Should Artists Change?

oscillate · 02-28-2016, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

I think this is a false dichotomy.
Art is entertainment.
And "someone with the vision, musical means or talent, and ambition to explore new musical territories rather than treading over old ground" entertains me the most.

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

New ground is a very fluid term, too. The White Stripes were labelled as groundbreakers when in actuality they were simply retreading old ideas (not to say I don't like them). I also think that the "we" is as fragmented as you suggest mainstream culture is, which allows for a lot of diversity in the artistic realm. I really think it comes down to whether you can change styles and still make good music. David Bowie is a great example of that, as is someone like Tom Waits. I'd name some others on the opposite end of the spectrum, but all I can think of is Van Halen, but that was more just a change in vocals and I think that they sucked to begin with.

I agree with you. What constitutes "we" anymore? The "we" as it is still referred to in the media would be the traditional music industry, media, etc. Does the Billboard Top 40 represent modern mainstream music? In terms of sales, I suppose it does, seeing as they allegedly incorporate streaming data now. Sales/streams still indicate people are listening, correct?

grindy · 02-28-2016, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscillate

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

I agree with you. What constitutes "we" anymore? The "we" as it is still referred to in the media would be the traditional music industry, media, etc. Does the Billboard Top 40 represent modern mainstream music? In terms of sales, I suppose it does, seeing as they allegedly incorporate streaming data now. Sales/streams still indicate people are listening, correct?

For me all art is entertainment.
To define what art is would be one hell of a venture though.
But I really don't think longetivity and "timelessness" has anything to do with it. People tend to use the word "art" when they mean "high art", whatever they see as such. I don't use the word that way. For me The Backstreet Boys' music is as much art as Mozart's is.

**Frownland** · 02-28-2016, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscillate

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

“What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.” - Marcel Duchamp