struggling, trying to understand the purpose of music. But its also the reason why I gravitated towards bands like Fugazi or U2, who-for lack of a better term-had something to say. That appealed to me because that’s what I understood about music. Then, from there I slowly learned how to get excited about music for its own sake, and not as a tool for some other end.
brody
March 31st, 2008 at 8:11 pmlove me some Pedro The Lion… He’s a little over the top, but I still dig his stuff.
portorikan
April 1st, 2008 at 7:35 amI was actually thinking about this and feel that I share some of his struggles when sitting to try to write music. It always feels like the music has to serve some other purpose, which is kinda weird, because I was thinking of this the other day while driving or something.
I was thinking about it in relation to art, or modern art. I think of artists as problem solvers and how creating great art means to solve a problem that is presented when creating a design or whatever. I’m not always a fan of some of the art for art’s sake that I see because it feels like it’s lost its purpose, so it’s become self-indulgent in what it is or has become.
I wonder if that kind of though could easily be applied to music. Not sure if that makes sense, but it was my thought process.
andira
April 1st, 2008 at 10:10 amI feel I can definitely relate to David on upbringing. My brothers and I were only allowed to listen to Christian radio and artists (unless it was the Carpenters or Osmonds), and so when I was at the age I where I could step out and listen without parental boundary, it was actually a little confusing and scary. Somehow it had gotten in my head that if the music didn’t have a gospel message, it wasn’t worth listening to and could even be a bad influence.
It didn’t take too long for me to expand my thoughts and boundaries on what I deemed worth listening. College and peers helped with that.
However, even now it is difficult for me to write a song without some kind of underlying message of hope. I don’t consider it a weakness; I do not place it there out of fear, but out of a desire to encourage. It’s definitely a reflection of my upbringing, however.
I think that all music, whether sharing heartbreak, happiness, or hope, has purpose. Even if the piece does not lay out a plan or tell a story, I think it has the ability to teach. It’s influence on our moods and focus is undeniable. That is the power of music. Music for its own sake? Hmm. I think that’s where I may have misunderstood David. I personally get excited about music for its power to change, uplift, soothe, and tell me stories. To me, that makes music a tool. I guess I have a hard time understanding how music could be without influence. I think I’d like to understand what he meant by that phrase “music for its own sake” a little more. (Wow this was long..sorry!)
mike
April 1st, 2008 at 10:13 amOn a first pass, I wouldn’t completely eliminate the “art for art’s sake” idea, but would maybe ask if that idea is possible.
At the core of art is some form of communication. An idea. A mood. A thought. A question. The driving force behind why you choose a dark blue, or A minor instead of C major.
I’ll get out of this before I open up a can of worms that can’t be answered online, but will click “submit comment” thinking that chords and colors can communicate ideas. Tension can cause us to ask questions…not just look at something and say “oh look…tension”
mp
Kevin
April 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pmI would likewise not pass over the idea of “art for art’s sake” but I would first ask what the nature of art is. Is art something that is merely created and merely observed; the only connection being the witness by the observer of the artists’s creation? If the answer to that is yes, then art does only exist for art’s sake with the product of observation merely the interpretation of the work of the artist. But if the answer is no, that is not all art is, but rather both creating art and observing art are not seeing art as an end in itself, then art will be seen to serve many purposes not discluding itself. Music can then be descriptive and/or prescriptive, it can tell you about something, it can resonate with your own experience, it can give you an experience, it can proselytize as an advocate for an idea. Art (music) is something to participate in, whether you are the creator or the “casual” observer. So we, as creators and observers, do not serve art but rather art serves us whether it be to great ends or less favorable ones.
Heather Fischer
April 1st, 2008 at 6:39 pmI was just waiting for U2 to pop up somewhere in the article. Never fails, makes me wish I didn’t love the old U2 stuff so much since it’s so “cool”
You know what I mean.
Ben Gibbard in Paste Magazine | Daniel Renstrom
April 21st, 2008 at 7:37 pm[...] writes some cool things about songwriting that I wanted to post here, especially in light of what David Bazan said in Paste last month about songwriting. Here are a few of Gibbard’s quotes: I’d [...]