|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 8:42:53 GMT -5
that's incredible. i love them.
the Who were the original pop-art rockers, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 2, 2007 9:01:33 GMT -5
that's incredible. i love them. the Who were the original pop-art rockers, no? er, no. um, wouldn't that honor go to the Beatles ? |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 9:25:52 GMT -5
perhaps.
pop as art is a terrible idea in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 2, 2007 9:47:38 GMT -5
I think the idea of pop as art was pretty decent in the 60s when you had popular artists doing successful experiments and when pushing the envelope didn't lose most of their audience.
I personally don't have a problem with Britney Spears and I absolutely love her song "Toxic". I think the reason why I don't mind her is that I also love Elvis, but he didn't really write very much of his own material either. Now, is Britney Spears anywhere close to Elvis? No way! Elvis could play guitar and no one really comes to that voice. However, I do think that Britney Spears has talent in there that is more than just sequences and dance moves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 2, 2007 10:29:46 GMT -5
Not to rile anyone up or anything, but don't some "artist" like Ms. Spears possibly use visual art to make up for their actual lack talent - i.e. singing, song writing, etc...? Overall, I think this is an interesting thread b/c pop culture and music go hand in hand. Since MTV has killed the idea of videos I don't know how relevant making them is to visually display your song - where would it be played now a days? Of course there is live performances, and many artist/entertainers can enhance their sound and image that way by. But again, having a big time produced show, will that take away or enhance the music? I guess it all depends on the performer - i.e. Madonna will have a much more elaborate stage show then Pearl Jam. The former may have light shows, dancers, cool clothes, etc...while the latter will pretty much just has instruments and plays songs. I'm not about to say one is better than the other, that's all a matter of opinion, but I guess what I'm asking are the live elaborate shows used to cover up a lack of talent, or to enhance the entertainers, and audience's experience? Please note that while I'm not much of a Madonna fan, I think she's ultra talented so I suppose I'm not really directing this towards her. I've been to live rock shows and the band used so much pyrotechnics that I couldn't help but to wonder - is this really helping expand the music, or just covering up how bad these cats are? In response to the idea that an artist like Britney Spears might use visuals to make up for a lack of talent, I think it depends on how one looks at Ms. Spears. I see Britney more of an entertainer than a musician (which I think most would agree with me on). Britney is the package for which the music is displayed on. I don't think Britney is talentless in the music arena as some might categorize her, but she is an entertainer. Style over substance? I don't think so, but it's a matter of opinion. Madonna and Pearl Jam is an interesting comparison, and they have very different approaches. I have seen Madonna live twice. I seen Drowned World in support of Ray of Light and Music, and Re-invention in support of American Life. The interesting thing to note about Madonna is that she puts on these huge elaborate shows, but at the same time the show focuses on different aspects of the show. For example, Madonna has a tendency to place the focus off of herself and onto her dancers at points during the show. Madonna is an artist who puts a lot of focus onto the people who help her achieve her goals, and while the mainstream may never catch onto this, her fans do. During the Re-invention interludes her dancers would come to the forefront to display their talents to Madonna's music. At one point, several of the dancers did a routine to a remix of Hollywood where they displayed some of the types of dance they were best at while Daniel "Cloud" Campos was sort of a ringleader in the "circus-like" atmosphere. I see Madonna as a director, this central figure who brings out the show while the focus of the show is her it's not always her. Sometimes it's a message, sometimes it's the celebration of a dancer's artistry, and sometimes it's completely fixed on her and her music. It's also a necessity for Madonna to put on a huge show, because it's what some fans want when they go see her. An extravaganza, and it gives her the opportunity to showcase whatever message, music, or artistic expression she so chooses. I grew up during the MTV generation, so I don't think it's a huge surprise for me to be more responsive to Madonna. My earliest musical tastes were surrounded by MTV because it was the avenue I used to listen to most of the music I liked. As for Pearl Jam, I have never seen them live, but I have friends who positively swear by Pearl Jam live, and it seems like they're doing the right thing for themselves and their audience. Pearl Jam doesn't want the visual aspect like someone such as Madonna, and ultimately, I don't think they need it. The songs speak for themselves, and the live performances are filled with passion. I have seen Tool live, and they rely on visuals in a very different way than Madonna does. The band is shrouded in black, and I didn't really get to see them much. At the same time there were two huge screens displaying imagery that I'm going to assume (and I'm probably right) that the band wanted everyone to focus on. It was powerful, and one of the best concerts I have ever been to. In comparison to Madonna, there weren't a million things going on so one had to focus on that aspect... the screens with the visuals. Different approach... ultimately similar geniousness. |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 2, 2007 10:34:45 GMT -5
i agree with Paul. wouldn't Britney Spears use images solely to enhance an otherwise vapid and ugly music? What constitutes ugly music though? Is it because Britney's music might not dissect the constructs of her mind and instead her lifestyle, relationships, feelings of rebellion? How is it essentially ugly? I thought her cover of the Rolling Stones song "Satisfaction" was brilliant... and I think she used someone else's song to display something she was feeling. It is very true that Britney's image came under a lot of fire, but why? I have been seeing girls running around in skimpy clothing for a long time... How is that not brilliant? Society pushes Britney onto a pedestal and everyone bitches about her because of how she dresses and her supposed lack of talent. What is so wrong about Britney Spears? It is a question I ultimately don't have an answer for and I'd like to hear the point of view of others... |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 10:45:10 GMT -5
not sure if she's brilliant. she is a product of consumerism, isn't she? not the inner workings of some drive to express herself (like Madonna did, all kudos to her).
Britney is only the latest edgy attempt to capitalize. on what? on an implied rebellious meaningful teenhood. but it's as vacuous as my left toenail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 2, 2007 10:46:30 GMT -5
Often beauty shines through ugliness. Some bands have made a career out of ugly. Skinny Puppy, Nine Inch Nails, and most recently, Korn have taken ugliness to unprecedented heigths (not to mention depths). It takes real talent to transmute that kind of ugliness into beauty. And I'd say Britney Spears has talent. I'd also like to add that I don't see a trace of ugliness in her, or her music.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 10:49:40 GMT -5
when she first got successful (Britney, i mean), with that first single of hers way back when, i being only a spritely teen at the time, and therefore exposed to her 24/7 in highschool... i told someone that she would one day self-destruct becuase the way she was expressing herself was so Obviously shallow and yet so ludicrously highly ambitious, and that the rigours of the entire business would chew her up and spit her out..... well, i was immediately shot down and told to shut up and that i was overthinking it.
...i still cleave to that opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 2, 2007 10:50:39 GMT -5
I think visually, Trent Reznor has stunning and groundbreaking work with his live shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 2, 2007 10:56:25 GMT -5
not sure if she's brilliant. she is a product of consumerism, isn't she? not the inner workings of some drive to express herself (like Madonna did, all kudos to her). Britney is only the latest edgy attempt to capitalize. on what? on an implied rebellious meaningful teenhood. but it's as vacuous as my left toenail. Isn't Madonna's success the product of consumerism? I have been around the tracks as a Madonna fan, and the amount of fun that has been made at my expense for being a Madonna fan is ridiculous. Yes, Madonna's talented, and she has plenty to say and I think she's brilliant. But do you think all of her success is due to her brilliance? I highly doubt it. I have met a multitude of people who like Madonna who have no idea what the purpose of her career has been. They like her for her pretty songs and pretty videos. Who's to say that Britney doesn't have a layer people aren't catching onto? Do you think she has nothing to say? The girl lives in a fishbowl, and a good portion of her music has been a reflection of the bullshit people spout about her. Maybe the brilliance I see in Britney Spears is unintentional, but I doubt it. I think she's well aware of people thinking she's all style over substance and I think she uses that to her advantage. Recently, Britney Spears shaved off her hair. Everyone has always talked about how she's all style and no substance. What is she without her hair, right? People were also all up in arms about her head shaving. Oh no, Britney's falling off the deep end. In the end, it's a commentary on our society. Fuck the pretty girl, she becomes unpretty and everyone still has something to say. Just because she's a visually driven artist doesn't mean that there isn't something underneath there. I also think Madonna relates considering the fact that she was supposed to be a "one-hit wonder." What's the significance of the kiss Madonna gave Britney? She realizes how brutal this world is, and as far as I'm concerned Britney has received too much brutality for making fun music. |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 10:57:56 GMT -5
aren't live shows (like what you're talking about) not essential to music? i mean, like, they add glitter and whatnot, but woe to the music fan who presumes that the live show "is the thing"?
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 2, 2007 11:08:40 GMT -5
I have seen bands who's live show musically and visually is way cooler than anything they've recorded in a studio. I think there's a fine line.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 2, 2007 11:20:00 GMT -5
I have seen bands who's live show musically and visually is way cooler than anything they've recorded in a studio. I think there's a fine line....... hmm. i might agree here. |
|
|
|
Post by KooL on May 2, 2007 11:26:47 GMT -5
I don't mind Britney Spears at all. But Matt, Paris Hilton? You can't be serious. At least Britney went from being a little white trash chick into a mega selling pop star based on her talents. Yes, she can sing and dance just fine and she's made some good pop music too.
Paris on the other hand made an album because she could afford to pay fancy producers and writers to make the album for her. She's not an 'artist' by any means. Chick is trash.
|
|
