Porcupine Tree v. Glarung is a Lightbulb

[Zantera]

Just looked the video up on youtube, had a laugh. 
Also you have to remember that this was 11 years ago, Steven Wilson has certainly moved forward from that point.

[KevShmev]

I like some of those pop stars, so I'm definitely put off by him. In the Insurgentes movie, he says that he hates the idea of the music industry dismissing an artist's work as "shit" - but that's exactly what he does all the time.

I am pretty sure very few people consider those people he listed real "artists." They are pop stars and entertainers, but not real artists in the literal sense, so what is the problem?

Plus, like Zantera said, this was over a decade ago, so who cares?

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I like some of those pop stars, so I'm definitely put off by him. In the Insurgentes movie, he says that he hates the idea of the music industry dismissing an artist's work as "shit" - but that's exactly what he does all the time.

I am pretty sure very few people consider those people he listed real "artists." They are pop stars and entertainers, but not real artists in the literal sense, so what is the problem?

Right. To Steven, I don't think the Backstreet Boys are artists. They're a group of people who get songs written for them and dressed up in fashionable clothes to make big money for record labels and get laid.

[skydivingninja]

^ That.  There's nothing wrong with pop artists like Lady Gaga for instance, who write their own songs, but every time a judge says "man you have real artistry in you" on American Idol, I can only think "well they're going to have songs written for them rather than ones they wrote themselves so you're kind of squandering it, aren't you?"

[Ħ]

Isn't performance an art? Would you deny that professional musicians that play composed music in a major orchestra possess the quality of artistry? What about singers in Broadway musicals?

[jammindude]

Isn't performance an art? Would you deny that professional musicians that play composed music in a major orchestra possess the quality of artistry? What about singers in Broadway musicals?

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again.   

There are hundreds of thousands of wines out in the world.  Some of them I love, many of them I like, and some of them I don't care for at all.  Some I really despise, but they are still legitimately made "wines"...someone is making a valiant attempt at wine as an art, and sometimes *my opinion* may say it's bad art...but that doesn't make it "not art".

However.  There is a league of "wines" that have their very own category.   They are listed in Wiki as "Bum Wines".   (Thunderbird actually redirects there)   These are a TOTALLY different class of wines altogether and everyone knows it.   I don't consider these "wines" to be art in any way shape or form.   They are not drunk by people who love wine...they are drunk by people who don't give a crap about wine....and they stay in business because they make *A TON* of money selling wine to people who don't give a flying turd about "artistry".   It's completely sales driven.   

Many modern pop stars/hits fall under this umbrella.   They are "bum wines".   They have no redeeming value.   They are not art.    Anyone who tries to defend it...is the same as someone who claims to be a sommelier and defending the artistic merit of Night Train.    The day that you find me a professionally licensed sommelier who can sing the praises of Wild Irish Rose and MD 20/20 with a straight face and without losing his creditably...on that day I will make a retraction.   

[The Letter M]

^^^

Interesting analogy, but it makes sense. If performance is an art, it is not a MUSICAL art. It's a stage thing. What SW censures is the mockery of musical art, in which a person is praised for their music where in fact, that very music was not written BY the performer, and in some cases, isn't even truly performed BY the performer (i.e. lip-synchers like Ashley Simpson), which happens a lot in the pop-music industry. Performers like that often have large stages with lavish productions, perhaps to make up for the fact that there's not much else but the performance itself.

SW speaks of musical integrity, and I'm inclined to agree. While the music might sound good to some, the problem isn't the music or the performers themselves, but rather the problem is how it is brought together. Few pop artists write their own music alone, or at all, and then they're given all the praise for it because they performed it. It's a musical deception. I know there are people out there who make a living off of writing for other people, but to me, it just feels wrong. I feel like these artists' albums should all have every writer's and musician's names on the cover, and NOT just the performer's name. And it's so backwards that, in this world, the masses would publicly praise and fund the performers while bands with music by musicians who write for themselves (and not for the public/money/success) aren't well lauded by the world as a whole.

-Marc.

[skydivingninja]

Those are two completely different worlds.  In the realm of popular music, where artists are expected to release albums of new material every now and then, I think a real artist tries to express themselves more through their own creativity.  Even singers who have songs written for them can put some artistry in there from their voice, but at the same time, to me at least, its less genuine than someone who puts their own material out there. 

With broadway and classical music, most of the artistic decisions are made by the conductors/directors, since they decide how the piece is performed, though those two fields focus almost entirely around reproductions of a piece or play, though there's usually going to be something to differentiate them from their originals, and that's where artistry comes in with those fields, I think.  Jazz is even better about this, because even though there are "standards" everyone should know, there is still room to improvise and change things. 

Popular music is all about doing new things, songs and albums, and I think the more genuine you are in wanting to share yourself creatively, writing new material, presenting it, etc. the more of an artist shows, if that makes sense.  Like TOX said, people like Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys dress up and sing songs written for them, whether they believe a word of it or not, to make money, because the pop music scene has always been fairly shallow.  Take Carrie Underwood for instance.  Her two biggest hits are about someone praying to Jesus when their car is crashing, and the second is taking acts of revenge against a guy who's cheating on her.  She's not behind those songs, two different teams of writers were (and it shows), so I consider her less of an artist than, say, Adele.  Does that make sense?  I'm kind of rambling at this point.  Yes I know this makes me somewhat of an elitist prick. 

[Ħ]

I still think that performing is art. Loosely defined, art is expression. If someone writes a song for you to sing, you're still expressing yourself, and you're an artist.

[TL]

If everything about a performer, start to finish, is just about making money, it's not art.

[Ħ]

I think it could be. If I find artistic merit in something a performer does just for money...then the art is there, and it must have been produced by an artist.

[volwrath]

Plus maddog and yellow tail are both wines and certainly both booze and at the end of the day you drink them for the alcohol.

[Super Dude]

^^^

Interesting analogy, but it makes sense. If performance is an art, it is not a MUSICAL art. It's a stage thing. What SW censures is the mockery of musical art, in which a person is praised for their music where in fact, that very music was not written BY the performer, and in some cases, isn't even truly performed BY the performer (i.e. lip-synchers like Ashley Simpson), which happens a lot in the pop-music industry. Performers like that often have large stages with lavish productions, perhaps to make up for the fact that there's not much else but the performance itself.

SW speaks of musical integrity, and I'm inclined to agree. While the music might sound good to some, the problem isn't the music or the performers themselves, but rather the problem is how it is brought together. Few pop artists write their own music alone, or at all, and then they're given all the praise for it because they performed it. It's a musical deception. I know there are people out there who make a living off of writing for other people, but to me, it just feels wrong. I feel like these artists' albums should all have every writer's and musician's names on the cover, and NOT just the performer's name. And it's so backwards that, in this world, the masses would publicly praise and fund the performers while bands with music by musicians who write for themselves (and not for the public/money/success) aren't well lauded by the world as a whole.

-Marc.

Normally I would agree with this, but wasn't Jem Godfrey himself a pop song ghostwriter before starting Frost*?

[The Letter M]

^^^

Interesting analogy, but it makes sense. If performance is an art, it is not a MUSICAL art. It's a stage thing. What SW censures is the mockery of musical art, in which a person is praised for their music where in fact, that very music was not written BY the performer, and in some cases, isn't even truly performed BY the performer (i.e. lip-synchers like Ashley Simpson), which happens a lot in the pop-music industry. Performers like that often have large stages with lavish productions, perhaps to make up for the fact that there's not much else but the performance itself.

SW speaks of musical integrity, and I'm inclined to agree. While the music might sound good to some, the problem isn't the music or the performers themselves, but rather the problem is how it is brought together. Few pop artists write their own music alone, or at all, and then they're given all the praise for it because they performed it. It's a musical deception. I know there are people out there who make a living off of writing for other people, but to me, it just feels wrong. I feel like these artists' albums should all have every writer's and musician's names on the cover, and NOT just the performer's name. And it's so backwards that, in this world, the masses would publicly praise and fund the performers while bands with music by musicians who write for themselves (and not for the public/money/success) aren't well lauded by the world as a whole.

-Marc.

Normally I would agree with this, but wasn't Jem Godfrey himself a pop song ghostwriter before starting Frost*?

Yeah, but I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with the WRITERS, just the performers, in the way that SW feels. No one ever really heard of Jem BEFORE Frost*. If I asked you "Do you know who Jem Godfrey is?" before Frost* released Milliontown, would you have known? Would many people have known? Even if you knew Atomic Kitten, would people have known Jem wrote their singles?

I just went to Atomic Kitten's wiki page and did a ctrl-f search of "Jem" and nothing came up. No recognition for his song-writing, only as a credit on the album page which includes the song he wrote for them. It's the idea that someone else gets the praise for another's work. And I know that one might think classical music or opera could be used as an analogy, but it cannot because those things were written with having others perform them, and the composers and writers are given the proper credit. Do you ever hear a pop-star go on stage and say "Here's a song that ________, ________ and ________ wrote for me!" and then sing it? Rarely, if ever....they usually go "Here's our latest hit single!!!"

Bands, whose musicians write and perform their own music, are more likely to give credit where it's due. Many of them will have their frontman introduce a song like "Here's a new song written by our guitarist, ____________", and then play the song.

At least no one since Ashley Simpson has blamed their band for playing the wrong song on live television...

-Marc.

[jammindude]

Plus maddog and yellow tail are both wines and certainly both booze and at the end of the day you drink them for the alcohol.

I'm just dumbfounded.   It's almost impossible to read a statement this ignorant, and not have the urge to violate the rules.   I would rather just believe that you're being a troll.   

[theseoafs]

I think it could be. If I find artistic merit in something a performer does just for money...then the art is there, and it must have been produced by an artist.

We should remember that art is as much about intent as it is about perception. If a performer doesn't think he's making art, then it isn't, no matter how art-like it appears.

[Ħ]

I think it could be. If I find artistic merit in something a performer does just for money...then the art is there, and it must have been produced by an artist.

We should remember that art is as much about intent as it is about perception. If a performer doesn't think he's making art, then it isn't, no matter how art-like it appears.

I disagree. I think that if at least one person thinks something is art, then it is art - all intentions aside.

[jammindude]

So wait.

If I wipe my ass, and manage to convince someone (anyone) that it's art....does that piece of crap stained toilet paper become art?

If you say 'yes'...we will just have to agree to disagree....

[The King in Crimson]

There are no hard and fast rules dictating what art is and is not.

But what do I know, I've claimed that Merzbow isn't music so I'm just a big, damn hypocrite. 

[jammindude]

There are no hard and fast rules dictating what art is and is not.

But what do I know, I've claimed that Merzbow isn't music so I'm just a big, damn hypocrite. 

Art = self expression

That's why I don't consider some (notice, I did say "some" not "all") pop music to be art.   It's not self expression.  It's just following a formula to make money.   "Insert 'tab A' into 'slot B'" is not art.

[The King in Crimson]

Art is not often what the painter/musician/writer puts into it but what the audience gets out of it.

Granted an audience is usually going to get more out of a piece of art that has had more effort put into it than some jackwad slapping a can of Heinz baked beans on a pedestal and saying "There."  I think that limiting the definition of art in such a way is rather narrowminded.  I'm sure there was a time when abstract paintings weren't considered art.

And who says that self-expression can't be "I want to make gob-loads of money?"

[ClairvoyantCat]

I... agree with Hayden on this one.  All that really matters, in my opinion, is how it is perceived and what the observer takes from it.  It really doesn't matter if it was made for money.  Furthermore, I don't think that I, nor anyone else here, is really within their right to dismiss other music as being made only for money.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it wasn't made by someone who does. 

[jammindude]

You know what?   I give up...

I'm going to go dip my balls in a bucket of paint, and walk around randomly squatting on a large piece of butcher paper.   I will call it "The Emaab Teabag" and make a million dollars and be considered a genius.   Then I can shower contempt on my ignorant fans. 

 

 

[ZBomber]

I... agree with Hayden on this one.  All that really matters, in my opinion, is how it is perceived and what the observer takes from it.  It really doesn't matter if it was made for money.  Furthermore, I don't think that I, nor anyone else here, is really within their right to dismiss other music as being made only for money.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it wasn't made by someone who does.

This. And while the Backstreet Boys are the performers, there are actual musicians and song writers that wrote their hits. They know their craft well, there is a reason they are hired and there is a reason they are catchy and become hits. I don't think it is fair to say any kind of music is not art just because it is commercial.

[Phantasmatron]

I... agree with Hayden on this one.  All that really matters, in my opinion, is how it is perceived and what the observer takes from it.  It really doesn't matter if it was made for money.  Furthermore, I don't think that I, nor anyone else here, is really within their right to dismiss other music as being made only for money.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it wasn't made by someone who does.

This. And while the Backstreet Boys are the performers, there are actual musicians and song writers that wrote their hits. They know their craft well, there is a reason they are hired and there is a reason they are catchy and become hits. I don't think it is fair to say any kind of music is not art just because it is commercial.

But the likelihood of a song from those origins having high artistic value is relatively low.

[DebraKadabra]

You know what?   I give up...

I'm going to go dip my balls in a bucket of paint, and walk around randomly squatting on a large piece of butcher paper.   I will call it "The Emaab Teabag" and make a million dollars and be considered a genius.   Then I can shower contempt on my ignorant fans. 

 

 

How was this missed?!
 

[The King in Crimson]

But the likelihood of a song from those origins having high artistic value is relatively low.

Who determines what high artistic value is?

And really, how is dismissing pop music as not art any different than dismissing prog as just 'emotionless, instrumental wankery' ie 'not art?'

[FlyingBIZKIT]

So since this morning, I now own all of Porcupine Tree's Studio albums 

Nil Recurring is still in the mail.

[Sigz]

I'm with Seth and H. Unless you lay down some clear definition as to what constitutes art (and even then it's probably not going to be a very robust definition) you're just playing the "I know it when I see it" card, which is bullshit.

[TL]

I'm with Seth and H. Unless you lay down some clear definition as to what constitutes art (and even then it's probably not going to be a very robust definition) you're just playing the "I know it when I see it" card, which is bullshit.

It can be, since it lacks a clear definition, but there are cases where it's valid. Some things are art, and some things aren't. It can be difficult to define, but sometimes, you do just know.

[glaurung]

And really, how is dismissing pop music as not art any different than dismissing prog as just 'emotionless, instrumental wankery' ie 'not art?'

This.

[ZBomber]

And really, how is dismissing pop music as not art any different than dismissing prog as just 'emotionless, instrumental wankery' ie 'not art?'

This.

That.

Writing pop music is still a craft. There is an artistic value to any kind of music.

[theseoafs]

I think it could be. If I find artistic merit in something a performer does just for money...then the art is there, and it must have been produced by an artist.

We should remember that art is as much about intent as it is about perception. If a performer doesn't think he's making art, then it isn't, no matter how art-like it appears.

I disagree. I think that if at least one person thinks something is art, then it is art - all intentions aside.

You run into a whole mess of problems if you go by a purely perception-based definition of art, mainly because most people don't have a clue what art is. In order for something to be art, it has to have been made by an artist for the purpose of being art.

[glaurung]

To promote his new twitter page Steven just posted a previously unreleased song from around the IA/Deadwing era.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wilson/godfearing-demo-2001-03

[The King in Crimson]

That was a pretty cool song there.