Musician = Artist ?

[tornandfrayed]

So I have been accused of being a venom spewing something or other by someone who I thought I got along with. Well let's talk.

When someone plays an instrument they put a lot of time and a lot of effort into learning that instrument. I know a lot of great players that amaze me and I have nothing but the utmost respect for what they are able to do. So when you play an instrument does that automatically make you an "Artist"? I know that it makes you a musician but are the two exclusive? Can you be a great musician and not be an artist? We all know that you can be an artist and have no musical skill because the definition of "Artist" exceeds the boundaries of music. Artists can paint, they can write they create something that is unique and individual. So at this point if I drop it then someone can rip me cause they will say, "Well a cover band does not really create anything". I beg to differ, I have heard bands do renditions of songs that have knocked me out. I guess it comes down to people are creating great things around here. Are they artists? Are they cover or original?

So let's change the rules of engagement for this bout and let's say that we want to define and identify what we believe to be art and what we define as "something else".

I have stated that I believe that a band composed of Artists would be more likely to be politically motivated and more willing to make a political statement. We can go back on this very page and find many people who comment to the effect that "Politics should be kept out of music".

For the sake of this conversation I will go out on a limb and say that some bands doing renditions of other people music do a great job of it and some don't. Some bands that compose and perform there own stuff also suck. So there does not seem to be a way to say that if you are in one of the above categories you suck or you are awesome. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So, where is the line? Artist? Cover band? Politics? Music?

I am on this page strictly as a fan of local music. That is my capacity in this conversation.

That being said can someone play an instrument in a band and not be an artist?

Is a politically active band more likely to be doing renditions of others music or writing and performing there own?

So what do you guys think and can we keep it a little more civil then the Democratic Primary?

And here is my mandatory spew, venom, venom, venom!

[bassist_25]

I consider myself a musician and an entertainer before an artist.

For the first half of that equation, I'm expected to play my parts with technical proficiency; with clean technique; in time; with good pocket; with professional tone; in a variety of styles, tempos, feels, and time signatures; and sing my harmonies in key. I'm supposed to know what the band leader means when I'm told, "12 bar shuffle in F#" before playing a song I've never heard before, and I'm supposed to be able transpose "a half step down" without really thinking about it.

With the second half of that equation, I'm expected to project presence on stage, look presentable (i.e., don't look like a slob), be personable to everyone I meet, smile even if I'm sad or pissed off, and help make what's happening on stage be a focal point.

I don't say these two things because I think I'm God's gift to bass or I'm a brilliant showman - actually, it kinda felt like intellectual masturbation just talking about myself that way. I'm just saying how I see my role in the scheme of things. I hope this post doesn't sound like a big ego-stroke.

Artist is where the creativity lies; musicians are those who are proficient at their instruments. You can have a great artist who is a lousy musician (Kurt Cobain), a great musician who may not be much of an artist (many session players/professional sidemen, provided they don't write anything in their spare time), and you can have someone who's a great musician and a great artist (Eric Johnson). It's all in what you want to get out of music and where your strenghts are at. I do enjoy putting on the artist's hat, but I would not be happy in music if I could not fulfill the first two roles I spoke about. Some cats can write stuff and be content with it never leaving the studio. That's awesome, because a lot of music doesn't have much marketable outside of recorded media; as I music consumer, I want to be exposed to that. But unfortunately, that musical life isn't for me, personally.

I know that many people are going to disagree with me, but it's been in my experience that musicians who have extensive resumes/cirriculum vitaes playing cover material usually write better original material, because they were forced to develop their musical knowledge. On the other hand, many cats who picked up their instruments and went straight to original music usually have something lacking in their music, because they've never really "learned how to play." There are some exceptions (e.g., U2), but that's generally been my experience.

[bassist_25]

P.s. As far as the second half of the question, I really can't answer that. I think musical people as a whole are more conscious of the world. You're not going to come to one of our shows and hear a political sermon, because that's just not what we're about. If you're at a Rage Against the Machine show, then I'd expect political commentary...or even a Ted Nugent show. Personally, I have no problem with political songs, movies, books, etc., but I'm not a fan of entertainers giving political lectures, regardless if I agree with them or not.

[lonewolf]

Is a politically active band more likely to be doing renditions of others music or writing and performing there own?

I don't think you will find any correlation between politics and the cover/original issue. They are mutually exclusive.

The only thing you can deduce from the cover/original issue is that one musician plays covers and the other plays originals. Critical thinking has nothing to do with one's present musical status, nor does creativity. For instance, I have seen cover players that are more creative with one ad lib solo than some original bands' entire discography.

Another point about cover musicians is that most were original composing musicians at one time or another and then decided that:

1. they were probably not going to be the first rock musicians to get signed at age 40.
2. they like to eat on a daily basis
3. it is not good business practice to spend $50 to make $10

I picked #1 and #3

[tornandfrayed]

Both of the above posts are right on. I think that it is hard to define or categorize people based on what they are doing musically. You have to talk to people and get to know them on an individual basis before you can begin to see what they are really about.

Jeff I have seen your "One Man Band" if that does not qualify as art then I don't know what does.

Paul, reading your posts on RP gives me the impression that there is much more to you then meets the eye.

[moxham123]

The dictionary defines the word artist as follows:

art·ist

Creator of art - somebody who creates art, especially paintings or sculptures

Performer - a member of the performing arts. e.g., a well-known recording artist

Skilled person - somebody who does something skillfully and creatively. e.g., an artist with a basketball

A cunning person - somebody who is very good at a particular thing, especially something cunning. e.g., a rip-off artist

Based on these descriptions, a musician can be considered an artist but the degree to which their talent level and expertise is attributed is contingent on many factors.

I know many outstanding musicians who are not good live performers and entertainers. I know people who are good performers but they are either average or lousy musicians. Finding the the right balance between the two is crucial to being a successful musician who wants to play in front of an audience. So, I guess if you take the first two descrptions of being a creator of art (in this case, music, original or cover) and performer of art, you could be considered an artist in both categories.

[nightcrawler_steve]

************************

[JackANSI]

Expanding on the context you've provided; I've always looked at being in a cover band much like someone who paints vistas or portraits. If they are not just making said image up, they are 'covering' that image just as a cover band covers a song. The artist is going to impart some of himself on that image no matter how hard they try, and even if they got it 100% accurate, that might end up being their 'thing' in the art world just as some cover bands go for perfection.

Does it make them any less an artist? I think not.

Does that mean they can't sit down and come up with some portrait off the top of their head? Very doubtful. We all know 12 bar blues by now (I hope) just as the portrait artist knows the basic shapes of a human. The painter could draw from memory and make adaptations just as we would solo, creating a unique composition. If they really take things to the extreme by pushing this line there and that stroke here you end up with a Van Gough or musically you get punk music


To be honest I feel that anyone out there that would deride anyone for playing covers needs to have a boot embedded in their ass. It normally comes down to them being frustrated with themselves/jealous of someone else for one reason or another that someone in a cover band isn't.

I've noticed that its SOOOOO much better playing with a cover band. You normally don't have to deal with 1 or more walking egos. Not saying that all original bands are anything other than just as great. Just my experience with it has been to just avoid it unless they've learned to not take themselves so seriously.


ok.. back to the crazy talk. Music is a language. There are only 12 letters to its alphabet vs the 26 I've used in this post. Just as words are formed form these 26 letters, 'words' are formed from the musical 12. There are some letters that don't go together just like there are some notes that don't sound right when going up the major scale.

I mean we've all done a english jam session right now in this thread, one person lays down the topic (beat if you will), the rest of us solo on top of it But as long as we stay on topic, were all speaking in the same key.

Just as in language there is more than just letters, there are more than just notes in music. Vic teaches this as "2 through 10"

1.) Notes(obviously): melody, harmony, etc.
2.) Articulation: the duration of each note, how it starts and ends
3.) Technique: the means to reproduce what you want to play as naturally as possible
4.) Feel: creating emotion or 'energy in motion'
5.) Dynamics: volume, or the lack thereof
6.) Rhythm: finding the pulse of Music, or Life
7.) Tone: using tonality to generate emotion
8.) Phrasing: working around the rhythm
9.) Space: the 13th note
10.) Listening: how what you play works with what everyone else is doing around you.

(a little playful(non-serious) jab on guitarists: I know #9 is hard to fathom, hehe )

Its just not that hard coming up with stuff musically... There is no trick to it. Making something that is popular is where I feel 'luck' and hard work comes in. Have the right song at the right time and place and you could make a mint. You could have the best song in the world but if you only record it then sit back and wait, you're not going to be there with it at the right time and place.


Anyway this is getting too long. Have fun doing whatever you do, thats the key to it all.

[morningangel]

By its very nature, art is subjective. What might be art to me may not be to you, and vice versa.

[tornandfrayed]

Exactly the point Steve! When we try to define things and fit them into a box of any shape it usually does not work.

I cannot put people into a group and let that be. People change and grow and evolve. I am trying to bridge the gaps and say that it does not really matter. Christ or Muhammad, cover band or original, Democrat or Republican, we have more in common then we have that separates us.

As far as the political thing all you have to do is look at previous posts. I don't really care that much but it has been stated that a lot of bands do not want to be involved in Politics, just the way it is. Do you agree with that? As far as I am concerned that does not matter. The thought was that a band that has a political agenda could more likely be a band playing there own music to accomplish that agenda. If you don't agree that's cool.

In regards to the line I was asking the same question that you asked. What line? Is there a line? I don't know where it is and the second that I do it moves.

As far as the primary goes I know that we can keep conversation as a means to an end. We all have the same goals, we want to have a good life for ourselves and our families. We want our Country to be strong. A lot of us love going out and playing and going out and watching bands play. I saw the Nightcrawlers quite a few times and always enjoyed it. We want to feel safe and we want to know that people care about us and that we are loved and appreciated. It is human.

So for the record, we might not be able to see each other's view on certain topics but if we go deeper we might find that we have more things in common then not.

I don't understand a lot of the opinions on this board. I do know that the people on here are my "community" and that I care very deeply about.

So do you love music? Me too! Honestly I don't even care about the genre that much anymore, I love all kinds of music! Do you like people and care for the people in you community? Me too! I love most people and want to do whatever I can to help out and be involved...

Politically speaking, together we are strong, divided not so much...

peace!

PS I was just funning back with the bad daze guys, hell they have been playing around here for a long time, they must be doing something right! It is not easy to keep a band together like that, I sure could not do it!

[JackANSI]

ah so this was just a veiled politics thread... sneaky sneaky...

[lonewolf]

Jeff I have seen your "One Man Band" if that does not qualify as art then I don't know what does.

Well, thanks Dave. I never really looked at it that way, but your compliment helps to answer your question:

A person's work is not art unless their peers and/or the publc say(s) its art.

I always liked the TV commercial where there is a denial group therapy session. Sitting with the group is a nervous man holding a toy poodle.

He exclaims: "Its a pit bull"

[JackANSI]

Exactly the point Steve! When we try to define things and fit them into a box of any shape it usually does not work.

I cannot put people into a group and let that be. People change and grow and evolve. I am trying to bridge the gaps and say that it does not really matter. Christ or Muhammad, cover band or original, Democrat or Republican, we have more in common then we have that separates us.

Then why worry about labels like artist or musician?

[BDR]

That being said I don't believe that you have to be an artist to pick up an instrument and play in a local cover/bar band. So there in lies the meat of this discussion. There is a decidedly small group of people on here that want to make a difference in the world and also want to discuss it. There is another group that that does not care about politics because they have given up hope? Because they don't understand? Because they feel like they don't matter? because all they really need to do is play covers on the weekends and their lives are OK?

Now, in response to your response:

Uh yeah, whatever. Some posts don't have anything to do with you, sorry.

When you make general comments as asinine as the above about people who play covers, the post has everything to do with me and anyone else who plays covers. If you notice, you garnered criticism from more than just me with your post, even some folks who predominantly (wow, another word with more than two syllables) play original music in their primary gigs.

Your above statement says to me that there is only a “decidedly small group” of intellectuals on this site that has the mental capacity to comprehend the world around them or to even give a damn about the world around them — those “artists” who create their own music. The rest of us are undereducated schmucks and all we have to do with our days is learn covers to play on the weekends, which apparently takes no intelligence, motivation or talent.

Then, later in the same thread ...

As Americans we have some inherent problems. The biggest problem is that every single vote counts the same. What that means is that someone who is less educated or not so in touch with current events has the same power as someone who is deeply intelligent and watches the flow of our society on a regular basis.

So, referencing your own words, your own posts, you are saying the biggest problem is that uneducated people like those of us on Rockpage who play covers get one vote when smart people like yourself only get one vote. You’re implying that you and other smart people should have a bigger voice. My question is, who are you to judge the intelligence of others, especially on an online forum?

Your statements suggest that, not only are myself and my bandmates both socially retarded and less intelligent than you and others who write, record and/or perform original music, but so are music scene veterans like Felix Kos, Bobby Watters, Rick Wertz, Brian Thomas, Scott Imler, John McElvey, Big Jim Ricotta, Trace Baker, Ron Delansky and Jeff Renner, to name a few, because all these people play a predominant number of cover songs (BTW, most of these folks — maybe all — write or have written their own stuff, they just don’t try to force people to accept it). And you see nothing wrong with this why?

I am sorry that you seem to dislike me even though we have only ever met at your show.

Classic defense mechanism: I call attention to an objectionable statement you’ve made and that means I “dislike you.” Please, dude, this isn’t fourth grade. I found you to be a personable and likable guy when we met at that show you came to. What I dislike is your insulting comment which you obviously see nothing wrong with and I am calling you on it. I have always and will always call someone on statements made with this little thought and substance.

You know, when I read your sig line (prior to your recent edit) and many of your posts, you like to preach the gospel of unity — “one world, one voice, etc.” — but in reality, whether you do it subconsciously or knowingly, you have a habit of serving as one of the biggest dividers on this site. You even pointed out in the last thread:

The truth is that there are cover bands and there are other bands.

That’s funny because when I look at this scene, I see “bands” — that’s it. Some of my favorite people in this scene — the Straws, the Tonklins, the FedUp crew, the list goes on — take their original music to the masses and my retarded cover band can, has and will in the future share the stage with these bands. Why? Because we’re friends first, bands second and we’re never “cover” and “original” bands. Each time you and others with your same attitude draw lines like this between original and cover bands, the separation between the two grows wider.

Case in point: I remember this as if it were yesterday. Several years ago, Rob Bonsell, a well-liked and respected member of our community (even though he’s a Republican ... LOL), had just launched a new cover band project, Mad Dog Kool, and they were promoting one of their first shows (it may have been their first) at City Limits, encouraging Rockpagers to be there to support the new group. A little later (Rockpage date stamps all posts so you can actually see when things were posted), you began to promote one of your original music showcases (I believe it was being held at Aldo’s but I could be wrong about that) for the same night. Anyway, and I know I’m not the only one who remembers this, you publicly chastised Rob in open forum for promoting his show because it was happening on the same night as your original music show! You acted as though he had no right to urge people to come to see his new band because it was just a cover band and you were promoting an all-original night which should’ve taken precedence. You acted as though Rob was promoting his show in an effort to ruin your turnout when in reality, he had begun his promotion before you did, not that he had to ask you for permission to promote his show. I called you on that one, too, and you didn’t like it then, either. Look it up. It’s still in the archives, as is everything else that’s ever been posted in this forum.

Bottom line is, when it comes to cover bands, original bands and your desire for “one world, one voice,” you speak from both sides of your mouth and you do it publicly.

I thought that I pretty much try to support a lot of bands and local music. I have been to a lot of shows around here and seen a lot bands. I bring a lot of bands in and record them for nothing because I want to support local musicians and help out guys who might not have the means to get sa studio recording.

I don’t question the fact that you do positive things for the scene, as a matter of fact, I applaud these efforts. However, when you make all-encompassing comments like this, you do more harm than good. This is why I and others have responded to what you wrote — because it was retarded. Aretha said it best — R-E-S-P-E-C-T — it goes a looooong way.

To NCSteve: I dig what you’re saying about people being “touchy” about certain things. I know I’ve read many of your posts where you’ve become verrrrrrrry “touchy” about the existence of political threads here on the site, which doesn’t bother me and some others in the slightest. Different people are annoyed by different things. I, for one, become annoyed when someone insults his peers and then acts like he hasn’t done or said anything at all.

*******************************************************

Now Dave, since you’ve chosen to divert with a new topic here in this new thread instead of acknowledging what I’ve called you on, I’ll address the new subject matter. As it’s already been pointed out, there are different types of “art.” Is a mime not an artist because (s)he does not create? Is a pastry chef not an artist because (s)he recreates certain items throughout the course of his/her day? Is a great car salesman not an artist because his art is persuasion and not creation?

In the same token, just because I “create” a picture of Santa with his head up his ass, does that mean I’m an artist, even though it looks like dog shit? If that’s the case, I just drew a stick figure on some scrap paper (keep in mind, many musical “artists” write lyrics and notes on napkins and note paper, you know, when the inspiration comes, write it down). From now on, call me Picasso and I’ll sell you my drawing for $250,000. I accept cash.

Performance art is just as valid in this biz as creation IMO, in that we as musicians are charged with entertaining. That’s what our product is supposed to do. If your “art” entertains no one but yourself, then aren’t you just jerking off at that point?

r:>)

[DirtySanchez]

WTF is wrong with jerking off? Its performance without creation. Still art, right?

[BDR]

WTF is wrong with jerking off? Its performance without creation. Still art, right?

Well, technically, you could paint a picture, albeit a very bland, abstract one.

As far as masterbation being performance, who the hell are you whacking off in front of, dude, and should I be jealous? It has been a while since we've been sailing.

r:>)

[nightcrawler_steve]

***************************

[nightcrawler_steve]

************************************

[BDR]

Ive got a ton of years under my belt. I try my best to offer good straight forward advice based on my experiences. I try to offer that which helps promote a better, stronger and thriving music community. When musicians like myself stop posting because we are so blatently disrespected, insulted or turned off because of non-music related topics how does that help our music community?

Exactly. The last thing I want to see is people, especially those who have experience and advice to offer to the newbies, disappear from the site. I try my personal best to answer the call when advice is sought, if I have any to offer, and, as a human being, I'm learning new stuff every day myself, so insight from others who have "road miles" is always of great value.

That being said, it's comments like those Dave made in the other thread (that he's now slowly and carefully backing off from) — comments that have the potential to insult a large contingent of the site — that drive people away, especially new people. If I were a newbie here who was in a cover band and read the crap he wrote in the other thread, I'd be outta here (well, not really, I'd probably call him on it like I do now). One thing's for sure, I'd see that there are definitely people here who view certain bands as being at a different level than others and that to me is a very elitist attitude that produces division, not unity.

You gotta be pumped though, Steve, a music discussion. You're welcome for the hijack in the other thread ... LOL.

r:>)

[JackANSI]

Take no mind of the fact the woman writing this has the last name of Dickhut... hehee I said Dickhut...

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/dickhut.html

Actually thats the only reason I'm posting this...



Dickhut!!

[nightcrawler_steve]

*******************

[BDR]

Dickhut!!

Is that the same as a DickShack?

r:>)

[nightcrawler_steve]

***************************

[JackANSI]

But when I think of 'hut' I think of cheap, straw, ready to fall over... shack sounds like it a step up from 'hut'.

[tornandfrayed]

this is all way too much. I love cover bands. Everyone is the best they can be.

The world is good and we can make it better.

I agree.