Artists or Entertainers? (lyrics, metal, rock, albums, pink floyd)

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 01-19-2009, 09:53 PM

^Yes thank you! I'm sick of popularity being such a factor in **** like this!

Automatic Slim · 01-19-2009, 09:54 PM

People often say that a band s!@#$ when it goes mainstream. The premise behind that attitude would seem to be something along the lines of: 'musicians should concentrate on their artistic integrity, and not care what the audience thinks.'

Or maybe they should only care what the audience thinks if the audience is small?

lucifer_sam · 01-19-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

I dont mean to be pedantic but a musician can become a popular musician with the strength of their material. Case in point Led Zeppelin

And they were definitely entertainers. I'm not saying anything bad about entertainers, some of 'em are my favorites (Steve Harley, David Bowie, etc). But when a musician achieves a level of popularity that makes them a household name, it sure as shit isn't because they start making better music.

Sneer · 01-19-2009, 10:12 PM

What about Radiohead (apologies, best example)? They're popular as fuck these days and i definately would not class them as entertainers. In fact i can think of quite a few acts that are popular but do not entertain

simplephysics · 01-19-2009, 10:18 PM

All artists are entertainers, but not all entertainers are artists, perhaps? I dunno.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 01-19-2009, 10:20 PM

That was by far the smartest thing anyone on this thread has said. Props!

Sneer · 01-19-2009, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadnaught

All artists are entertainers, but not all entertainers are artists, perhaps? I dunno.

Not necessarily. Munch didnt create The Scream to entertain people, often art is a form of self expression; of communicating feeling and emotion - same applies to music. I dont think Nick Drake wrote Fives Leaves Left with the intention of entertaining the listener.

Fruitonica · 01-20-2009, 02:44 AM

The premise of the question is flawed. Artistry is not defined by popularity or keeping the audience in mind whilst creating your music. If you are involved in creating original music then I would call you an artist. If other people listen to and enjoy your music then I would call you an entertainer. Almost all musicians are both.

But if I answered the question properly then I would probably say entertainers, my tastes are generally pretty accessible and popular.

jackhammer · 01-20-2009, 04:42 AM

I think it's fairly obvious the difference between the two. Some bands manage to achieve both and obviously will then become entertaining for those who watch them. The artists who are only entertainers are the artists that most of us probably don't listen to anyhow, so the question is a little redundant.

4ZZZ · 01-20-2009, 05:07 AM

I tend to be entertained by what I like. Not sure I care to worry about it that deeply.

Just out of curiosity why did the OP put this in this Rock & Metal forum and not the General Board?

01-19-2009, 09:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
Automatic Slim Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 92	People often say that a band s!@#$ when it goes mainstream. The premise behind that attitude would seem to be something along the lines of: 'musicians should concentrate on their artistic integrity, and not care what the audience thinks.' Or maybe they should only care what the audience thinks if the audience is small? __________________ "I say I can't but I really mean I won't."

01-19-2009, 10:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
Sneer Let it drip Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,430	What about Radiohead (apologies, best example)? They're popular as fuck these days and i definately would not class them as entertainers. In fact i can think of quite a few acts that are popular but do not entertain __________________ LastFM Sneer's Emporium of Sound Fright Team radio show

01-20-2009, 04:42 AM	#19 (permalink)
jackhammer Ba and Be. Join Date: May 2007 Location: This Is England Posts: 17,331	I think it's fairly obvious the difference between the two. Some bands manage to achieve both and obviously will then become entertaining for those who watch them. The artists who are only entertainers are the artists that most of us probably don't listen to anyhow, so the question is a little redundant. __________________ It be my music and film collection. “A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”

01-19-2009, 09:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	^Yes thank you! I'm sick of popularity being such a factor in **** like this!

01-19-2009, 10:20 PM	#16 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	That was by far the smartest thing anyone on this thread has said. Props!

01-20-2009, 02:44 AM	#18 (permalink)
Fruitonica Pale and Wan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aus Posts: 917	The premise of the question is flawed. Artistry is not defined by popularity or keeping the audience in mind whilst creating your music. If you are involved in creating original music then I would call you an artist. If other people listen to and enjoy your music then I would call you an entertainer. Almost all musicians are both. But if I answered the question properly then I would probably say entertainers, my tastes are generally pretty accessible and popular.

01-20-2009, 05:07 AM	#20 (permalink)
4ZZZ Forever young Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 608	I tend to be entertained by what I like. Not sure I care to worry about it that deeply. Just out of curiosity why did the OP put this in this Rock & Metal forum and not the General Board?