Pop stars are entertainers yet people expect artistic integrity. That's like comparing Tom Jones to Scott Walker. They're just 2 differentr strands of genre.

I havve no problems with Pop.

Robbie Williams for instance, people expect too much from him.

Lady Gaga is a different kettle of fish. She's only a pop star but thinks she's art.

When Bowie was doing Let's Dance was almost the opposite. An artist being an entertainer. That's bound to grab the attention of more crtics than anything else.

Good point, well made.

Let's Dance was definitely Bowie's coming of age as an entertainer with mass appeal. I think he still maintained his artistic integrity though because of the quality of the music - although it appealed to the masses it was still a unique sound.

Not so sure about the next album though.........

David



Edit typos

<< Let's Dance was definitely Bowie's coming of age as an entertainer with mass appeal. I think he still maintained his artistic integrity though because of the quality of the music - although it appealed to the masses it was still a unique sound.>>

I beg to differ.

Bowie was an artistic entertainer right from the early days, he appealed to people who liked a bit of risk and innovation. That's what he excelled at over and above all others.

Bowie might have appealed to the masses with Let's Dance but it was crap compared to what went before, there were / are far better commercial sounding entertainers than Bowie, a classic case of an artist who should stick to proper artistic entertainment and not diversify into mass bubble gum entertainment.

A mistake Bowie acknowledged with his efforts to reinvent himself via TM which led to another Indian summer golden period via Tin Machine through to Earthling.


--------------------------------------------
REALITY bites
--------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Makes me wonder how to place Classical composers - entertainers of their time or simply artistic. then is a painter in anyway an entertainer?

Do you want a mint love?



Tits and Explosions

<< Makes me wonder how to place Classical composers - entertainers of their time or simply artistic. then is a painter in anyway an entertainer? >>

Good question

I suppose I would class them both as artistic entertainers more than bubble gum entertainers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume ( maybe wrongly )that classical composers and painters are usually groundbraking artistically in their respective fields.



--------------------------------------------
REALITY bites
--------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I suppose I would class them both as artistic entertainers more than bubble gum entertainers.

Depends on the composer. Beethoven with his grand symponies, would definitely have been regarded as and artiste, whereas Johann Strauss's waltzes were the pop music of their day.

Bach was Chuck Berry, Bruce Springsteen and Keith Richard all rolled into one, and Mozart was Robbie Williams.

____________________________________________

Following on that would make Franz Liszt a bit Eno & a bit Zappa, but mostly Zappa. Certainly head music not ms/pop.

Btw, No thanky you re: mint.

Yes indeed. With F. Liszt being the first pianist/musical stylist to face the audience in profile (instad of back facing the audience), I can certainly understand a connection with 'pop' and "art" being a continuum.
For instance the continuum from Liszt to J.L. Lewis springs to mind quickly and easily exists.
---------

Good point. Dr.Ink, the other way to turn it around is FL played the "pop"ular works of Beethoven, Moazart, etc.

Let me observe that Mr. Bowie was deeply influenced by Mr. Warhol, who made images of cheap, mass-produced objects into what was recognized as art. With his movies and self-appointed 'superstars', he turned entertainment media to his purposes as well. Mr. Bowie seems to have always seen himself as an artist who is occasionally a pop star.

I used to wake up the ocean

I say Bowie is both, and does both art and entertainment beautifully

There's nothing worse than an "artist" who has the charisma of an acorn and has no showmanship, or pizazz. Part of getting your art across as art is to make it entertaining somehow. Of course, this isn't always true depending on the art, but it should be . If if ain't fun, don't do it .

Are you saying Sparkina has the charisma of an acorn?

I would say that was a compliment really.



ps she sent me an email of Aslans pet stickleback..at least that's what I think it was, it may have been Neil Kinnock.




Tits and Explosions