Tribute Bands Are The Enemies Of Art - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-23-2008, 06:37 PM   #61
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,816
Local Time: 05:55 PM
You know who the true enemy of art is? Universal Publishing.
__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:43 PM   #62
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 07:55 PM
I was going to say Ashlee Simpson, but you beat me to it.

L-O-L-O-L-O-L-O-V-E.
__________________

__________________
LMP is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:48 PM   #63
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 07:55 PM
I would ask David Lynch before making anymore assumptions about art. Clearly, the guy knows what he's talking about.
__________________
LMP is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:55 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,747
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Screwy, have you been to a tribute band show?
__________________
unico is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 07:30 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 08:55 PM
I have never seen a tribute band play, nor do I ever plan to.

However, it's my understanding that most people in tribute bands are just doing it to have fun - they aren't trying to get recording contracts or become famous beyond their town or maybe their region. If you don't go see them, you aren't bothered by them. Out of sight, out of mind.

Now, if you had said American Idol is the enemy of art, I would agree with you 100 percent.
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:46 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMacPhisto View Post
That's where you're wrong. You're setting parameters to what Art can be, basically going against the entire concept of Art. To my understanding, and according to Wikipedia, art's something created to be an expression of oneself... regardless of what one person thinks of its merits. You yourself can set the parameters to which you judge how their art affects you, but you can't say it's not art because you don't like it. I don't like Kate Bush's goofy ass, but I'm not questioning her validity as a musician.

If a "real" band plays a cover song in a set of original songs, do they cease to be a "real" band and break the sacred cycle of art?

By your logic, yes, even if this condition doesn't make the slightest bit of sense with your argument.
Art is about creation we both agree on that. Those is no creation in tribute bands. Art is also about inspiring others and having that inspiration start another expression. That is the cycle. I'm not setting up parameters. That is how it is.

To the question of cover songs, the band is creating a performance of their own work and like work. So it isn't a matter of them trying to be another band.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:47 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Someone is stubburnly clinging to a premise that has been proved faulty since page one.

Thread
The thread wouldn't be complete with this cliched response from you.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:51 PM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
And I disagree. There is an incredibly complex art to interpret someone else's work through the medium of performance. Your notion of art is faaaar too narrow. By your logic, actors are not artists because they're simply reciting someone else's lines and directions. Sinatra wasn't an artist because he sang someone else's music.


And this?



Is just your personal opinion and in no way the truth or even general consensus.
I don't they are artists. They aren't creating they are interpreting.

The function of art is a basic as someone creating, someone inspired and something else being creation. If you can't see that function of art then you don't understand art.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:53 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by unico View Post
Screwy, have you been to a tribute band show?
No. I never hope to either.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:03 PM   #70
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Someone is stubburnly clinging to a premise that has been proved faulty since page one.

Thread
It's not often I agree with ya, but gotta do so here
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:23 PM   #71
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwtape2 View Post
That's an interesting point. Personally I think art means you have created something new. They preserve art but are they really creating something new? I wouldn't call them artists at all. At least though they don't try to be like the composer, dress and look like the original artists.
But without the musicians, how is the composer's art being heard? Notes on a page are interesting to me as a musician, but you don't have much art without someone playing them.

And different conductors and musicians will make their own tweaks and interpretations of the conductor's art.

Without musicians, the composer's work never would have been heard at all - unless the composer only allows him or herself to play it.

As a singer in a 30-voice choir, the idea that I'm not creating art by singing a composer's work is, frankly, insulting.

(that sounds awfully harsh - I don't feel like you're personally insulting me, and you do make an interesting point about art vs interpretation a few posts above me, but I still stand by my point and believe that musicians are artists.)

One more thought: why isn't it okay for a musician do decide to entertain rather than be an "artist"? Why does there have to be some sort of cycle? What's wrong with a musician making the decision that entertaining people means more to them than "creating art"?
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:31 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
Screwtape2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Drum and Wormwood on Harpsichord!”
Posts: 18,353
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
But without the musicians, how is the composer's art being heard? Notes on a page are interesting to me as a musician, but you don't have much art without someone playing them.

And different conductors and musicians will make their own tweaks and interpretations of the conductor's art.

Without musicians, the composer's work never would have been heard at all - unless the composer only allows him or herself to play it.

As a singer in a 30-voice choir, the idea that I'm not creating art by singing a composer's work is, frankly, insulting.
I think art is about creation. I think though interpretation like you are talking about or actoring is something other than art. I think it is worthwhile because you are letting yourself out. Can see how dressing up and parading as someone else is an antithesis to creation? That's my point. I think interpretation is awesome and deserves a name. It isn't art, it is...? Someone someday should think of what to call it. It is a worthy form of expression.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:32 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 07:55 PM
they might not be the enemy of art, but they couldn't possibly seem lamer to me.
i'm only one person.
but still.
i can't see how anyone would want to form a band directly after someone else's.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:37 PM   #74
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwtape2 View Post
I don't they are artists. They aren't creating they are interpreting.
And as I said before, there is indeed a very complex art to successfully intrepeting and performing someone else's work. You are not simply copying notes and directions. There are many choices you make when interpreting a piece of music that are more or less entirely up to you. Everything is not spelled out on the page, and that is where your artistic talent comes into play in creating a successful interpretation and performance.

By your responses I assume you aren't a musician. Is that right?


Quote:
The function of art is a basic as someone creating, someone inspired and something else being creation.
Your syntax is confusing. And besides that, you seem to be woefully ignorant to the artistic process that goes into interpreting a piece of music. To stick with classical music for now... Vladimir Horowitz, Itzak Perlman, Artur Rubinstein, Joshua Bell, etc - all musicians who are widely regarded across the globe as extremely talented artists, and yet simply because they're not playing their own work you think everyone is wrong to call them that. I think perhaps it's not the rest of us who are wrong.

Quote:
If you can't see that function of art then you don't understand art.
Well. I would suggest you get off your high horse. Your position is shaky at best.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:43 PM   #75
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 05:55 PM
A composer is creating art by setting out to create music. Those notes on the page do not play themselves. Without the musicians performing that music, the art does not exist.



You could say the same about a play - the playwright set out to write a play. A play that will need to be brought to life by people "dressing up and parading as someone else." You could argue that a play on the page can still be read without actors, but I don't think that's the same kind of art the playwright set out to create.

If the playwright doesn't think the actors are artists, then they should have written a novel instead.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Tags
tribute bands

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com