I've come to a realization over the years of listening and observing artists of all kinds: Art can be entertaining; but entertainment is seldom art.
I'm accustomed to making waves when I talk about things, because I'm very stratighforward and from Texas. So when I've shared this controversial statement with a few singer/songwriters I know, it has met with mixed response. Some sighed, relieved it all made perfect sense now. And some started shouting at me. The latter group usually consisted of singers who took up writing because they heard it was easier to get a deal if you wrote your own songs. At the heart of them, they're entertainers. And there's nothing wrong with that. But for some reason they don't like to give up the illusion that they're serious artists as well.
That's not to say that singers who don't write are non-serious artists. There are many singers, like Linda Ronstadt, Sam Cooke, Natalie Cole, Tricia Yearwood, who select(ed) songs reflecting a definite point of view as an artist. That's considerably different from a singer whose prime motive is to create an effect of entertianment on an audience. The entertainer is distracting the audience/listener from life. The artist is creating and communicating about life. There will be a target audience who "gets" what this artist is doing. And the artist may write/sing to them, for them and with them in mind. But the artist is most concerned with the quality of what he is communicating--and that it does communicate, powerfully, provocatively and clearly enough to accomplish the first two.
It's is the intention which differs. And this intention results in either art or entertainment. Of course, intention is not sufficient to create an artist. Technical expertise is a must. The writer has to be able to write, the singer to sing, in order for communication to occur. But I would venture to say the writing expertise is more important than the singing, if we're looking for art rather than entertainment. Because a good singer singing a bad song may be entertainment, but it sure ain't art. However, a less than accomplished singer singing a great song has been known to be art. We simply change our criteria for what a singer should sound like when s/he's singing something remarkable. I've heard Nik Venet tell the story of the time he played Bob Dylan's first, yet unreleased album, still on acetate, for Harlan Howard, Hank Cochran, Mary Jon Wilkins and Johnny Cash in the basement of Harlan Howard's house in Nashville in the 60's. They sat in silence, stunned. When it was over, Harlan silently started it from the beginning and they listened to it all the way through again.
I should reiterate here that art can be entertaining. And no one walks that line better than the satirical songwriters like Randy Newman, Marie Cain and Lyle Lovett. People are truly entertained when they hear these artists, but they're also moved, incited, chagrined, appalled, made to examine their values---all sorts of things that entertainment doesn't make a career out of doing. Art does that.
So as an artist, you're look for your target audience. That's who's going to be on your wave length, to get what you're trying to communicate. If you're writing metaphorically with literary illusions, you would probably not find your target audience at dance clubs. And now that people are bypassing the industry, with their clear-cut categories and airplay formats, singer/songwriters are falling into the trap of thinking they can do anything. The very opposite is true. You really have to know whom you talking to now, because whether you're selling a CD out of the trunk of your car after live shows or sampling on the Internet, you have to be better than all the other people out there who are bypassing the industry to get to your audience. You have to take your best shot like a laser, not a shotgun. And it better hit the heart of the buyer, or you don't have a chance. Art will do that. Entertainment is over when the lights go down. The effect will not carry over to the ordering of the CD phase, or even to point of purchase, word-of-mouth.
Nik Venet said it so well at a seminar, I will quote him:
"When messages are passed on to an audience and the audience responds, you have created an emotional impact. We are not talking about entertainment...watching from a distance, a show for your numbing pleasure. The aware audiences of the nineties, say, ' Don't give us one-way entertainment. You say and do, we watch and do nothing. Don't control us; television controls us. Don't hypnotize or seduce us from our human feelings and responsibilities. We want a two-way process. We need fulfilling experiences for comparisons. Do it and say it without smoke bombs and mirrors. Tell us the simple, unadorned truth and let us, as individual and independent souls, listen to and visualize your songs.' "
As far as I'm concerned, that last statement is art. And he wasn't even holding a guitar when he said it.
© 1995 Harriet Schock
Webmaster: Jeff Mallett (jeffm@lyricist.com)