Art

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Gillard
  • Start date Start date
J

John Gillard

New member
Art surely is one of the most loosely based term in the English dictionary. Essentially it should imply something of absolute originilality. Surely once any band has been discovered they artistic credability is hindered. The emphasis for producing records to listen too is overidden by the need to produce other products such as videos, and it seems apparent that there have been no really 'ugly rock stars' since the emmergence of MTV. As for these bubble gum popstars, I cannot express my distain enough, as much as they are annoying and disgusting, they should never be viewed as art. The underlying theme of these 'artists' is money making (as with most mainstream bands). The only justification I can give for them is that they make my favourite bands sound better - the 'uglier' they sound, the better the stuff I listen to sounds.

Moreover, while I can not say this without sounding a tad contradictory, it seems that the power of mainstream music propaganda is becoming evermore powerful. Every big band is created essentially by homing in on a particular sub-culture untill that niche has been raped for all it is worth. (Whearas 20 or so years ago most of these bands created their own following). Maybe being British I should not be allowed to say this but anyway, most the so called contemporary US 'alternative' music I see on TV and hear on the radio is coming from (in my opinion) talentless corporate rock bands. There seems to be no instigators or pioneers coming from the US of recently. I can apprecite bands such as Korn and Rage against the machine, for their sheer originality, but bands such as Linkin park (allegedy a manufactured band) and Papa roach are targeted at pre-pubesant audience, there is no anger and no controvesy surrounding these bands. Before you say, yes British mainstream music at the moment is as shit as it comes.

Sorry for going on for so long but I felt it had to be said, John
 
Art surely is one of the most loosely based term in the English dictionary. Essentially it should imply something of absolute originilality. Surely once any band has been discovered they artistic credability is hindered. The emphasis for producing records to listen too is overidden by the need to produce other products such as videos, and it seems apparent that there have been no really 'ugly rock stars' since the emmergence of MTV. As for these bubble gum popstars, I cannot express my distain enough, as much as they are annoying and disgusting, they should never be viewed as art. The underlying theme of these 'artists' is money making (as with most mainstream bands). The only justification I can give for them is that they make my favourite bands sound better - the 'uglier' they sound, the better the stuff I listen to sounds.

Moreover, while I can not say this without sounding a tad contradictory, it seems that the power of mainstream music propaganda is becoming evermore powerful. Every big band is created essentially by homing in on a particular sub-culture untill that niche has been raped for all it is worth. (Whearas 20 or so years ago most of these bands created their own following). Maybe being British I should not be allowed to say this but anyway, most the so called contemporary US 'alternative' music I see on TV and hear on the radio is coming from (in my opinion) talentless corporate rock bands. There seems to be no instigators or pioneers coming from the US of recently. I can apprecite bands such as Korn and Rage against the machine, for their sheer originality, but bands such as Linkin park (allegedy a manufactured band) and Papa roach are targeted at pre-pubesant audience, there is no anger and no controvesy surrounding these bands. Before you say, yes British mainstream music at the moment is as shit as it comes.

Sorry for going on for so long but I felt it had to be said, John
 
Yeah, Twice as long!

I agree with most of what your saying.

Lots of bands manufacture themselves though, long before they ever get signed. Markets are markets, money is money, musicians gotta live to. Although, I think the popular ones are way overpaid, a little like sports atheletes. To identify what a popular trend is, is common sense. I do get your point though that bands use to 'create their own' following. I don't think that has changed much overall, everyone starts somewhere - except manufactured bands ala 'the monkeys' are becoming more common.

There are still lots of bands on the bottom, 'climbing up the corporate ladder' trying to 'make it big' and be a 'rock star'.

The only thing I've seen change over the last 20 years or so of musical interest is that it seems more homogenized. Bit's of rock here and there, some _rap thrown in, some classical undertones, dash of funk or punk.

It's not a bad thing. 20 years ago I can't think of much that was great, maybe some of the later YES albums, Genesis, AC/DC.

Goes in cycles I suppose. It doesn't matter much in the end. What you like is what you like, so why care?

I listen to music from the 60's and 70's mostly, it's a safe haven. Very little new mainstream music I like, but I bet that it would be the same for me 30 years ago.

It's all subjective. Maybe rocks run it's course... and that's the end. Obsolete style, like Ragtime.
 
Maybe I have an altered perception of what the sixties (for instance) were all about. I am only 20, I'll pose this as a question and not a comment.

It seems to me that music is a direct reflection of the culture that it is derived from. It seems that there was a lot of progressive thinking going on in the sixties, people were well aware that the world had serious issues and were working all the time to better society. This seemed to be accurately mirrored in the quality of music. The Beatles, and The Stones and Dylan and Led Zeplin, to name a few. Today it seems that Americans, especially are content to sit on the couch watch mindless sitcoms and collect their paychecks on the way to the morgue. The only semi productive things that they do in the course of their lives is create new people that will likely have an even more contorted idea of what contentment entails. Technology gives way to more laziness and this laziness seems to be the driving force behind the decline in quality of today's music. Pop Culture demands instant gratification, bright lights, tight clothes, fancy dunks. Style over substance. The notion of a manufactured band sickens me and it sickens me even more that this sort of thing is allowed if not embraced by the public. Sure in the end it's jsut music and it's just what you like, but the more people are force fed shit, the more they think that that's all that's out there, which is a tragedy. In my opinion there really isn't much of anything in the mainstream today. Radiohead provide me with the only band that is slighty politically motivated and has near complete control over what type of music they make. I know many rock die hards feel they sold rock out with their newest stuff but they seem to me to just be trying to challenge people which is of dire importance in a society that shuns challenge shuns anything that's not easy or normal. I thought I had some shrivel of a point here but in the end it was just a solid rant, oh well!



Laj
 
I really wish people would stop complaining about this...
There is TONS of music out there, somthing to fit every taste. If your favorite style of music isnt in the 'mainstream', who cares? Look for it somewhere else...

It seems that all these people who cant stop complaining about "manufactured" bands seem to like Radiohead. Personally, I find radiohead quite boring. Sure they are inovative and more cerebral than other bands, but I just dont like them.

Same goes for stuff like Bjork(sp?). EVERY single one of her songs is utter crap. IN MY OPINION.

It just gets really old when people make this into too big of a deal. Not everyone likes Radiohead. Get over it.

Its kind of funny actually...as Im typing this the show "Making the Band" is on MTv. lol...

Personally, I don't like "mainstream pop" either. But I dont feel the need to convert the world to my ways. Just let them listen to what they want. Its not like its going to bring an end to the world... Just get over it...:rolleyes:
 
who's tying to convert anybody? and I've got plenty of music to choose from that I love, besides radiohead. People can listen to what they want, and so can I. People can express their disdain for the state of Pop music because it's flat. i'm over it personaly and am not trying to convert anyone nor am I complaining just voicing my opinion, thought that was what this forum was all about.



Laj
 
and I'm simply expressing my disdain for people expressing their disdain about music they don't like. :)
 
John...laj...AAAAAAAAAAAMEN.

As for Webcyan...I agree there is tons of great music out there...but what I find offensive and sickening, is that they're the starving artists while the crap gets overpaid. And if you don't like "maintream pop", why are you watching "making the band" on MTV?

I enjoy, Oma Yang, The Roots of Orchids, Vue, The (international) Noise Conspiracy, The Album Leaf, The Mullington Family Talent Show, Kill Me Tomorrow, The Adding Machine (not the one on mp3.com), Killing Jacob, The Obvious, Digital Unicorn, The Velvet Teen, New and Original, The Mothras, Beautiful Mutants, and The Honey Bear Cottage...I'm sure these people aren't being paid that well...and they're not showing up anywhere in the mainstream, and I would be dumbstruck if they did, and that's pretty sad.
 
Laj35: Are you sure you're only 20 years old?

You are wise beyond your years my friend....

El Lamo
A Fellow Washingtonian
 
"Art is just the last three letters of fart." - Gibby Haynes, Butthole Surfers
 
Yeah El Lamo, I'm definitely only 20 but thanks for the complement. Good to see someone from Washington hangin out here, I've actually just moved here about three months ago from the east coast: Boston area. It's definitely nice here, although we haven't seen the sun very much in the last few weeks.



Laj
 
Back
Top