Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Comparing the Arts

  1. #1
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,957
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Comparing the Arts

    Is there something about a musical artist and having all their albums kickass vs directors/authors/etc?

  2. #2
    Senior Member regenmusic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,288
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think that all the arts have equally deep souls involved with them. However, I am less wow'd by recent authors compared the authors before the middle of the 20th Century. T.S. Elliot and C.S. Lewis were the last authors that really impressed me. It's hard to compare modern authors to people like Oliver Goldsmith, Dickens, Longfellow, Milton, etc.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Room2201974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captainnumber36 View Post
    Is there something about a musical artist and having all their albums kickass vs directors/authors/etc?
    Could you clarify that a little more? I'm not sure I get what you are asking.
    "He who makes songs without feeling spoils both his words and his music. " ~ Guillaume de Machaut

    "Music that is born complex is not inherently better or worse than music that is born simple." ~ Aaron Copland.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,957
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Room2201974 View Post
    Could you clarify that a little more? I'm not sure I get what you are asking.
    To clarify, what I meant was, in music, is there more of a reason to want everything you put out to be a masterpiece compared to the other arts such as authors/directors/painters/sculptors.

    I came to my own conclusion, that I think in all the Arts, excellence in everything that is put out is the ultimate goal that isn't always achieved, but always desired by the genuine.

  5. Likes Room2201974, Larkenfield liked this post
  6. #5
    Senior Member Room2201974's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captainnumber36 View Post
    To clarify, what I meant was, in music, is there more of a reason to want everything you put out to be a masterpiece compared to the other arts such as authors/directors/painters/sculptors.

    I came to my own conclusion, that I think in all the Arts, excellence in everything that is put out is the ultimate goal that isn't always achieved, but always desired by the genuine.
    Yes, I think that's the right view of it. Most good artists are very concerned with excellence. Ever study any of the "auteurs" of the arts? I'm using that term from film. It means that the director has his hand in the other creative ideas of a movie to the extent that he is considered not just the director, but the "author" of a flim. Think Kubrick! But you can crosswalk that term to other arts. Buddy Holly was an auteur. He wrote the songs, played the instruments, and produced his own music using the recording studio as another instrument. He was one of the first rock stars who got to sit behind a console and "direct" the sound of the whole.

    Anyway, yes it's true, artists strive for excellence.* Auteurs are obsessed with it!


    * Unless you are locked into a bad record contract with David Geffen!
    "He who makes songs without feeling spoils both his words and his music. " ~ Guillaume de Machaut

    "Music that is born complex is not inherently better or worse than music that is born simple." ~ Aaron Copland.

  7. Likes Joe B, Captainnumber36, Larkenfield liked this post
  8. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It is somewhat naive to think that Artists are somehow 'special' people who never give a concern to anything but their work. Many, after a first flush of critcal aclaim, suddenly become more commmercial - usually IMO to the detriment of their output.

    To name a few

    Picasso in his late 20's got a new dealer who persuaded him to tone it back a little and sure enough his prices and international reputation soared. Yes that Picasso, one of those artists who never gets criticised. A man who who would put a daub on a menu so he didn't have to pay - were they excellence in action?

    The Old Masters set up 'factories' - go to any Church in Venice and you can see a Modoona and Child by Tintoretto or Bellini. All of them excellent?


    IN the mid 70's people like Van Morrison and Ry Cooder were persuaded to make more contemporary suunding music - that period was as dull as ditch water. Frontmen have often left bands, and the resulting music is a far cry from their glory days - Rod Stewart at the head of that queue.

    Was Korngold the Movie composer a patch on the child star? NO but he had to eat.

    I might add more later, but the idea of the strugging artist sticking to their inner vision is often not true.


    It's called show BUSINESS for a reason.

  9. #7
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,957
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belowpar View Post
    It is somewhat naive to think that Artists are somehow 'special' people who never give a concern to anything but their work. Many, after a first flush of critcal aclaim, suddenly become more commmercial - usually IMO to the detriment of their output.

    To name a few

    Picasso in his late 20's got a new dealer who persuaded him to tone it back a little and sure enough his prices and international reputation soared. Yes that Picasso, one of those artists who never gets criticised. A man who who would put a daub on a menu so he didn't have to pay - were they excellence in action?

    The Old Masters set up 'factories' - go to any Church in Venice and you can see a Modoona and Child by Tintoretto or Bellini. All of them excellent?


    IN the mid 70's people like Van Morrison and Ry Cooder were persuaded to make more contemporary suunding music - that period was as dull as ditch water. Frontmen have often left bands, and the resulting music is a far cry from their glory days - Rod Stewart at the head of that queue.

    Was Korngold the Movie composer a patch on the child star? NO but he had to eat.

    I might add more later, but the idea of the strugging artist sticking to their inner vision is often not true.


    It's called show BUSINESS for a reason.
    Well that's depressing, and I won't fully accept it. I believe you should work with ppl you respect and care about, and all work together to create a joint effort.

  10. #8
    Senior Member Larkenfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Sedona
    Posts
    2,721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I have to disagree about Picasso. I thought he was fabulous to the end doing the real thing, being playful which sometimes has been misunderstood as commercialism or being a sellout, but he certainly didn’t need the money. He continued to enjoy his fabulous life, work in the moment, and was endlessly creative to his very last drop despite his earlier work being more famous. I place him above everyone because he was constantly transforming himself and had gone through every imaginable phase of development in painting. If only 20th-century music could have had a Picasso—and I don’t think it was Schoenberg despite his revolutionary contributions because he didn’t seem to know how to play (except perhaps at ping-pong). Picasso’s work is instantly recognizable. Sensational artist.

    “Inspiration exists but it must find you working.” —Picasso

    Last edited by Larkenfield; Dec-03-2018 at 09:31.
    "That's all Folks!"

  11. Likes Captainnumber36 liked this post
  12. #9
    Senior Member Captainnumber36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,957
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I feel endlessly creative, I can sit down and either compose music, poetry or a drawing effortlessly if I allow myself to let it just flow out of me, which tends to be my best work.

  13. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    972
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkenfield View Post
    I have to disagree about Picasso. I thought he was fabulous to the end doing the real thing, being playful which sometimes has been misunderstood as commercialism or being a sellout, but he certainly didn’t need the money. He continued to enjoy his fabulous life, work in the moment, and was endlessly creative to his very last drop despite his earlier work being more famous. I place him above everyone because he was constantly transforming himself and had gone through every imaginable phase of development in painting. If only 20th-century music could have had a Picasso—and I don’t think it was Schoenberg despite his revolutionary contributions because he didn’t seem to know how to play (except perhaps at ping-pong). Picasso’s work is instantly recognizable. Sensational artist.

    “Inspiration exists but it must find you working.” —Picasso

    Don't disagree with what I wrote until you've read this,

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01JMBND...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

    he enjoyed wealth but it took him some time and a new dealer to achieve it.

    After that you can believe what you like.


    Ps What I said doesn't mean he wasn't a sensational artist. We just need to be realistic about 'artists' and not put them on a pedestal where they can do no wrong.
    Last edited by Belowpar; Dec-07-2018 at 07:54.

  14. #11
    Senior Member Strange Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nova Caesarea
    Posts
    3,977
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkenfield View Post
    I have to disagree about Picasso. I thought he was fabulous to the end doing the real thing, being playful which sometimes has been misunderstood as commercialism or being a sellout, but he certainly didn’t need the money. He continued to enjoy his fabulous life, work in the moment, and was endlessly creative to his very last drop despite his earlier work being more famous. I place him above everyone because he was constantly transforming himself and had gone through every imaginable phase of development in painting. If only 20th-century music could have had a Picasso—and I don’t think it was Schoenberg despite his revolutionary contributions because he didn’t seem to know how to play (except perhaps at ping-pong). Picasso’s work is instantly recognizable. Sensational artist.

    “Inspiration exists but it must find you working.” —Picasso

    Two quick thoughts: The musical Picasso of the 20th Century is more probably Stravinsky, the Musical Chameleon of the age. Also, the reason we know instantly that a work is Picasso's is because everybody has been exposed to the full range of his work for decades, not because it necessarily must look like Picasso. If all you knew were Blue Period subjects and you were shown Picasso Cubed, you would not say "Aaahh, Picasso!".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •