I feel like you're looking for an argument where there isn't one, friend. I'm not trying to devalue or undersell the effort that goes into musical performances at all. It's just one of my theories on why we as human beings connect to artists (and specifically performance artists like musicians) so much more deeply than to scientists: the fact that we can be present while they perform their life's work repeatedly, and their work has much greater capacity and ease for reproduction than most major science. "Recreating" a song, i.e. singing it multiple times on tour, is much easier than recreating almost any major scientific achievement. The designers and builders of the Hubble telescope can't recreate that work 5 times a week. Taylor Swift or almost any artist can perform nightly concerts. Of course artists put a ton of effort into their performances, but they can realistically reproduce their work ad nauseum, which makes it much easier for people to connect even deeper to their art by seeing them perform it multiple times. IIRC, it took Bruno Mars almost 2 years working off and on to finally create "Uptown Funk." But once he did create it, he's able perform it as frequently as he wants in front of people that appreciate it. That's much easier for the average person to connect with than Alan Turing.
It also has to do with reach. Swift can potentially reach an audience of billions. If you look at that audience and fanbase there are so many potential revenue streams. Of course those massive revenue streams only materialize for a selected few artists with huge fan bases. It’s a rare thing. It’s also somewhat fickle. A surgeon can only have so many patients and can only extract so much from those patients. So the “audience” for a surgeon might only be in the thousands of individuals. Still, I’ve heard of starving artists. Anyone hear of a starving surgeon? I’d say the capitalistic system does offer similar opportunities to scientists and medical professionals, but those opportunities present through the patent system. I’m guessing there are a few billionaires (including medical doctors) who made better than “Swift money” from a medical or scientific breakthrough that they patented.
Okay, good points, but you have not moved me from my position though. To each there own. BTW I LOVE music. Just not the nonsense that surrounds the supposed superstars.
Good points but actually the only obssession I have with celebrity is that we seem to live in a country that overly values, compensates and gives attention to crafts: I.E. Music Actors Entertainers Sports And so forth. I suspected not bending the knee and worshipping the goddess Swift would ignite controversey. I have not been disappointed. i
I would throw the entire world in chains and make them build a pyramid for my burial chamber that reaches the stratosphere. Gee I - Boy, I usually find your posts rationale, I guess suggesting a little more attention and money directed towards Science and Academics is anathema to you. OK - But where you think I am a totalitarian or thinking "I know best" does not seem rationale, is off topic and is of course a directed insult. Did not mean to "set you off".
Sounds like some of our self-professed limited government conservatives (lol), are looking for a commie style “Ministry of Culture”.
I have stirred up a hornets nest with my posts. Just tossing up hypotheticals about society. A stupid thing to do considering our American life and culture are perfect in every way, especially politically. I'm waving the white flag. Hope it does not offend the board if I wish the Gators success Saturday.
I wonder what you are basing this opinion on. Is it a fair comparison, though? Now do Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde. Since we're on art, how about the Sistine Chapel? I know this thread is about Swift, but would caution you against generalizing about artists/musicians with the thought that what they do is easier than science. It's simply not true. And during that time Mars necessarily continued to work on several other compositions. It's not like he just wrote a hit and then sat on it for a few years. I appreciate that you are not seeking an argument and apologize for coming up as argumentative. I'm trying to help folks understand just a little more about what it takes to be a performing artist. It's FAR more than talent and it's not easy by any means; not even in comparison with scientific achievements.
You think the U.S. doesn't provide more attention to "academics" and science than it does music? I'm talking about gov resources. Perhaps you are referring to something diff. Music, btw, IS academic and scientific.
Actually I was speaking more of the publics interest than Gov't. Again I love and respect music, I just find it bizarre how cultish and absorbed Americans get with music, especially the more youth directed stuff like Hip-Hop, Rock, County and so Forth. Having said that, I certainly had infatuations with bands myself, like Tool and AIC. I just find it striking how some folks place so much emphasis on it today, especially with social media. Anyway, I meant no insult to anyone on the board.
I did not say that, and tried very carefully to not even imply it. You continue to pick apart a small part of what I say and misconstrue it into a straw man that I'm saying making art is easy. I'm not talking about the creation of art, but the recreation/replication. I'm simply pointing out that once created, art and especially music is more easily and swiftly reproduced in ways that society can enjoy and appreciate, compared with gatorhead's heavily favored "science breakthroughs." Once an orchestra has practiced and learned Beethoven's 9th (a large endeavor of immense hard work), they can perform the piece again and again. And besides, I feel that strengthens my argument because Beethoven enjoys much less affection and celebration in modern society than individual musicians and artists in part because recreating a symphony is way harder than a singer/songwriter recreating a song they wrote and can perform alone with their guitar (which is still very hard, lest I trigger you again). My argument on this has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty with making music, only with how repeatedly accessible it is to the average human being, which helps further establish our connections with music and musicians. Combine that with singers/musicians' relative ease to recreate their product in front of people, and people are able to connect not just with what an artist has created, but directly with the artist while they create it. That, IMO, contributes greatly to why musicians and performance artists tend to have more admiration and celebration by society. Lastly, regarding art, why do you suppose more people can identify a Taylor Swift song versus an authentic Banksy or Rauschenberg? Because the song is easier to reproduce, and significantly easer to invite thousands of people to witness her reproduce it, making it more accessible. More access = more opportunity for society to connect emotionally = more celebrated status of the product's creator. That's the only point I was really trying to make.
What you experienced as infatuations was similar, but perhaps more extreme for other folks. For many, esp. young folks, music is a defining element in their identity development.
There are music breakthroughs and science breakthroughs. Comparing musical reproductions with science breakthroughs is not appropriate. Again, you might also have little understanding about what is required for high level (e.g. professional) musical reproductions.
