YourMomsBox!

Singer: someone who sings.

Entertainer: someone who puts on a show. they don't necessarily have to be performing their own material.

Artist: someone who creates their own material.

Now, what about people who take existing material and put their own spin on it. Andy Warhol took soup cans and made art out of it, is he not an artist. I am by any means trying to say that cover bands are equivalent to Andy Warhol, i'm just trying to see how far you want to take this artist discussion.

Quote:Originally posted by Keyser SozeNow, what about people who take existing material and put their own spin on it. Andy Warhol took soup cans and made art out of it, is he not an artist. I am by any means trying to say that cover bands are equivalent to Andy Warhol, i'm just trying to see how far you want to take this artist discussion.

Yes, what about all the djs that sample other music to come up with something new?

Quote:Originally posted by Black Lazerus

Quote:They are considered Musicians because the Voice can be a musical instrument. If you consider an Opera singer a musician, then any pop singer, no matter how poor the quality of music they produce is, is still a musician. They are not, however, artists, because they do not create anything.

So would you consider a person who could play the guitar, but couldn't read music a musician?

Don't fuck with Jimi.

Yes. A Musician makes music, whether it is with an external musical instrument or internal. If some kid out there makes fart noises with his armpit and can vary the noises in such a way that another kid declares it music in his mind, then the kid who is making fart noises IS a musician to the second kid.

An Artist creates art. I do not consider Warhol an artist because I don't consider his work art (at least the soup can).

It's subjective, but the reality is: does the sounds the musician make considered music? does the product produced equate to art?

Quote:Originally posted by Keyser Soze
Singer: someone who sings.

Entertainer: someone who puts on a show. they don't necessarily have to be performing their own material.

Artist: someone who creates their own material.

agreed. no debate there.

Quote:Now, what about people who take existing material and put their own spin on it. Andy Warhol took soup cans and made art out of it, is he not an artist. I am by any means trying to say that cover bands are equivalent to Andy Warhol, i'm just trying to see how far you want to take this artist discussion.

I like Rooner's DJ point. I'm stickin' with that.

and there is NO artistry in cover bands. none what so ever. just sayin'.

so jerking off in the shower humming the star spangled banner could be considered art?

Only if you shoot your load when the bombs are bursting in air.

Quote:Originally posted by Sloats If some kid out there makes fart noises with his armpit and can vary the noises in such a way that another kid declares it music in his mind, then the kid who is making fart noises IS a musician to the second kid.

This IS music.

Quote:I like Rooner's DJ point. I'm stickin' with that.

and there is NO artistry in cover bands. none what so ever. just sayin'

I think you forgot the " in my opinion" on that.

Quote:Originally posted by Black Lazerus

Quote:I like Rooner's DJ point. I'm stickin' with that.

and there is NO artistry in cover bands. none what so ever. just sayin'

I think you forgot the " in my opinion" on that.

Is a Xerox a painter? If a cover band tries to change things, that can be one thing. If a cover band tries to emulate/duplicate something else, that is something different.

Beatlemania = Entertainers, Musicans. Not Artists. Some would consider the experience of Beatlemania to be art, but then the Artist would be the organizer.

I do find it interesting that it is easier for a cover band to draw a crowd than an original band. People seem to enjoy hearing people playing music they know, despite the fact the musicians performing are not on the same level as the artists who perform their own music.