I have had many late night liquid fueled discussions of late exploring whether unique, ground-breaking artistic creativity and massive commercial success are mutually exclusive. For something to be commercially successful, does it need to play to the lowest common denominator for it to go big time? Or is there room in the mainstream system for real ingenuity?
The first opportunity to really dig into this was at the recent Andrew Bird concert in SF. My good friend DB is a tour manager and was in town with AB for his two sold out shows at the Fillmore. As is usual these days, it is DB’s engagement with a band that usually turns me on to them in the first place and Bird was no exception. Bird was in town last fall, and though I didn’t see him live then I did download his latest record. I was immediately struck by how unique and unpigeonholeable his music was. I’ll let NPR say it for me- “Andrew Bird makes the kind of music that leaves critics groping for labels. A classically trained violinist, former swing jazz musician and now art rock virtuoso, Bird is one of the most imaginative and distinctive voices making music today.” At the Fillmore show, he stood out there barefooted on a Persian rug rocking his violin, effect pedals, tambas, and his own lips by way of whistling. I was stunned at how avant garde he was and yet how he had managed to sell out the venerable (and sizable) Fillmore two-nights running. It struck me hard that AB was both a commercial success and a bona fide unique artist. This wasn’t any where near the established commercially viable veins of JT (or Prince), or The White Stripes (or Nirvana) or Winehouse (or Aguilera), or even Tool (or Metallica), this was Andrew Bird doing only Andrew Bird, period. I left there feeling a bit out of my league, musically and artistically (I like JT, the White Stripes, and Tool), but totally energized by the fact that a performer like AB made it that big. The ‘system’ it appeared is not an obstacle but an enabler of originality! Just a week or so ago there was Bird looking back at me from the cover of his CD- at a Starbucks!
I take heart in the notion that creative quality will drive commercial art, and that there will always be Andrew Birds, Junos , HBOs, Shepard Faireys etc. for the masses because our ‘system’ (however you define it) allows them to be commercially viable. But how easily the balloon can deflate. The Times on Monday ran a piecein the business section focusing on the fact that Pixar’s new movie, UP, (which is garnering massive early buzz from professionals and my children alike for its storyline and artistic wow-factor), according to wall street analysts, is a serious financial concern for Disney shareholders because of fears its characters can’t be leveraged across the company’s other businesses- i.e. toys, games, theme park rides, etc.. So now, Pixar, the most commercially successful art house of all time (in my humble opinion), with hit after hit after hit, is being knocked because the kids who will flock to the movie and experience quality of art and story telling available few other places in mainstream media, won’t be interested in buying dolls of the old man star of the movie. Ack. It made me sick to read, and frankly made me think that here we go again- dissing quality because it can’t be effectively leveraged across all sectors, in other words, because it is not playing across the lowest common denominator. Who is the ‘we’, here though, doing the dissing? Is it us, the actual consumers? I don’t think so. But I will let you ponder that.
How quickly my mood had reason to swing yet again. It was just last night that I witnessed something that prompted this entire diatribe- Adam Lambert’s performance on American Idol. I watch that most commercial of all commercial art shows with my kids most every week, and have no problem celebrating the fact that I really enjoy it. The talent can be high, and the drama good, and the whole thing entertaining, even if the product (the music) is almost never in my own personal wheelhouse. The music is virtually never super creative, never super risky, and mostly extremely mainstream. Last night was a breakthrough. For the third week in a row this kid Adam brought the house down by turning it upside down. Right there in the middle of the Kodak Theater on the Coca-Cola Stage, just after the Ford video, came this kid killing an original version of an old and brilliant and haunting song- 'Mad World' by Tears for Fears, and getting a standing ovation for it. Art and commerce, in this case a win for everyone. You Tube pulled the video for content violation, and the music is not up yet, so you will have to take my word for it. This version of 'Ring of Fire' he did last month for country week will give you a taste.
