Tribute Bands Are The Enemies Of Art

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, let me get this straight: because they aren't artists, they're attacking art?
 
Oh, and here's a question I'd like to throw in. Imagine that some idiot goes to a bar and sees a Rolling Stones tribute band. For some reason, he's unfamiliar with the source material and is inspired by what he hears and wants to start a band. Is this tribute band now part of the inspirers (EG: artists) and not the inspired?
 
Oh, and here's a question I'd like to throw in. Imagine that some idiot goes to a bar and sees a Rolling Stones tribute band. For some reason, he's unfamiliar with the source material and is inspired by what he hears and wants to start a band. Is this tribute band now part of the inspirers (EG: artists) and not the inspired?

No. The idiot is inspired by the original artist's work not the tribute band.
 
What happens when a band plays a cover song during a show? Are they all of a sudden not artists anymore? Is the cycle broken? Will they have to wait another month to catch the next cycle?

Like others have said, art and entertainment fall into two different categories. I don't actively go out to listen to tribute bands, they don't function in the same way as a "real" band. Who's to say they're not just doing this on the side for some money to finance their musical aspirations?

There's some real-world context to this, Screwy, and I think you're missing all of it.
 
What happens when a band plays a cover song during a show? Are they all of a sudden not artists anymore? Is the cycle broken? Will they have to wait another month to catch the next cycle?

When a female artist becomes pregnant, their cycle is broken.
 
baseballkick.gif
 
What would Kate Bush think of this? She makes shrill, wanky art.
 
Last edited:
What happens when a band plays a cover song during a show? Are they all of a sudden not artists anymore? Is the cycle broken? Will they have to wait another month to catch the next cycle?

Like others have said, art and entertainment fall into two different categories. I don't actively go out to listen to tribute bands, they don't function in the same way as a "real" band. Who's to say they're not just doing this on the side for some money to finance their musical aspirations?

There's some real-world context to this, Screwy, and I think you're missing all of it.

Real-world context cannot change the way art works.
 
What am I saying? She creates shrill, wanky soundscapes.

Point is, arguing about this is fine, but not even addressing another way of thought is ridiculous.
 
What am I saying? She creates shrill, wanky soundscapes.

Point is, arguing about this is fine, but not even addressing another way of thought is ridiculous.

The problem is you cannot change the function of art. Art will always work in a specific way. Outside variables can't affect the way art is. That's why outside context doesn't enter into the equation.
 
The problem is you cannot change the function of art. Art will always work in a specific way. Outside variables can't affect the way art is. That's why outside context doesn't enter into the equation.

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.
 
Last edited:
art is what makes an artist

music is the art of musicians

for the fans, music is entertainment, not art

tribute bands provide entertainment to those who wants it

tribute bands don't want to make art, just entertain themselves and the audience

tribute bands and art don't mix up


book it!
 
That's an interesting point. Personally I think art means you have created something new.

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?

The problem is you cannot change the function of art. Art will always work in a specific way. Outside variables can't affect the way art is. That's why outside context doesn't enter into the equation.

Is just your personal opinion and in no way the truth or even general consensus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom