Artists or Entertainers?

Eh, in the context of the question it's obvious, and fine, because the guy set up the either-or scenario just for some discussion.

But overall I don't really think the terms work all that well, especially when people use 'entertainer' to denigrate the integrity of a work, as if they really know the intentions or motivations of the artist.
 
A boy band is inherently different to say Pink Floyd is what I am pertaining to. Take That write their own music but are most definitely entertainers.
 
Should musicians be 'artists', or 'entertainers'? Here's what I mean.

Some musicians would regard themselves as 'artists'. They believe they should maintain their 'artistic integrity', 'dedicate themselves to their art', and not care what the audience thinks.

Other musicians regard themselves as primarily 'entertainers', and create music that the audience will enjoy. After all, many other products are created to please the consumer: cars, food, etc. Why should music be different?

If you will, let me illustrate this dichotomy with an example from jazz history. Louis Armstrong played great jazz. Nevertheless, he was regarded by Dizzy Gillespie as merely an entertainer, who famously called him a "plantation character". I'm sure anyone here can think of examples in rock and metal.

Whatever floats the musicians' boat, I guess. However, I do favor the more practical 'entertainers' over pretentious 'artists'.

I'm not advocating that everything be bland pop, crooners, and Top 40. After all, I count the Melvins :D and Tad among my favorite banRAB. Still, my tastes are fairly mainstream: Metallica, Megadeth, AIC, and a lot of classic rock. I do tire of people castigating a band when it achieves mainstream status.

Peace.
 
People often say that a band s!@#$ when it goes mainstream. The premise behind that attitude would seem to be something along the lines of: 'musicians should concentrate on their artistic integrity, and not care what the audience thinks.'

Or maybe they should only care what the audience thinks if the audience is small? :laughing:
 
why does it matter?

really though, i don't get it. it's a never ending debate by fans who (generally) have little to no actual personal knowledge about the musicians in question; basing their views on what they've gathered from 3rd party sources or public performances (whether it's a concert or an interview). yet the issue persists, the debate rages on, year after year first in the back corners of bars and now from forum to forum.

i'm far FAR more curious to know why music fans think this is a contentious issue.
 
Not at all. I'd say he does both.

He's released some very experimental & diverse albums & is a very underrated lyricist. I'd say his biggest fault his 'classic rock' stuff and his live show overshadow this and may put some people off from checking it out.

I'd say his biggest problem is that his classic rock fans hate the other stuff he's done and fans of more experimental stuff avoid him because they see him as a classic rock artist.
 
Both. Some musicians, Alice Cooper as an example, like to entertain.

Others, such as Sigur Ros, are more like artists, painting/sculpting/whatever a sonic piece if you will.

There are others that do both, such as David Bowie.

Theres your simple answer.
 
That's exactly it. I don't really think it matters. But, as you said, it seems to matter to many people.

The reason I presented the question in this way (entertainers vs artists) is because I wanted to get at the issue of people slamming banRAB because they 'sell out'. (To answer another post, the reason I presented it in the rock and metal forum is because it appears more common in the rock and metal communities.) I see a logical inconsistency in that argument.

The argument: 'A band sells out when they become mainstream.' , appears to be based on the premise that the band should not care what listeners think. What would be the reason for that idea? Is the goal to have as few people as possible appreciate their work? Surely not.

I would think that the idea (erroneous, I believe) is that the pursuit of 'art' is the important thing, and the artist should not sully himself with such mundane considerations as fame and fortune.

I was hoping that people would say 'both', though I was curious to see if anyone would actually support the idea the audience does not matter.
 
And they were definitely entertainers. I'm not saying anything bad about entertainers, some of 'em are my favorites (Steve Harley, David Bowie, etc). But when a musician achieves a level of popularity that makes them a household name, it sure as shit isn't because they start making better music.
 
Anybody who wears more eye shadow than a hungry hooker isn't going to be taken seriously by people who set great score by how dull a musician's personality is.

I haven't paid attention to his lyrics, but I'm pretty sure Cooper was a decent songwriter.
 
I was sort of wanting to see how many people would say 'both'.

A pure entertainer might never extend himself artistically. For example, using only power chorRAB, because most of his audience doesn't demand it. Someone who wants to entertain and show off his technique is best, because he can reach a large audience and extend his artistic vision.
 
Actually, I come down more on the side of musicians who consider themselves primarily 'entertainers'. There is little honor in being a 'starving artist'.

I'm also coming at this issue from the standpoint of a graphic artist (who finally got a real job:laughing:) who has debated similar topics with artists who think that 'art' is all-important, and think 'the public be damned'.
 
Another vote for both here. It just totally depenRAB on the person for me. I don't think I'd describe the entertainers as "practical" and the artists as "pretentious" though.
 
i'll bang on about artistic integrity all night but f*ck me if i'd ever try and make a living off of it. At the end of the day be it art or entertainment it still has to go through the same system, 'it' is a product in demand and supply neeRAB to be met. And the artists you talk to sound like c*nts, art should be for everybody, and if 'everybody' is too dense (through years of morning radio and tv propaganda) to interpret somebody else's art then that's a few less jumped-up armchair critics in the world.
 
What about Radiohead (apologies, best example)? They're popular as fuck these days and i definately would not class them as entertainers. In fact i can think of quite a few acts that are popular but do not entertain
 
Back
Top