If music isn't meant to entertain, then what is it for?
Seriously? Do I need to elaborate?
There are many reasons for music, and not all are related to entertainment. That is an extremely Western, modern, and limited view of the purpose music holds in people's lives. There are umpteen other reasons for music, its creation, and its meaning. It's call art because it is art. Not all art is meant to simply "entertain".
This thread makes me think of this:
And no, I'm not a music snob, I'm just willing to recognize that there is more to the art of music than the number of units you move. If that were the case Britney Spears would be the greatest "musician" of the late 20th century.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
I think it'll be interesting to see in 20-30-40-50 years about what type of music is remembered from this era. It'll be interesting to see which artists/bands stand the test of time.
There are many reasons for music, and not all are related to entertainment. That is an extremely Western, modern, and limited view of the purpose music holds in people's lives. There are umpteen other reasons for music, its creation, and its meaning. It's call art because it is art. Not all art is meant to simply "entertain".
Well isn't that the point in music? To entertain us? If we didn't like it, we wouldn't listen to it. A large part of why people go to concerts, listen to music on the radio, and buy songs/albums is for the entertainment factor is it not? Sure music has emotion and expressions which is why it fits the art description, but entertainment is a great value and purpose in music.
I loved the back and forth debate the Lennon and McCartney had about this. Obviously John felt that music was about expressing ideas and bringing people together.
-=-=-=-=-=-
The odd thing is that that odd tingling sensation I get down my back when I hear something emotional, that moves me.... it will typically come from a "Happy Xmas" type song. I am entertained by the artistic measure of a song. Which is why I'm unlikely to be found listening to Black Eyed Peas and more likely to be found listening to post-"Jagged Little Pill" Alanis Morissette.
Well Elvis Presley was revolutionary when he came out... and yet he sold millions. People conformed to him...
Elvis wasn't revolutionary at all. He stole his songs from black musicians. So I guess if by revolutionary you mean white guy playing other people's music without paying them?
Elvis wasn't revolutionary at all. He stole his songs from black musicians. So I guess if by revolutionary you mean white guy playing other people's music without paying them?
Yeah, clearly that's what I meant.
Elvis was shocking. People want to be shocked.
And frankly, I agree with the posters who said Lady Gaga makes them want to dance. There's nothing wrong with music that makes you want to dance. Not every song can or should change the world.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
When compared to her peers (high-selling pop stars) she is a head and shoulders better than the pack and is one more album away from cementing her status as a generational talent.
She's also been able to use a number of 'anti-pop' song-writing techniques, Look at her latest song 'Bad romance", it takes 1:30 to reach the first chorus, the weird-ass 'fashion, fashion, claw' section and the song being over 5 minutes long. If Gaga wasn't running her own show, their is no way she would get away with these kinds of things.
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
I love it when people argue over a matter which has it's success based purely on individual preferences. There's no hope of winning or losing, so what's the point?
When compared to her peers (high-selling pop stars) she is a head and shoulders better than the pack and is one more album away from cementing her status as a generational talent.
She's also been able to use a number of 'anti-pop' song-writing techniques, Look at her latest song 'Bad romance", it takes 1:30 to reach the first chorus, the weird-ass 'fashion, fashion, claw' section and the song being over 5 minutes long. If Gaga wasn't running her own show, their is no way she would get away with these kinds of things.
Was just going to say this.
Both Paparazzi and Bad Romance prove that she doesn't really care what label heads say cause theres no way that they'd allow those songs to be singles unedited.
Also I heard today that she has 6 grammy nominations. Thats quite a bit of respect from peers for "Manufactured Pop". Also apparently she's the only artist ever to have four #1's of a debut album. (So apparently I can't count)
Just because someone sells millions of albums doesn't mean their music is cookie cutter.
Don't think anyone has said that. But just because someone sells millions of albums, doesn't mean they are talented musicians either.
Selling albums doesn't make mean the musician is either cookie cutter or revolutionary. It's irrelevant.
