As this is the first post on my brand new chunk of internet, I should probably introduce myself. But I'm not going to do that as you, the reader probably doesn’t want to read about it. With that all being done and said, I thought it would be an awesome idea to really get down to the basics. The basics being creativity.
Well first of all, why the hell am I spending my oh-so-little free time writing on internet? Well the answer lies here. MacLoed's article is fantastic and I recommend everyone and their mother to read it, and then read it again. For me, it really helped to unveil some of the mysteries behind most of my thought processes surrounding the creation of my art.
But how does that article link to this here blog? Well, I want this blog to document my thoughts, ideas and processes in traversing through the inherently evil and murky music industry. These thoughts have been spinning and screeching through my mind for the last half decade, much like a small child falling down a very, very long staircase. Although this metaphorical falling has produced bright wails of creativity and has kept me relatively content, I've made the decision to get it fucking organised before I go completely insane. As the picture of my bedroom below suggests, I fail at organisation on pretty much all fronts.
I will always remember what my father said to me last year; “Anything you do to forward your life will make you happy.” Although pretty obvious, it had never really hit me until then. FUCK, what was I doing with my life? I needed to get creative, to focus my energy and really push my self. As Macloed rightly says, we are all given crayons at a young age, and now is my time to reclaim them. And hopefully use them to write a giant “fuck you” on the foreheads on the many apathetic or kitsch wraiths that dominate the music scene today.
In this context of creativity, organization is proactiveness. Talent wasn’t going to help me here; it was all about the hours, the dedication. See, I’m not the best guitar player in the world. I am certainly not the best vocalist. But the energy and effort I put into my craft makes me and the other Vagabonds noteworthy. But what is effort if it’s not focused on being proactive and useful? About as useful as a dyslexic accountant. For example, I used to be a very casual listener of music. I wouldn’t really take it in; I would simply just let it flow over me. This was the same with other forms of art, be it film or literature. As a result, not only was I becoming incredibly shallow, but I was not benefiting my own creativity in shape or form. Instead of learning from my heroes, I was downright ripping them off. But as I learned to listen to music in a deeper sense, I began not to take carbon copies, but an overall sense and feeling for what made them great in the first place.
So, successfully expressing creativity for me really comes down to the following:
- Be proactive and organized.
- Be prepared to work really damn hard, even in the face of failure.
- Try to look deeper into the art you consume, especially art that really clicks with you or those which offend you.
EDIT – I have recently come into the possession of a pretty damn good camera. Expect much more in the way of photos and videos in the future.
EDIT 2 – Also expect stories about partying and drinking, as I am a university student. It also happens to be the only thing I’m good at.
I have problems with your above quotation by darling Emerson.
ReplyDelete1) whoso would be a 'man'? what, are women supposed to be good little everyday housewives and let their mens be the revolutionaries and the thinkoutsidethebox-ers?
2)By wanting to be a 'nonconformist' you are just trying to be special and original- like everyone. Ergo you are the same as everyone. Putting that statement up there is counterproductive yes yes.
3) what are you not trying to conform to? men not having to give birth for example? giving birth as a man would be nonconformist. doing things typically not expected of a man like crying a lot in public would be nonconformist to gender stereotypes as it's seen as unmanly. It would make the statement itself wrong and silly.
in conclusion timkins, no.
Also, i have decided to comment and follow so you wont be so alone on here.
DONT GO ON MY ONE YET PLEASE.
speak soon, lovelings xxxxx
Well for a start actually read Emerson, you dolt.
ReplyDeleteAnd secondly, it has relevance as being nonconformist in this sense is to break with conventional wisdom. I'm not talking about going into the woods and living with bears.
Because Julian is a technical tard, he got me to post this:
ReplyDeleteEllie... go and read Emerson.
Firstly, as is common in many political discourses "man" equates to human being. Yes, perhaps that in itself has sexist connotations but if you have a problem with that then perhaps you should call a meeting of every person who ever contributed to the spread of the English language and sort it out with them.
Secondly, Emerson's point about nonconformity isn't referring to some teenage rebellion. Emerson saw the evil of a society driven by norms and thus encourages man to "think for himself". He basically said that if you weren't thinking for yourself you were betraying yourself as a human being. If everyone thinks for themselves and their views are exactly the same, Emerson, as a transcendentalist, would be completely fine with that. The point is that one does not simply conform to a set of beliefs without understanding and questioning his beliefs and/or actions. At a time when people were heavily conditioned by their local communities and their religious beliefs he called for a revolution in human consciousness.
Thirdly, Emerson did do things which were non-conformist of "man" at the time we was writing. He was one of the early abolitionists; a dangerous position to hold which saw many early spokespersons beaten or killed for their views. His transcendental philosophy also flew in the face of established religion prefering a view more akin to pantheism than the Christian monotheism.
All in all, I bum Emerson. He and Thoreau and inspirational people and now I have left another comment on Josh's blog.... look Josh! you have 2!
Also, I like the way your Emerson quote relates to your blog.
julian, don't patronise me by assuming i haven't read any emerson just because i disagree with josh's use of his quote here. Emerson wrote mainly for the benefit of men, who were the ones to study his work while the women sat at home and learnt to cross-stitch and look pretty as was custom in the 19th century. though he wasn't really sexist, his work is aimed only at men because of the times that he wrote in. This is proven when he says things like "the nonchalance of a boy when a boy is sure of his dinner...". I think that's from his essay on self reliance. "who-so would be a man" cannot be interpreted to apply to women and only be a figure of speech; he could have written "whoso would be a human being etc" though that would not seem to have the same connotations, because then (as there are now) there were very fixed ideas about what constituted a real man, and that it was the most noble of things to be. he has talked of traits of "human beings" in general before in his works, many times actually. so if he meant both sexes he could have done it again here.
ReplyDeleteas for his being nonconformist, i do not doubt breaking from the church somewhat when he started transcedentalism was nonconformist. however, that is not relevant here. he is a great man, and i agree with a lot of his philosophy and he is also a brilliant poet. josh could just have used a better quote for his purpose i think. one from a musician maybe. because whereas emerson's quote didn't apply to "teenage rebellion", josh does use it in that sense and for many other things emerson never intended it for, like his planned fight against the big bad music industry. but he can use whatever he likes. i didnt intend to start some kind of philosophical debate, and i think you didnt need to write all that in reply to my comment. it was meant as a by-the way thing.