Tribute Bands Are The Enemies Of Art

[Screwtape2]

First off, I don't mean to offend anyone in or who likes tribute bands.

That said I think tribute bands are the opposite of what real artists stand for. Musicians create original music that should inspire others to create their own. The point of making art is to express your humanity. Tribute bands don't play their own music and dress up like real artists. As I see it, that is against the point of art and since Musicians play to express themselves it is against what artists stand for. Tribute bands are the enemies of art and those they mimic. They should play their own music not someone elses. That is how I feel about tribute bands.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Zoots]

I think it's harsh to call them enemies of art. It depends on how serious you want to get with the term, Art. Art to me is part Entertainment as well. And tribute bands are a great fun way to experience your favorite music front and center without the rush for tickets in crowded areans and stadiums. Sure, nothing like the real thing but... I see tribute band shows as a really fun night out, nothing more.

 

[Screwtape2]

I think it's harsh to call them enemies of art. It depends on how serious you want to get with the term, Art. Art to me is part Entertainment as well. And tribute bands are a great fun way to experience your favorite music front and center without the rush for tickets in crowded areans and stadiums. Sure, nothing like the real thing but... I see tribute band shows as a really fun night out, nothing more.

I think art implies that you are creating something. Tribute bands don't create anything and in turn they stop the natural cycle of art by not creating more art as a response to what inspires them. So I think it is fair to call them enemies of art.

 

[Zoots]

Well, then tribute bands don't fall under Art at all. They fall under Entertainment/Nightlife.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

 

[indra]

I think art implies that you are creating something. Tribute bands don't create anything and in turn they stop the natural cycle of art by not creating more art as a response to what inspires them. So I think it is fair to call them enemies of art.

Most classical musicians (say those playing in symphonies) often do not play their own music, but I certainly would classify them as artists. Without them the music dies. They are necessary to bring the music to life and therefore are most certainly artists.

I'm not a big fan of tribute bands though, especially those of existing bands, just because if I'm going to make the effort to go see a band I want it to be the original band if possible. I do realise others go out more often and really enjoy tribute bands though, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't think tribute bands really take anything away from bands who do their own original music because I think they cater to a different group of people.

 

[toscano]

Tribute bands are nothing more than cover bands taken to the next level.

A fun night out listening to some live music and having a few beers.

Nothing more, certainly NOT an enemy of art.

 

[phillyfan26]

Enemy is not the right word at all.

 

[BoMac]

Most classical musicians (say those playing in symphonies) often do not play their own music, but I certainly would classify them as artists. Without them the music dies. They are necessary to bring the music to life and therefore are most certainly artists.

 

[Screwtape2]

Enemy is not the right word at all.

What word would you use?

 

[phillyfan26]

What word would you use?

I'm not saying me. I'm saying for your argument. I think you're wrong anyway, but even if I agreed with your core argument, "enemy" is not what you mean. You mean "Tribute bands are not artists." Simple, like that. Enemy implies much stronger connotations, as if tribute bands had some kind of aggression against art, which is not what you are trying to say.

 

[Screwtape2]

Most classical musicians (say those playing in symphonies) often do not play their own music, but I certainly would classify them as artists. Without them the music dies. They are necessary to bring the music to life and therefore are most certainly artists.

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. That's the part that scares me about tribute bands. Do they have an identity out of living someone else's life?

 

[Screwtape2]

I'm not saying me. I'm saying for your argument. I think you're wrong anyway, but even if I agreed with your core argument, "enemy" is not what you mean. You mean "Tribute bands are not artists." Simple, like that. Enemy implies much stronger connotations, as if tribute bands had some kind of aggression against art, which is not what you are trying to say.

I think enemy is a fair word because they are the rejection of what art is meant to do. They stand in the way of the natural cycle of art.

 

[phillyfan26]

Wow. I think this whole notion is absurd and quite unfair to tribute bands.

 

[LemonMelon]

Tribute bands are nothing more than cover bands taken to the next level.

A fun night out listening to some live music and having a few beers.

Nothing more, certainly NOT an enemy of art.

Agreed. The entire thread is based on a rather absurd notion. Entirely reactionary.

They stand in the way of the natural cycle of art.

Please explain.

 

[Screwtape2]

Wow. I think this whole notion is absurd and quite unfair to tribute bands.

I completely disagree. They stand against the point of art. They need to not live as someone else. When you live as another artist you are going against everything that artist stands for.

 

[Bug]

I completely disagree. They stand against the point of art. They need to not live as someone else. When you live as another artist you are going against everything that artist stands for.

I don't think they claim to be art.

 

[phillyfan26]

I completely disagree. They stand against the point of art. They need to not live as someone else. When you live as another artist you are going against everything that artist stands for.

The generalities you're using make the whole thing sounds so much worse than it is, and you're taking liberties with their thought processes. Jesus Christ, it's not like they were thinking, "ohhh, what's the best way I can rip off said artist and make a lot of money?" All they said to themselves was, "we're musicians and we like said band, why don't we get up there and play some songs for people who want to hear them?" Why is that a big deal? Why is that some attack on art?

 

[GibsonGirl]

Sure, nothing like the real thing but... I see tribute band shows as a really fun night out, nothing more.

That's how I see them too. Good tribute bands are great entertainment. I'd do anything to see Aussie Floyd! A lot of time and effort goes into everything they do. And I mean, where else are you going to see Keep Talking (PULSE version) and Nobody Home (80/81 Wall Tour version) played at the same show?

YouTube - The Australian Pink Floyd - Live at The Royal Albert Hall

 

[Screwtape2]

Agreed. The entire thread is based on a rather absurd notion. Entirely reactionary.




Please explain.

The notion is not absurd. Bono use to say that people should play their songs but play their own. Every U2 tribute bands stands against what the band stands for. U2 is about having a voice. Even today Bono wants other bands to compete with U2. Tribute bands don't do any of that.

The nature cycle of art is this: Someone creates then someone is inspired by it and makes their own which in turn inspires another person until the original artist sees the full effect of their work. Tribute bands are inspired but don't make their own art.

 

[LemonMelon]

The nature cycle of art is this: Someone creates then someone is inspired by it and makes their own which in turn inspires another person until the original artist sees the full effect of their work. Tribute bands are inspired but don't make their own art.

I don't think they claim to be art.

You can compare them to any kind of stage entertainment, but please don't consider them artists. You do, so your argument is inherently flawed from the start.

 

[Screwtape2]

The generalities you're using make the whole thing sounds so much worse than it is, and you're taking liberties with their thought processes. Jesus Christ, it's not like they were thinking, "ohhh, what's the best way I can rip off said artist and make a lot of money?" All they said to themselves was, "we're musicians and we like said band, why don't we get up there and play some songs for people who want to hear them?" Why is that a big deal? Why is that some attack on art?

It is an attack on art because it goes against the natural cycle of art that I talked about in my last post. When inspired people don't continue the cycle it means that are in definance of what art stands for and in turn what artists stand for.

 

[Screwtape2]

You can compare them to any kind of stage entertainment, but please don't consider them artists. You do, so your argument is inherently flawed from the start.

That's the problem they aren't becoming artists and breaking the cycle.

 

[Screwtape2]

That's how I see them too. Good tribute bands are great entertainment. I'd do anything to see Aussie Floyd! A lot of time and effort goes into everything they do. And I mean, where else are you going to see Keep Talking (PULSE version) and Nobody Home (80/81 Wall Tour version) played at the same show?

YouTube - The Australian Pink Floyd - Live at The Royal Albert Hall

I think The Australian Pink Floyd and The Musical Box but they should be putting their talents to continuing the cycle of art and inspiring others. You're an artist, wouldn't you rather see your work inspire others to make their own music or see people dress like you, sing like you and performance just like you?

 

[phillyfan26]

It is an attack on art because it goes against the natural cycle of art that I talked about in my last post. When inspired people don't continue the cycle it means that are in definance of what art stands for and in turn what artists stand for.

Defiance? Attacks? What utter bullshit. A guy plays some songs people want to hear and he's attacking art as a whole. Who knew.

 

[BoMac]

That's the problem they aren't becoming artists and breaking the cycle.

What cycle, exactly? Are you saying that the mere existence of tribute bands will cause others to not become inspired, thus breaking the natural cycle of art?

 

[phillyfan26]

I'm 95% sure you made up this cycle of art notion.

Plus, entertainment and art are two different things.

 

[Screwtape2]

What cycle, exactly? Are you saying that the mere existence of tribute bands will cause others to not become inspired, thus breaking the natural cycle of art?

The tribute bands are part of the inspired but instead of continuing the cycle by making their own music they break the cycle and pretend to be someone else.

 

[BoMac]

But the cycle is clearly not broken, because new bands are created everyday. If it was broken, the universe would eventually be filled with tribute bands only....and the Rolling Stones.

 

[LemonMelon]

Plus, entertainment and art are two different things.

Indeed.

Art is not always entertaining, and not all that is entertaining is art. =/=