Karaoke Forums

Seems to be a snobbery vibe here about what is and what isn't art. People who think that they are artists in whatever field they create in always want to raise the bar for anyone else to be admitted to the "artist club". It's kind of like the way that band members look down their noses at karaoke singers. I've got two words for them....Carrie Underwood!....Heck!!! Two more....Clay Aiken. Daughtry is a very talented guy who had his own bands long before he ever decided to try out for American Idol, but without that karaoke show, he might very well still be an unknown local performer back in his home town. Karaoke can be CRAP and it can also be ART. If PHOTOGRAPHY(taking pictures, point and cllick) is ART, then getting up on a stage and nailing a song is just as much ART as that is.

Another analogy is in high school where Cheerleaders think that they deserve the LETTERS that they receive for their activity but they resent that the kids in the Marching Band receive LETTERS for their chosen activity. Cheerleaders think that what they do is a sport but what the Marching Band does isn't. They have Marching Band competitions and my son's Marching Band came in FIRST PLACE in his junior year in high school. I was always equally as proud of my Cheerleading daughter as I was of my Marching Band Saxophone playing son. I wonder if they give LETTERS out for the Chess Team???? :D

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :handshake: :handshake:

OK I'll play along.

Hmmm the emoticons don't seem to be working for me. ;c(


Jian edit: I just fix the emotion thing for you ; should work now.

Well, I know that we can all agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I think we all could agree as well that "art is in the eye of the beholder"?

And if we do agree to the preceding premises, then in discussing karaoke as an art form I suggest we ignore the opinions of KJ's and performers, and focus on the opinions of those in the audience (the beholders)!

With that understanding, I wonder about the following questions:

First Questions:
a. Does everyone who attends karaoke expect that every singer is going to be an artist?
b. Does everyone who goes to a concert expect to be entertained by an artist or group of artists?
c. Does everyone who goes to an art show expect to see the work of artists.
So, why would karaoke be an art form if many of those attending the event are not going with the purpose of experiencing or expecting to experience much if any artistry during their visit?

Second Questions:
a. If you go to karaoke and experience a true artist are you pleasantly surprised?
b. If you hear a true artist at a concert are you pleasantly surprised?
c. If you see a work of art that you like at an art show are you pleasantly surprised?
I don't believe anyone in situation "a" or "b" would be surprised, pleasantly or otherwise. But from my experience, most people are quite pleased and surprised when a real talent takes the stage at a karaoke show for the first time. And why would people be surprise to find an artist at a karaoke show if karaoke is considered to be an art?

Third Questions:
a. Are many people disappointed with their attendance at karaoke when no true artist has performed at the show?
b. Are there many attendees who are disappointed with a concert when the artist doesn't perform "up to snuff"?
c. Does it require that you like the "art" in order to define the creator of the art to be an "artist"? You can recognize art and not like it!
So, why would karaoke be an art if people can frequent a karaoke show and throughout the show never encounter what any attendee would consider to be an artist? Meanwhile, with absence of an artist, people still enjoy the karaoke experience?

First question of course the expectiation is different. Seeing a friend sing if they are "pretty good" you can be surprized (or even not as bad as you expected). You dont expect an oscar at a elementry school play but you get to see your kid perform (even if they are not very good it is special to you).

Going to see "art" is a combination of going to see "the best" and "the best that I can see live right here". I can certainly see better singers on the tv or Youtube than at karaoke (99.9999% of the time). Going to see a local show is a combination of seeing art and also community, and connecting with like minded people locally. Many people go to all kinds of "art" for other purposes, for example supporting friends, relatives or the local community. Others are just taking a chance they might see something they like, even if they see it as a slim chance. I go see bands performing locally, and to be honest I dislike 90% of them but the last 10% make it worth while.


Second question.

All (COMPLETLY) a matter of expectation.

If i see a friend or someone local put out a pretty good performance I enjoy it. For some I am not surprised, because I have seen them sing before. For others it can be a surprise if they do better than previously (even if they are not really good). Overall I expect some pretty good performances based on past experiences.

Now when I go to a concert, I know what to expect. I know a certain artist will be there. Sometimes I am disappointed because the show was not great, even though I like the artist, sometimes I am surprised if the artist does better than I expected. At an art show, again expectation. I go to a museum at a major city and I know what I am going to see, the top pieces are often already known to me or at least were on the advertizement. Sometimes I am disappointed when a famous artwork does not seem as exciting as the hype, other times I see a piece and I think it is better than the hype. On the other hand going to a local gallery without prior research is of course hit or miss.


Third question.
It all depends on the definition of true artist. If you want a singer who has a couple gold records, then most of the time expect disappointment at karaoke. (Although I have seen a couple). If you expect a singer that is plesent to listen to, then it all depends on your standards and the quality of singers the show attracts.

Now what is an artist? One definition is that they have been paid to perform at one time or another (in this case sing). At my show by that definition it may include as much as 1/3 of the singers. BUT those 1/3 are not necessaraly the best 1/3 of the singers. Another definition is that they live off of their singing (alone). Except for short periods few people can really make that claim. Admittedly many of the "paid" singers were members of former or current bands who may have earned 50-$100 a few times to play at a bar, or went "on tour" for a couple weeks.

Go watch "where are they now" on MTV and you can see that many "True Artist" can't support themselves on music alone.

People have been going to school plays for years without expecting Oscar level performances. Your local high-school football team would be a joke to a pro-football team, but they are still athletes, and people are watching sports when they see a local game.

Seing art performed locally by one's peers is special even if it is not good enough "Art" to make it onto the world stage.

Dr Fred @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:11 pm wrote:

First question of course the expectiation is different. Seeing a friend sing if they are "pretty good" you can be surprized (or even not as bad as you expected). You dont expect an oscar at a elementry school play but you get to see your kid perform (even if they are not very good it is special to you).

Going to see "art" is a combination of going to see "the best" and "the best that I can see live right here". I can certainly see better singers on the tv or Youtube than at karaoke (99.9999% of the time). Going to see a local show is a combination of seeing art and also community, and connecting with like minded people locally. Many people go to all kinds of "art" for other purposes, for example supporting friends, relatives or the local community. Others are just taking a chance they might see something they like, even if they see it as a slim chance. I go see bands performing locally, and to be honest I dislike 90% of them but the last 10% make it worth while.


Second question.

All (COMPLETLY) a matter of expectation.

If i see a friend or someone local put out a pretty good performance I enjoy it. For some I am not surprised, because I have seen them sing before. For others it can be a surprise if they do better than previously (even if they are not really good). Overall I expect some pretty good performances based on past experiences.

Now when I go to a concert, I know what to expect. I know a certain artist will be there. Sometimes I am disappointed because the show was not great, even though I like the artist, sometimes I am surprised if the artist does better than I expected. At an art show, again expectation. I go to a museum at a major city and I know what I am going to see, the top pieces are often already known to me or at least were on the advertizement. Sometimes I am disappointed when a famous artwork does not seem as exciting as the hype, other times I see a piece and I think it is better than the hype. On the other hand going to a local gallery without prior research is of course hit or miss.


Third question.
It all depends on the definition of true artist. If you want a singer who has a couple gold records, then most of the time expect disappointment at karaoke. (Although I have seen a couple). If you expect a singer that is plesent to listen to, then it all depends on your standards and the quality of singers the show attracts.

Now what is an artist? One definition is that they have been paid to perform at one time or another (in this case sing). At my show by that definition it may include as much as 1/3 of the singers. BUT those 1/3 are not necessaraly the best 1/3 of the singers. Another definition is that they live off of their singing (alone). Except for short periods few people can really make that claim. Admittedly many of the "paid" singers were members of former or current bands who may have earned 50-$100 a few times to play at a bar, or went "on tour" for a couple weeks.

Go watch "where are they now" on MTV and you can see that many "True Artist" can't support themselves on music alone.

People have been going to school plays for years without expecting Oscar level performances. Your local high-school football team would be a joke to a pro-football team, but they are still athletes, and people are watching sports when they see a local game.

Seing art performed locally by one's peers is special even if it is not good enough "Art" to make it onto the world stage.

Again, I propose that art is in the eye of the beholder. I never tried to define the quality of the art. For one, I never suggested that only "Oscar Level" performances are art. I never suggested that to be an artist one must make a certain amount of money or have a gold record. And there are plenty of starving artists.

If people believe what they are experiencing is art, whether they like the art or not, it is still art.

And MORE succinctly my last post was to consider the possibility that art is in fact defined somewhat by EXPECTATIONS. So in short, I wonder if the audience at a karaoke show believes that they go to karaoke shows to see art and that their expectation, typically, is fulfilled... show after show, performance after performance?

And if you don't believe that such an expectation exists for 90% or more of the typical karaoke audience, then I again ask you to consider if it would be appropriate to refer to karaoke as an art form? How can there be art when the by far overwhelming majority of people experiencing it don't consider it to be an art form? And I am not asking you if it is entertaining or enjoyable. Football is entertaining and enjoyable without being an art form!

Of course, there is no denying that in the mix of things one will on occasion find an artist that delivers a work of art. But in that context, please also consider that Bill Cosby proposed in one of his routines that if you take and infinite number of monkeys and provide them with an equal number of typewriters that eventually they would type all of the world's great books!

tovmod, I would disagree that football is not an art. From playing backyard football as a kid, and watching it on tv, there is very artful aspects to well thrown passes, over the head catches, and smooth tackles. Watching Joe Montana engineer another last minute "come from behind to win the game" was sheer artistic genius. Of course you can't forget the endzone dance which can also be artistic. There can be a lot of beauty in how the game is played.

With karaoke, you can get a different set of singers, and a different set of songs any night. That's like going to an art show, and not knowing who the painters are, or what subset of paintings they are going to show. You can't have a well defined set of expectations on going to such a show, but you can still have expectations. Some of the art might be more refined or less refined. Some will be blue ribbon quality, and some might be Pabst Blue Ribbon quality. But all of it has a unique, individual quality to it, and I think one can find artistry in all of it. Where else can you hear anywhere from 10 to 50 different human voices in one night?

One of my favorite renditions of Viva Las Vegas was done by two karaoke-ers I knew that were on their way to Las Vegas. There level of enthusiam was better than Elvis. They even threw in the roll of the dice moves. It was art!

I fully anticipated that someone would declare football to be an art. In response I'll suggest that some may prefer to call it a science. But all will agree that it is athletic and a sport. C'mon... the semantics of what "art" is can be twisted to no end!

And my main question, has yet to be responded: what do the masses EXPECT when they attend karaoke? Do most expect to experience art from show to show and from performer to performer? Or are most going to have a good time, and any art that might be experienced is just icing on the cake? And if most don't consider karaoke to be art and are not expecting to find much of any art at a karaoke show I would be hard pressed to call karaoke an art form. If, however, most people believe that they find art in most karaoke performances and that it is the exception when a performance at karaoke IS NOT ART, WELL THEN I WOULD AGREE THAT KARAOKE IS ART!

But most important, Seatle, if YOU consider Karaoke to be art, then it IS art! But, again, I am wondering what the typical audience considers karaoke to be, not just you and/or me?

It is noteworthy that just this morning I went to promote myself for a gig and the biggest concern that the manager had about karaoke is based upon his past experiences where customers who were not in attendance for the karaoke were quite vocal with their complaints about it. I assured him that through the proper use of my board and a singer's monitor I could minimize the reasons for such negative reactions!

People who don't attend karaoke because they hate it would definitely not call it art. They would probably make an art out of making fun of it.

People who attend karaoke regularly know it is more than bad singing. It is a builder of confidence or test of courage for some. It is drunken fun/fantasy fullfillment for others. Sometimes it's a comedy routine. It is an art form for delivering a fine performance for others. People who regularly attend karaoke know this and expect a bit of everything. It can't be defined one way or the other. It has as many definitions as there are people participating.

I don't think I have ever experienced a better expressed definition/explanation of what karaoke IS!

Yep, dang near nailed it!

Short, sweet and to the point perfect !

_________________
[shadow=pink][glow=deepskyblue]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[updown]~*~ MONKEY BUSINESS KARAOKE~*~ [/shadow][/updown][/glow]

oooh no --YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE ..How else will we be able to argue with you !!

Nice post !!!

Most people who sing karaoke dont think about the way they are singing...breath support..tone color...focus..placement. I was a vocal major in college and although I ve seen some very good singers come thru..nothing that I would call and art form

[quote="nothing that I would call and art form[/quote]

Clown College????

Never mind

_________________
[shadow=pink][glow=deepskyblue]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[updown]~*~ MONKEY BUSINESS KARAOKE~*~ [/shadow][/updown][/glow]

GREAT post Leopard, I don't think anyone has defined it better!!!!

Srnitynow