My beliefs on MUSICIANS ARE NOT ARTISTS

[LagrangeCalvert]

Now before all you you start to beat me up over this...please read my post. Its a forum and I want to see if there are any like minded people in this interwebs!

Here is my view on this.......

To me the difference in a musician and an artist(not a visual artist...someone who plays an instrument) is originality and creativity....talent only plays a small roll in my eyes.

Examples: Robert Rennnnnnnnmannnnn has been playing the guitar for 300years a DAY <--thats a lot....can do almost anything on the guitar but only plays covers.....MONEY can have something to do with it....but so can creativity. Just because you have talent doesn't make you an artist.

SpuuuuuuuudMen Square Wave have been playing three picoseconds a century and knows some good licks...can play a little cover songs but writes his own stuff...plays coffee shops and bars sometimes.

In my book Mr.Potato Head is an Artist.......simply put

Roberto "rico suave" Rennnnnman is a musician....

Before you put me on burn notice....lets think about this

First off this is NOT a shot at people who play in cover bands, anyone in here, or play "bar music" - and I use this term loosely. Great bands have covered other artist...thats not my point and its a moot one right now.

Its easier to just play covers...just learn other peoples licks, just listen to/play your favorite bands. Its great to have influences idols and mentors...these humans will help mold your style. Come up with a sound of your own AND write your own music....then your an artist in my eyes.

Heres my only other example......and listen good

Sal the pig loves art (visual) and goes to school (or practices...w/e Im trying to relate stuff).....shes a huge fan of H.R. Giger...and a few other artist. She decides that shes gonna make copies of their paintings....and display them in a gallery (play a show at a bar....coffee shop or w/e) for everyone to come in.

:thwap:

What in the holy crap of dung piles is this?.....you NEVER hear of this in visual art. Sooooo how is this any different than the situation I talked about with covers and original music...IMHO its not.


Creative Production of Original music equates to being an Artist.
Uncreative duplication of Music not belonging to you....and you never write your own music.....your just another musician to me.

NOW...if your still in the learning period or just play for a hobby....your still a musician NOT and artist . If you think I'm arrogant - I'm not - this is just my opinion and I wanted to see what opinions were.

My flame suit is on....and I'm waiting!

[Spudman]

Dude, if you have any more of that for sale I'll take a bit. It must be really good stuff. Ahem, the kind that artists like. :beer:

I agree that there is a difference between artist and musician. God knows I've run into many of each in my day, but both can exist within the same human suit. Just because you see only one side don't assume that there isn't another side.

I think basically you have an interesting insight and many may not voice this same observation. Very brave and I hope the others respect you for this.

That said, I think you intend to imply that one is not better than the other. They are just two different yet similar things. :AOK:

[LagrangeCalvert]

No...one is not better than the other....its a schism that some people deal with themselves. Im not saying one is better than the other....talent IS what people can argue what people are better over. This is a matter of accomplishment to me and Originals>Covers IMHO.I just see talent go to waste on COVERS....of all things. Come up with original music PLEEESE! Its a waste to me unless your just that uncreative.

Actually I do think players who do not and cannot play their own music aren't on the same level....its not arrogant you gotta believe me, I just so many talented people cave and play covers....or they can't play anything that sounds original...SO if anyone of you think I'm aloof, arrogant or just a snob...I challenge any of you to take a look at my myspace page...contact me through a PM please. I cherish music...listening to, forum'ing about it, and writing it (co writing with new people is my ultimate rush)......

[DaveO]

I always like playing covers but can only play with people who are not anal about getting every note just like the recorded version. I never play just like the recorded version. I'm me and not player X. I love original music and the bands that play alot of it. I'm one of those guys who likes a bar band to play original music. I think it had something to do with playing an instrument. Maybe I just can't play well enough to play like the record. I always though it took a little extra to go out there with your music and your lyrics and your emotion. Then again maybe I'm wrong and a crappy player who uses that as an excuse to play the songs my way. :rolleyes:
Dave

[Jimi75]

This is an interesting thread and it is very courages of you to write in such an open hearted way.

We had a similar discussion in our circle of friends, where there were poeple who covered and people who made music on their own. I think it is a personal decision if you like to cover or not. I never really enjoyed it, until I met a female singer who convinced me to found a duo and to do jazzy versions of some pop songs. At this point my opinion started to change. It is not what you play, it is how you play it and how much passion you put into it. you can make another ones song completely your own. Want an example? Dylan's "All along the watchtower" by Hendrix.

I believe that one can only judge someone an artist when you know how he or she feels inside. I love poeple who share their abilities. like Robert and dozens of other people here do. Art is sharing and sharing is communicating.

If this is also valid for the guy that plays a wedding to get some bucks aside is another thing, but also here one should be careful - the wedding player is entertaining poeple and evoking emotions with some songs, also here a way of communication takes place, which is vice versa ART!

My opinion on covering has completely changed after I visited some classical concerts. I thought those guys would just play the notes and get some good money. Studied monkey or idiots.
Hell, was I wrong when I recognized that I was touched by the music and had tears in my eyes when the first violinist put so much soul into the solo that I could feel it!!!!

Calling someone an artist has something to do with respect. You properbly know pictures of guys that look like my 5 year old son had drawn them. So what - ART starts where exactly those guys identify with what they do and present it to an audience or watchers.

Rock on dude!
:Dude:

[DaveO]

Maybe it's that you can teach anyone to play the notes. But only a few can play the music.
Dave

[tot_Ou_tard]

Jimi brings up a good point with regard to classical musicians. Most of them do not compose, they play covers, really old covers. Sure it's techinally challenging, but it also takes a special (yes) artist to convey delicacy and power, joy & sorrow, and to move others.

There are those who only write or compose, and play very poorly.

The composing and playing are two different, but related skills.

Now Rock, pop, blues, & what have you is much easier on the composer than classical music is, so it is much easier to be a player-songwriter. But the two skill sets are not equivalent, and there is room in the artistic community for them to exist in separate bodies as well as in the same one.

I'd love to be a musician, even more I'd love to be able to write & play my own stuff, but as of now, I'm completely happy being a wanker trying to get familiar with the fretboard.

[Robert]

Hmm, I have to say I think you are completely wrong about your statements about me. First, I don't practice and play that much, I have a family and a lot of other commitments. I don't have visions of touring with my own band playing my own music. That is not possible for me, my life isn't set up that way.

Second, saying I only play covers is completely wrong. I do write songs, and I have a few under way for my friend Myra to sing for me. I wrote songs for my bands when I was 18, so this is nothing new.

I don't care if you call me artist or musician - I am a guitar player who loves to play, create, improvise, and if people like what I do - fine, but if they don't , that's fine too.

If you want to talk about creativeness - think about someone who is a good improviser. That is being creative, I'd say.

By the way, I'd call Spud a musician any day! :)

[tot_Ou_tard]

Yes, improvosation is a very delightful method of artistic expression!

[Spudman]

By the way, I'd call Spud a musician any day! :)

My good man. How can you say that about me? I'm not a 'musician'...I'm a 'guitar collector.' :AOK: lol

[Bloozcat]

Boy, this is a tough one...

It's true that an artist is a creative master in his field, while an artisan is a craftman who is skilled at performing in a given style. Out of the pool of all musicians out there, the number of true artists has to be a relatively small percentage of that number. Genius is not a common thing.

Does that mean that anyone who falls short of creative artistry or creative genius is merely an imitator of limited or perhaps only mechanical skills? I can't agree with that. Using the example of a highly skilled classical musician like a Yitzak Pearlman or a Yoyo Ma, it's pretty obvious that they are remarkably talented. There are thousands of musicans who strive their whole lives to become that good and never reach that level of skill. So, does it mean that because they don't do any original work that their skill as musicians is somehow diminished? Sorry, I can't buy that.

Let's look at another example that's closer to what we do. Because Stevie Ray Vaughan covered a lot of old blues standards did that make him a mere cover artist? All the old blues men agree that what they do comes from what's already been done with each artist adding his own interpretations to it. Sure, all these guys did create their own music as well, but was it totally original? Not hardly. It was and is a progression of everything that's been done before.

Now, if we want to find a clear division between talent and wanna be talent, I think the pop music world gives us all of the examples we need. I don't care how much money she's made, and how popular she's been with the teenie boppers, Brittany Spears is a no talent hack who can't even sing without a lot of studio equipment to make it appear that she can. The same can be said of the myriad of made up "artists" that the so-called "music industry" has foisted upon a gullible and non-discerning public. I'm not particularly enamored with the performers out there who were born with the God given ability to sing and by virtue of that, consider themselves to be artists because they can reproduce other peoples work. I'm sorry, they might be great singers, but they're not artists IMHO. If I had been born with the ability to play a guitar really well, how much of that could I really claim as my achievement? Yeah, I like to listen to great singers with great voices as much as the next guy, but even if they've worked at developing their voices over the years, it's still an inate talent for which they can claim little responsibility.

[Justaguyin_nc]

I just love dots.....can't help it.. thats an artistic expression.
anyways...

Musician...Artist...Guitarist..it's all the same to me..
Anyone that actually plays a guitar has created something on their own at one time or the other.
Even if Unknowingly..
Adding a bend or note to a cover... deciding the playset for the night.
it's all a creative, artistic expression.

The person that does all original music has been influenced by other music
one way or another, so in reality is just playing covers in a different way.
All those original sounds...
well, I believe they all been heard before in other ways.

To me if you pickup a guitar and ummm learn to play.. your a Guitarist more than anything.

I would assume most if not all those here would rather be called a Guitar Player than Musician or Artist..
Except spuds who collects guitars..:)

In the end..its the recieving subject that will decide if the current person playing the guitar is one of the above..
its not up to the person holding the guitar.

I kinda favor growing into a Musician though.. with right cause..

http://home.comcast.net/~jaysmith/musicians.jpg

[marnold]

I guess I would just ask, "And your point is what, exactly?" Is there some benefit to this discussion? It seems like a rehash of an earlier flame war where it was proposed that someone with a Squier '51 and an AD30VT would only be capable of producing noise, not music. It strikes me as an argument about words and not much else.

[Justaguyin_nc]

I don't think it was meant as a point... more of a discussion.. for those wishing to join in or not.. anything that sparks thought.. creates wisdom..

or fires... depending on your geographical location and mind set at the time..:)

[duhvoodooman]

I guess I tend to agree with Marnold's comments here, in that I find little value in drawing the distinction between an "artist" and a "musician" in the first place. Categorizing people and their efforts, for whatever reason, is a shaky endeavor to begin with, and becomes even more problematic when dealing with subjective terms such as these. However, in the spirit of open discussion:

In taking a quick look at some definitions of the word "artist", I came across this one, which seemed to ring true to me:


Artist: a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination

This definition leaves room for those who create new works from scratch or who interpret the work of others. As Bloozcat alludes to, anybody who has seen a world class musician like Itzhak Perlman realizes that the man is most certainly an artist, with that artistry coming through his marvelous interpretive skills in playing the music of others. Sensitivity and imagination? By the truckload!! The same point could be made of Hendrix playing Dylan (as mentioned above), or SRV playing Hendrix/Albert King/T-Bone Walker/Freddy King/etc. Or Robert Renman, whose guitar playing--whether on cover tunes or his own original material--displays the elements of artistry as well.

[just strum]

I guess I would just ask, "And your point is what, exactly?" Is there some benefit to this discussion? It seems like a rehash of an earlier flame war where it was proposed that someone with a Squier '51 and an AD30VT would only be capable of producing noise, not music. It strikes me as an argument about words and not much else.

I think the definition is up to the person making the distinction, at times it's a judgment call.

I look forward to the day just to be called a guitarist. Right now I am what Spud referred to, a guitar collector.

You guys have or had flame outs around here? This is one of the few forums I've been in where opinion is respected and people aren't calling each other... Well you know all the words.

[tot_Ou_tard]

You guys have or had flame outs around here? This is one of the few forums I've been in where opinion is respected and people aren't calling each other... Well you know all the words. I wasn't around during the '51 flame war that Marnold mentions so that must've been two years ago.

We did have an awkward period about 16 months ago, but it wasn't a flame war, & it passed just fine.

Nelskie left in a huff & I wish that he'd come back.

But other than those few hiccups, it's been an incredibly genial place: fun & and informative; with a great comaraderie.

...& if you say *anything* different, then you're just a g*d-d@mned, b@nkety-blank, id!ot...:D ;) :D

[t_ross33]

This topic certainly has the potential to be flameworthy as it touches on one's belief and view of themselves. Not necessarily a bad topic, a little introspection never hurt anyone, but we must be mindful to keep things respectful in our writings :beer: THIS forum is very different from others I've frequented in that respect and I hope it stays that way.

That being said, :reallymad: :mad: :flamemad: :spank: :whatever:

KIDDING! Just kidding!

I do write some, not much anymore but it's something I want to do more of. But I do feel like an artist in that I'm using the medium of music to express myself, even if I'm just rawking out to a cover of someone else's song. I'm giving a performance and putting myself out there for critism. I may not be ripping my chest open, baring my soul and scattering the guts of my innermost feelings on the floor for everyone to dig through, but I am engaging myself through a specific medium, music.

Art is a very subjective thing. One man's junk is another man's treasure. So at the end of the day, this whole discussion my be moot.

Play nice kids.

Trev

[LagrangeCalvert]

Hmm, I have to say I think you are completely wrong about your statements about me. First, I don't practice and play that much, I have a family and a lot of other commitments. I don't have visions of touring with my own band playing my own music. That is not possible for me, my life isn't set up that way.

Second, saying I only play covers is completely wrong. I do write songs, and I have a few under way for my friend Myra to sing for me. I wrote songs for my bands when I was 18, so this is nothing new.

I don't care if you call me artist or musician - I am a guitar player who loves to play, create, improvise, and if people like what I do - fine, but if they don't , that's fine too.

If you want to talk about creativeness - think about someone who is a good improviser. That is being creative, I'd say.

By the way, I'd call Spud a musician any day! :)


Robert my friend...I was just using names for the sake of laughter so It felt light hearted....if I offended anyone in here I am very sorry.

[LagrangeCalvert]

I guess I would just ask, "And your point is what, exactly?" Is there some benefit to this discussion? It seems like a rehash of an earlier flame war where it was proposed that someone with a Squier '51 and an AD30VT would only be capable of producing noise, not music. It strikes me as an argument about words and not much else.


A thought provoking discussion was and IS my point, not to get under anyone's skin and deff. not to make anyone mad! I refer to one of my other posts in this forum that the fret dot net is the only music forum I spend time in cause of the crowd in here...there is accountability even though its the internet, unlike many forums where people say and do anything because of lack of physical space to the person their directing anger/love or w/e emotion towards. That being said your all my friends and I didn't mean to step on anyones toes! I digress.

This to me is more than an argument of words or a moot point. Can you consider someone who takes someone else's work and copies it an artist....yes and no...there is a HUUUUUUUUUGE gray area here. Listen to SRV play little wing....its a cover but its also more than that....but go down to the bar and listen to a top 40's band hack out covers....thats just being a juke box to me, no originality except on solo's where it is improv. IMHO its weather or not you have an original thought on your fretboard that someone else hasn't written for you; weather you play it different than them or not...its like spit shining a turd...its still a turd at the end of the day!

My point is talent doesn't always and isn't the determining factor of self expression/art.

Thank you all for different views, that was another reason I started this thread - to see where people stand....weather they feel were just using words to argue :crazyguy: or weapons of mass destruction! :whatever: At the end of the day IMO there is a difference...

[helliott]

There's a whole lot of intelligent and thoughtful commentary here. I can't add much. It does occur though, that whatever you call us, we're makin music, not mayhem. That's gotta count for something.
It's great that this didn't descend into a flame fest. Says a lot for the people involved.

[sunvalleylaw]

My profession is the use of words. I note that not because it makes my opinion valuable in any way, but explains my wordy reply. This question as posed can raise some interesting questions and discussions, but so much stems from how each person entering the discussion defines "Artist" and "Musician". Cultural and language differences play a role, as do one's experiences. I think posing a question for discussion can be useful, and some really interesting points were made. Bold move making such a statement and opening the thread. I am glad to see our forum was strong enough so far to discuss in a respectful way, and that no one reacted to the strong position statement too badly.

My opinion: I agree that whatever the genre of music, a musician can achieve art through even cover pieces, whether it be "Little Wing", "All Along the Watchtower" or "The Four Seasons". Therefore, my opinion is that the terms "musician" and "artist" are not mutually exclusive. (I can see the overlapping circles from 9th grade logic class in my head right now. LOL!) I also like DVM's definition he pulled. "Artist: a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination" I think clergyman, finish carpenters (and other artisans), doctors, chefs, homebrewers and maybe even lawyers can fit that definition. LagranceC, you may be drawing those circles a little closer than I do. But, by your post referencing "Little Wing" I think you acknowlege that the circles intersect.

As for where I am, I will make my stand with tot Ou tard for now:

"I'd love to be a musician, even more I'd love to be able to write & play my own stuff, but as of now, I'm completely happy being a wanker trying to get familiar with the fretboard."

I aspire to becoming a musican, and an artist, as soon as I can. :) :beer:

[Algonquin]

And I'm striving to become the kind of person my dog thinks I am.

'That's all I have to say about that.'

[R_of_G]

So is this the right or the wrong time in this thread to ask whether you guys think that art is in the process or the product? To me, it's in the process, at least as far as for the artist. Once the playing is done, it's up to the "audience" to determine what is and what isn't "art" and as we know, that's about as subjective a decision as can be made.

[duhvoodooman]

And I'm striving to become the kind of person my dog thinks I am.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

If you made that up, your definitely an artist. If you merely repeated it, apparently you're a musician....but a funny one! ;) :D

[sunvalleylaw]

So is this the right or the wrong time in this thread to ask whether you guys think that art is in the process or the product? To me, it's in the process, at least as far as for the artist. Once the playing is done, it's up to the "audience" to determine what is and what isn't "art" and as we know, that's about as subjective a decision as can be made.

Right time far as I am concerned. I vote process. The product comes from that, and the process makes all the difference.

[pes_laul]

I always like playing covers but can only play with people who are not anal about getting every note just like the recorded version. I never play just like the recorded version. I'm me and not player X. I love original music and the bands that play alot of it. I'm one of those guys who likes a bar band to play original music. I think it had something to do with playing an instrument. Maybe I just can't play well enough to play like the record. I always though it took a little extra to go out there with your music and your lyrics and your emotion. Then again maybe I'm wrong and a crappy player who uses that as an excuse to play the songs my way. :rolleyes:
Dave
I know what your saying when i play covers i dont try to get the exact same tone and stuff and i like to play a improvised solo there are some covers i like though like guns N roses knocking on heavins door

[Spudman]

Boy, this is a tough one...

It's true that an artist is a creative master in his field, while an artisan is a craftman who is skilled at performing in a given style. Out of the pool of all musicians out there, the number of true artists has to be a relatively small percentage of that number. Genius is not a common thing.

Does that mean that anyone who falls short of creative artistry or creative genius is merely an imitator of limited or perhaps only mechanical skills? I can't agree with that. Using the example of a highly skilled classical musician like a Yitzak Pearlman or a Yoyo Ma, it's pretty obvious that they are remarkably talented. There are thousands of musicans who strive their whole lives to become that good and never reach that level of skill. So, does it mean that because they don't do any original work that their skill as musicians is somehow diminished? Sorry, I can't buy that.

Let's look at another example that's closer to what we do. Because Stevie Ray Vaughan covered a lot of old blues standards did that make him a mere cover artist? All the old blues men agree that what they do comes from what's already been done with each artist adding his own interpretations to it. Sure, all these guys did create their own music as well, but was it totally original? Not hardly. It was and is a progression of everything that's been done before.

Now, if we want to find a clear division between talent and wanna be talent, I think the pop music world gives us all of the examples we need. I don't care how much money she's made, and how popular she's been with the teenie boppers, Brittany Spears is a no talent hack who can't even sing without a lot of studio equipment to make it appear that she can. The same can be said of the myriad of made up "artists" that the so-called "music industry" has foisted upon a gullible and non-discerning public. I'm not particularly enamored with the performers out there who were born with the God given ability to sing and by virtue of that, consider themselves to be artists because they can reproduce other peoples work. I'm sorry, they might be great singers, but they're not artists IMHO. If I had been born with the ability to play a guitar really well, how much of that could I really claim as my achievement? Yeah, I like to listen to great singers with great voices as much as the next guy, but even if they've worked at developing their voices over the years, it's still an inate talent for which they can claim little responsibility.

This seems a little self contradictory. On one hand you elevate instrument players to a high status yet on the other hand reduce singers to a low level. What's the difference? A voice is an instrument too. Maybe you have another way to say your point?:confused:

[Spudman]

Anyone that actually plays a guitar has created something on their own at one time or the other.


This is similar to a monkey with a typewriter.


To me if you pickup a guitar and ummm learn to play.. your a Guitarist more than anything.


I offer Beck (not Jeff Beck) as an example how this may not be true. While he knows how to play guitar I would not put him in the same category as those that make their living as "guitarists" IE. Steve Morse, Alan Holdsworth, Steve Hacket etc. I would describe Beck as an artist and musician. He is an artist that when he is playing guitar is then a guitarist. When he is playing piano he is then a pianist, but neither in the true sense of the word. He is both at the same time.

[Spudman]

And I'm striving to become the kind of person my dog thinks I am.



You already are.:)

[Justaguyin_nc]

This is similar to a monkey with a typewriter.

Hey, I try hard on that typewriter! Ummm Guitar!!.. it's my level..:rotflmao:




I offer Beck (not Jeff Beck) as an example how this may not be true. While he knows how to play guitar I would not put him in the same category as those that make their living as "guitarists" IE. Steve Morse, Alan Holdsworth, Steve Hacket etc. I would describe Beck as an artist and musician. He is an artist that when he is playing guitar is then a guitarist. When he is playing piano he is then a pianist, but neither in the true sense of the word. He is both at the same time.

That is personal choice..and then its back to the person listening who decides if its art or music..

My personal choice would put him as a great guitarist..

[Spudman]

LC brought up a really good observation here. It makes me question my own validity and maybe the reason he brought this up is that because he is questioning his own 'label.'

I've worked with guys that were incredibly creative that couldn't copy anyone elses music to save their life, but could only play their instrument with mastery as long as it was their own music they were playing. What does this make them?

I've also worked with professionals that could play, copy and bring you to your feet with the emotion they put in their playing, but couldn't write a song to save their lives. What does this make them?

The answer to both questions is...human.

As we endeavor to master our instruments and ourselves we become anything we can call ourselves at any time yet always remain human. And it is human for all of us to have a different opinion of what each word means to us. At this point in time you may believe that artist means X and musician means Y. The great thing about being human is that this can change at any time.

A good point for this thread may be not to debate the words, but to look inside ourselves and examine what each word means to us NOW then watch what it means as we think about artists and musicians in the coming months and years...and then see what those words mean to us...humans. :)

[DaveO]

Let us bow in reverence to the Spudman. Look inside-know who you are-smile-begin improvement.
Dave

[LagrangeCalvert]

LC brought up a really good observation here. It makes me question my own validity and maybe the reason he brought this up is that because he is questioning his own 'label.'

yes I do question it....I try to be as thoughtful of myself as I am of others.



I've worked with guys that were incredibly creative that couldn't copy anyone elses music to save their life, but could only play their instrument with mastery as long as it was their own music they were playing. What does this make them?

The stated above to me is an artist!




I've also worked with professionals that could play, copy and bring you to your feet with the emotion they put in their playing, but couldn't write a song to save their lives. What does this make them?
:)


the stated above IMHO is a musician...not an artist...as I stated before talent does not define creativity/artist status.

[Spudman]

So...LC...how do you see yourself?:)

[LagrangeCalvert]

So...LC...how do you see yourself?:)


An artist...but that wasn't always the case. I am only 25 years old...and this December I will have been playing 20 years.....I know it sounds insane. For the first 12 years I have been playing I wasn't an artist...I was a musician in the very sense of it....I would play covers and do nothing but play other peoples stuff....but for the last 7 1/2 I have been an artist...I have over 30 acoustic tunes that I play coffee shoppes with (my favorite coffee shope in the cincy area is "Zen & Now")...written some beats for the rap artist Lanier and a couple artist on 513 ent. (local rap only label) as well as let them sample some of my music , I play/host an open blues Jam every tuesday, play in an all original band that does COVER :D three songs (that we make our own) and has 60 mins. of stuff. I teach part time at The Music Shoppe, and help luth guitars with Doug frey of Dmara guitars. I also am a founding memeber of cincypunk.org (which I have NO part in now:reallymad: :puke: ) and was also a founding member and sole writer of the songs for the pop/punk band On Side Red (who broke up in 02)...I also played for a short bit in two other original only bands called Grass stain (90' grunge sound) AND a post hardcore band called Exit 7. I have also had the honor of sharing the stage with Lauren Dragon/Shorty Bess <~~ Shirley Kings drummer (B.B.'s Daughter) and Dennis Williams (local blues legend).

Spud.....what do you consider yourself?

[Spudman]

Spud.....what do you consider yourself?

Tired. I'm going to bed. :)

[LagrangeCalvert]

Tired. I'm going to bed. :)
AWWWWWW

you live two times zones away from mee....its One o'clock here....that means its only 11 there....oh...and artists don't have day jobs:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


Dont make me wait!

[tot_Ou_tard]

I may not be ripping my chest open, baring my soul and scattering the guts of my innermost feelings on the floor for everyone to dig through, That's not art, that's divination & you only get to predict the fates *ONCE*. ;)

Seriously, I think art too often gets conflated with the torment or revelation of the soul. This can occur in art, but it is not a requirement, nor even always recommended.


So is this the right or the wrong time in this thread to ask whether you guys think that art is in the process or the product?
I stand in the middle of that river, which, by the way, is itself both product and process.

[Tone2TheBone]

There's a whole lot of intelligent and thoughtful commentary here. I can't add much. It does occur though, that whatever you call us, we're makin music, not mayhem. That's gotta count for something.
It's great that this didn't descend into a flame fest. Says a lot for the people involved.

These are my sentiments exactly. Well put Helliott.

I've yet to see a real flame out in this place or to see any of our moderators hack on people for their commentaries.

[just strum]

AWWWWWW
....oh...and artists don't have day jobs:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:




That just might be the true answer. (said with envy)

[ted s]

LC, you looking for a pat on the back and an atta boy or what ?

[LagrangeCalvert]

LC, you looking for a pat on the back and an atta boy or what ?

Well....not really....IIRC Spudman asked if I considered myself an artist or a musician, so I let him know what I have done.

Ted, no I wanted a HERO BISCUIT but if you wanna give me a pat on the back come down to Cincy and come to my bands show on friday.......and support an artist!:AOK:

[Justaguyin_nc]

Well....not really....IIRC Spudman asked if I considered myself an artist or a musician, so I let him know what I have done.

Ted, no I wanted a HERO BISCUIT but if you wanna give me a pat on the back come down to Cincy and come to my bands show on friday.......and support an artist!:AOK:



Well heck I'll give ya an attaboy anyways!! :beer:

Ya get one for stimulating a conversation.. thanks!

Ya get another for having played 20 years already and only 25..

Ya get another for focussing on your dream and going for it...

Sounds like Artist, Musician and Guitarist wrapped in one..

Oh and you use >..............< attaboy!!

Maybe someday a pat on the back too...

I would like to be around for your thoughts on this when you approach
your fifties and look back... till then..keep looking ahead young brother!

Man 20 years, I'll be in my 70's....I need to find a shortcut.. :puke:
But..there is none...sigh...

[LagrangeCalvert]

yeah...I love how I'm "fishing for a complement" when I was asked if I consider myself an artist....I said yes and gave my cred.

All I can say is if it weren't for wanting to be like my cousin who is ten years older then me and my parents for buying me a guitar when I was 5 none of this would have happened.....so I am forever in debt to my mother and father for starting me on this awesome ride I have been on now.

::sets the hook::

:D



Thank you for the complement and the pat on the back...I do appreciate it!

[aeolian]

I saw this thread a couple of days ago but did not have time to participate, but I'll do it now.

I have to disagree that writing and playing original music is what defines an artist. Consider all the classical instrumentalists, they play pieces that are written by other composers (mostly) but I would never not consider them to be artists. Their creativity comes from interpreting something in a manner that is fresh, or daring, or unconventional. From the other end of the argument a child sitting at a piano banging on the keys is definitely creating something, but that doesn't make them artists unless there is something musical and fresh about it. There are lots of 'artists' out there writing and performing songs that I believe has no creativity to them. Just because they created something from scratch doesn't make it have inherent artistic value. Then there are many cover tunes that when I hear them, I say to myself "Now that is creative."

I am by no means a competent musician and I play both covers and originals. When I attempt a cover I try to make it have some fresh approach so it can have a bit of creativity to them; I try to do the same with 'originals." My only goal is to have the listener not turn my song off before it is over. As to whether I show any creativity, that's for the listener to decide.

A cover of Sleepwalk (http://home.comcast.net/~kitn13/music/slpwalk.mp3)

An original named Starlit Sky (http://home.comcast.net/~kitn13/music/starlit.mp3)

[Spudman]

Well....not really....IIRC Spudman asked if I considered myself an artist or a musician, so I let him know what I have done.



Not true. Go back and read my question. I said so "how do you see yourself." Not "what are your accomplishments."

My intent was to demonstrate the power of our interpretation of words, and I did just that. It is to prove that we are times are not one or the other exclusively, but can exist as either as the situation calls for. Sometimes I am an artist, sometimes a musician. Both can reside within one being simultaneously not having to be exclusive of each other. That is why your statement at the onset of this thread is quite limiting and needs more thought.

I think I do understand what it is that you are trying to say, but it probably really is pointless to drag this out much further.

[jpfeifer]

I would tend to agree with your view of artist versus musician.

"Musician" is the term that I think of for the general skills needed to play music well. Although many musician's are artists too because they develop their own style and sound even though they may not be playing their own compositions. "Artist" is what happens when someone is putting more of their creative side into it versus only the technical skills of playing well (in my view).

It seems that you need both kinds of people to make good music. There are musicians who focus on their technical skills of playing well, etc. but never write their own songs. A lot of times these kinds of people end up being studio musicians or hired guns for the other type of people, the artists. The Artists are often very creative "idea" people but don't put a lot of time into their chops, because they're too busy working out ideas for new songs, etc. Sometimes these kinds of people are great players too, but often they are more focused on writing than on playing. So they typically need to partner with a "musician" type to get their songs presented well.

These are very general views and there are always exceptions.

I think that I fall into the category of "musician" type rather than artist. But I've always admire the artists.

I also find that it helps to try to force yourself into the "artist" side once in a while by writing your own songs. Sometimes I come up with better ideas if I disconnect from the guitar now and then. If I play too much, my "musician" technical side takes over and gets in the way of the artist side.

-- Jim

[Plank_Spanker]

Artist?

Musician?

Overheard at a bar over some suds:

"So, Mr Spanker, I hear you are a musician."

"Nah. I'm just a guitar player."

:D

[Adrian30]

Heres my only other example......and listen good

Sal the pig loves art (visual) and goes to school (or practices...w/e Im trying to relate stuff).....shes a huge fan of H.R. Giger...and a few other artist. She decides that shes gonna make copies of their paintings....and display them in a gallery (play a show at a bar....coffee shop or w/e) for everyone to come in.

:thwap:

What in the holy crap of dung piles is this?.....you NEVER hear of this in visual art. Sooooo how is this any different than the situation I talked about with covers and original music...IMHO its not.

It is very diffrent, and the short answer is demand. Music, or the kind of music we are talking about here, is an imortant part of pop culture. Visual art is not. Pop culture products, music here included, have a much larger "market" than visual arts. Though visual art gets reproduced, too.

So...I enjoy playing my Rolling Stones CD but also attending a live performance of a localal band playing RS materialat a coffee shop. Now, the local band, while playing this "borrowed" material, is demonstrating, if nothing else, a level of skill - playing in a live setting.

If you want a visual arts equivalent, that would be "art" that is sold through department stores, cheap printed reproductions/posters in inexpensive frames (often being offred for as much money as some really good living artists try to sell their work for). Reproduction of visual art exists but it requires no artistic skills.

I dodn't think being named a musician means that you are not an artist. In my way of understanding these terms, the word artist includes musicians, painters, designers, composers, etc.

In either instance, this is just my opinion in this very interesting topic.
CHEERS:beer:

[just strum]

Maybe someone already mentioned this, but each person is going to have their own measurement of what is an artist and what is a musician. I use measurement because even if it wasn't the intent of the thread, most responses are using the terms as if it is a measurement of skill. Each one stands on it's own and within each category there are skill levels from bad musician to good musician and all the levels in between. Obviously the same applies to an artist.

So is it nothing more than a measurement? If it is, than an artist would have to be a great musician and that is not always necessarily true.

The thread is good for getting peoples views, but who is right will go on until you are blue in the face or in this case, fingers.

I'm really tired so I apologize if my point didn't come across.

[kiteman]

I'm not a musician nor an artist. I'm a bedroom jammer. :)

[tjcurtin1]

Just came across this quote by Thoreau, and remembered this thread, so for what it's worth...

"The Artist is he who detects and applies the law from observation of the works of Genius, whether of man or Nature. The Artisan is he who merely applies the rules which others have detected."

[Fab4]

So...where does "quality" fit into this discussion?

We've heard a lot in this post about artists who beautifully interpret other people's compositions. They clearly bring something new to the table (that "imagination" thing, again), so they can be seen as artists.

What happens if we flip that concept on it's head? Are the people who write really crappy songs artists simply by the fact that they create something new?

You can be a hack if you cover a song badly or simply by rote. Can you be a hack if you create a lousy song, or are you automatically an artist? After all, SOMEbody SOMEwhere will probably like it.

The scene from "10" comes to mind where Dudley Moore's successful songwriter character suffers through an original song from Bo Derek's minister, a song that includes the line "glee clubs of moonbeams" - although that lyric is SO bad that it just might circle around and cross into the realm artistry again, especially because it was written by the screen writers deliberately to provoke an OMG! response.

[thearabianmage]

To be honest I can't really be bothered to read absolutely everyone's posts, but as a visual artist, a guitarist, a musician, and a songwriter, I just thought I'd add my two cents.

All of these 'titles' are essentially the same thing:

A visual artist, someone who expresses themselves through visual means.

A guitarist, someone who just enjoys to play the guitar - enjoyment being a product of expression.

A musician, someone who expresses themselves audibly through controlling soundwaves in an often complex manner.

A songwriter, someone who takes those soundwaves to express their personal feelings or thoughts.

And, as mentioned earlier, even the classical musician expresses themselves through other's music.

Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. They all draw from each other.

Good topic, though.

Joe

[TS808]

I've seen this argument on other music forums before and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

For example, I have a friend who can play the guitar like it's a part of him; I don't know anyone better....but when he plays, he sounds alot like Van Halen. In other words, the guy can shred but is he really being creative being so heavily influenced by someone else's style?? How many times has the same argument been applied to the number of SRV copiers?? I always hear "great guitarist, but he sounds alot like SRV". Does that make the person a guitarist as opposed to an artist??

I think it IS true that playing guitar and writing take two different abilities. Alof of folks can write but aren't well-known for their guitar skills (Mark Selby who wrote Blue on Black for Kenny Wayne Shepherd is a good example..another could be John Hiatt...alot of people have taken his songs and really created a work of art from them). So...maybe some are artistic at writing, whereas others are artistic at playing?? Then there are those who have that ability to do BOTH...great writers and players....some that come to mind that are definitely artistic are Joe Bonamassa and Derek Trucks.

My opinion....an artist develops a unique style. Maybe they play covers, but they have their own unique "color palette" when playing them.

On the other hand, I know another guy who is a fabulous guitarist, but very artistic to the point where he is totally out of the mainstream. He's almost too "Artsy Fartsy". When other people hear his music, they criticize him for NOT sounding like alot of other musicians. Go figure.

If I'm rambling (more like I am rambling) it's because I'm thinking through this as I write this.

[Blaze]

Pretty old thread in here but a nice one ..

I think an artist is a human being that express his inner voice & his sensitivity with the possibilities his art gives him.

Everyone has his way to express either as professional or not.

I personally compose my own musical stuff to express myself, go listen here if you feel like ithttp://www.myspace.com/richardlehoux, but I also make a living by doing covers or studio gigs ,but it does nt matter , i love music itself..



Blazes