Graycap23 said:

It's getting funnier because you're replying.

Graycap23 said:

I doubt you're in demand either. Guess that doesn't make you a musician.

NDRU said:

I can use a knife the same as a screwdriver.....does that make the knife a screwdriver?

It doesn't have to be personal, nobody knows anyone here enough to judge them, this is just a discussion on how people define music.

Graycap23 said:

no but they're both tools

Timmy84 said:

I regret even posting on this thread.
I realise I have to think more when I post because it is so easy now for threads to turn into displays of snobbery and bullshit

What it comes down to is that some people can't stand people shitting on shit hop so they will pull every person with some sort of unique skill that doesn't play an instrument out of their hat to turn the focus around and get people off of shit hop's back which is what they are really try to defend.

Do I like Bobby McFarren's "music"? No. Do I have a problem with it? No. On the other hand, do I like shit hop? No. Do I have a problem with it? Hell yes. So why don't I have a problem with what Bobby McFarren does but I do have a problem with what shit hoppers do? Because what Bobby McFarren does isn't dominating the entire damn R&B radio airwaves and forcing everything else out. Defenders of shit hop love to make the genre appear to be the poor little genre that so many people "unfairly" hate and conveniently forget that it's what practically dominates R&B radio these days. They want us to "live and let live" but the people that have pushed shit hop on the masses hasn't "lived and let live" when it comes to anything else in the R&B field.

Don't fall into the trap of getting in a long discussion about what someone like Bobby McFarren does because it's shit hop that they really have a problem with people shitting on. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's the record labels and radio stations fault that it is dominating and not shit hop's fault itself but I don't give a damn if I'm dead wrong for saying this but I don't see anything ever coming in and changing styles in R&B until that cheap, dull, worthless piece of bullshit "musical genre" dies.

Alej said:

And this is perfect bait.

Timmy84 said:

NDRU said:

I thought I dealt with that...

From an old-schoolers perspective, back in the day (40s, 50s, etc) when one claimed the title "musician", there was an implied connotation that went beyond a text-book/dictionary definition. There was an assumption that one had the necessary skills required to at least earn a living as such. Whether they played an instrument, sang or wrote music.

...

As for taking sides, I probably did at the end regarding the quality of the term, then vs now.


Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

yes, and that I could totally agree with--reserving the title of musician for those who had the skills to professionally navigate a piece of music.

I'm looser on my definition of what is music, definitely. That term could be applied to almost any noise.

vainandy said:

I can understand why people dont consider vocalists/rappers musicians, but you cant convince me that producers like RZA and Dj Premier arent musicians.

Music is music, sampled or originally composed.

Its all a matter of opinion and perception, someone might consider random noise music and think of actual music as noise.

lol dig!?

NDRU said:

My personal definition is pretty wide also (avant-garde, minimalist modern composition, etc).
For example, most people on this board (based on the type of "music" and personalities which garner the most posts) would tend to call avant-garde Jazz a type of "noise".

However, as i've pointed out in the past, if you trace this type of artist's early history you'll find it firmly rooted in traditional Jazz and Classical before they made the leap.



Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

Alej said:

AMEN. Some people think their opinion is the gospel.

The person who can pluck their way through “Mary Had a Little Lamb” is light years from being confused with Duke Ellington.

But they're both piano players and musicians. One is one of the greatest musicians/artists who ever lived, the other doesn't even crack the top one billion.

And since everyone (including the greatest musicians) wouldn't bestow the title in the same manner, it's far easier to use the objective definitions that don't speak to quality in combination with adjectives that do.

I don't see anyone arguing that someone's personal use of the term can't be used in a setting that totally flatters, knowing how difficult it would be to achieve that title from that person.

It's just that people that are very good at what they do (and this potentially includes all of us) I think waste far too much energy on whether or not they are seen as being more special than those that have far less talent, far less knowledge, and a far less impressive work ethic.

Yes, Prince is my favorite musician .

Hey, no offense but I think the discussion that's going on in this thread is very interesting and a more intriguing subject of discussion than the initial question.
There are too few of those around here so I am definitely not sorry for posting here. We can only agree to disagree, but that shouldn' kill the topic. But in respect of the initial poster the topic should be having its own thread.

Alej said:

I use to post threads too and stop for this very same reason. You can't ask a question or post a comment without having it go completely awry here. It's not your fault. Please continue to feel free and post whatever you wish.

VenusBlingBling said:

I thought so, too, that's why I didn't want to see people taking anything personally--including me!

VenusBlingBling said:

I agree with you completely. Obviously, what defines a musician is a "touchy" subject for some of you, so wouldn't it make more sense to discuss it in depth elsewhere. Give this thread back to its original question.
(disclaimer: yes, I am at fault too, because instead of answering the question, I gave a list of my favorites. I apology for whatever part I played in helping to lead this thread off track.)

maria1999 said:

Oh, I do. It's just that when people ruin threads that were actually somewhat interesting I feel disappointed.

For me its a 4 way tie between:

1)Prince-from 1980-1988, quite possibly the most dominant period for any artist. Even his weakest efforts were interesting. Best all around musician I have seen live.

1)Michael Jackson-My greatest regret is that I never got to see him live. The greatest entertainer of all time. Man can sing, dance, and was an entertainer until the end.

1)Jimi Hendrix-I always wondered what his sound would have morphed into in the 1970's.

1)David Bowie-Regardless of era, he got better with time. His 1970s output was surreal.

no he's not. if i were to rank him, he'd probably be in my top 10 or maybe top 15 male artists. but definitely not my favourite.

Wow, this thread makes me turn off every bit of music and throw on some Bobby McFerrin...

OK, so let's talk power relations:
A singer says: Everybody can be a musician, may he be playing an instrument or just singing.
An instrumentalist says: Only those who play instruments are musicians. The singers are ONLY singers.

Get the picture?

Now, let's talk semantics:
Here's what you said:


Now tell me, where's the mistake in the sentence above?

Right, finally, let's get into some more examples.
Dropping Bobby's name wasn't fair play i hear? OK...
Then... please tell me...

Is George Clinton a musician?
Is Al Jarreau?
Is Joni Mitchell? If so, what happens to Joni when she puts down the guitar?
[Edited 4/9/10 19:06pm]

No.

Amen to FunkyDissCo
and yes prince is my fav