|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted March 08, 2017 02:34 PM |
|
|
|
She's very good but imitating other artists does not yet make you a real artist - the main reason why many of the "X got a talent" winners and runner-ups never make it beyond the show. She has to come up with something original and if it's good enough - well, then she'll also be an artist.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 02:51 PM |
|
|
"Real artist", "real game", what's up with these shallow definitions? So unless you're also a composer, you're not an artist? There's pianists who all their lives learn to perform to perfection the masterpieces that other musical geniuses before them wrote, not calling them artists because they lack "originality" is just baseless.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 03:34 PM |
|
|
That's classical music, and even in there, performers considered exceptional have their own unique touch. In any genre though, not everybody who is considered a good performer is expected to be artistically original, there are "studio musicians" who accompany others, they are not trash or unimportant, just replaceable.
I don't think her problem is lack of originality anyway, there is a certain "school" in rock guitar, originating in the late 70's and 80's, which takes away everything that makes rock, roll. I dislike it but I guess, that's subjective. However, rock was never about the classical kind of virtuosity anyway and when they play at that, they fail. It's like trying to play football on a table of billiards.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 03:46 PM |
|
|
|
All right, to clarify - even if she doesn't write the music herself but manages to perform something new (i.e. not a cover of somebody else) in a way that delivers some emotion, makes you remember it - then she's an artist. Covers only won't do.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 03:52 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:53, 08 Mar 2017.
|
|
I guess, what you mean by "cover" is plain imitation, covers can be quite original and there are artists whose repertoire are mostly based on covers.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
Yes and no. Some covers are better than the originals (Metallica's "Turn the Page", Guns 'n Roses' "Knocking on the Heaven's Door", Jimmy Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower"... ah, but of course - it's subjective) so there is some "artistry" in covering other artists' works. On the other hand I can't think of a single good artist or band who don't have original songs as well - all of them do covers among other things, as tributes or just because they can make the original sound better but that's not the core of their work.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 04:11 PM |
|
|
Frank Sinatra is the first one that pops in my head, almost all of his key songs are originally performed by someone else, including My Way, New York New York, Fly Me to The Moon, I can go on but you get the point.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 04:21 PM |
|
|
I disagree completely. Virtuosity as in the ability to do something exceptionally well and to make use of all inherent possibilities, has always been part of everything ever done, and working an instrument is no different. If you are a MUSICIAN (or artist in general), that is, if you take on an instrument, you have "influences", and what you will do quite naturally is trying to play/copy, what you like, which involves exercising, repeating things, and so on. For this you need to develop the right technique(s).
Electric instruments are relatively new. An acoustic guitar can be played in certain ways, but an electric guitar is more than that. Technically spoken, you can play an electric guitar the same way than an acoustic one - and then SOME, but that SOME had and still has to be explored, obviously. (Same thing with 7-string guitars.)
While it is true that rock music IN GENERAL doesn't seem to need more than a certain level of "instrumental virtuosity" to "work", it's quite obviously widening the range of expression. Contemporary music as a whole is more than stadium rock where everyone can bawl along.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 04:21 PM |
|
|
|
Well, if you can give some numerical equivalent of "almost all" I might agree to some degree. There is another angle of that topic but I don't have the time to develop it now.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 04:36 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:38, 08 Mar 2017.
|
jj said:
While it is true that rock music IN GENERAL doesn't seem to need more than a certain level of "instrumental virtuosity" to "work", it's quite obviously widening the range of expression. Contemporary music as a whole is more than stadium rock where everyone can bawl along.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I like progressive rock or something such as Pink Floyd or King Crimson, I don't like Steve Vai or Mumsteen kind of stuff, their idea of virtuosity seems very very shallow to me. Almost all my friends who listen to them are guitar players who started out with Heavy Metal in the 80's and that vla-vla-vla-vla type of guitar solos where they're supposed to be the Paganini of electric guitar sound sooo unimpressive and blunt to me. I'll take Wes Montgomery or B.B. King over that any day.
@Zenofex
You are thinking way too rock centered, in blues, jazz, pre-rock era pop, there are countless artists who are performers and not composers. Some don't have any songs of their own.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 04:37 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Yes and no. Some covers are better than the originals (Metallica's "Turn the Page", Guns 'n Roses' "Knocking on the Heaven's Door", Jimmy Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower"... ah, but of course - it's subjective) so there is some "artistry" in covering other artists' works. On the other hand I can't think of a single good artist or band who don't have original songs as well - all of them do covers among other things, as tributes or just because they can make the original sound better but that's not the core of their work.
This is missing the point. EVERYONE can do a cover of All Along the Watchtower. You don't even need (to be able to play) an instrument. You can just make an a-capella version. That's because it is a song based on sung verses with a melody and an arrangement of accompanying instruments.
If the cover changes all parts, you have a new song, so making a cover as a rule will involve the same verses and the same melody, the arrangement (including tempo) and the instruments may, however, change.
However, when you have an instrumental - what can you change? The instrument, sure. Tempo, sure. Arrangement, sure. But in this case HERE, the melody is "sung" by the solo instrument, say, with For the Love of God. It's what MAKES the song. You could maybe do a violin cover, but as you have to be able to sing a complex melody when you want to cover it, here you have to be able to play the "melody" as well - and you won't be able to show me many 17-year old musicians who can play that melody.
It oesn't actually matter whether you call musicians artists or craftsmen.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 05:13 PM |
|
|
artu said:
jj said:
While it is true that rock music IN GENERAL doesn't seem to need more than a certain level of "instrumental virtuosity" to "work", it's quite obviously widening the range of expression. Contemporary music as a whole is more than stadium rock where everyone can bawl along.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I like progressive rock or something such as Pink Floyd or King Crimson, I don't like Steve Vai or Mumsteen kind of stuff, their idea of virtuosity seems very very shallow to me. Almost all my friends who listen to them are guitar players who started out with Heavy Metal in the 80's and that vla-vla-vla-vla type of guitar solos where they're supposed to be the Paganini of electric guitar sound sooo unimpressive and blunt to me. I'll take Wes Montgomery or B.B. King over that any day.
There is a difference between simply trying to play fast for playing-fast's sake, and playing fast because it just sounds awesome or is great sounding. I mean, Beethoven sounds great, obviously, but you have to be able to play it.
I've been (and still am) a big Megadeth fan, and that's not because they have speed; they do have that, but the songs, arrangements, solos and melodies are quality. Original. Compared withe them, to use your word, I find the rest rather shallow, and that includes a lot of Metallica and the rest, like Anthrax, Slayer and the likes.
Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai are leading Mojo's top 10 list of most insane "shredders" (which is their word for electric guitar virtuoso), Malmsteen because he brought the classical elements into metal (and by default virtuosity).
Steve Vai is on different page completely. Sometimes he seems to be more interested in finding new ways to create STRANGE sounds by working parts of his guitar or by trying which sounds you can create when you want to make a specific move - but you can do all this only, when you have a certain control over your instrument.
What you ACTUALLY seem to mean is, that the musician should be second to the composition - that virtuosity is empty without a vehicle of composition to transport it.
This, I would agree with; I always thought that a lot, in fact orobably most of Vai's compositions were lacking something (For the Love of God is one of his good ones), and I wasn't too fond of Malmsteens stuff either (it's why I like Megadeth and Dream Theatre, on the other hand, and of course I went crazy for Jimi Hendrix: not only did lift Blues to another level, instrumentally, his compositions were also the perfect vehicle - his songs are just great, no matter his guitar play).
That was the problem with, for example, Jeff Healey. Top player, but unnoteworthy as a composer.
Tina S., at this point, is a musician, learning to play guitar. She can play fine, aged 17, exceptionslly so, in fact, and we will see, what will become of her - whether she will play the guitar in the studio or on tour with others and/or whether she will compose things herself, whether alone or in collaboration.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 05:22 PM |
|
|
JJ said:
What you ACTUALLY seem to mean is, that the musician should be second to the composition - that virtuosity is empty without a vehicle of composition to transport it.
Not necessarily the composition, a player can improvise in a way that is very individualistic. I just think the way a certain post-Heavy Metal "rock" guitar style sucks big time and how they improvise is superficial, it's as simple as that. Megadeth is kind of exceptional in my case, I like their Countdown to Extinction and a few other stuff but they are more like the singer/songwriter (I mean that as a genre) version of Metal music, they are not fixated on circus moves or teenage angst. Somehow, Megadeth is mature in a way Metal music almost never is.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 06:11 PM |
|
|
Ah, but that's because that metal is crap. 
And, yes, I mean which Metal Band would write a song like this, because they are sick of hearing always Gary Litter's Rock'n'Roll Part 2 when they go watch a game of their fave hockey team? AND actually play it live?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are thinking way too rock centered, in blues, jazz, pre-rock era pop, there are countless artists who are performers and not composers. Some don't have any songs of their own.
Well, how far do you want to take this? Of course these has to be some similarity to call something "a cover". Taking your line of thought to the extreme, absolutely everything is a cover of some primeval music because it's using the same notes which are only arranged differently. If a cover is considerably different from the original and is good enough to be likable, then it can be considered a work of art. if it's just the same thing with some tweaks here and there - this is just a tribute to another artist at most, nothing which the world will remember you with.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 07:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:39, 08 Mar 2017.
|
Zeno, I don't think you got my point, I'm not talking about covers or tweaking some template structure such as 12 bar blues etc. Yours is a genre specific, misguided way of looking at things because originality in popular music is more about the sound or arrangement and not the composition, unlike Classical music or a very framed period of Rock Era bands. Take Elvis for instance, "the king of Rock n' Roll," check out the composers of most of his hit songs: here. Now, do you think Hound Dog is "just a tribute to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller at most, nothing which the world will remember Elvis with" or do you think most people are not even aware of who Leiber and Stoller were? Before the 60's, composing your own music was not even the mainstream norm, ever heard of Tin Pan Alley?
It's the same with jazz, there are standards such as Round Midnight, Just One of Those Things, Take the A Train etc, and then there is blues improvisation, all the greats revolve around those and "covers" are the norm, not the exception. Just an example, when I enter "Round Midnight" in my archive, this is what I get:
This is just a spontaneous snapshot of my very limited archive, a tip of the iceberg. Now there are artists such as Ellington or Monk who are significantly known for their composing skills ON THE SIDE. But the ones who don't are not a side-kick artists, composing is NOT the criteria.
Another well-known example, when the Beatles signed with EMI to record their first album, George Martin brought them a song (How Do You Do, if I remember correctly) and said it was a guaranteed hit, Lennon refused saying they want to play the songs of their choice. (Only about half of them being their own compositions if you check out Please Please Me.) In 1963, that was risky and unusual behavior. You were delivered songs which the record company saw fit for you.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 07:37 PM |
|
|
|
Are we back now to the "composing" stuff (and what exactly means genre-specific, if you see my Winamp playlist you'll find much more than rock and metal there)? I already said that you don't necessarily have to make the music, the text, whatever, yourself. You however have to play it in such a way that it feels like your tune so when people listen to it, they associate it with you. That's what I mean by originality. When I listen to the girl from JJ's link, I associate the music with all the bands she imitates, not with her so I can't call her an artist no matter how well she plays. If you both write the song and play it, that certainly helps but it's not exactly a must.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 07:47 PM |
|
|
What do you mean back to? I already said:
I guess, what you mean by "cover" is plain imitation, covers can be quite original and there are artists whose repertoire are mostly based on covers.
You replied:
On the other hand I can't think of a single good artist or band who don't have original songs as well - all of them do covers among other things, as tributes or just because they can make the original sound better but that's not the core of their work.
I said:
You are thinking way too rock centered, in blues, jazz, pre-rock era pop, there are countless artists who are performers and not composers. Some don't have any songs of their own.
You said:
Of course these has to be some similarity to call something "a cover". Taking your line of thought to the extreme, absolutely everything is a cover of some primeval music because it's using the same notes which are only arranged differently. If a cover is considerably different from the original and is good enough to be likable, then it can be considered a work of art. if it's just the same thing with some tweaks here and there - this is just a tribute to another artist at most, nothing which the world will remember you with.
What I am pinpointing is, in many genres, "a cover" doesn't significantly exist as "a cover" in many cases. It's "another version."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 08:06 PM |
|
|
|
And what I mean is that if the version, if you prefer that word, differs from the original enough to have its own personality and thus show the personality of the musician(s) who play it, then it has artistic value. Example - the original of "Nobody's Fault But Mine" and Led Zeppelin's version.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 08, 2017 08:15 PM |
|
|
Yes but we already agreed on that part, what I was emphasizing is that the duality of "the original versus the cover" is not so underlined in many genres, there is of course a "first time the song was recorded" unless it's traditional, yet it is quite regular that many artists don't shine out by recording originals mostly like you indicated, their repertoire consists of songs that had been covered zillions of times.
The No Quarter (Plant/Page, not the whole Zeppelin) version of that song is way better btw, check it out.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
