news/etc.
shows
music
shoppe
photo
contactInformation
home
news/etc.
shows
music
shoppe
photo
contactInformation
home
news/etc.
shows
music
shoppe
photo
contactInformation
home
news/etc.
shows
music
shoppe
photo
contactInformation
home
news/etc.
news shows music shoppe contactInformation home

manifesto


Initially, first and foremost, it is and has always been about music. How could it be otherwise? How can something deny and refuse that which is its very substance? There are, of course, those who would believe it to be about money, fame, recognition, congratulation, celebration, commendation, and the like. These are the people who have missed that which we perceive as the point. They can hardly be considered artists, but rather businessmen, whose sole purposes are those of business. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but surely innately distinctive: the two, musicianship and capitalism, are not mutually exclusive, but perhaps should be. The artist is concerned with art, whereas these businessmen are concerned with the considerations of the marketplace.

We are not these people, nor do we share these considerations. There is no place for art in the music industry, or, more generally, there is no place for art in industry. If "industry" describes the manufacturing of a product with the intent of distribution and sale, then it is understood that that which is manufactured is a commodity. It is typical of business to favor profit over loss, as that is what keeps it sustained. Art, although capable of generating profit in tremendous volume, is not created with that as its explicit intent. If it is created as such, then it becomes commodity, and ceases to be art. Art is made for its own sake, the sake of its conductor, and the sake of its audience (which is first defined by the art itself). Now we see that what is vital to business is not art, but profit, which stems from commodity, not art. Perhaps it should be stated that there is nothing wrong with commodity (in this argument), but rather that it is produced with different intents than those of art, intentions with which we disagree (within the context of this argument).

What of the audience? Some artists will suggest that the audience is an integral part of the art, allowing the cycle to complete: that without the notice and appreciation of an audience, the art is a tree falling in a forest unobserved. With this we at least partially agree. The difference between art and commodity is the extent to which the product is altered to appease the audience. A commodity is tailored to fit precisely those needs and desires of the consumer (truly a democratic device). Art, on the other hand, is fascist to begin with: you may either accept it as is, alter your opinion to agree, or disapprove and suffer the consequence of being displeased. Art stays true to its intentions, it would seem. Commodity's intentions are those of its consumers, fallible and alterable, like a piece of clay. Art is significantly less docile.

So it should be stated that we are not part of the music industry, as we do not consider our product to be a commodity focused on profit. Rather, we perceive our music as exactly that: an intangible facet of art that cannot be easily bottled, manufactured, or even explained. We view music as the distinct alterations of sound pressure levels in the air that motivates your ears to move in sympathy with its patterns. This result, which is far greater than the sum of its parts, is a gift to us by some inexplicable force, either biological or supernatural. Regardless of origin, we find the suggestion of marketing this gift as a product for purchase, for profit, insulting and obscene. We do not intend to allow our music (the audible vibrations of our souls) to be adversely affected by the marketing schemes of The Music Industry. They are not concerned with our art, and we are not concerned with their profits.


news/etc. shows music shoppe contactInformation home