John Goodwin Ill Never Leave You Again Song

John Goodwin is a composer, a painter and a sculptor. And by the way he approaches the musical notes, canvass or mosaic, he is a definition of the word "creative person." Born in Los Angeles and located in Nashville, John Goodwin composes music "in relative confinement", far from the agitated world of today's record business. John Goodwin is critical of today's music and music concern and his arguments are hard to deny. All the same, his songs have been recorded by well-known artists who sing them with success: Rita Coolidge, Kim Carnes, Brad Paisley or Jason Reeves. They are joined by John'south childhood friend, player and singer Jeff Bridges, whom he describes as "one of the all-time people he'due south ever known." An interview about music and the music industry of yesterday and today, his life equally an creative person and his "rather uncomplicated" wishes: JOHN GOODWIN, exclusively for LaRevista.ro.

You write music, you paint, you sculpt. You lot are definitely an artist, but what practise yous most consider yourself?

I recollect that I'g primarily a writer of songs and secondarily a recording performer of my own songs. Beyond that, I'g a co-author of songs with a lot of people I write with. Those are the principal ways I spend my time every bit an artist.

And what would come next?

When I'1000 not writing songs, I may be creating visual art – at least, I hope it's art. In some ways, going back and forth betwixt audio and visual forms, I can't say that I'1000 primarily a musician or a visual creative person, fifty-fifty though the visual arts I create mainly happen between the musical experiences. When I'one thousand painting, I am equally much a painter as I am a songwriter when I'm writing songs. Each pursuit involves me completely. Ane procedure doesn't start where another one stops. 'Side by side' is whatever happens when I take a break from making music. I may reach for the paints or mosaics or a video camera. It all depends on where inspiration leads.

How do y'all remember your work is different from what other artists do?

My work is different from what other artists do in many ways, which is skilful. We all accept our unique paths in life and every moment nosotros feel, we tin only experience through our own optics and perceptions and not through anyone else's. So the art we brand should be different than what others do and unique to our individual paths. In that manner, if I'm doing my work well, what I practise is naturally going to be dissimilar from what the guy down the street does. What makes us similar is probably the similar tools many of us apply to create music or visual arts. What makes united states different is what kinds of experiences led u.s. to the identify where nosotros are shortly being creative and how nosotros approach our ain canvases at that signal.

One thing that may make what I do different is that I grew up with the '60s and 70'due south music, a fourth dimension in which artists' piece of work was known for uniqueness more than resembling what other people who were working in the same media were doing. The musical and social environment I came from fabricated people want to be themselves in a field where these days, a lot of people are trying to be like to others in order to be embraced by the industry, which isn't really looking for great differences between artistic people. It'due south looking for commercial similarities. The music manufacture seems to desire more of the aforementioned rather than different and perchance improve or more compelling. I felt like my work being unlike from what other artists practice is a adept thing. Now it can seem like a professional person liability.

So how original do you recall artists are today?

Artists today are every bit original equally they are willing to be unique in their own ways. Back in the sixties, when listeners heard artists like Bob Dylan, Otis Redding, Joni Mitchell, The Temptations and other gifted musicians, they heard people who were all and then dissimilar from each other, and so original, and originality really helped define them as artists and have their own careers. If someone came upwards and tried to sound similar Joni Mitchell, nobody would want to hear that because we already had Joni and nobody could do her better than she did.

Today, some artists sound more than original than others, but I remember that a lot of the big recording acts have been encouraged to sound similar most other people in their genre and then that the record companies can recognize and place what they do equally something they could sell based on what they've previously sold and not in terms of it's unique and amazing content. A lot of people who could exist real artists have totally abandoned being more original in order to sound like other people who are commercially successful making similar sounds to the ones they make. Success is almost based more on conformity than originality. Inherently, everybody is uniquely original, but according to and so-chosen commercial practicality, most musical people are expected to conform to stylistic standards set by other people and that'due south why so many people sound the same instead of original today.

Practise yous call up it is possible for an artist to be himself today and still be successful, commercially speaking?

I don't see the music concern discovering and presenting the public with artists who are uniquely original and true to themselves. I think most of the ones we hear in the mass media are true to commercial standards rather than to personal argument. Think about all the amazing songwriters, singers and musicians who the music industry turned us on to between 1959 and 1979 when the music concern really had to notice something to appeal to people'south passions in club to sell records. Artists who try to arroyo the music business today equally unique individuals might stand out in a way that would make acts who try to arrange to industry standards look bad. I saw unique musical talent being phased out of the music business in the late '70s and early '80s. I recollect the dominion in the music business is that if you lot want to exist commercially successful with their help, you take to create songs that audio like other songs that are on radio today, rather than write songs that come from your unique indicate of view as an artist. What they're currently selling became more and more than like to and derivative of other songs they marketed after the 1980's, when the entire music business became more than corporatized and more concerned with the bottom line, rather than with discovering unique artists with talent, who expressed their uniqueness through their own kinds of music.

I guess the short respond is that if you are truthful to yourself and unique, you're pretty much on your own as far as the music business organization seems to be concerned. If y'all want to exist original and don't want to sound like the current top 10 selling songs, you pretty much have to get information technology lonely in trying to get your work heard. Part of the reason I say that is because I haven't heard a lot of unique vocaliser/songwriters succeeding in today's music market or even being presented to the public by the music business as information technology'due south traditionally existed. I've heard singers who a lot of people retrieve are unique, but I don't buy it. To me, they all sound similar people who are trying to get into show business rather than people with a burning message to deliver. I'm deplorable some of my answers are long but this is a complex field of study that took decades to evolve and change from one thing into what it is today.

What do you lot call up volition happen next?

The music industry, that is, the people who have the power to decide what is going to be recorded and promoted the most heavily – they don't want anything to change. As far equally they're concerned, what'due south happening at present is perfect every bit long every bit they keep getting richer by putting that kind of music out in that location. Only this is how it could change: if one absurd, actually vivid vocal always got on the radio, the people who run the music concern might have to change the way they observe and present new music and adapt to the changes in taste that a new, groovy, original song could create. We've seen a few examples of that happen in the recent music business history. Like, when Alanis Morissette came out, the music industry had to suit somewhat to friction match her new popularity by looking for other things that were as unique as some of what she did. That's also what happened in a much bigger way when the Beatles came out. It forced the other big record companies in the world (RCA and Columbia) to adapt to what Capitol, who had the Beatles, was having major success with. At present I believe that people who work in the music business are doing everything they can to guard against unexpected changes that they didn't orchestrate from happening. If a truly bright vocal did appear on the radio and the public started getting into it and wanting more of that kind of sound, everyone in the music business would take to compete with the new trend rather than just re-supplying the old i. I don't know if that kind of quality via content shift is going to happen, and if it does, it volition probably be by blow. I want to hear original music and not just that of people who are conforming to commercial standards. The consequence of conforming is dehumanizing and artistically vacant because it tries to categorize us as a listening public rather than highly-seasoned to usa an individuals through individualist creative statements.

I remember when the large modify in the music business happened – when they went from selling artists to marketing acts. What I call back happened is that as stone & roll and other commercial music forms evolved from '59 into the late '70s, the music business started to grow into a much bigger business organisation than information technology ever had been before. I recall the giant corporations saw that happening and they thought: "Hey, nosotros'll purchase these tape companies and big publishing companies and brand them serve our interests." Sadly, their interests had more to do with marketing product than observe unique talent. And they all started changing the music business into what it'south become, for the most part. Also, the corporations who took over weren't very good at finding great original music. They knew how to sell plastic but they phased out most of the people who knew how to make what was on the plastic sound really cool. The whole concept of how music would be discovered and presented to the public completely changed and I think the mission statement of the music business became: "There are a lot of ignorant people in the world and we are going to try to get as much of their coin as we possibly can by pushing their buttons with generic musical statements". It'due south very different than how the old music business used to discover and nowadays the work of super-talented people to the public. One could say that the switchover the manufacture pulled  kind of worked in the sense that they did sell a lot of the new kind of music. We'll never know how much more of the erstwhile kind of music they might have sold if they'd stayed with that. The music on the radio only kept sounding more and more like information technology was made by people who were more hired than inspired. The mode in which the new model didn't work is that post-obit the 60's and seventy's, the music business pretty much stopped turning the public on to the level of talent they discovered in those earlier decades.

I come across it as a very political management.

It's totally political. The fashion the music industry inverse is similar to the way certain governments changed the ideals they started out with, when they had established their positions of ability and became more concerned with managing the power than with furthering the ethics that got them wide public back up and power in the first place. Under the same banners (or labels), they started selling bad ideas instead of good ideas, and if a bad idea was commercially successful, they could e'er say: "well, see, it worked, people bought it, so we're going to keep doing it. Our success is our mandate." To tell you the truth, I think the Beatles literally laid the foundation for the size of the music business that emerged later on their era. They fabricated buying records and stereo equipment and fifty-fifty musical instruments a big thing in our society. As far as I'm concerned, everyone with a career in the music business organization owes a lot of it to the Beatles because they helped build the music industry and pop music into a global thing.

I would dear to hear artists as talented every bit the Beatles or Bob Dylan on the radio, but when I plow on the radio, but I'thousand non hearing that that kind of brilliance being presented by the large music industry. Of course, just God can send us an artists like Bob, but the music business doesn't seem to intendance about or be able to recognize songwriters with existent talent who are just called-for upward the cosmic telegraph lines with their poetry and their soulful take on making music. It's political because the whole thing originally gained wide public back up as such a soulful, personal matter and then it was turned into such a stylized, commercial fashion thing.

Pagini: i 2 3

Semnat de Corina Stoica

cambridgethaders.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.larevista.ro/john-goodwin-days-lot-people-trying-similar-others-order-embraced-industry/

Share this post