AliEnvy
Refugee
From a (non-U2) book I'm currently reading:
What do you think?
What do you think?
There Are No Artists on the Assembly Line
- Thread starter AliEnvy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
would like to see more of that quote, for context, i guess.
OP
OP
AliEnvy
Refugee
For you z, I will transcribe the whole section. 
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
well thank you! And that is a very interesting quote. I'll be damned if they don't have a point. Im not sure if they are saying that a u2 tour is both "art" and also a "souvenir factory" because we all know that u2 basically plays the same shit every night. I guess some nights are better than others though. But we also know they aren't on a greatest hits tour, as they still promote new material with the same ferocity today that they did 18 years ago. I guess i will side on the heavy with "art", with a touch of "souvenir factory" for good measure. But i do like my souvenirs! But in my heart im beating and bleeding for the very essence of life, spirit, shadows, dreams, and art. Life is good!
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
I don't agree with that. Tours are tricky because the audience is different every night. Plays and musicals stay relatively the same each night too. Most performance art is scripted.
The fact is a lot of artists stick with the same setlists with little variation. Has that ever not been the case? Tori Amos is an artist where the setlist is different every show but the nature of her songs allows that. Her songs are keyboard based meaning less prep time and less restriction in terms of structure. That doesn't mean she isn't cookie-cutter and U2 is. Practicality is something that the author seemed to not take into account.
The fact is a lot of artists stick with the same setlists with little variation. Has that ever not been the case? Tori Amos is an artist where the setlist is different every show but the nature of her songs allows that. Her songs are keyboard based meaning less prep time and less restriction in terms of structure. That doesn't mean she isn't cookie-cutter and U2 is. Practicality is something that the author seemed to not take into account.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
What makes a tour a "cookie-cutter system to earn money"?
The setlist? Really?
The songs are the same, the way you play them the same, the lyrics for the most part stay the same, yet if you play them in a different line up only then is it still art?
So if Britney plays a different setlist every night she's an artist?
The setlist? Really?
The songs are the same, the way you play them the same, the lyrics for the most part stay the same, yet if you play them in a different line up only then is it still art?
So if Britney plays a different setlist every night she's an artist?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I think the question is what the art, in nature, is.
U2's albums take so long because the art in the making of the album is the album. That means every song has to be crafted, arranged, re-worked, re-written, etc. Songs, like films, aren't released; they escape. However, once they escape, they don't go back into the bottle. They have to be right the first time.
Performance, however, is different. I would say that with U2, the goal isn't ultimately the concert as a means unto itself. The art in U2's case, when it comes to the concert, is what is created between the band and the audience. That's the art. It's not about the concert -- it's about what happens in the space between us. That's what I would say keeps the band from being cookie cutter and keeps their live perfomances something truly special. When the art becomes simply about cranking out the tunes on-stage, that's when it dies. (Unless the intended art is a faithful representation of songs on-stage. Some bands and performers can do that very effectively -- Sting, the Stones, etc. That's never been U2's endgame.)
U2's albums take so long because the art in the making of the album is the album. That means every song has to be crafted, arranged, re-worked, re-written, etc. Songs, like films, aren't released; they escape. However, once they escape, they don't go back into the bottle. They have to be right the first time.
Performance, however, is different. I would say that with U2, the goal isn't ultimately the concert as a means unto itself. The art in U2's case, when it comes to the concert, is what is created between the band and the audience. That's the art. It's not about the concert -- it's about what happens in the space between us. That's what I would say keeps the band from being cookie cutter and keeps their live perfomances something truly special. When the art becomes simply about cranking out the tunes on-stage, that's when it dies. (Unless the intended art is a faithful representation of songs on-stage. Some bands and performers can do that very effectively -- Sting, the Stones, etc. That's never been U2's endgame.)
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
so a painting isn't art unless it's different every time it's displayed? is that somewhat like what the quote is trying to say?
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Heh. When my choir sings the Mozart Requiem, we like to mix it up every time so it's new and art and junk.
I do my part by singing every other note incorrectly.
I do my part by singing every other note incorrectly.
OP
OP
AliEnvy
Refugee
Yes...I think this was the intended message in that quote.
Even if the nightly setlist is mostly the same, there is still room for great sponteneity which Bono in particular can be very, very good at to create those emotional connections between the band, the sound and the audience. When he's doing his "art" it can be magical. It would be a lot to expect or ask for that to be every night of a tour, especially if the audience is a dud. But when it works, it's priceless...for the band too, I imagine.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think we need to look at it in the macro. A concert vs a tour.
Pearl Jam (for one example) needs new setlists every night because other than the actions of the 6 guys on stage (including Boom) there isn't much performance to the performance. Meaning, outside of the same shit they've been doing for 20 years, which is the same basic stuff every rock band ever formed does. "Hey look Eddie is doing that thing with his hand again!! I saw that in 1992!! Stay true to your 'art', Eddie!"
Is it "cookie cutter" for a bunch of guys to be doing the same thing they've been doing- performance wise- for the last 20 years?
I'm not trying to rag on PJ, I love PJ, I'm just trying to say the whole notion of "cookie cutter" in terms of concerts is kind of an oxymoron. The artists are playing songs they've played hundreds and hundreds of times. Is that not in the vein of being inherently "cookie cutter"? Screwtape mentioned Tori Amos, she's been doing the same shit on her piano stool for 20 years too, squirming and all that. So she needs setlist variety, otherwise she'd be a walking (sitting and squirming) definition of repetition.
If we view them in terms of tours, in the macro, then we can see better who continues to repeat themselves and who doesn't. Because in the micro, the concerts, in some sense it's nothing but "cookie cutter" be it setlist or performance.
This is relative to the supposed "artistry" of what's going on.
In my view, if I have to pay more to see the concert than I'd have to actually own the music, then I am dubious that there is much "artistry" motivating the performer anyhow.
I have no problem with this, let them make their money - it's their profession - let's just stop pretending that any of these musicians is more credible than another on any other merit than the sheer talent involved.
Pearl Jam (for one example) needs new setlists every night because other than the actions of the 6 guys on stage (including Boom) there isn't much performance to the performance. Meaning, outside of the same shit they've been doing for 20 years, which is the same basic stuff every rock band ever formed does. "Hey look Eddie is doing that thing with his hand again!! I saw that in 1992!! Stay true to your 'art', Eddie!"
Is it "cookie cutter" for a bunch of guys to be doing the same thing they've been doing- performance wise- for the last 20 years?
I'm not trying to rag on PJ, I love PJ, I'm just trying to say the whole notion of "cookie cutter" in terms of concerts is kind of an oxymoron. The artists are playing songs they've played hundreds and hundreds of times. Is that not in the vein of being inherently "cookie cutter"? Screwtape mentioned Tori Amos, she's been doing the same shit on her piano stool for 20 years too, squirming and all that. So she needs setlist variety, otherwise she'd be a walking (sitting and squirming) definition of repetition.
If we view them in terms of tours, in the macro, then we can see better who continues to repeat themselves and who doesn't. Because in the micro, the concerts, in some sense it's nothing but "cookie cutter" be it setlist or performance.
This is relative to the supposed "artistry" of what's going on.
In my view, if I have to pay more to see the concert than I'd have to actually own the music, then I am dubious that there is much "artistry" motivating the performer anyhow.
I have no problem with this, let them make their money - it's their profession - let's just stop pretending that any of these musicians is more credible than another on any other merit than the sheer talent involved.
Marien
Refugee
Ali, that quote sems to come from a social critic, but there are many other ways to understand what art is and depending from their starting position they will define art in a way or another. I understand art as meaning and communication, as most of the people here have said, but creativity and skill have their own place here too, we need originality and a high degree of achievement to consider it art and not a simple craft you have learnt and repeat without innovation.
For a creator everything comes from a real necessity to express himself, to communicate with the others, and because he's impelled to do so he starts working, sometimes fighting, in order to be able to take out of his head what he sees (or hears) there with such clarity, the closer he gets to his ideal, the better he considers his product, but then, after it is finished it gets its own life (with the help of the others), sometimes he finds it difficult to accept that most people see a different thing from the one he was intending to create, he finds it a failure, even if they told him it's good, but sometimes this new meaning is also found by the author as in a real conversation with the audience. The fact that art has to stir the audience is more controversial in my opinion, but what art can't do is to leave the audience exactly the same, it needs to move you in some way or other.
When performing sincerity is the most important factor for me, not if they make money or not, I suppose every artist in the world would like to make money, money equals liberty for an artist.
Sincerity is what makes me feel Bono, Egde, Adam and Larry are talking to me in a concert with only 80,000 more people present, what makes me think that they really mean what they are saying, sincerity is also what makes me think they are doing their best possible performance at the moment, sincerity is what prevents them from doing things mechanically every night, even if they play the same set list, that's the magic in the concert, that's why the audience follows them in the trip, the day the lost it they would stop being artists, no matter if they lose money at that moment.
For a creator everything comes from a real necessity to express himself, to communicate with the others, and because he's impelled to do so he starts working, sometimes fighting, in order to be able to take out of his head what he sees (or hears) there with such clarity, the closer he gets to his ideal, the better he considers his product, but then, after it is finished it gets its own life (with the help of the others), sometimes he finds it difficult to accept that most people see a different thing from the one he was intending to create, he finds it a failure, even if they told him it's good, but sometimes this new meaning is also found by the author as in a real conversation with the audience. The fact that art has to stir the audience is more controversial in my opinion, but what art can't do is to leave the audience exactly the same, it needs to move you in some way or other.
When performing sincerity is the most important factor for me, not if they make money or not, I suppose every artist in the world would like to make money, money equals liberty for an artist.
Sincerity is what makes me feel Bono, Egde, Adam and Larry are talking to me in a concert with only 80,000 more people present, what makes me think that they really mean what they are saying, sincerity is also what makes me think they are doing their best possible performance at the moment, sincerity is what prevents them from doing things mechanically every night, even if they play the same set list, that's the magic in the concert, that's why the audience follows them in the trip, the day the lost it they would stop being artists, no matter if they lose money at that moment.
ozeeko
Refugee
What makes art "art"?
I honestly have no freakin' idea.
But I would say that a song itself is the work of art, and the live performace of that song is the presentation of the art. some presentations can be artistic. ZooTV was a pretty artistic way of presenting their "art" (art meaning songs).
it's like...art is the thing you are presenting. When U2 play "One" - the song itself is the art they are presenting. I don't think the act of them playing One is artistic, unless it was done in a way that was different, alternative, innovative.
According to Mr. Dictionary, art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."
What does this tell us?
I have no clue. Some guys that lived in caves made up all these words.
But nothing irks me more than when a person talks about their "art" or refers to themself as an "artist". I think once you've done that you have ceased to be an artist (if you ever were one) and have instead become a pretensious, pompous blowhard knob who takes himself way too seriously. Others can refer to you as an artist...you can never call yourself one! That's a rule!
What was I talking about?
I honestly have no freakin' idea.
But I would say that a song itself is the work of art, and the live performace of that song is the presentation of the art. some presentations can be artistic. ZooTV was a pretty artistic way of presenting their "art" (art meaning songs).
it's like...art is the thing you are presenting. When U2 play "One" - the song itself is the art they are presenting. I don't think the act of them playing One is artistic, unless it was done in a way that was different, alternative, innovative.
According to Mr. Dictionary, art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."
What does this tell us?
I have no clue. Some guys that lived in caves made up all these words.
But nothing irks me more than when a person talks about their "art" or refers to themself as an "artist". I think once you've done that you have ceased to be an artist (if you ever were one) and have instead become a pretensious, pompous blowhard knob who takes himself way too seriously. Others can refer to you as an artist...you can never call yourself one! That's a rule!
What was I talking about?
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Don't worry, I don't know what I was talking about either.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Art...fuck.
allbecauseofu2
Refugee
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,258
what does this guy want artists to do then? good luck on getting u2 or any band to play completely different setist every night.
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
So according to this logic, ballet, opera, theatre are not "art" because every performance of any given show is pretty much the same?
Chill Mike D
War Child
All of this is taken quite a bit out of context, but I don't think some of you are quite getting the spirit of what he's saying.
He's not saying that the setlist has to be a complete shakeup every night, but that anything that is "by the numbers" is not art, i.e. if you can distill U2, or any artist, down to an essence that is easy to capture, without being a joke, then it ceases to be art. In other words, he's taking another route to saying the same thing that some of you say when you complain about Edge's arpeggio'd delays and Bono's knees, souls, and whatnot. Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup work was art when he did it, but once it's done that billionth time it's clearly not.
To sum up, any artist, U2 included, needs to constantly strip away the stuff that comes easy or else it's just a business.
He's not saying that the setlist has to be a complete shakeup every night, but that anything that is "by the numbers" is not art, i.e. if you can distill U2, or any artist, down to an essence that is easy to capture, without being a joke, then it ceases to be art. In other words, he's taking another route to saying the same thing that some of you say when you complain about Edge's arpeggio'd delays and Bono's knees, souls, and whatnot. Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup work was art when he did it, but once it's done that billionth time it's clearly not.
To sum up, any artist, U2 included, needs to constantly strip away the stuff that comes easy or else it's just a business.
OP
OP
AliEnvy
Refugee
^ Ha, you're reading the same book I am! 
Nicely put.
Nicely put.
Salome
you are what you is
well, that's quite a stretch there
I consider Frank Zappa the greatest artist in music (not my favourite, but still the greatest artist) and Frank was pretty big on his conceptual continuity
basically the logic was that certain repeating elements in ones art prevents seperate projects to be just that, seperate projects, instead of creating 1 creative statement
U2 as a creative statement can't shed what makes them U2 each and every time or the statement would get lost
then again, Frank didn't really care for U2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Tribute bands are the highest form of art.
allbecauseofu2
Refugee
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,258
this title of this thread sounds like the name of thier next album. or a name they would use.
Similar threads
- Sticky
