Showmanship?

[telemike]

dictionary.com wrote:

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

I can understand definition number 3, but not number two. To sit there and say, "I'm making art."? No you're not. You're painting, sculpting, songwriting, etc. Others will decide if you're making art. Maybe long after you've made your last contribution. Art has to be subjective, and I think it has to be stated AFTER the execution of work. Someone stepping back and saying, "That is a work of art." And that is still subjective, no matter how many people agree or disagree. I mean, in all reality, if it were based on what I care about, the Mona Lisa would just be some portrait of a woman made before the camera was invented, and I certainly wouldn't remove my pool table and put a statue of some naked dude with one arm in it's place. And I would rather listen to the Ramones in my cd player than Mozart.

[Bob Rogers]

Originally Posted by telemike

To sit there and say, "I'm making art."? No you're not. You're painting, sculpting, songwritindg, etc. Others will decide if you're making art...

I agree, but the use of the word "beauty" in definition 2. is what implies subjectivity and makes it work. Philosophers who care about this stuff disagree about how to define the "right" audience, but there is general agreement that beauty is subjective.

[halouis]

Originally Posted by Colo Springs E

Dang man, even when they get out of high school, the geeks can't get a break! :P

to further what Ben said, Punk Rock brought the music back down to the people. Remember Rock was simple in its early stages. Think "Louie Louie" or "Wild Thing" By the mid-70s Rock became extremely convoluted dare i say "mathematical" Yes, ELP, K.Crimson, Rush, etc. It became a competition about how complicated we can make music. Took all the fun out of it. took all the soul out of it. nothign like hte feeling of James Brown.

Iggy+stooges, MC5 then into The Ramones, The Clash, X, The Damned, etc.. took it back to the roots. Raw Power (like the Stooges title). Brought back the energy into it. Made it fun again. and most importantly, brought the audience into the music.

Thos 70's "supergroups" were try9ing to get higher on the pedastal and separate from their audience. "look at us". Oh yeah, Some of those punk rockers could really play too. Like Ben mentioned. add Capt. Sensible from the Damned too. a terrific guitar player. But THe punk era let the audience be involved. It wasn't just the bands, it was the fans too. They made it more about songwriting than musical prowess.

[TheGoodTexan]

Originally Posted by Bob Rogers

The Texans argument is even farther from the mark. Inner passion is not what makes something art. Some may argue that it is necessary for the creation of art (though I would disagree) but it has nothing to do with whether a creation is a work of art. That has to do with quality and beauty. Since both are inherently subjective, this implies that an audience is necessary for art to exist. (And I'd say it has to be an audience of more than one, no matter how long you wait for it. Jack the Ripper may have thought his work was beautiful and of high quality (and it was certainly a work of passion), but I don't think that makes it a work of art.)

ok. Point taken. I do understand the point that you're trying to make, but I'd like to offer this...

If a person paints a beautiful picture, and never allows anyone to ever see it, is it still art? If it sits around in his house, covered up for 30 years and no one ever sees it until after he dies...was it "art" when he completed it, or did it somehow become art the second someone else first saw it?

Art cannot be well defined in a dictionary. The famous phrase "I know it when I see it" applies here, because art is truely one of those concepts that means something different to everybody. That's why I started my other post with "For me,".

And, as the originator of this thread, I don't think that we've got off the topic. I think that, as it relates to music, showmanship and art (however you care to define it) go hand in hand.

I can't stand showmanship for the sake of showmanship.

[Bob Rogers]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTexan

If a person paints a beautiful picture, and never allows anyone to ever see it, is it still art? If it sits around in his house, covered up for 30 years and no one ever sees it until after he dies...was it "art" when he completed it, or did it somehow become art the second someone else first saw it?

Hmmmmm... I guess I'll go with it's art as soon as it is painted. It was painted to be beautiful. (So in that sense his intent is important.) It meets the (subjective) standards of beauty even though no one is there to apply the standards. .... My brain hurts Mr. Gumby.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more important your point is. The way the dictionary.com definitions have it, there is no room for bad art. Something that doesn't meet the standards of beauty and quality is in the same boat as a work that was never intended to meet them.

[Matt Plescher]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

When you are trying to make art, you only care about your muse and pleasing yourself.

Music is about pleasing the audience. Not catering to their every whim, but making them happy, in some way.

Not making yourself happy. You can do that at home with your canvas.

I'm a painter. When I paint I think about the "muse", that is, getting the idea in my head down on canvas. I also think about my audience (not catering to their every whim, but making them happy or even challenged in some way) Imagine that!

You can also write songs at home that are never perfomed. Is that "art" and not "entertainment"?

When I show at a gallery, do I cease to be an artist and become an entertainer?

How about theater? Is the script art and the performance just entertainment?

Sorry, but when you make rules about what art is and isn't, it just slips away from you and goes just where you thought your rule would prevent it from going.

Music and musical performance are both forms of art. You can do art to please yourself, and you can do art to please others. Most artists do both. Pleasing others doesn't make it not art.

Cheers
Matt

[stevieboy]

Originally Posted by telemike

To sit there and say, "I'm making art."? No you're not. You're painting, sculpting, songwriting, etc. Others will decide if you're making art.

I agree and disagree with this statement. If someone creates something in the realm of the arts, music, visual art, writing, whatever, it's art, whether anyone else likes it or even sees it. What other people will decide is not "Is it art?" but rather, "is it any good?" (of course these judgments are subjective and the generally accepted viewpoints can change over time.)

But I like the part about sitting there and saying "I'm making art." The fact is that to create something worthwhile I feel you have approach it as, you're "painting, sculpting, songwriting, etc." and not "I'm making art." It seems to me that when people take the latter route, that's when the pretension comes in, which is what turns off a lot of people to "Art" with a capital "A". If you're painting, deal with the medium of painting, not the concept of "Art".

[Tim Armstrong]

My point earlier is that it's art when it makes a connection between the artist and at least one other person.

Cheers, Tim

[SteveY]

I always liked it real.
SRV's "showmanship" was intensely guitar oriented, and I liked it.

Prince MUST do what he does, or he'll explode or sumpin'.

Artie Shaw was an educated, internalized, kinda guy. He made Elvis neccesary!

[Smokin' Joe Picante]

Art and entertainment are eternally linked. What constitutes good qualities in each is entirely subjective. Thinking about the popularity of pop icons like Britney Spears etc. I've considered that if all you eat is fast food, you may, or may not, appreciate a great steak when you finally have one. It's a question of taste and how things relate to what you already know and are surrounded by.

My 2 year old says "Daddy watch..." and dances hîs butt off, my 4 year old colors pictures then shows them to me with a flourish... "Look!", my 9 year old makes up his own little songs and has little concerts for the family. They love what they do, and do it because it's fun and they feel compelled to express themselves in that way. That's art & entertainment to ME. It does'nt neccesarilly require technical proficiency, but it's heartfelt and honest, and I think about that every time I play.

I work at what I do because it brings me joy. When I have the opportunity to share my happiness with others onstage I try to let that joy show. If your motivations are honest, art & entertainment can ad do co-exist quite happily together. Prince, SRV, Chuck Berry, Nigel Kennedy are all proof of that IMHO. Just my 2 (okay... 2&1/2) cents!

[gtrjones]

Last year, one event really turned my head around about this music vs. art vs. entertainment thing...

I went to see Prince. I am not a big fan, but I know his music, and (thought) I appreciated his talents as a musician.

His obvious talents as a musician that one hears through his records, his ability to write songs, his ability to play virtually every instrument on a record, his ability to craft and assemble a record (CD, whatever) into a cohesive statement, all these things are impressive enough.

But those talents are, in my eyes, just component parts in what Prince really is, and can only be understood through his live show... Prince is an entertainer.

His show redefined for me what's possible in a live, arena setting. I have never seen a performance that was as perfect from start to finish. The song selection, the pacing, the musicianship, the theater, the degree to which the audience (ALL of the audience) was engaged, the entire performance, was flawless... It was dramatic.

Live music is different from recorded music in 2 important ways... 1 - the environment is different, 2 - there is an interaction between the band and the consumer... I believe every band HAS to take advantage of that opportunity in some way, they HAVE to try to interact with the audience... How that interaction happens, well there are many, many opinions... but after seeing the way Prince interacts with an audience, my standards are MUCH higher - to the point that it changed the way I think about myself as a musician, and what my goals are when I get on a stage.