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.
I was going to say Ashlee Simpson, but you beat me to it.

L-O-L-O-L-O-L-O-V-E.
 
I would ask David Lynch before making anymore assumptions about art. Clearly, the guy knows what he's talking about.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?


The function of art is a basic as someone creating, someone inspired and something else being creation.

Your syntax is confusing. :huh: 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.

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.
 
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.

:shrug:

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.
 
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.
 
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. :huh: 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. :shrug:
 
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.

:shrug:

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.
 
... 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom