Tribute Bands Are The Enemies Of Art - Page 6 - 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, 09:44 PM   #76
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwtape2 View Post
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.
The term already exists. Artistic interpretation.

It absolutely is art. Interpretation is creation. Not of something entirely new, but it is creation nonetheless. You are creating a performance based on your artistic interpretation of the music.

And on a bit of a tangent, one could argue that no new music today is entirely new. It all uses the same scales, notes, and in many cases, chord progressions as countless other songs that preceded.

Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly of classical music here. Tribute bands that do indeed tend to aim to copy note for note aren't quite so big on creating their own interpretations. However, they certainly aren't the enemy of art.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:46 PM   #77
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
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?




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.



Well. I would suggest you get off your high horse. Your position is shaky at best.
Interpreting is not art. It is something else. It doesn't have a name but it is different. Art is reserved for creators. If something isn't art that doesn't make it any less important. Art is just as I've described it: a creation and an inspiration that creates another creation. This isn't rocket science. Tribute bands are the antithesis of art and in turn what artists stand for. This is really simple.
__________________

__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:50 PM   #78
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
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.
Interpretation and creation are different. You are unfairly lumping them together. They are both equally amazing and valuable but they are different. A conductor and actors (also include designers) are doing something different.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:53 PM   #79
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,712
Local Time: 09:31 PM
... and I'd say that you are unfairly deciding that art is only one thing and cannot deviate from that definition.

I still maintain a composer's art is not complete until it is brought to life by musicians.
__________________
corianderstem is online now  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:54 PM   #80
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
The term already exists. Artistic interpretation.

It absolutely is art. Interpretation is creation. Not of something entirely new, but it is creation nonetheless. You are creating a performance based on your artistic interpretation of the music.

And on a bit of a tangent, one could argue that no new music today is entirely new. It all uses the same scales, notes, and in many cases, chord progressions as countless other songs that preceded.

Just to be clear, I'm talking mainly of classical music here. Tribute bands that do indeed tend to aim to copy note for note aren't quite so big on creating their own interpretations. However, they certainly aren't the enemy of art.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Interpretation is something different from creation. Like I told Cori, both are equally important but they are different. Artistic interpretation can't exist. As they are two different things. Tribute bands are the enemy and antithesis of art but not of interpretation.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:57 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 06:31 PM
This thread = five stars.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:00 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 06:31 PM
How are you not an artist if you reproduce what's been done in the past? A tribute band isn't like photocopying the Mona Lisa. Ditto orchestras. You can't possibly label orchestral performances not art (except for the shite ones), can you?

Anyway, other people are tearing the original argument to pieces enough, as it is.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:03 PM   #83
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwtape2 View Post
Artistic interpretation can't exist.
I'm sorry but this has to stop. You are wrong. You are out of your depth on this subject and your opinion of what art is is most certainly not the actual definition of what art is. And your pretentious attitude isn't helping things, especially considering your age and obvious lack of exposure to art and what it actually is. Perhaps it might help if you look up the actual definition of art:

art
noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

artist
-noun
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or sculptor
3. a person whose trade or profession requires knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of dance.
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill
6. a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: he is an artist with cards.

I see nowhere in that definition anything that restricts art so narrowly as your idea of it does. Unless of course the actual definition is wrong along with the rest of us and you are still right.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:04 PM   #84
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
How are you not an artist if you reproduce what's been done in the past? A tribute band isn't like photocopying the Mona Lisa. Ditto orchestras. You can't possibly label orchestral performances not art (except for the shite ones), can you?

Anyway, other people are tearing the original argument to pieces enough, as it is.
It's interpretation not creation. That's why the orchestra isn't art.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:06 PM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 06:31 PM
So the person who builds the city is the artist, the person who takes the photo of it is the enemy?
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:08 PM   #86
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'm sorry but this has to stop. You are wrong. You are out of your depth on this subject and your opinion of what art is is most certainly not the actual definition of what art is. And your pretentious attitude isn't helping things, especially considering your age and obvious lack of exposure to art and what it actually is. Perhaps it might help if you look up the actual definition of art:

art
noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

artist
-noun
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or sculptor
3. a person whose trade or profession requires knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of dance.
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill
6. a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: he is an artist with cards.

I see nowhere in that definition anything that restricts art so narrowly as your idea of it does. Unless of course the actual definition is wrong along with the rest of us and you are still right.
Interpretation has been lumped in with art but they are not the same thing. An artist creates. Interpretation doesn't do that. They are different thing even if the dictionary lumps them together. I'm not being pretenious. I KNOW that they are different things.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:11 PM   #87
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
So the person who builds the city is the artist, the person who takes the photo of it is the enemy?
The photographer isn't the enemy. It isn't the antithesis of art. It isn't inspired by art but then live in someone else's.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:13 PM   #88
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screwtape2 View Post
Interpretation has been lumped in with art but they are not the same thing. An artist creates. Interpretation doesn't do that. They are different thing even if the dictionary lumps them together. I'm not being pretenious. I KNOW that they are different things.
A painter creates a picture based on his interpretation of the scene s/he is painting. A classical musician creates a performance based on his/her interpretation of the music. An actor creates a performance based on his/her interpretation of the script and director's wishes.

You are out of your depth on this one.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:16 PM   #89
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: 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
An artist creates a picture based on his interpretation of the scene s/he is painting. A classical musician creates a performance based on his/her interpretation of the music. An actor creates a performance based on his/her interpretation of the script and director's wishes.

You are out of your depth on this one.
No, creation is taking something that does not exist and bringing it into life. The characters existed for the actors. The music existed for the musician. The painter is creating something new.
__________________
Screwtape2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 10:20 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 05:31 AM
Threads like this remind me why I can't hear the word "Art" (capital "A" that is) without cringing these days,
__________________

__________________
Saracene 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 12:31 AM.


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