Rock Music IS Theatrical!!
OK, OK, OK. I know that the Pet Shop Boys are grossly...well...just kinda gross in their flamboyance. Those are pictures I have seen before. The top one is from their "Very" album. The other must be their live concert...chef theme. He he he. Nice post man...he he he.Seriously, I like discussions like this though...
I post these pictures to touch on the theatrics that exist in each genre of music. I don't mean to gross out anyone. You see a little too much of Frank Zappa...so I added the black circle.
Now, Jake, you can say, "You don't see Cursive, Rx Bandits, Sunny Day Real Estate, or The Juliana Theory in these kinds of situations." And you're right. But much of that music comprises one slim sub category (EMO/Indie Punk) in one specific genre (Punk Rock). The theatrics don't have much place in that forum. You would be absolutely right.
These are different musical categories and genres though. Everyone from Pink Floyd (the women's butts above) to the Beatles to Robert Smith have tried to do new things...tried to appear differently and challenge the trend. I think I have represented most genres of popular music today. Its clear that most of them employ some type of over-the-top theatrical approach. I know you probably don't like most of what I posted up here...I don't like all of it either...but we shouldn't walk into the symphony wondering where the electric guitars are.
Bottom line: theatrics could easily be frowned upon by someone who likes the grassroots-type productions with the small venue and the band setting up their own gear. And that is cool. I have been there now...and LOVED IT! But I just want to point out that pop music is traditionally more acceptable to...well..those living the alternate lifestyles...Conformity went to a Cher concert and WOW. Its just the nature of the beast. I just think that the theatrics and costumes that are used in music nowadays aren't necessarily a bad thing. the weird and unexplored are part of the musical journey. I mean the Flaming Lips...holey moley. These ideas are often the whole idea behind modern visual art. The Met in NYC is incredible for this very reason. Andy Warhol...Pablo Picasso...its all a part of the abstract journey. A journey worth the while if you ask me...
Speaking of Elton John and his...uh....gayness. You were wearing a certain T-Shirt the other day...
posted by Anonymous at 8/08/2006 09:28:00 PM
7 Comments:
i think all those guys are just gay and looking for excuses to wear makeup.
They all have to do something to get attention. If their music had to define them then they would really be screwed. Wouldnt want music to define a musician.
I see entertainers and artists on opposite ends of the spectrum. An artist in the strictest sense of the word is someone who is trying to attain certain levels of originality, technique, and countless other attributes that are SELF-imposed, and SELF-satisfying. A strict entertainer is interested in nothing but exciting, titillating, touching, tasting, feeling, and showing their works to get a response from someone else. Now to which end of the spectrum a musician, or visual artist leans is defined by their goals. Pop Art is ridiculed for being simply entertainment, but it has it's place, as does pop music.
As for me, I am much more intrigued by an acoustic song that strikes all the right chords and says all the right words to put you IN the songwriters head, than by a bombastic melody filled R & B song which is only designed to titillate. Just a personal preference.
Artists and Entertainers are totally different. Artists create something. Britney Spears is not an artist she just performs whatever her record label tells her too. Elton John, Britney Spears..most pop stars are not artists but they are performers and can be entertaining.
Thats not what I said. I never said art can't be entertaining. I just said not all musicians are artists. I also never said art cannot be succesful or appeal to the masses. A lot of music that appeals to the masses is the same old formula for a succesful song. Take a lot of pop artists and all their music sounds the same, its written and produced by all the same people.
Just because a lot of people like pop and big bands is not the reason I dont like them. But making music that is all the same so everyone likes it is not art. Artists create things.
Now its not really my place to say what art is and what isn't, that is just my opinion.
I never brought up punk in any of my posts
You could take Britney Spears out of that equation and replace her with anyone. Effect doesn't equal art. Britney Spears is amazing she continues to break boundaries by pushing the barriers of white trashness. She truly is an amazing artist.
Post a Comment
<< Home