...know how to play an instrument to be considered to be a 'good artist'


I personally think that you truly don't, or even write your own songs...maybe co write at least. I guess what I don't get on Prince.Org, and other sites, is that people say that you HAVE TO know how to play an instrument to be 'talented.' I really dont believe that you have to. I think a person can even play an instrument, and not sing, at still be talented, or vice versa. I think that a person can dance, sing, not play an instrument, and still be talented. I think a person can dance, sing, write, play an instrument, and be talented too vice versa, Ex: Prince. I think a person can just write, not even play an instrument, but dance, sing, and still be talented, in my books...What do you guys thinks?
[Edited 3/3/07 12:16pm]
[Edited 3/3/07 12:31pm]

According to prince.org you do.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

I think its all personal opinion. Personally, I think singing and dancing is WAY overrated. This is just my opinion here but for me, if a person dont write their own music and or play an instrument, then they need to go sit down. Singing is not all that, unless you're an Aretha or Otis Redding or something

In the 50's and 60's a person was either a singer or a songwriter, not both. The idea, concept, and acceptance of the singer/songwriter started in the 70's and has manifested into the assumption a person has to be both in today's music scene


I don't agree with that assumption. It's pompous
[Edited 3/3/07 12:37pm]

LoveAlive said:

Dancing overrated??? Huh??? But thats your opinion...


I love dancing, I'm not that crazy about someone just stand there playing an instrument, and not trying to dance at least a little bit!
[Edited 3/3/07 12:42pm]

LoveAlive said:

Isn't singing he reason most people by music?

in order to be a "good musician" you have to know how to play an instrument, be it a piano or spoons or whatever.

in order to ba a "good artist," no.

As far as I'm concerned, the voice is an instrument like any other, so my answer would be 'no'. There've been plenty of good or great singers who don't know their E minors from their Dorian modes and who only had a basic grasp of say, guitar or piano if any (eg James Brown and Mick Jagger for starters), but they were amazing singers. James was self taught and invented 'James Brown music' which broke every rule in the book, and taught it to his bands just by grunting sounds and the odd basic organ demo.

As far as I know, Org favourates like Tina Turner and Annie Lennox can't play instruments, but they can sing well. I like a great musician (except for some of the technical vituosos who forgot their souls on the way in), but I'm not into elitist muso snobbery. To play any instrument really well, voice included, imo you need to be able to play your 'soul'. Without that, you're little more than a technician (so, that's half the be-bop, prog and jazz-rock crowd out straight away)

I'd say the ultimate example would be Mario Lanza - unless someone tells me he played piano, as many opera singers do.

lonelygurl8305 said:

No, you don't. Most of the artists that produce the most hideous sounding garbage are the "multi-instrumentalist talents" that clog up myspace and soundclick. I'd rather take somebody who would combine two samples together and call it a song over those goons anyday.

Oh, you mean singers. Well... a singer isn't an artist in the strictest of senses.

Janfriend said:

I completely agree. Being a good performer and being a good writer are two completely different roles, and the notion that a performer can't be a complete artist if he doesn't write his or her own material is preposterous. Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley didn't write their material - does that diminish their artistry?

Compare how many truly classic, melodic, well-structured songs came out of the eighties and nineties to the amount that came out of the sixties. I think the main reason we've seen such a scarcity of memorable song-writing in the past few decades is due to the rise of the 'self-contained' artist and the diminishing role of the professional song-writer.

damosuzuki said:

I agree, now adays, every artistwants to do everything, they can;t concentrate on one thing. Back in the day, take Motown for example, they had Holland/Dozier/Holland, they were worried about writing the songs, and writing only. Then they give it to the Funk Brothers, they were woried about playing the song, and playing only. They then call in the Four Tops, they were woried about singing the song, and singing the song only.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

which, in my opinion, makes better music overall

LoveAlive said:

Aretha is a great pianist and Otis wrote many of his own songs... oh and they could sing a little too

damosuzuki said:

100% agree. excellent points.

Do what you can do to the best of your ability and don't try to be something that you're not. Or work on it in private until you're good at that too. Mariah Carey is, a lot of the time, an excellent singer. But has she ever written a song that was any good? She'd do a lot better for herself if she'd stick to singing other writers' songs.

And on the opposite end, I know Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan havefans of their voices, which work in the context of what they sing, but nobody's every going to call them stellar vocalists, and so many of their songs sound so much better when sung by people who can pull off the vocals and bring out the many meanings in a song besides the rather limited renderings of those 3 writers. Don't get me wrong, I think all three of those guys are great artists, even in the way they deliver a song. But singing is definitely not their primary talent.
[Edited 3/3/07 18:13pm]

3121 said:

Wow..I didnt even know Aretha played piano, thanks for posting!

lonelygurl8305 said:

AlexdeParis said:

Please forgive me...I'm only 24 years old

lonelygurl8305 said:

No, please forgive me. I didn't mean anything by it. At one point, Aretha was always seen at or near a piano, but I guess those days are long gone. Here's a clip of the Queen showing off her piano chops:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...NI1e_cJj7w

I just think to be considered an artist, the following is needed.

Some sort of control in your career. Frank Sinatra didnt write songs, but i would call him an artist because he did alot of the selection of band and also arrangements. I also think you have to put in some time to be considered an artist, a couple of albums doesnt make you an artist, a couple of albums is not a career its a hobby and shows you werent serious about the term "artist". So to me its not really about writing,playing,dancing, its about all of it and having something to do with what you are doing, you would be surprised how many people who think they are "artists" just because they have a hit album out, sorry, thats not what its about. The term artist reflects someone using many "colors" and "ideas" and "backgrounds" to create. if you fall into that then you are an artist officially, its not an easy thing to be, we really do overuse the term.

AlexdeParis said:

Dr. Feel Good is one my favorite Aretha Songs!

lonelygurl8305 said:

I'm 16 and I know Aretha plays piano

damosuzuki said:

I totally agree!!