|
|
Post by cartman on May 1, 2007 12:59:56 GMT 10
Fuck art & Foucault. Lets eat dudes (and XBox too)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 1, 2007 13:05:39 GMT 10
Thanks Mark. In order too.
I disagree subjectively only on a couple of points but thats fine. ( I'm sure everyone knows the ones ) though I have no issue at all with Dave Wekl being an Artist.
I totally agree, subjectively, with your last answer. That's why it's good that we can disagree on other things. That's also why I'm here, I don't think it's a waste of time at all, quite the opposite, it's fun, challenging and at times enlightening to have this discussion.
Cartman, were you been dude? Pizza?
|
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on May 1, 2007 16:09:09 GMT 10
My brain hurts. Less talk, more music. Did you go to the VCA freddy?!?! And Mark, I saw in Readings today a book just for you - Music and Manipulation. Let's talk more about manipulation in music.What is the difference between manipulation and seeking a response or effect? Surely music making is about creativity in a sound manipulation sense. Emotive responses are up to the listener and beyond the control of the performer. I, as I am sure is the case with most of us, have had plenty of people tell me that my music moved them in a particular way, indeed the same performance moved different people in different ways. None of these emotions were arrived at as the result of a deliberate attempt to get a response on my part. The performer constructs the music that they hear. The listener responds in a purely individual manner, independant of the performer's intent, conscious or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on May 1, 2007 16:10:48 GMT 10
Fuck art & Foucault. Lets eat dudes (and XBox too) Cartman, do you eat dudes??  |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 16:26:47 GMT 10
Let's talk more about manipulation in music.What is the difference between manipulation and seeking a response or effect? None of these emotions were arrived at as the result of a deliberate attempt to get a response on my part. The performer constructs the music that they hear. The listener responds in a purely individual manner, independent of the performer's intent, conscious or otherwise. Then maybe in your eyes I am not a performer just a showman. Because I consider the effect on the listener of what I do. I play to communicate to a listener, not just to "construct the music that I hear" in a vacuum. If I decide to start the set with a burner, it's for the impact on the listener - and the band - that this kind of initial excitement will evoke. If I start with a ballad, I want to communicate something else, to evoke a different emotion in the listener. Of course I agree that each listener will filter it their own way as to what they precisely feel, that is the beauty of playing for different listeners. But the general territory of the effect would be broadly uniform, that is the skill of an artist. If they're shakin', rockin', smilin' and groovin' to your most bitter slowest ballad you don't know your craft. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 1, 2007 19:02:16 GMT 10
but you might have an art
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 19:05:26 GMT 10
but you might have an art Indeed. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by trumpetguy on May 1, 2007 20:16:19 GMT 10
If they're shakin', rockin', smilin' and groovin' to your most bitter slowest ballad you don't know your craft. Is that manipulative language???(I don't believe such extreme responses were even remotely implied) Of course, a set can be constructed with the audience in mind, but surely once you begin actually creating music you don't consider anything other than the sounds coming from your (and co-performers)instrument. I would be very suprised if you(even fleetingly) considered drawing an emotional response from your audience whilst in the act of creating music. If this were the case you wuld not be giving fully to what was you were doing. And no,I don't consider you a mere showman. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 20:50:07 GMT 10
If they're shakin', rockin', smilin' and groovin' to your most bitter slowest ballad you don't know your craft. Is that manipulative language???(I don't believe such extreme responses were even remotely implied) Huh? Extreme? Me was just having fun! Did you think the "you" in "you don't know your craft" was supposed to be YOU or something? I don't even know you! It was a generic "you". I thought I gave an intelligent, colourful and honest response to your intelligent post. If that makes me "extreme" so be it! |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on May 1, 2007 21:22:51 GMT 10
Is art only art when it is observed by a third party? Is a group rehearsing art? Is a painting that has never been seen art? Do we consider the act of being perceived as always changing the art, or never effecting it?
There is me. There is the me that perceives. There is the me that is perceived.
It also strikes me that some here can't comprehend an artist and an entertainer co-existing in the one performance.
|
|
jamie
Full Member
Now to find a junkie...
Posts: 111
|
Post by jamie on May 2, 2007 8:19:58 GMT 10
Is that manipulative language???(I don't believe such extreme responses were even remotely implied) Huh? Extreme? Me was just having fun! Did you think the "you" in "you don't know your craft" was supposed to be YOU or something? I don't even know you! It was a generic "you". I thought I gave an intelligent, colourful and honest response to your intelligent post. If that makes me "extreme" so be it! Don't you mean "I was having fun!"? :-) |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 2, 2007 9:12:59 GMT 10
Huh? Extreme? Me was just having fun! Did you think the "you" in "you don't know your craft" was supposed to be YOU or something? I don't even know you! It was a generic "you". I thought I gave an intelligent, colourful and honest response to your intelligent post. If that makes me "extreme" so be it! Don't you mean "I was having fun!"? :-) Me was just having fun when I said "Me was just having fun" |
|
|
|
Post by aj on May 2, 2007 9:29:58 GMT 10
Huh? Extreme? Me was just having fun! Did you think the "you" in "you don't know your craft" was supposed to be YOU or something? I don't even know you! It was a generic "you". I thought I gave an intelligent, colourful and honest response to your intelligent post. If that makes me "extreme" so be it! How should he know whether you were having fun or not ?? Don't you mean "I was having fun!"? :-) |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 2, 2007 10:03:25 GMT 10
"It also strikes me that some here can't comprehend an artist and an entertainer co-existing in the one performance"
Art maybe entertaining, but I would say it doesn't strive to be. Entertainers entertain, der, they don't make Art. Entertaining people is not an Art, it's a skill or craft.
I think the difference is that Art stimulates the intellect in some way, sure there is an emotional effect upon you but it does make you assess that and think about it. Entertainment is for short term or immediate pleasure, no thought process needed as it doesn't challenge you to assess yourself. In fact the opposite, people will usually be entertained by that which affirms there existing thoughts, ie pop music. Not to say some pop style music can't be art.
Unfortunately we are so used to being entertained that art gets a back seat. People want to be pleased not challenged. Personally, I want to challenge them, and myself, not please them, that's why I think I'm an Artist. That's why I think James Morrison is not. He is an entertainer and he himself has said this on radio interviews I've heard, he does it for the people, to please them, and he's good at it too. Now that's not a bad thing at all, just not art.
|
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 2, 2007 11:13:12 GMT 10
I understand where you're coming from and the way you express it makes a lot of sense ironguts. Well said. But it seems to me that you're saying art is about confrontation and that entertainment is about being pleasing. Personally, I find much art pleasing and certainly I aim to please my audience. Does that make me an entertainer? "Pleasing" doesn't mean necessarily giving them what they think they want though. Many of my audience might be pleased to hear standards. But I don't necessarily give that to them if my Muse is not going in that direction. Nonetheless I still hope they will be pleased by my originals. A chef who is an artist won't make a dish just because that's want the punter wants to eat. But he still hopes the diners will enjoy and be pleased by the product of his creativity. On the other hand, I find most "entertainment" more confronting than art. It confronts me more than your music does. Your music pleases me. When Big Brother comes on the telly I want to throw my drink at the screen. That's confronting. You can't sustain your angry young man thing forever mate! You're not confronting. Your fluency and creativity are exceedingly pleasing - and entertaining - to this mind and soul. Are you confronted by that?  |
|
