Entertainment, Art and Pretentiousness

[Episteme]

Where do you draw the line?

Many artists in this time of age aim to release music or visual art that is available to entertain the masses. Yet a strong few choose to entertain and also want their work to be regarded as art. Also there are bands that make music that can be considered pretentious.

Of course, music is here to entertain us to a certain extent. But I draw the line to pretentiousness in "music" like John Cage's 4'33 where it's just...rather inane and has no real musical value but attempts to. What are your opinions on this topic?

 

[Jean-Pierre]

To me, music is either good or it sucks. I would say that music as a whole is both art and entertainment at once, just as theatre or the movies are.


John Cage's silent piece is a retarded attempt at being artistic and unique.

Virgin Steele's "Flames of the Black Star (The Arrows Of Herakles)" is a beyond successful attempt at ROCKING.

 

[skeptik]

If you get the same feeling listening to music as you do looking a modern sculpture and other abstract art, you're listening too hard, in my opinion.

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

FLAMES OF THE BLACK STAR! Burn in Haaaaddees!
FLAMES OF THE BLACK STAR! Shiiiiine toniiight!

Generally, I dislike the "music-as-art" value system because I find a good deal of the most highly praised "artistic" stuff very boring. Bands who try to elevate heavy metal to high art generally forget core traditional metal concepts and attempt to play "progressive" music; like most musicians who try to do that without in-depth musical education, they fail horribly. What we end up with is an awful mish-mash of heavy metal aesthetic and prog-rock stylings (see: Opeth), or another attempt to create sound firmly based in ideology that requires doggedly persistent sledgehammering at the ears before it begins to make any kind of sense (see: Moonblood.) Thank you, I'll pass.

 

[genocide roach]

art and entertainment are often intertwined. when you goto an art gallery, you apriciate the art. but your not there because you have to. you go because you enjoy it. and the same is true for music.
~gR~

 

[MasterOLightning]

To keep things simple, I define art as a work of creativity or proficiency meant to evoke thought and/or emotion. Something pretentious tries too hard to be creative or proficient, and fails to evoke anything. Entertainment is how successful a piece of art is at evoking thought and/or emotion. Mindless entertainment is almost void of creativity, but appeals to simple emotions. I think of pretentiousness and mindless entertainment as opposites ends of a line, with entertainment somewhere in the middle. Pop music is obviously in the mindless end, and wankery is in the pretentious end. The entertaining middle is provocative and appealing. I could draw a picture or something if it's not all that clear. I think this theory applies to most art forms, but I haven't thought it out totally.

 

[Cythraul]

If a piece of music is going to be regarded as a work of art one has to take into account the totality of the work. The aesthetic, structural, creative, and ideological/symbolic aspects of the work should all be taken into consideration. The problem I have with some black metal bands is that they forsake the purely compositional/aesthetic values and ascribe higher value to ideology. At times this results in badly written music that can't stand on it's own without the backing of some elaborate manifesto.

 

[EternalMetal]

Generally, I dislike the "music-as-art" value system because I find a good deal of the most highly praised "artistic" stuff very boring. Bands who try to elevate heavy metal to high art generally forget core traditional metal concepts and attempt to play "progressive" music; like most musicians who try to do that without in-depth musical education, they fail horribly. What we end up with is an awful mish-mash of heavy metal aesthetic and prog-rock stylings (see: Opeth)

but thats why i like Opeth. But i doint fund it boring. I like progressiv e music to a point. Some of it gets old, but iu really enjoy the material Opeth has released. I know Op[eth arent very musically educated, but i dont believew they failed as musicians. I guess its all about tastes.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Well, what REALLY matters is what the music means to the artist. If it hits that certain spot for others or simply just entertains others, that is just an added bonus I suppose. If you are making music for others first, before yourself, you are a whore.


To the above poster who said that if a piece of music touched your very being, you are "listening too hard", that is just foolish. Also, I actually feel sorry for you if you haven;t experienced this phenomenon.

 

[Episteme]

I like alot of progressive music, but I also like my fair share of straightforward kick ass music like Thrash Metal. Which is probably why I'd love to have at least 2 bands, one doing all straight up thrash the other doing how I usually write my music, a mixture of styles.

I agree that alot of Black Metal these days choose their idealogy before their music composition, which is probably why it's one of the more stagnant genres in metal. But I think music has to be backed up by an objective(whether it be to educate people on Satanism or anything else), it just has to have the perfect balance.

I know alot of people would regard Maudlin of the Well and it's new incarnation, Kayo Dot, as pretentious. But I love the band, so I guess it's all subjective in the end.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I agree with Cythraul on his point.

Also, bands who are simply trying to be artists tend to end up sounding pretentious, while the bands who are just an expression against something and end up intrinsically being art tend to be far less so, in my experience.

Then again, I think John Cage probably fits into the latter, in that he is expressing a view that music doesn't have to be melodies. In this case, my opinion is simply that his view is worthless, and therefore his creations - particularly the ones which go to extremes to stress the point, like 4'33, end up being worthless too.

EDIT: In fact, the good old "the best writers don't want to be writers, they want to write" quote is quite relevant to my first point.

 

[Astral_Dominion]

If you get the same feeling listening to music as you do looking a modern sculpture and other abstract art, you're listening too hard, in my opinion.

A feeling of nothingness? Seriously, I get more out of music than abstract art. Some weird non-sense sculptures doesn't evoke any feelings in me.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Modern 'abstract' art is horrible.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

Modern 'abstract' art is horrible.

Thank you. I want to burn down certain museums.

I should start some sort of Metal style that condemns modern/"post-modern" visual art.

 

[genocide roach]

whats po mo?
post modern! allright... wierd for the sake of wierd
~gR~

 

[Jean-Pierre]

whats po mo?
post modern! allright... wierd for the sake of wierd
~gR~

IT'S PO-MO!
........
POST MODERN!
........
Allright fellas, weird for the sake'a weird.
</moe>

 

[Episteme]

Then again, I think John Cage probably fits into the latter, in that he is expressing a view that music doesn't have to be melodies. In this case, my opinion is simply that his view is worthless, and therefore his creations - particularly the ones which go to extremes to stress the point, like 4'33, end up being worthless too.

I agree with you here. Except I own a CD of his Sonatas and Piano Interludes and whilst he was experimenting with different sounds(such as putting seashells and various other objects where the key hammer hits, I never relaly saw a point but he did achieve different sounds) and his sense of melody is very good. I've also heard Iannis Xenakis's compositions when he's experimented with probability and chance and I thought it was quite random(no shit!) and I didn't like it....

I find alot of post modern art like paint splatters and such pretentious as hell, I'm just curious to how these "pieces" actually get regarded as works of art. Has the world gone mad?

 

[Cythraul]

I find alot of post modern art like paint splatters and such pretentious as hell, I'm just curious to how these "pieces" actually get regarded as works of art. Has the world gone mad?

Part of the reason that this stuff exists is because at one point certain artists decided to overthrow the traditional conception of the "subject." They were no longer painting about something ie. landscape, situation, still life, portrait. They were attempting to reduce art into it's purest form. This is called art pour l'art or "art for the sake of art." Some modern art can be used to symbolize ideas. A splatter of paint could represent some abstract concept in the mind of the artist but I always wonder to myself "what's the point when it doesn't even make up for it's fundamental lack of aesthetic substance?"