|
Post by Beck on Jul 12, 2010 9:36:16 GMT 10
When going to a concert or when listening to music do you prefer raw talent or are you more interested in the entertainment value of an act? Which bands or singers come to mind when you think of someone with pure talent and which come to mind when you think of Entertainer rather than talented?
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Jul 12, 2010 11:08:02 GMT 10
Talent by far. I wouldn't go to a show if I didn't think the performer was talented. If I just wanted entertainment, I would YouTube it or watch it on TV. Tool was pure talent. They do not put on shows for entertainment value. In fact, Maynard James Keenan, the lead singer, pretty much sat in the shadows the whole show. The bass and guitarist stayed on their end of the stage and just played. It was the best show I've ever been to because of the talent. They did have a cool light show though. I feel like pop stars like Britney Spears would be a show to go to for entertainment, not talent.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 12, 2010 11:59:21 GMT 10
Singers like Spears and Lady Gaga will go for the entertainment value.
I would personally go for talent. Added bonus if that band/singer is entertainment as well. But I would prefer a strip down, acoustic show than those big fancy shows.
One artist that comes to mind that does talent and entertainment well in her shows would be Pink.
Pfft! Of course you would, Irene. I LOVE entertainment so I'll go and see it purely for that. The bigger the better. Fireworks, laser light shows, singers flying through the air...the experience would be more worth it if it had all of that.
|
|
|
Post by Bre on Jul 12, 2010 13:44:06 GMT 10
Well I think Gaga would be both entertainment and talent. Her songs might not be poetry, but she has a good voice. But I do think a lot of people would go to her show just for the entertainment. Personally, I'd go for the fun and to hear her sing live.
|
|