MR

Last year there was a crusade against SA and his now infamous lipping along to the soundtrack of our lives. I didn't join that crusade as it wasn't my kind of battle. The battle that I do pick however is the one between art and shit. I'm an old stage actor and I believe in art. In my experience art is an expression of the human experience therefore it's something that's born of a passionate heart. It may not have universal appeal - some may be entirely disgusted by it while others are completely captured BUT if it did neither then it wouldn't be art. The ultimate intention of art is to inspire - SOMETHING within an audience. If it doesn't then it's not art. It's shit.

This is why since 1998 that I've spoken out against the nostalgic band we all know as JOURNEY. Playing an old song from the 80's to an aging audience so that they can relive a moment of their youth is nostalgia NOT art. The fact that JOURNEY refuses to play anything new because their fans take that time to run for beers or urinate is evidence that JOURNEY has gone from art to shit. If their new music doesn't inspire but rather is received as less important than relieving one's bladder then it's clear that their art has turned to shit.

As I said in my "redemption" thread:
Sorry, Jeremey (if indeed you're the next guy) - while it may make good $$$ for you and JOURNEY to continue the nostalgic tour to beat all nostalgic tours - it's artistically BANKRUPT and as an artist myself I can't stomach SHIT being shoveled for ART. As an actor I NEVER - and I mean NEVER FUCKING EVER shoveled SHIT. It is the creed of a thespian to "Act well your part - there all the honor lies." On the stage the script is a guide. You take what the playwright has sketched out and you create a character according to YOUR ORIGINALITY - your TALENT. It's your HONOR to bring something original - YOURSELF - to your character. You are to enliven your character and GIVE it to your audience. That's ACTING. Rock music is NOT acting. A rock band is NOT supposed to use their catalog like a script for a singer to create an impression of the original NOR to try and "sound like" the original. That is NOT art. It's SHIT.

This is my battle. This is my war. To all of the other so-called "singers" that have posted their best Perry impressions here: you suck. You're not an artist. You're an impressionist. Impressions aren't impressive. Anyone can do an impression. The question is: can you SING? Steve Perry SANG. You're doing nothing more than an impression of a singer - but you're NOT singing. Steve Perry was an artist. You need to be an artist if you want to sing otherwise you're just shit.

Many fans couldn't bear to see JOURNEY "sell out" by lipping. That irks me, too but what irks me even more is trying to pass out shit as art.

Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

What the fuck was that!!!!? Sorry right after I started reading I had to go take a piss.

Wheels Of Fyre wrote:Last year there was a crusade against SA and his now infamous lipping along to the soundtrack of our lives. I didn't join that crusade as it wasn't my kind of battle. The battle that I do pick however is the one between art and shit. I'm an old stage actor and I believe in art. In my experience art is an expression of the human experience therefore it's something that's born of a passionate heart. It may not have universal appeal - some may be entirely disgusted by it while others are completely captured BUT if it did neither then it wouldn't be art. The ultimate intention of art is to inspire - SOMETHING within an audience. If it doesn't then it's not art. It's shit.

This is why since 1998 that I've spoken out against the nostalgic band we all know as JOURNEY. Playing an old song from the 80's to an aging audience so that they can relive a moment of their youth is nostalgia NOT art. The fact that JOURNEY refuses to play anything new because their fans take that time to run for beers or urinate is evidence that JOURNEY has gone from art to shit. If their new music doesn't inspire but rather is received as less important than relieving one's bladder then it's clear that their art has turned to shit.

As I said in my "redemption" thread:
Sorry, Jeremey (if indeed you're the next guy) - while it may make good $$$ for you and JOURNEY to continue the nostalgic tour to beat all nostalgic tours - it's artistically BANKRUPT and as an artist myself I can't stomach SHIT being shoveled for ART. As an actor I NEVER - and I mean NEVER FUCKING EVER shoveled SHIT. It is the creed of a thespian to "Act well your part - there all the honor lies." On the stage the script is a guide. You take what the playwright has sketched out and you create a character according to YOUR ORIGINALITY - your TALENT. It's your HONOR to bring something original - YOURSELF - to your character. You are to enliven your character and GIVE it to your audience. That's ACTING. Rock music is NOT acting. A rock band is NOT supposed to use their catalog like a script for a singer to create an impression of the original NOR to try and "sound like" the original. That is NOT art. It's SHIT.

This is my battle. This is my war. To all of the other so-called "singers" that have posted their best Perry impressions here: you suck. You're not an artist. You're an impressionist. Impressions aren't impressive. Anyone can do an impression. The question is: can you SING? Steve Perry SANG. You're doing nothing more than an impression of a singer - but you're NOT singing. Steve Perry was an artist. You need to be an artist if you want to sing otherwise you're just shit.

Many fans couldn't bear to see JOURNEY "sell out" by lipping. That irks me, too but what irks me even more is trying to pass out shit as art.

Journey's "job" as a corporate entity is to play the songs the fans WANT. And as long as they continue to WANT to hear the Dirty Dozen, Journey has an obligation to give the PAYING fans what they want. Regardless of who is singing them. Again, you're getting WAY too deep, though you do have some valid points.

Wheels Of Fyre wrote:Last year there was a crusade against SA and his now infamous lipping along to the soundtrack of our lives. I didn't join that crusade as it wasn't my kind of battle. The battle that I do pick however is the one between art and shit. I'm an old stage actor and I believe in art. In my experience art is an expression of the human experience therefore it's something that's born of a passionate heart. It may not have universal appeal - some may be entirely disgusted by it while others are completely captured BUT if it did neither then it wouldn't be art. The ultimate intention of art is to inspire - SOMETHING within an audience. If it doesn't then it's not art. It's shit.

This is why since 1998 that I've spoken out against the nostalgic band we all know as JOURNEY. Playing an old song from the 80's to an aging audience so that they can relive a moment of their youth is nostalgia NOT art. The fact that JOURNEY refuses to play anything new because their fans take that time to run for beers or urinate is evidence that JOURNEY has gone from art to shit. If their new music doesn't inspire but rather is received as less important than relieving one's bladder then it's clear that their art has turned to shit.

As I said in my "redemption" thread:
Sorry, Jeremey (if indeed you're the next guy) - while it may make good $$$ for you and JOURNEY to continue the nostalgic tour to beat all nostalgic tours - it's artistically BANKRUPT and as an artist myself I can't stomach SHIT being shoveled for ART. As an actor I NEVER - and I mean NEVER FUCKING EVER shoveled SHIT. It is the creed of a thespian to "Act well your part - there all the honor lies." On the stage the script is a guide. You take what the playwright has sketched out and you create a character according to YOUR ORIGINALITY - your TALENT. It's your HONOR to bring something original - YOURSELF - to your character. You are to enliven your character and GIVE it to your audience. That's ACTING. Rock music is NOT acting. A rock band is NOT supposed to use their catalog like a script for a singer to create an impression of the original NOR to try and "sound like" the original. That is NOT art. It's SHIT.

This is my battle. This is my war. To all of the other so-called "singers" that have posted their best Perry impressions here: you suck. You're not an artist. You're an impressionist. Impressions aren't impressive. Anyone can do an impression. The question is: can you SING? Steve Perry SANG. You're doing nothing more than an impression of a singer - but you're NOT singing. Steve Perry was an artist. You need to be an artist if you want to sing otherwise you're just shit.

Many fans couldn't bear to see JOURNEY "sell out" by lipping. That irks me, too but what irks me even more is trying to pass out shit as art.

Well said, Frye. For the benefit of others, I'll simplify your point with my own. If I copy another artists work, is it my own? No. I will have put in time and effort, even some skill, but it would not be my own original work, from my own creativity, only a copy of the original.

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

Fucker! I just had surgery, it hurts like a bitch to laugh!! OUCH!

john! i will say that you have ideas and stick by them ,, im
lots more shallow .. to me art is a couple of green apples on an old table..
just foolin, kinda.. ,, keep it coming man! good post.., i cant
agree totally though, im in a cover band..

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

Do you know that there are "artists" who have literally used shit in their art work? I studied Art History & appreciate lots of different things, but not that, nor some of the other crap called "art" - when did a pile of old RVs & water heaters wired together become "art"? (this was an exhibit at a modern museum)...anyway, I see some of what you are saying. I wish Journey could have just stayed pure, like ending the ride in '98 instead of what it has become now.

tammy wrote:Do you know that there are "artists" who have literally used shit in their art work? I studied Art History & appreciate lots of different things, but not that, nor some of the other crap called "art" - when did a pile of old RVs & water heaters wired together become "art"? (this was an exhibit at a modern museum)...anyway, I see some of what you are saying. I wish Journey could have just stayed pure, like ending the ride in '98 instead of what it has become now.

LOL!! Nancy Rubins is the artist, the show was 'Helter Skelter' at MOCA. I worked on that exhibit. I didn't work on that particular installation, but on others. Those damn water heaters were around forever after the show was down.... complete pain in the ass!

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

Bwaahhahahahahahaha

Rick wrote:

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

Fucker! I just had surgery, it hurts like a bitch to laugh!! OUCH!

Are u OK? what kind of surgery did u have? PM me if u don't want to make an announcement here

Granny wrote:

Rick wrote:

RockinDeano wrote:Weird fucker

As soon as I see a post from you more than 5 paragraphs long, I envision painted wooden horsies on a merry go round, a burning pterodactyl emerging from a volcano with a scarab engraved in it, and a bunch of Columbians running around screaming LaRaza De Sol.

Fucker! I just had surgery, it hurts like a bitch to laugh!! OUCH!

Are u OK? what kind of surgery did u have? PM me if u don't want to make an announcement here

Yeah I'm fine Carol, thanks for asking. I had a hernia repaired. As long as I sit still I'm ok, but stand up or walk or trying to get in and out of bed and it'll take my breath. Laughing hurts too. I shouldn't be reading this stuff, but I'm hooked. I'll be off work for another month or so, so I'll be around a lot more to pester everyone.

TVL wrote:I'll simplify your point with my own. If I copy another artists work, is it my own?

Yes, it is. For some artists, art is an attempt to hold a mirror up to nature. Is it not the artists work even if he is copying Gods work? Also, every artist does this in some capacity, whether they choose to admit it or not.

tammy wrote:Do you know that there are "artists" who have literally used shit in their art work?

Hey, now don't go critiquing South Park like that. They are definitely masters.

Monker wrote:

TVL wrote:I'll simplify your point with my own. If I copy another artists work, is it my own?

Yes, it is. For some artists, art is an attempt to hold a mirror up to nature. Is it not the artists work even if he is copying Gods work? Also, every artist does this in some capacity, whether they choose to admit it or not.

This is true. Music is that way. Musicians are inspired by other peoples music, and in their writings are those inspirations. So they do copy others in that way. We still consider them artists.

Lula wrote:

tammy wrote:Do you know that there are "artists" who have literally used shit in their art work? I studied Art History & appreciate lots of different things, but not that, nor some of the other crap called "art" - when did a pile of old RVs & water heaters wired together become "art"? (this was an exhibit at a modern museum)...anyway, I see some of what you are saying. I wish Journey could have just stayed pure, like ending the ride in '98 instead of what it has become now.

LOL!! Nancy Rubins is the artist, the show was 'Helter Skelter' at MOCA. I worked on that exhibit. I didn't work on that particular installation, but on others. Those damn water heaters were around forever after the show was down.... complete pain in the ass!

Hahaha...I hope I didn't offend you. What did you do then - were you a curator? Don't tell me you worked on the 30 foot penis shared by two smurf-like men? Or the hunters in the forest - "the wood peckers"...lol.

Monker wrote:

TVL wrote:I'll simplify your point with my own. If I copy another artists work, is it my own?

Yes, it is. For some artists, art is an attempt to hold a mirror up to nature. Is it not the artists work even if he is copying Gods work? Also, every artist does this in some capacity, whether they choose to admit it or not.

Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision. An original creation can come from imagination, but you are correct that the interpretation STEMS from experience of ones surroundings and experiences...BUT, again...the way that I interpret and form it is my own creation. Hence an original composition.
...Monker you sure are a nitpicker

Monker wrote:

tammy wrote:Do you know that there are "artists" who have literally used shit in their art work?

Hey, now don't go critiquing South Park like that. They are definitely masters.

I need to watch South Park sometime.

TVL wrote: Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

This Art/Shit's getting deep!

Rick wrote:This Art/Shit's getting deep!

lol!

RockinDeano wrote:

TVL wrote: Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

RockinDeano wrote:

TVL wrote: Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

Sure, and that is called an impressionist. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that there are other artistic techniques, including my statement of 'holding a mirror up to nature'...which was the common painting style before impressionists came about.

It's ALL art, and one is not more 'art' than another.

The truth is that art is whatever a person considers art. Somebody else may not agree that it is, but if it is 'art' to you, then it is.

Well, OK, maybe if some guy named Art created some art then Art's art would be more 'art' then a non-Art guys art. But, that's a bit nit-picky to me.

Rick wrote:This Art/Shit's getting deep!

Monker wrote:

RockinDeano wrote:

TVL wrote: Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

Sure, and that is called an impressionist. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that there are other artistic techniques, including my statement of 'holding a mirror up to nature'...which was the common painting style before impressionists came about.

It's ALL art, and one is not more 'art' than another.

The truth is that art is whatever a person considers art. Somebody else may not agree that it is, but if it is 'art' to you, then it is.

Well, OK, maybe if some guy named Art created some art then Art's art would be more 'art' then a non-Art guys art. But, that's a bit nit-picky to me.

LOL!

RockinDeano wrote:Monker,

What colour bra and panty set you want for your b day?

Sorry, but my 'b day' has passed. However, you being wrong about every single prediction you made regarding the future of Journey, and me being right, was probably the best gift I could have received...Well, at least as it relates to this forum.

Monker wrote:

RockinDeano wrote:

TVL wrote: Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

Sure, and that is called an impressionist. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that there are other artistic techniques, including my statement of 'holding a mirror up to nature'...which was the common painting style before impressionists came about.

It's ALL art, and one is not more 'art' than another.

The truth is that art is whatever a person considers art. Somebody else may not agree that it is, but if it is 'art' to you, then it is.

Well, OK, maybe if some guy named Art created some art then Art's art would be more 'art' then a non-Art guys art. But, that's a bit nit-picky to me.

Da gone, Monker, I had to answer a call and here you are right back at it! ...ok...yes, of course, what one considers art may not be to another. I understand that you are a seeker of wisdom, experienced and know all things. Now you wish to discuss the many aspects of varying artistic techniques? Cool! What about surrealism or would you rather stick with realists as it is more supportive of your initial theory? What are the pro's and con's of modernistic techniques, in your opinion? How about discussing the Baroque period? What are your thoughts on the "black paintings" of Goya? If you dont have an opinion go ahead and BS your way thru. In that area is where your expertise really shines . Oh Monker, we could go on all night, you and I!

Monker wrote:

RockinDeano wrote:Monker,

What colour bra and panty set you want for your b day?

Sorry, but my 'b day' has passed. However, you being wrong about every single prediction you made regarding the future of Journey, and me being right, was probably the best gift I could have received...Well, at least as it relates to this forum.

Good point. i just relayed to the forum what neal had said. Technically I was wrong, but it did come from Neal's mouth. Sorry.

I have been wrong about everything, as you know.