[lord brazle]

...and the headset mic was bobbing up and down like her boyfriend...

So...the twin towers of today's pop music scene can't sing, but have plenty to fight about, apparently, and they rake in millions. Brazle, you wanna take this one out back?! Brass knuckles my specialty! :lol:

Let me get my steel-toe boots on.

[thipfan73]

I agree with Brazle. Today the art world is SHIT!

[grooveless touque]

I reckon that's a mighty disservice to the art world - there still is one! What these people do does not constitute art. It doesn't even constitute performance art, because that requires expression. They don't express anything. They sing because they can (to varying degrees), dance because they can, and get breast implants because they can. They're not good for much else. The art world loathes them just as much as we do.

[tigerthelion]

I honestly think the whole Lohan-Fez relationship is fabricated. I mean, does anyone actually believe that the guy who plays Fez likes women?

[The Horrible Esthete]

Gotta agree with Grooveless on this one. Don't allow the billions of dollars that drive the pop / entertaiment industry redefine art for you, even though it has completely steered the development of the so-called "pop culture". Art is, and will always be, incredibly personal - both for the true artist and the consumer. Thus, there will always be a market for true art, and thanks to advancements in communications and market technology, it will always be available to you. You just might have to look a little harder to find it.

Remember - without teenagers and their parents money, the landscape of "pop art" and entertainment would look completely different. The industry will stop at nothing to gather the teen dollar, especially not 'artistic integrity'. I mean - c'mon - ask every person you know over the age of 18 whether or not they felt Ashlee Simpson had 'artistic integrity' before this SNL gaff, I'd truly be surprised if more than 10% say that they did.....

[VioletlightHeron]

I think one of the reasons that "artists" like Ashlee Simpson and Britney Spears try to cloak themselves with the trappings of artistic expression is the expectations game as teenagers grow older. Most teenagers do not feel it necessary for the music they like to have any kind of deeper meaning, they just want something that is enjoyable and speaks to their experience, where they are in their life right now. But as they grow up, they start to expect more from music because they are more mature and want entertainment that is more than background music or something to listen to. So Britney and Ashlee can't keep on waiting for the next group of teenyboppers to grow up because they wont be relevant to the next generation. It's the curse of pop culture to be trapped between the expectations of maturity/meaningfulness and crass entertainment.

[vicariousmartyr]

You know, I thought 'just singing' was bad enough. For someone who has a hired band and doesnt write their own music or lyrics, but can sing and really SING quite beautifully with talent, I still had a hard time with. True enough, talent is talent and singing is highly respectable, but it has become so over-emphasized in mod pop culture. It comes first and foremost now. And I dont even come close to agreeing with that. Its just (and should only be viewed as) merely one aspect of the collective of music.

But now its come to that they dont even sing!?? Whats next? The 'star' :roll: (lead singer) isnt even there? Just a hologram so they can play multiple shows simultaneously, expanding their already super-profits to an even wider margin?

[The Horrible Esthete]

True enough, talent is talent and singing is highly respectable, but it has become so over-emphasized in mod pop culture. It comes first and foremost now. And I dont even come close to agreeing with that. Its just (and should only be viewed as) merely one aspect of the collective of music

Excellent post, martyr....couldn't agree more :thumb:

[lord brazle]

Thus, there will always be a market for true art, and thanks to advancements in communications and market technology, it will always be available to you. You just might have to look a little harder to find it.

I'd have to disagree with that. I think all new art is becoming much less passionate and emotional than it once was. What it meant before it doesn't mean now. I mean, look at books and film (yes, film is an artform but it's not much of one anymore). It seems the majority of authors and film-makers are only doing it for the cash. Look at Hollywood. Nuff said. And then these same very pop-stars write books, crappy little autobiographies and they haven't hit 20 yet. Paris Hilton wrote a book. Ahem. Sorry... A bunch of people wrote a book for her to put her name on. lol. I don't think this is relegated to the music industry (or, what I like to call "The Crap Center"). It's all paint-by-numbers now. People don't write books or make music for the reasons they did before. Poetry has become therapy. Music and film have become cash cows. And books, I'll admit, there are still plenty good storytellers lurking around, but the world is going digital and it makes no sense to continue using paper when we can easily use technology. Just my opinion on the book-thing but, all in all, I think this is a widespread problem with the human race; we're taking art entirely too far and that very art becomes something else completely. Then these pop-stars release god-damn perfume lines?! Or fashion-lines?! Did they grow up dreaming of having their own perfume-line or clothes-line? No. They did it for the money. I'm not dissing sell-outs because anybody in the world who chose not to sell-out would be stupid. What I'm dissing is the fact that we allow this to happen. And I know everybody enjoys music, even little girls need music, but do they have to be so fake about it? I mean, I could probably write an album of happy little tunes that appeals to the younger music-lovers out there... anybody could. It goes for everything, too. Book, films and music. Someone shouldn't be excluded from enjoying art because of their age. My main point is the majority of people who are getting involved to provide the populace with this "art" we have all so loved since the beginning of time are only getting involved for the money. And you can see it everytime you turn on your tv or radio or your internet for that matter. Ask yourself would these artists still be doing what they do if they worked in any other profession? Would Britney dance her ass to work, cleanign carpets for Merry Maids? Would Hillary Duff sing as she scrubbed the toilets in some public bathroom? Would Good Charlotte still dress the way they do (mascara and shit) as they went from cubicle to cubicle talking about a memo? The answer is no.

[grooveless touque]

I have to disagree about embracing technology...ebooks have been around for years, and people rejected them wholesale. People like paper. People like concrete objects, especially when it comes to art; seeing something digitally rendered on a computer screen puts distance between you and the work of art. It just doesn't feel the same.

Once again the worlds of high art and pop culture are being confused here. Populist tendencies calculated to galvanize an impresisonable support base have always been around, it's just that today there's more exposure. However, in the world of high art, there are still brilliant films being made, brilliant books being written (even ones that become popular for their unique ambitiousness and unbridled creativity, like The Alienist a couple of years ago), and yes, brilliant and profound and artistic and free-spirited music being created. Regardless what is going on in the greater culture, there will always be artists.

The shame is, they no longer represent their time and place. Art has moved so far to the extremes of abstractness and obliqueness because the art community feels they have so much to prove in order to set themselves aside as high art. I think that's intruding on the quality of work, as it has to be "out there" to be respected. I don't see the art in our time being as much of a bookmark to mark our place in history as works of art of ages past. But there is still great Art being created today, if you know where to look.

[The Horrible Esthete]

My main point is the majority of people who are getting involved to provide the populace with this "art" we have all so loved since the beginning of time are only getting involved for the money. And you can see it everytime you turn on your tv or radio or your internet for that matter. Ask yourself would these artists still be doing what they do if they worked in any other profession? Would Britney dance her ass to work, cleanign carpets for Merry Maids? Would Hillary Duff sing as she scrubbed the toilets in some public bathroom? Would Good Charlotte still dress the way they do (mascara and shit) as they went from cubicle to cubicle talking about a memo? The answer is no.

I see your point and agree with it, for the most part. There is no doubt that the 'market' has been so diluted with crap that we must honestly say that 'the bar has been lowered' for popular art in general . But I don't think that all art is less passionate and emotional that it used to be, just most art . Our very own TTH is a perfect example of a notable exception to current industry trends.

I think that you can sift through it all, and can find worthwhile art that rivals anything from almost any point in civilization. It may be different, because life is different (going back to the old 'art imitates life' argument). For every 1000 shitty sex-laced movies riddled with violence and bathroom humor, you can find a few that are solid cinematic efforts, like Coen Brothers movies, for example. Same goes for painting, same goes for literature, and same goes for music, IMO.

It's hard to find, and you won't hear any of it on the major radio stations, but it's out there, and it even gets wide recognition every once in awhile. They showered Norah Jones with Grammys, and while some of us don't have a taste for her (and her bandmates') material, you can't say that it doesn't stand in stark contrast to Ass-lee Simpson. Her stuff oozes emotion and artistic sensibility (though she doesn't write that stuff herself, either, but hey - it's a step in the right direction).

[lord brazle]

I pretty much agree with both of ya;

1) Not all art sucks. Just the majority of the stuff that some call "art" sucks. If I said all art sucked, I'd be dissing the Hip and wouldn't ever do that. lol.

2) And as for the ebooks, maybe if they had some sort of better "viewer" or something. I do agree with ebooks being odd and that people prefer solid objects but it's just a hopskipandajump to some sort of "viewer" being considered a solid object. And with us raping the forests and stuff, I think digital books would be an idea worth considering.

But as for the art subject, I'm not branding neccessarily all of it as shit. I'm just saying it's become really muddled in the last few years... and because we have basically loved art so much and put it on such a high pedestal that nowadays art isn't even art most of the time. It's like... well, what I said before, "paint-by-numbers"...

----------------------------

EDIT: and Ashlee Simpson should be concrete evidence of the downfall of pop-music. I mean, pop-music isn't neccessarily a bad thing. It's music, maybe not my specific preference in music but it's music nonetheless. We have all talked about for years; that Britney is in it for the money, that real artists are getting the shaft and that alot of the shit is fake. Now we have concrete evidence of it, re: Ashlee Simpson not singing along with her tape on cue.

So now we are at the next step; the realization, the unequivocal fact that the majority of the stuff that clogs up our radiowaves is fake and manufactured. Now, of course, her record label and her publicist will race to sweep it under the rug, but we all saw it with our own eyes. How come her voice wasn't all sore when she was talking about it and blaming her band afterwards? We all saw it! It's right there! I just hope that we, as an art-loving civilization, take another step in the right direction...

Avril Lavigne is another one. She's just a pop-star, no different than Britney or Duff but her gimick is pretending she's different. Supposedly she's some skater-punk.... BUT she's never heard of the Sex Pistols and she's can't skateboard.... so is she a skater-punk? Nope. It's just her image. And that's what we gotta get rid of in music, the fake-images.

F**k, I'm typing alot!

[opiated]

tom petty says it best on "the last dj"..(most overlooked album in such a long time)

"as we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs wanna see..how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free."

or from the same album, track called "joe"

bring me a girl they're always the best
you put em on stage and you have em undress
some angel whore who can learn a guitar lick...
hey..now that's what i call music!!

[vicariousmartyr]

"as we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs wanna see..how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free."

Thats a very good line.

By the by, could someone define 'paint by numbers' for me...thanks in advance.

[lord brazle]

By the by, could someone define 'paint by numbers' for me...thanks in advance.

"Paint by numbers" are like these little canvases you can buy with a painting already drawn on it and you get like a little map of what the finished project looks like and you get little paints and, say, all the greens are the number "4". Then anywhere on this pre-drawn canvas you find the number 4 you paint that section green, etc.

Anyway, the finished copy looks like an actual painting but really an 8-year-old could successfully pull one of these off, so it's my clever little metaphor for the bullshit in the music industry, like you don't have to have skill just lines to colour within.

"This colour goes here and this colour goes here." etc.

Savvy? (in my best Jack Sparrow)

:thumb:

If I didn't explain good nuff this link will show ya what I mean;
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/rembrandt.html">http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/rembrandt.html</a><!-- m -->