ITT: Directors and their musical equivalents.
Nolan = Radiohead. Pretty good at what they do, but often regarded as the second coming of avant-garde Jesus by people who don't really know any better.
nah i'd say bowie
they're both really mainstream, yet they're still hailed as artistically conscious by critics and art enthusiasts alike. also, both were active during the late 60s and 70s and both had a great variety within their art
Ingmar Bergman = Bob Dylan
Prolific, generally high quality output, several masterpieces but also a few duds, well known and respected among people at a certain level of interest in the corresponding art-form, particularly praised for their writing ability, highly influential, peaked in the '60s
Yeah I guess.
Welles was a bad choice though.
Kubrick is probably a better example. Accessible and mainstream yet still great. Varied in style too.
Alfred Hitchcock is probably the closest. Classic, respected, accessible and acclaimed.
Film works a little different than music though. The most acclaimed movies and directors are generally the best
I'd say Kubrick is Death Grips
Public opinion is kinda controversial, do what they want, content that's not exactly for the people all the time but still has a pretty large fanbase, and experimental enough to appeal to people who like that while remaining conventional to appeal to a large audience
>le octopus garden
I listen to more music than you fagtron
beatles a shit///im listening to power electronics right now just listened to pete swanson
Pete Swanson = 10.10
I HAVE BETTER MUSIC AND FILM TASTE THAN YOU
I probably have more music in my library than you. it's cute that you think you're better than me
yeah cuz hating both of those hacks is plebish. I know I'm patrician. I really like generative noise music and actually MAKE EAI
Do you even have a band?
Though so faggot.
Nah, I think Tarantino's more similar to Kanye.
Egotistical artist who sees themselves as some kind of god in their craft, but really don't do anything new with the genre.
Everyone has been saying this for a while.
That comparison works on literally zero levels
It's pretty obvious you just wanted to call the Beatles and Woody Allen shit
What's the point of posting if you're not even going to think about what you're saying? The fun is making an accurate comparison
Edgar Wright = Panda Bear
>Self aware and funny, kind of gimmicky but in a charming way
>Both don't really seem to deviate from their styles, their contributions are usually kind of repetitive
>Long list of frequent collaborators, however they both have core people that they are most known for working with (AnCo, Frost and Pegg)
>Both have a whimsicality and surrealness in their work
>Similar popularity: Neither are huge stars but if you know anything about music or cinematography then you know them
>Spaced = STGSTV. Came out the same time, mostly known for being the first instance of collaboration between parties (Wright, Pegg, and Frost/Avey Tare and Panda Bear)
>Shaun of the Dead = Sung Tongs. Both came out in 2004 and were many people's first exposure
> Hot Fuzz = Strawberry Jam, both came out in 2007. Considered by many to be their best work although die hards might go for something more obscure
> The World's End = Centipede Hz. The end of an era but a piece of art that ultimately falls short of it's predecessors. Many felt that this movie/album was a bit too dark and hectic compared to Wright's/Noah's previous output.
not really, Radiohead is way better at what they do than Nolan at what he does (not saying he's bad though). I would say Radiohead = Paul Thomas Anderson. Also, Steven Spielberg = The Beatles, Martin Scorsese = The Rolling Stones, Kubrick = ?
scorsese is really hard, but i think you could give lou reed that place
both have made inventions on several different kinds of genres over a long time period and both have always despite being popular looked into more unfamiliar scenes
No reason that I can imagine being particularly convincing, I think the atmosphere (bleak and glacial) of the 2 is fairly similar (No One Is There came to mind in particular). I've only seen Cries and Whispers, Wild Strawberries, Seventh Seal, From The Life Of The Marionettes & Persona though.
I agree with Paul Thomas Anderson=Radiohead, not just with the Jonny Greenwood connection. Both were derivative but great in the beginning. Early Radiohead is very much standard alt rock, and early PTA is very Scorcese, but both discovered their voice in auteurism: Radiohead with OK Computer and I would argue PTA with Punch Drunk Love.
JJ Abrams is St. Vincent
Pretty conventional but interesting enough to be liked by a lot of people. Has some shitty work here and there, but pretty much well liked, even if he's not everyone's favorite
That was my thought process. Both started good, but with obvious inspirations and not very different than other artists at the moment (Sidney and Pablo Honey). Then, for both of them, their second work was great and they started finding their own style (Boogie Nights and The Bends). Then, the third time around, they finally defined their own style and made something truly unique (OK Computer and Magnolia), which can be considered the best work from both (there is also Kid A and There Will Be Blood).
It's not all about quality though (I agree, Scorsese is way better), but their both classics from the 70s. But know that I think about it, I think The Doors are a better equivalent (great mainstream movies and music, while still being artistic, innovative, and interesting)
That's fair enough, I guess, an atmospheric connection is as good a reason as any
I think I'll stick with Dylan though, if for no other reason than because Bergman is my fav director and Dylan is one of my fav musicians
>dropped one masterpiece
Nigga you best be talking about Unbreakable
eh, I dont think Kubrick requires nearly as much effort to grasp. Maybe to appreciate fully. Plus Beekheart compromised his vision later in his career and Kubrick remained true to his work to the end.
If you compare 2001 to let's say say full metal jacket i think you can see that kubrick took a different attempt there and made the movies more accessible to more people, while 2001 still is very inaccessible, at least as much as TMR
no waaay wea anderson is vampire weekend, they both dedicated their careers to cuteness. AnCo could be apichatpong maybe?
I'm feeling Danny Brown
Besides the obvious "lel they're both black" thing, they're both relatively new faces, neither of them have done very much yet, they've both already dropped a masterpiece (XXX/Hunger) even though they've yet to realize their full potential, they're both likely to be remembered as legends in a few decades (assuming they keep up the same standard of work/devotion to the craft that they're currently operating on)
Are you fucking retarded? Welles was anti-establishment, a theater guy that came to the film industry and did his own thing. Beatles fucking rode on the 2-3 minute pop song hypetrain.
>Quentin Tarantino=Kanye West
Mix-mash of shit that's already been done but done in an over-the-top tongue-in-cheek type of way. Hated by people who generally hate mainstream anything, but overall pretty interesting works.
>Refn - Johnny Jewel
Light and fluffy on the surface, very dark and disturbing below
>Noé - Coil
Extremely dark explorations of sexuality and violence
>John Waters - Jandek
>Takashi Miike - Death Grips
Violent, hypermasculine, amoral, but humorous
>Sofia Coppola - Slowdive
Bittersweet loneliness, very "big" feel
>Harmony Korine (early) - Neil Young
WTF, drugs, sadness, rural existence
>Harmony Korine (later) - Throbbing Gristle OR Skrillex
Violence, horror, sex, pleasure, power, anomie
Eh, I wouldn't say he compromised his art to make Full Metal Jacket, it is more accessible sure, but that is only because it is an entirely different type of movie. Look at Eyes Wide Shut, are you calling that accessible?
How come movies are often better know as their directors, but albums are generally lesser know as their artists?