Taylor Swift is horrible.
- Thread starter jp_nyc
- Start date
Gary Blanchard
beloved, local musician
But, were they artists before they got the jets?
Modern Saint
Starve your Fear, Feed your Dream!
Why do artist starve and entertainers have private jets?
Are you to say that Led Zepplin started as artists, hit it big and then became entertainers? They had their own private jet. This also goes for Iron Maiden.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
The Frame
The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively -- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real Worldbegins.
You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?
If John Cage, for instance, says, "I'm putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and that's my composition," then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so. "Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music." After that it's a matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy swallowing carrot juice.
So, if music is the best, what is music? Anything can be music, but it doesn't become music until someone wills it to be music, and the audience listening to it decides to perceive it as music.
Most people can't deal with that abstraction -- or don't want to. They say: "Gimme the tune. Do I like this tune? Does it sound like another tune that I like? The more familiar it is, the better I like it. Hear those three notes there? Those are the three notes I can sing along with. I like those notes very, very much. Give me a beat. Not a fancy one. Give me a GOOD BEAT -- something I can dance to. It has to go boom-bap, boom-boom-BAP. If it doesn't, I will hate it very, very much. Also, I want it right away -- and then, write me some more songs like that -- over and over and over again, because I'm really into music."
- FZ
The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively -- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real Worldbegins.
You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?
If John Cage, for instance, says, "I'm putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and that's my composition," then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so. "Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music." After that it's a matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy swallowing carrot juice.
So, if music is the best, what is music? Anything can be music, but it doesn't become music until someone wills it to be music, and the audience listening to it decides to perceive it as music.
Most people can't deal with that abstraction -- or don't want to. They say: "Gimme the tune. Do I like this tune? Does it sound like another tune that I like? The more familiar it is, the better I like it. Hear those three notes there? Those are the three notes I can sing along with. I like those notes very, very much. Give me a beat. Not a fancy one. Give me a GOOD BEAT -- something I can dance to. It has to go boom-bap, boom-boom-BAP. If it doesn't, I will hate it very, very much. Also, I want it right away -- and then, write me some more songs like that -- over and over and over again, because I'm really into music."
- FZ
PunkKitty
The fates already f'ked me sideways
The Onion delivers the real news...
http://www.theonion.com/article/tay...tm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing
http://www.theonion.com/article/tay...tm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing
Jbird
Kick Henry Jackassowski
She doesn't play Taylor guitars?The topic is further muddied by her association with Gibson, or lack thereof.
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I would love to hear Taylor Swift shrieking her way through some cvlt dark industrial songs by Max Martin, who wrote a few sludge metal tracks for Drain STH.
Modern Saint
Starve your Fear, Feed your Dream!
Gary Blanchard
beloved, local musician
https://www.taylorguitars.com/artists/taylor-swift
There is even a Taylor Swift signature Baby Taylor.
Modern Saint
Starve your Fear, Feed your Dream!
FWIW - good for her!!!!
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Without the literal signature that would be a cute little guitar.
smorgdonkey
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Prior to record companies amalgamating and the downloading phenomenon, artists were selected by people to present to record companies and some would get passed over (some many times) & some would be taken on. Some would likely never be 'discovered' by the industry. Many of those artists would go on to be career musicians and never bazillionaires but still have a way to make a living in music.
Since amalgamation, many (most) of those career musicians just got dropped and the ones who would have been don't even get a chance any more because the labels only want the big sellers. This isn't an absolute but in general it is true.
Music used to be curated by people who sought out artistic merit. Now, icons are sought out based upon their marketability.
As much as the record industry implosion was their own fault and many thought 'good on the bastards', I think that things were much better when A&R reps went to live shows and so on to seek out talent. The thing with recording equipment being really affordable now and all...well, that's great but it has also allowed and encouraged people who can't carry a tune/play a lick/write worth beans to put out music. The chaff far outnumbers the wheat now.
People used to be entertained by artists. Artists became entertainers often after their artistic gifts were recognized and presented to the world so to speak.
People used to get famous because they were special.
Now people get special treatment because they are famous.
Since amalgamation, many (most) of those career musicians just got dropped and the ones who would have been don't even get a chance any more because the labels only want the big sellers. This isn't an absolute but in general it is true.
Music used to be curated by people who sought out artistic merit. Now, icons are sought out based upon their marketability.
As much as the record industry implosion was their own fault and many thought 'good on the bastards', I think that things were much better when A&R reps went to live shows and so on to seek out talent. The thing with recording equipment being really affordable now and all...well, that's great but it has also allowed and encouraged people who can't carry a tune/play a lick/write worth beans to put out music. The chaff far outnumbers the wheat now.
People used to be entertained by artists. Artists became entertainers often after their artistic gifts were recognized and presented to the world so to speak.
People used to get famous because they were special.
Now people get special treatment because they are famous.
BlockInlay
Octavate.band
Why do artist starve and entertainers have private jets?
Are you to say that Led Zepplin started as artists, hit it big and then became entertainers? They had their own private jet. This also goes for Iron Maiden.
Didn't LZ rent that jet from Elvis? Head explodes
Chad
Slender Hobbit
it's not Gary(
)
Just as us humans have certain tendencies like collectiing stuff (probably goes back to our evolution from our brothers the squirrels who collect nuts...albeit our collecting is a misguided version of the squirrels colecting nuts for survival....but I digress)...anyway we as humans have an inherent need to judge/compartmentaliz/sort things into a hierarchy...it helps us make sense of our world ...
So one need is to differentiate the mundane and divede. The natural laws of duality, oppossing forces. Artists vs Entertainers fits the bill quite well...so some things that might make one an artist vs an entertainer would be the already mentioned intention of creating a work with no regard for anything other than to get a piece of their soul out into the world and in turn that piece might make others questions things, might make them affirm their own relation the the world around them, etc. Art should be challenging (though provoking) not influenced by commercial interst or money (no sellouts). It should also ideally be idiosyncratic because each individual in their true state is unique.
Entertainment is generally something to pass the time, to amuse oneself or to get lost in briefly. Intent or lack thereof could be applied to Entertainers as well. .
To use authors as example....a Book like Siddhartha by Herman Hesse would be considered art whereas the Book "the Zombie survival guide" by Max Brooks (Mel Brooks' son) would be considered entertainment. I think most people if they were honest with themselves would come to the same conclusion.
Likewise teh Taylor Swift song "shake it off" (minus the twerking of course because that IS art
where as the band "Fugazi" created art..there is a certain je ne sais quoi that "just is"...you feel it
I hope this helps clear things up
TL/DR but you have to be right, you posted a Fugazi video. And probably my favorite Fugazi song. In one of my old bands, we put in the last verse of that song in a break down of one of our tunes.
Peen Simmons
Let’s Get Obtuse!
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
A songs about a tabloid fling and music about music lifting from a genre known for sampling. There’s a certain art-about-art brilliance to it, along with the vapid side of art about art that’s just selling people what they want to buy. I think the singles off 1989 were better, and they seemed more interesting. Swift may be trying to control her image like Madonna did. But rehashing these concepts get old; Madonna was wise enough to shed her skin every album.
Knox in Box
Rustbelt refugee.
Peen Simmons
Let’s Get Obtuse!
Yeah. I genuinely liked 1989 a lot. This new record, based on the singles, is annoying. The music and the sentiments on both tracks are a bunch of grating, try-hard baloney.
This stuff seems like a mid-career crisis of sorts.
Knox in Box
Rustbelt refugee.
Quote is Benito Mussolini.
