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.
no shit?? i didn't know that.

It's like eating Pop Rocks and drinking Coke at the same time... ever wonder what happened to Mikey from the Life cereal commercials?

Yeah, I'm so fucking right about this.
 
Recreating this experiment on the set of Diff'rent Strokes single-handedly fucked up all of the child actors on that show. Mr. Drummond remained unharmed, thank God. That man's a national treasure.
 
Tribute bands are entertainers, not artists, and they don't claim to be.

Tribute acts are just as pure and authentic as those they are tributing, as they are usually people who enjoy playing songs, as opposed to writing songs. There's nothing wrong with that, it's all legit.

Remarkably, in the act of pretending to be someone they are not, they are at their most genuine....

Do what ya wanna do......and if ya do it well, I applaud ye.
 
most depressing post in this whole thread. even moreso than screwtape going all emo on us

I posted three words in this thread, come back, and it's gone completely nuts.

guys I have something to say

listen to me now

this thread....is art.

yay or nay?


Nah, we're all just rearranging words people have already thought of.......
 
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?

so i suppose the new york philharmonic, who dress up in tuxes and play other people's music, aren't real artists?

yo yo ma will smack you with his cello.
 
art

67988_art-garfunkel-photo-art-garfunkel-6206993.jpg


enemy of art
66paulsimon.jpg



ironicly enough, art would not exist without it's enemy. [/thread]
 
This thread pretty much proves the point that there is no real answer to the age old question of what is art because everyone sees and hears things differently.

To say that someone isn't an artist because they don't play their own music, simply isn't true in my opinion. For instance say that you have a lyricist; he or she is an artist for writing the music. Now they might not have a great voice so they give their lyrics to a recording artist who yes, has their own 'interpretation' of the song, but they them self are creating the sound and emotions for how the audience will respond to it.

Tribute bands are for entertainment but the people in the tribute bands are artists in their own right because they have to either be able to sing or play their instrument well. This is what contradicts Screwtapes opinion I believe. Just because the musicians are playing someone elses music, doesn't take away the fact that they have great musical skills behind the presentation.

You can't label art. :)
 
an artist creates
Frank Sinatra created awesomeness out of lyrics and music that in someone else's hand is just nice
the London Philharmonic creates beauty out of sheet music in a way that not many can equaly
some cover bands create a wonderful evening

some cover bands are just shit
much like some painters, poets, writers and composers can be shit
 
This thread has to go into the hall of fame...all it needs is a little sexing up, and it will have everything you could ever want.

Honestly also one of the strangest threads ever on Interference, other than intentionally weird threads of which there is quite a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom