Artists or Entertainers? (jazz, metal, pop, rock, favorite bands)

Automatic Slim · 01-19-2009, 07:37 PM

Should musicians be 'artists', or 'entertainers'? Here's what I mean.

Some musicians would regard themselves as 'artists'. They believe they should maintain their 'artistic integrity', 'dedicate themselves to their art', and not care what the audience thinks.

Other musicians regard themselves as primarily 'entertainers', and create music that the audience will enjoy. After all, many other products are created to please the consumer: cars, food, etc. Why should music be different?

If you will, let me illustrate this dichotomy with an example from jazz history. Louis Armstrong played great jazz. Nevertheless, he was regarded by Dizzy Gillespie as merely an entertainer, who famously called him a "plantation character". I'm sure anyone here can think of examples in rock and metal.

Whatever floats the musicians' boat, I guess. However, I do favor the more practical 'entertainers' over pretentious 'artists'.

I'm not advocating that everything be bland pop, crooners, and Top 40. After all, I count the Melvins

and Tad among my favorite bands. Still, my tastes are fairly mainstream: Metallica, Megadeth, AIC, and a lot of classic rock. I do tire of people castigating a band when it achieves mainstream status.

Peace.

Sneer · 01-19-2009, 07:40 PM

Both. Some musicians, Alice Cooper as an example, like to entertain.

Others, such as Sigur Ros, are more like artists, painting/sculpting/whatever a sonic piece if you will.

There are others that do both, such as David Bowie.

Theres your simple answer.

Automatic Slim · 01-19-2009, 07:53 PM

I was sort of wanting to see how many people would say 'both'.

A pure entertainer might never extend himself artistically. For example, using only power chords, because most of his audience doesn't demand it. Someone who wants to entertain and show off his technique is best, because he can reach a large audience and extend his artistic vision.

**Janszoon** · 01-19-2009, 08:23 PM

Another vote for both here. It just totally depends on the person for me. I don't think I'd describe the entertainers as "practical" and the artists as "pretentious" though.

Automatic Slim · 01-19-2009, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Another vote for both here. It just totally depends on the person for me. I don't think I'd describe the entertainers as "practical" and the artists as "pretentious" though.

Well, not all artists are pretentious, I admit. (Guess I should have phrased it differently.) And entertainers can certainly display a great amount of artistic talent.

lucifer_sam · 01-19-2009, 09:11 PM

Entertainers = pop musicians

Musicians = everyone else

Sneer · 01-19-2009, 09:15 PM

whats your definition of a pop musician though? Stereolab have made pop albums, i wouldnt classify them as entertainers though.

lucifer_sam · 01-19-2009, 09:37 PM

I should have been more explicit...

Entertainers = popular musicians
Musicians = everyone else

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 01-19-2009, 09:41 PM

They should be called buttplugs.

Sneer · 01-19-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

I should have been more explicit...

Entertainers = popular musicians
Musicians = everyone else

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

01-19-2009, 07:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
Automatic Slim Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 92	Artists or Entertainers? Should musicians be 'artists', or 'entertainers'? Here's what I mean. Some musicians would regard themselves as 'artists'. They believe they should maintain their 'artistic integrity', 'dedicate themselves to their art', and not care what the audience thinks. Other musicians regard themselves as primarily 'entertainers', and create music that the audience will enjoy. After all, many other products are created to please the consumer: cars, food, etc. Why should music be different? If you will, let me illustrate this dichotomy with an example from jazz history. Louis Armstrong played great jazz. Nevertheless, he was regarded by Dizzy Gillespie as merely an entertainer, who famously called him a "plantation character". I'm sure anyone here can think of examples in rock and metal. Whatever floats the musicians' boat, I guess. However, I do favor the more practical 'entertainers' over pretentious 'artists'. I'm not advocating that everything be bland pop, crooners, and Top 40. After all, I count the Melvins and Tad among my favorite bands. Still, my tastes are fairly mainstream: Metallica, Megadeth, AIC, and a lot of classic rock. I do tire of people castigating a band when it achieves mainstream status. Peace. __________________ "I say I can't but I really mean I won't."

01-19-2009, 07:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Sneer Let it drip Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,430	Both. Some musicians, Alice Cooper as an example, like to entertain. Others, such as Sigur Ros, are more like artists, painting/sculpting/whatever a sonic piece if you will. There are others that do both, such as David Bowie. Theres your simple answer. __________________ LastFM Sneer's Emporium of Sound Fright Team radio show

01-19-2009, 07:53 PM	#3 (permalink)
Automatic Slim Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 92	I was sort of wanting to see how many people would say 'both'. A pure entertainer might never extend himself artistically. For example, using only power chords, because most of his audience doesn't demand it. Someone who wants to entertain and show off his technique is best, because he can reach a large audience and extend his artistic vision. __________________ "I say I can't but I really mean I won't."

01-19-2009, 08:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	Another vote for both here. It just totally depends on the person for me. I don't think I'd describe the entertainers as "practical" and the artists as "pretentious" though. __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

01-19-2009, 09:11 PM	#6 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	Entertainers = pop musicians Musicians = everyone else __________________ first.am

01-19-2009, 09:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sneer Let it drip Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,430	whats your definition of a pop musician though? Stereolab have made pop albums, i wouldnt classify them as entertainers though. __________________ LastFM Sneer's Emporium of Sound Fright Team radio show

01-19-2009, 09:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	I should have been more explicit... Entertainers = popular musicians Musicians = everyone else __________________ first.am

01-19-2009, 09:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	They should be called buttplugs.