goodhelmet Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 Queen still suck though. You're gone!!!!! ... as soon as I find out how t ban people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Before I die, I'm going to get more wrestling fans to admit that there is lots and lots of great music that doesn't have a hard rock edge, that synthesizers are a good thing, that pop that was made after the 1960s can be great, that songs by women are often awesome and that gay men have the best tastes in music, as even the bad stuff is good on a camp level. I'm stereotyping, I know, but pro wrestling's music sensibilities are too testosterone-driven and rock-centric sometimes. Sorry to take this off the beaten path. I should know better. classic rock is my absolute favorite but oh man do I adore cheesy 80s synth pop songs. Spandau Ballet, YES, Sheriff, Starship. Part of this has to do with my cousin babysitting me in the mid/late 80s and her watching MTV all day long. But to be honest I rather detest current pop stuff and haven't really been a fan of the genre any time past 1995 or so. does anyone else think of National Lampoon's European Vacation when "Some Like It Hot" plays? I think it's the scene where Rusty goes into the night club! Classic stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I would agree that wrestling went way too far into the direction of rock music. But the idea is to get the crowd pumped up to see a wrestler come out. Adrenaline-pumping rock music is a pretty likely candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I would agree that wrestling went way too far into the direction of rock music. But the idea is to get the crowd pumped up to see a wrestler come out. Adrenaline-pumping rock music is a pretty likely candidate. I smell a great topic about theme music brewing out of this. Was "Hot Stuff" a good choice for Eddie Gilbert in name only? Hmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Holy crap, my innocent (I thought) little pet peeve has been spun off into its own thread, with seven pages already. I don't mean to ignore any posts directed toward me (if there are any), but I just wanted to jump in with a quick little aside: I finished Dusty's book last night, and he talked about - of all people - Kevin Nash being one of the wrestlers who acted like money was the only thing important to him, but in reality, Nash actually cares about his overall performance (not Dusty's exact words, just the general gist of what he said). Now, the word "art" was never used, but still, Dusty's words do lend credence to the people here who say that most wrestlers aren't really in it for the money. Dusty was surprisingly high on Nash - talked about his incredible charisma, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I still don't follow why a wrestler saying that they only work for money has any bearing on this argument. Are you saying that money cannot be a motivating factor for producing "real" art? There's a long history of commissioned public art that would stand in opposition to that idea. Are you saying that working for money reveals that the wrestler has no intention of creating art and, thus, their matches can't be art? Setting aside that there's an entire school of thought that interprets art outside of authorial intent anyway, I would ask this: does calling something an "artform" require that every performance of that form be artful and/or highly intentioned? Nobody questions that music is an artform because there are cover bands out there performing other people's hits for money. Nobody questions that movies are an artform because there are people that make smut films for money (to hint back to another point from earlier). What makes pro wrestling any different than these situations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Cover band-type wrestlers are very often the most appreciated by the "smart fan" crowd when you think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedhemingway Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Before I die, I'm going to get more wrestling fans to admit that there is lots and lots of great music that doesn't have a hard rock edge, that synthesizers are a good thing, that pop that was made after the 1960s can be great, that songs by women are often awesome and that gay men have the best tastes in music, as even the bad stuff is good on a camp level. I'm stereotyping, I know, but pro wrestling's music sensibilities are too testosterone-driven and rock-centric sometimes. Sorry to take this off the beaten path. I should know better. #notallwrestlingfans Of course, I know I'm an outlier when my favorite genres are punk (particularly the LA scene) and EDM, so... 80s pop is best pop, though. As far as wrestling goes, I've always considered it performance art. If acting is art, I don't see how wrestling wouldn't be. Wether someone is doing it to make money, to express themselves, or the more common combination of the two doesn't really matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I still don't follow why a wrestler saying that they only work for money has any bearing on this argument. Are you saying that money cannot be a motivating factor for producing "real" art? There's a long history of commissioned public art that would stand in opposition to that idea. Nope. AGAIN I'll repeat (for the 10th time, it seems), I'm not saying that at all. Good artists can want to make millions and actually do it. Nothing wrong with that. Van Gogh could've been a millionaire (he wasn't) and he'd still be an artist. But 90% of the people in wrestling seem to have the mindset that it's all about making the most money you can (again, nothing wrong with that) and - here's why they're not artists - you're a "mark" if you're in it for any other reason. If the majority of "the business" treats it that way, then it stands to reason that "artistic merit" is way down the list of goals, if it's there at all. No, that doesn't mean wrestlers don't take pride in their work, don't want to have a good match, don't care, etc. But Hulk Hogan is considered the best worker in the business by many other wrestlers, why? Not because he knew a thousand moves and "created art." It's because he made the most money, drew the biggest houses, and everyone else benefited from being on the card with him. If a "starving artist" like Van Gogh was a wrestler, he'd be looked at with contempt. It's all about who drew the houses, made the most money, etc. There's a reason "vanilla midget" became a phrase behind-the-scenes. Malenko (or fill in the name of your favorite "vanilla midget") could tie Nash (or fill in the name of your favorite/least favorite "main eventer") into a thousand pretzels, but he didn't draw the money. Instead of being respected as an "artist," he was ridiculed for being "short and bland." That's the mindset most wrestlers and promoters seem to have. Nash's entire Hall of Fame speech was seemingly about what? Money, guaranteed contracts, yadda yadda. HBK's introduction, same thing. That's why Dusty's words about Nash surprised me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 But again that's true of any form of entertainment. Just replace "money drawn" with "records sold" or "box office." Do you really think producers in Hollywood look down with envy at some indie film with a shoe-string budget that did well at film festivals? Are record executives satisfied with critically acclaimed albums that don't sell? You're right that wrestlers are preoccupied with ticket gates and the houses they drew, especially when reminiscing about their careers, and that they seem more focused on the business than talking about their craft, but I don't think that's conclusive evidence that their craft isn't an art. Since wrestlers at least put some thought into what they do, what would you equate it to if not an art? I mean they actually do have to think about what they're doing to some degree rather than obsessing over ticket stubs all the time. What do you call the learned skill that is pro-wrestling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 What do you call the learned skill that is pro-wrestling? Crafts. Ok. Arts and crafts, if you really wish to push it down the "artistic" path. (really, this whole obsession about stuff having to be *Art* to be worthwhile or worth discussions and analysis is making me scratch my head.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Malenko (or fill in the name of your favorite "vanilla midget") could tie Nash (or fill in the name of your favorite/least favorite "main eventer") into a thousand pretzels, but he didn't draw the money. Instead of being respected as an "artist," he was ridiculed for being "short and bland."* Well, Dean Malenko was rather short and kinda bland. And to be honest, at this point, I wonder if I would not take Nash over Malenko as a worker anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Can't we just enjoy pro wrestling for what it is? One part (violent) sporting contest, one part theatre/pantomime, one part circus side show? The trouble we have here is that while most would call the theatre / pantomime "performance art", few people would call a sporting contest art or a freak show art. I'd rather just say "It's pro wrestling". I'm a gamer too -- these days much more board games than video games, but all the same I would rather call games "games" than art as well, but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Except that most people would correctly identify sport as theatre and side shows as spectacle. You can't really escape the fact that pro-wrestling is trying to elicit the same response as work we generally refer to art. The package just isn't as appealing in the same way that the soaps are just TV and the top twenty is disposable. It's low brow when it fancies us and transcendent when we want to write a glowing review. So our own treatment of it is inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Well, Dean Malenko was rather short and kinda bland. And to be honest, at this point, I wonder if I would not take Nash over Malenko as a worker anyway. Haha, yeah, that's why I offered to let the reader fill in his/her own favorite "vanilla midget." I was just too tired to think of a better example than Malenko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Can't we just enjoy pro wrestling for what it is? We all enjoy pro wrestling for what it is. We just don't agree on what exactly it is. One part (violent) sporting contest, one part theatre/pantomime, one part circus side show? No. The trouble we have here is that while most would call the theatre / pantomime "performance art", few people would call a sporting contest art or a freak show art. Pro wrestling is neither. I'd rather just say "It's pro wrestling". Defining pro wrestling as, say, a subgenre of performance art wouldn't affect this whatsoever. It would simply cease the preposterous idea that pro wrestling is something so unique it cannot be properly defined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRGoldman Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 So I worked in high level professional theatre for about a decade. National tours, New York, Regional Theater, you name it. I've always felt that the parallels between working in theatre and working in wrestling have been notable, and I guess can add to this conversation in some way. When you start working in theatre, and your goal is to be a professional actor/stage manager/director/whatever, everyone's goal first and foremost is to make a living or career out of it. There are constant new levels that people judge your success on; whether you are in the union, then if you have worked enough weeks to get health insurance, if you have to keep a consistent day job and so forth. I remember someone once telling me that the only true barometer of success in theatre is how often you can turn down work. It's a competitive business that forces people to work for less than they are worth and takes advantage of a complicit workforce. That being said, despite many (most?) of the people involved viewing theatre as a business first and foremost (because it is), I think that the finished product of a stage show would be considered art by most. Probably even by those involved. I guess what I'm driving at is that despite money and success being what drives people in theatre, that does not preclude them from trying to perform at a high level or feel as though they are contributing artistically. Something being a business and the finished product thereof being art are not mutually exclusive. I know others have driven home that point as well, but I thought the comparison might help in some way. If asked point blank if pro wrestling can be art, I think my answer would probably be "It can be", and my answer would be the same if pro wrestling was substituted for a great many things. I don't buy that some mediums are inherently more artistically valuable than pro wrestling, nor do I buy the argument that art can only be processed if it's in some sort of sacred space like a gallery. Art is not judged on permanence. It can take place in the moment, and resonate for short periods of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I broadly agree with that post above. Just don't try and sell me on the cloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 This is art... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LariatMMBOPPO Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Puking dog cloud is indeed the highest of arts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 I interpreted it as Proud Parent Dog carrying Baby Dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 I've seen too much of the internet to not interpret that differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 This cloud is porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 You're banned for promoting smut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 I do apologize for that WWECW thread. This promotion was dirty, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.