Are you an "artist" or a "player?"

[OceanBoy]

Originally Posted by TG

Every musician is both a player (technician) and an artist. You need technique to know how to play. But what you achieve with that technique is what defines you as an artist. And to me an artist is someone who communicates feeling/emotion somehow through their technique.

Well said.


I also think technique is a left side/right side of the brain thing. I think artistry is subliminal.

[TeleTurkey]

Unfortunately, I'm a hack.

Maybe someday....

This certainly is an interesting subject. One that would be great to have while drinking and listening to different music.

I've always had the most respect for those "artists" that can play many styles. I like George Strait, but he does one thing so he doesn't rate as high in my book as someone like Mark Knopfler. Just my opinion and it probably stinks.

[yegbert]

I want to send more of a message than just what is inherent to the medium. But I need to have skill to know how to use the medium, else I will be unable to create and send the message.

I value the art and the playing skill, but I value the art slightly more than the playing skill.

But as much as I value them both...

Here in the TDPRI, the medium is the message. IMHO, TDPRI isn't just for artists, just for players, or just for artists and players. If I believed we should just shut up and play our guitars, I wouldn't be wasting my time reading or posting anything.

[Flaco]

Originally Posted by TeleTurkey

I've always had the most respect for those "artists" that can play many styles. I like George Strait, but he does one thing so he doesn't rate as high in my book as someone like Mark Knopfler.

Interesting point. I place less value on being stylistically diverse. I also don't necessarily value mastery of a bunch of different instruments. However, I'm really impressed when someone is the total musical package: great musician, great singer, great songwriter, producer, etc. all in one. Running through that list the first names that popped into my mind were Steve Wariner and Brad Paisley. I'm not trying to limit it to the country field, those are just the first names I came up with.

[Teletwang]

Even if I have exceptional creative ability or skill at an instrument (wether guitar, voice, brush,etc...) I could never bring myself to say "I am an artist". The cringe factor is amped whenever I hear someone describe themselves as an artist. Through my years of music, art and architecture I have always taken note that the exceptional talents are the most "aw shucks" kind of people.





Cheers, Paul

[eddiewagner]

to walk arund telling peaople "i am an artist" is somehow strange. i like to think it should be the other way around. like: "man, he is a real artist on the guitar. i hope he makes lots of money and lives the lifestyle he is supposed to live as an artist." laughing all the way to the bank.....

[bigericplatt]

Guess if I have to call myself something, it would be "guitarist".

Most of the music I play socially, or even semi-professionally is not original. It's old, acoustic string-band music where I try to hold things together by bashing out guitar chords on an acoustic guitar.

I do not have the talent to consider myself a "player", although there are some fiddlers who like my basic backup. I'm not an artist because I don't consider the music I play "art" music. Rather it is social music. With many different meaning of that phrase.

Guess I just play because my mentality (or complete lack thereof) needs to express itself through music.

[Tele wiz]

Aren't we all players? Most have not become well known like us here.

[Rob Rent]

I think someone else makes those calls about us

[RCinMempho]

After some thought, I've decided that I have been an artist at times and a player at times.

After some more thought, I decided that which one I am at any given time depends a great deal on who I am playing with.

[d. meyers]

Originally Posted by Mickey

Archilochus (Greek poet, 7th century BC):

"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Did you go to Reed College, by any chance? That passage is a big favorite in the introductory humanities course there...

Interesting that this came up today- I heard some Paganinni on the radio this morning, and it struck me that, despite his reputation as a big ol' showman with no substance, I actually had a pretty strong emotional response to the music- I usually don't like his stuff much. I too found the Buchannan clips left me cold, but other people on the board are compleley floored by the music. Why are they floored? Because they perceive some element of technical mastery (seemed a little sloppy to me, but what do I know)? I guess- but what does it matter what the mechanism of communication is? If Buchannan (or anyone else) performs, and someone listens and is moved for whatever reason, then I guess that's art. I wonder if the debate is really less about the artist and more about the audience?

[jonzer]

I think I do a decent job as a frontman and delivering the songs we do. But I'm no show stopper.
I think when I compare those who are great on stage and those who write great songs I'm closer to the writer (not that I'm calling myself a great songwriter). I just think I'm more of a writer than a performer. So I have to go with artist. I have to go with that as I'm more creative than a technical or even very good guitar player. The guitar is my tool. The music is the passion.

I would like to be better at both.

[CancerLeoCam]

..I think "HOBO" best suits me.

[captain gorgeous]

Originally Posted by eddiewagner

to walk arund telling peaople "i am an artist" is somehow strange. i like to think it should be the other way around. like: "man, he is a real artist on the guitar. i hope he makes lots of money and lives the lifestyle he is supposed to live as an artist." laughing all the way to the bank.....

i don't think i'm better than anyone else for having made that very potentially embarassing statement. in fact i know that i'm a lot worse oh so many ways than pretty much anyone you care to name. i have no illusions about my inate lack of talent or dearth of technical skill. i'm fully aware of my non-existant instinctive musical talents. i'm a hack. but i work hard at what i do and i hope that i'm at least talented enough in some small way and work hard enough on it so that the fruits of my labour will actually be enjoyable to others. seems to be working out so far. i'll never be in the rock and roll hall of fame but hey... people come and poeple enjoy themselves. don't think i'd have perservered without some sort of encouragement in that area.

and i still think that the practice of imagining up concepts for songs, writing lyrics and putting them to a melody over a musical backing and arranging them for a band and performing them is an "art". i think people are afraid of the word art and think that to use it is somehow pretentious. i'm just trying to reclaim it for what it is. it isn't supposed to be high praise. it's just what a lot people here do.

having said all that i wouldn't describe myself as an artist unless asked a direct and (two choices as it happens) multiple choice question on the subject.

all of this raises interesting questions about the boundaries though. for example, are covers bands artists? or are are they artists doing a bit of copying to make money on the side? what about those who have no idea what they are doing? what about those who know exactly what they are doing and approach composition as an almost mathematical excercise?

[captain gorgeous]

EDIT because it was long and boring. the gist being that i thought:

music is not just sound to me. it is not science. or maths. it's an art. an art that requires some degree of technical skill in order to be able to produce it

.

[Teletwang]

Originally Posted by captain gorgeous

having said all that i wouldn't describe myself as an artist .......

Thats all we were saying. Its a lot like - "Don't hate me 'cuz I'm beautiful....err....gorgeous."

Cheers, Paul

[captain gorgeous]

first up, hey now! my username is just bad joke that stuck. i tried changing it but that's a no-go round here. maybe i should ask paul if i can change it to:

"i'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and i like to kiss my own butt?"

bet i'd make some buddies then eh?

and secondly. i'm still in two minds about this debate to be honest.

i still think that music is an artform and that those who create music are partaking in or creating and art. they can therefore be considered artists. of course i realise that just because you did some painting by numbers last week that doesn't make you a painter and therefore an artist.

but somehow i feel that having devoted a life to making music there is no reason why someone shouldn't regard themselves as an artist. it doesn't mean that they consider themsleves better than someone who say "shucks i'm just a hack". to me it just means that they're being honest about their aspirations. they might not achieve those artistic aspirations and might well be played off the stage by the self-proclaimed hack. they even might be a "bad" and untalented artist. i don't think it matters. i think people just jump on the anyone proclaiming artistic tendancies as pretentious and i think that's a bit of a shame.

you're right though, walking about telling people you're an artist does look dreadful. i would honestly never do it (as already stated) unless specifically asked the question in the title of this thread.

i dunno. maybe it's inverse snobbery. false modesty, whatever. i honestly don't claim to be any good. really. the quality of musicianship and knowledge here is aweinspiring and quite humbling. but if you've spent your life striving to be as good as you can and spend most waking moments of your life consumed by music and thinking about in a creative context. then yeah, why not consider yourself an artist?

of course i realise this is probably making we wildly unpopular... :D

[captain gorgeous]

something else that occurred to me earlier.

someone mention that the truly great artist are usually of the "aww shucks" variety. i think there is an element of truth in that and i also think that is because to the trully trully gifted, these things come... (i won't say easily because lord knows how hard these people work on it) but at least naturally. that's what gifted means right?

so when joe public says "hey you're incredibe, how on earth do you do that thing that you do?" of course they're going to say... "well it's no big whoop really".

of course i suspect that most sane people would say something along those lines even if they'd been practicing all night every night for 10 years to be honest.

[Durtdog]

Is everything that is created "art"? And everyone who creates an "artist"?

I built a bird house, does that make me a carpenter? My family and friends think it's nice, but the birds won't nest in it.

Just a thought, not directed at anyone in particular.

[captain gorgeous]

exactly my point about the painting-by-numbers.

okay - how about this:

"i have artistic aspirations but am fully aware of my shortcomings both tecnically and creatively"

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by captain gorgeous

"i have artistic aspirations but am fully aware of my shortcomings both tecnically and creatively"

I think that addresses the particular issue you were discussing, and you articulated it nicely.

[captain gorgeous]

*groan*



later guys i gotta go to pretentious artists supplies and try on some berets and roll-necks. later i'm going to smoke some gauloise, get elegantly wasted on absinthe and throw red some paint at a canvas for a bit.

btw have you guys noticed the tv advertising's shorthand for artistic/passionate is always some bright young thing throwing paint about. like it's somehow more passionate to chuck paint than it is to carefully craft a masterpiece.

[Heather Anne Peel]

Neither. I am a soundsmith.
Heather