TonyVanDam said:

Harle gonna beat yo ass.

Timmy84 said:

TonyVanDam said:

It ALL started with a pencil!

Had it not been for a "pencil". We wouldn't hear of "beat makers" such as Mozart, Gershwin and Duke Ellington to name afew.

You underestimate the human mind a lil' too strongly, my friend.

Harlepolis said:

See, you do NOT wanna get Harle started.

theAudience said:

Yeah, that. But I'd get wordier.

An artist to me rises to that rather lofty moniker only after they create something that so expertly reflects their unique view/soul that it engages both the imagination and the intellect.

It could be one song, one book, one painting, one film, one dance, even just one written or sung passage. Or it could be 50 years, 200 standards, and 10 masterpieces.

The more often you hit that rarified air, the more that title becomes unqualified.

Of course whether or not any of us truly has the capacity to decipher such a thing is where the endless subjectivity begins.

So to me a singer can definitely be an artist (Billie Holiday, anyone?), but few rise to that very special level on a consistent basis.

But it ultimately all remains in the eye of the beholder.

All singers are artists. Whether or not they are "good" artists is up to the individual. Really, art is anything that is expressed through some creative medium.

I think this thread is being interpreted in a way that gets at the question of what is the definition of a good artist.

Moonbeam said:

Prince is to blame!

Yes, the word “artist” is given far too much reverence in our society. Even some who have created an unfathomably rich body of work don’t want the extra baggage.

I think every person on the planet is capable of creating something artistic and on some level is very much an artist.

But just because we all have the capacity, doesn't make us Jimi Hendrix or Duke Ellington.

That title becomes more unqualified the more you achieve in this arena.

Most of us barely register. A select few are off the charts. Most professionals who can work at it full time are somewhere swimming between the two.

And none of this makes for a better person, just a better artist.

=== Damn the mistakes! ===
[Edited 6/20/09 14:09pm]

Actually, some people HAVE made what some think of as artistic music w/ pencils (see Pink Floyd, for one example). Plenty of great msuic is made w/ steele pans made from oil drums. Washboards are quite popular in some forms of music too. Voices are certainly instruments and probably the hardest to master.

People need to open their minds a bit as to what can or can't be used to create art. The definitions seem very narrow.

brooksie said:

Exactly!

I think people put art on the HIGHEST pedestal, when most of the times it was achieved through the simplest methods.

This is not a "private club", its completely objective.

brooksie said:

Ya know!?

An artist is someone who creates. Someone who pushes themselves and inspires others. Offers a new vision or a unique view on things.

In the musical arena an artist is someone who writes, produces music that is a step above what they have done before. Someone who changes things up and pushes the art form forward.

A singer by contrast may just be a gifted instrument (not to rob them from being a great singer).

There are a lot of singers out there, but fewer artists.

For me the best occurs when then is a meeting of both.

Swa

Agree to disagree because we know guys who are NOT singers, I wouldn't call them singers nor artists, lol. So uh, what's Ella Fitzgerald to y'all then?

If you ask a singer what he or she does and they reply, "I sing and write songs", then that is an artist. A singer merely interprets what is given to them. Maybe, in some sense, interperting a song vocally can be considered an art and the singer, therefore, an artist on some level. But that would mean there are various levels of artistry, which I believe there are. So, I suppose a singer that only sings can be considered an artist, but at a lower level than someone who does more than just sing. Technically, though, one could argue that anyone who creates is an artist.
[Edited 6/20/09 20:05pm]

leecappella said:

I think that's what some of us are getting at. We have singers that can interpret a song the way THEY see fit, matter of fact they can be considered a co-creator of a song. Some people will arrange their own vocals to match the song's arrangement. That's an artist right there. If you're just singing to be singing, then NO you're NOT an artist but if you use to make a song come alive, then YES it's argued you can be considered an artist.

Harlepolis said:

I'm not talking a pencil to write with, but a pencil to beat on something.

Timmy84 said:

The next time I hear a hip-hop track with no bassline from a bass guitar OR synth, I'll blame Prince and his definite hit (When Doves Cry) for that as well.

TonyVanDam said:

No blame it on Michael and "Billie Jean".

Anybone can sing, Shit I can sing, Neyo can sing, rihanna can sing. But not everyone can SANG. People that can sang, are vocalist. These are people that create their own melodies, vocal arrangements, phrasings, etc. These ppl are definitely artist.

Interesting thoughts all around, I was ready to agree with the singers are artists crowd, but then thought of it like this.

An artist can take a blank canvas and apply paint to create something never before seen. They produce, arrange, compose, ect...

A singer is more like paint by numbers. They may fill in the lines very skillfully, but is that unicorn on velvet really art? For most, only by the broadest of definitions. Someone else can create the same thing because it comes in a kit. Especially in the days of Pro Tools. A legion of talentless hacks have made millions by processing crappy voices through a computer and showing off some titties.

As the decade's gone on, I've personally started to equate singers with American Idol and artists with entertainers who are actually interesting in their performance. It's a hierarchy.