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.

:

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.

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. :

[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.
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!
ude:

[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.' : 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..

[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...

[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 THIS forum is very different from others I've frequented in that respect and I hope it stays that way.

That being said,

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.