Re: Beyoncé
Deezer wrote:suhl wrote:no. don't you have to create art to be an artist? best pop princess sex icon? i don't really care about that category, but for that she definitely deserves some consideration. artist, not even close. disrespectful to mention her along side the great ones as far as i'm concerned
The Beatles at one time were considered fluff. Now, I'm not saying that Beyonce = The Beatles. But, what I'm saying is, who knows what the history books will say about today's music. I'm sure there were people who loved Big Band and Sinatra in the 40s and 50s who loathed Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles, and now Hendrix and the Beatles are viewed as true art. Who knows. Something so objective is hard to nail down, what is art and what is not.
Look, the question is, and should always, not whether something is art or not. Not whether something is good or not. It should be, do I like it or not? It's so objective, it's hard to tell. So it's best to just avoid the question all together, because there will never be a right answer, no matter how right you think you are.
as far as i'm concerned art is created for the sake of art, beyonce is a character carefully crafted by many different people to sell as much as she can for as long as she can. beyonce's music is commerce, not art. i don't care how right other peple think i am, i don't speak for them, i speak for myself. of course there is no universally right answer i assumed that went without saying.
That is extremely naive. Anyone, and I mean anyone, from Elvis to the Beatles to Led Zeppelin to New Kids On the Block, if you put a record out and takes money for it is in business. If it were created purely "for art," then they wouldn't take 15 dollars a cd would they?
My ReverbNation page for Dees & Friends - check us out!
www.reverbnation.com/deesfriends