People who bash artist

[Beat Poet]

It's usually narrow-minded people who do that, people with limited music taste. It's a different ball game though if the narrow-minded person is hating on someone who is also bad

[teknatronik]

Originally Posted by Beat Poet

It's usually narrow-minded people who do that, people with limited music taste. It's a different ball game though if the narrow-minded person is hating on someone who is also bad

good point, but what decides bad? I mean i understand shit production, but beyond that its opinion right?

[benherron.rrr]

Just because one doesn't like an artists music doesn't mean that the artist is not worthy of respect. I hate dance, drum n' bass, rap etc. . . For the most part at least, but I have a lot of respect for people who make this sort of music, because I have seen how much work and emotion people have put into it. Its the manufactured artists who I have 0 respect for.

People should wake up and realise that just because they don't like an artist, doesn't mean that they are bad. After all, we are all trying to put bread on the table.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

[teknatronik]

Originally Posted by benherron.rrr

Just because one doesn't like an artists music doesn't mean that the artist is not worthy of respect. I hate dance, drum n' bass, rap etc. . . For the most part at least, but I have a lot of respect for people who make this sort of music, because I have seen how much work and emotion people have put into it. Its the manufactured artists who I have 0 respect for.

People should wake up and realise that just because they don't like an artist, doesn't mean that they are bad. After all, we are all trying to put bread on the table.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I concur.

[Sqye]

.

I'm guilty of both being an artist who slams people. And a person who slams artists.

That said, I have different levels of respect for everyone - unless I'm in a really bad mood.

Bottom line - we're all just people waling around, putting our pants on one leg at a time.

Nobody's REALLY THAT special.

If you're REALLY talented - but impossible to deal with -
that just sucks for you, your clients, co-workers, audience, friends and family, etc.

And if you suck, but you're a really great person, you'll probably enjoy your life a lot more.

Anyone who spends too much time criticizing other talented and successful people really needs to get a life.

At the end of the day, who cares? We all like different stuff! Just make music and have fun!

But basically, I agree - all this chatter is just a lot of dancing about architecture.

.

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by benherron.rrr

Just because one doesn't like an artists music doesn't mean that the artist is not worthy of respect. I hate dance, drum n' bass, rap etc. . . For the most part at least, but I have a lot of respect for people who make this sort of music, because I have seen how much work and emotion people have put into it. Its the manufactured artists who I have 0 respect for.

People should wake up and realise that just because they don't like an artist, doesn't mean that they are bad. After all, we are all trying to put bread on the table.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

.

Indeed. Well said.

.

[anthonythecat]

You always learn a heck of a lot more about the person making the criticism than you do about the person being criticised.

[teknatronik]

Originally Posted by anthonythecat

You always learn a heck of a lot more about the person making the criticism than you do about the person being criticised.

i like that.

[Brian!]

why do you have to talk shit about 99% of the people who post in the electronic music forum like that?

[kafka]

An artist's job is to analyze what makes something successful, and also to see it for its limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, and is a healthy part of one's development.

That said, a lot of people aren't up to the task of stepping back from their personal preferences, and don't have any real critical framework in which they develop their artistic opinions. In this regard, negative criticism seems to reveal more about the personal limitations of the critic than it does the subject.

[teknatronik]

Originally Posted by kafka

An artist's job is to analyze what makes something successful, and also to see it for its limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, and is a healthy part of one's development.

That said, a lot of people aren't up to the task of stepping back from their personal preferences, and don't have any real critical framework in which they develop their artistic opinions. In this regard, negative criticism seems to reveal more about the personal limitations of the critic than it does the subject.

picking apart someone's work vs bashing them are diff things...

many tunes i dont like that are produced super well... i dont say the artists sucks, just not my thing.... lots tend to confuse good talent with image.

[Beat Poet]

Originally Posted by teknatronik

good point, but what decides bad? I mean i understand shit production, but beyond that its opinion right?

In your original post you mentioned the "artists style, creative flow, quality", so that's what I'm referring to by bad. If someone hates an artist because of shit production and nothing else, then that's off the scale.

[adrianww]

(Thought I'd posted this earlier, but it seems to have disappeared...)

Originally Posted by kafka

An artist's job is to analyze what makes something successful, and also to see it for its limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, and is a healthy part of one's development.

I'd say that analyzing what makes something successful and seeing its limitations is the job of a businessman, record label, promoter or producer (in the classic sense of the word, not the "dude who makes beats for rappers" sense). The job of the artist is to have their artistic/creative vision and express that to the best of their ability, whether or not its successful and regardless of its limitations. If they're not doing that, they're not being an artist.

Originally Posted by kafka

That said, a lot of people aren't up to the task of stepping back from their personal preferences, and don't have any real critical framework in which they develop their artistic opinions. In this regard, negative criticism seems to reveal more about the personal limitations of the critic than it does the subject.

Amen to that though.

[kennybro]

The belief that everything is aesthetically equal serves no more purpose to art than does random artist bashing.

Two sides of the same coin.

[drblank]

Well, there will always be critics, some justified, some not. The problem I see in the market is too many "artists" using Melodyne or Auto-Tune on their vocals because they can't in the first place. Or instead of using REAL musicians, they would rather sing to drum sequences because it is easier and cheaper to produce acts like Justin Bieber, etc.

To be honest, if these record labels had the same level of integrity as they once did back in the 60's and 70's when producers like George Martin, Ken Scott, George Massenberg, etc. were around, we had all of the things required for a legitimate album. Unfortunately, those days are gone FTMP.

Nowadays, one doesn't even need to actually play an instrument, sing well, have a professional background before they hand out recording contracts.

Yes,the buying population doesn't have to buy the stuff, but since Music education isn't prominent kids are looking at shows like XFactor, Americian Idol, talk shows, and the radio for guidance on what to listen to and the Grammy validates this stuff through nominations and awards.

That's the source of my frustration.

[drblank]

Originally Posted by kafka

An artist's job is to analyze what makes something successful, and also to see it for its limitations. There's nothing wrong with that, and is a healthy part of one's development.

That said, a lot of people aren't up to the task of stepping back from their personal preferences, and don't have any real critical framework in which they develop their artistic opinions. In this regard, negative criticism seems to reveal more about the personal limitations of the critic than it does the subject.

Making something successful should be as important as creating something of high quality. I think Melodyne and Auto-Tune on vocals is covering up the lack of talent many of these singers actually have. at least everyone knew people like Bob Dylan couldn't sing. Plus using less expensive production techniques like drum sequences instead of hiring real musicians is another. Personally, some of these pop hits could easily be done in someone's bedroom rather than a full blown production studio.

[adrianww]

Originally Posted by kennybro

The belief that everything is aesthetically equal serves no more purpose to art than does random artist bashing.

Two sides of the same coin.

I don't know if this was a reply to my post, but if it was...

I didn't say (or intend to imply) that all things are aesthetically equal. Just that the "job" of the artist is to express their creative vision. Whether that creative vision and its mode of expression is deemed to be good or bad is a different matter and comes down to subjective judgement on the part of the audience and/or the public at large.

I do, however, still hold that most criticism reveals as much (or more) about the critic as it does about the thing being criticised. Also that there are many critics out there - particularly in the realm of the Internet - who patently offer no grounds upon which their views should be taken with any degree of seriousness.

[drblank]

Originally Posted by kennybro

The belief that everything is aesthetically equal serves no more purpose to art than does random artist bashing.

Two sides of the same coin.

Some people want to voice their frustrations with the industry. Do you think it is art to modify a recording to hide that lack of quality in one's performance by using Beat Detective, excessive editing, pitch correction, sequenced tracks vs live musicians?

I can understand the use of some tools for some things, but to create cheaper production, or hide actual artist's lack of abilities to perform is not art.

these days, one doesn't have to have any education in music to be successful in the industry. Typically in the art world, people had to have some training in art to be successful and heralded as an artist. But in the music industry, not so.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by adrianww

I don't know if this was a reply to my post, but if it was...

I didn't say (or intend to imply) that all things are aesthetically equal. Just that the "job" of the artist is to express their creative vision. Whether that creative vision and its mode of expression is deemed to be good or bad is a different matter and comes down to subjective judgement on the part of the audience and/or the public at large.

I do, however, still hold that most criticism reveals as much (or more) about the critic as it does about the thing being criticised. Also that there are many critics out there - particularly in the realm of the Internet - who patently offer no grounds upon which their views should be taken with any degree of seriousness.

Actually, no. It wasn't in reference to your post. It was in reference to the concept of art critique.

The evaluation of artistic achievement level by both consumers and art scholars is what defines civilization's collective consciousness regarding aesthetic value. Every individual's opinion is equally important, and the sum of those opinions is evaluated by scholars in an effort to define, not create, aesthetic superiority or inferiority, at large.

This hard-won definition is what allows history to declare that Mozart's #40 is "superior" to 1910 Fruit Gum Company's, Yummy Yummy Yummy. Or, for that matter, DSOTM is superior to Yummy Yummy Yummy. All of the above artists probably started with the initial intention of creating something great. They all finished up at varying levels of success.

There will be an argument that Yummy Yummy Yummy was created only to fill a market need, nothing else. In that it is greatly successful, but if that's its core purpose, then it, and every other song that was ever created for the market must be removed from the equation of aesthetic evaluation. This can't be done though, because there is no quantifiable definition cutoff point. It's all just music, and it all must be valued for what it is; not for its creator's intentions.

The original post illustrates the difficulty of the subject. The OP is being critical of people criticizing the art of others, especially if the critic creates crappy art.
The other way to take it is that if a person creates great art, then that person is more qualified to call someone else's art crap, and be... what... more correct in their evaluation?

Not criticizing; just saying that's the nature of the beast and what happens when you try to pin it down. It's the conundrum. Every individual's opinion is equally important in defining the collective, yet every individual's opinion is not equally in tune with the collective. Further complicating the matter is the nebulous and dynamic nature of the collective, as consensus of opinions shifts and redefines itself over time. But the collective has a lot of social momentum, and the dynamic process occurs over the long term. Even when something seismic emerges, like Picasso, it takes time for the collective to absorb and assimilate.

Just musing...

[Yann Leon]

hmmmm....

Nowadays, I don't give a f**k about others bashing and stop reading when I notice if a thread leads toward it. Because:

1) I really don't care
2) Bashing only sends negativity in the air / universe
3) Prefer constructive comments

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by drblank

Some people want to voice their frustrations with the industry. Do you think it is art to modify a recording to hide that lack of quality in one's performance by using Beat Detective, excessive editing, pitch correction, sequenced tracks vs live musicians?

The final result is the determining factor of how my personal opinion is formed on any particular piece. The method for getting there doesn't really concern me any more than if an image is a manipulated digital photograph or an original oil painting. Personally, I think excessive use of the stuff you mentioned usually ends up as crap. That's been my experience.

Originally Posted by drblank

I can understand the use of some tools for some things, but to create cheaper production, or hide actual artist's lack of abilities to perform is not art.

It's art. Often, bad art, depending on how artistically gifted the user is. Use of the word art doesn't predetermine quality level.

Originally Posted by drblank

these days, one doesn't have to have any education in music to be successful in the industry. Typically in the art world, people had to have some training in art to be successful and heralded as an artist. But in the music industry, not so.

I think I would agree with that, overall. Yet, Grandma Moses had no formal training as an artist, yet her images connect with huge numbers of people over a long period of time in ways that tag her as an important artist. Django had little formal training as a guitar player, if any at all. Same deal.

But I know what you're saying. Those people were the exception, and time has defined their superiority. It's unlikely that most people who are hugely successful in the industry right now will be considered great artists in a hundred years time. But if they are, than that will indicate a sea change in the collective, and it will be a valid one.

[drblank]

Originally Posted by kennybro

Actually, no. It wasn't in reference to your post. It was in reference to the concept of art critique.

The evaluation of artistic achievement level by both consumers and art scholars is what defines civilization's collective consciousness regarding aesthetic value. Every individual's opinion is equally important, and the sum of those opinions is evaluated by scholars in an effort to define, not create, aesthetic superiority or inferiority, at large.

This hard-won definition is what allows history to declare that Mozart's #40 is "superior" to 1910 Fruit Gum Company's, Yummy Yummy Yummy. Or, for that matter, DSOTM is superior to Yummy Yummy Yummy. All of the above artists probably started with the initial intention of creating something great. They all finished up at varying levels of success.

Just musing...

The difference is that Mozart caters to a different crowd. Yummy is for teenyboppers with little or no music education with a brain the isn't exactly fully developed. Now, we also have what some people refer to as a DEMO. I don't know if Ken Scott, George Massenberg, or George Martin are reading and would like to post their comment, but I would consider recordings that are heavily reliant on editing, Melodyne, Auto-Tune and other techniques to basically "FIX IT IN THE MIX" techniques would be considered DEMOS. At least that the qualification. Now, in the art world, they only create one master and then sometimes they'll make either reproductions of lessor quality to sell to the masses. (posters, etc.) But they wouldn't consider people that are untrained singers/musicians that need to be modified to be sellable as LEGITIMATE. For instance, your child creates the best art in the world to their parents, but not to art critics. To me that music that is created to attract untrained kids isn't really qualified as art. This includes certain genres like RAP, HIP/HOP, and i'm gonna throw Smooth Jazz, and a couple of other styles into the same category like speed metal etc. Some of this stuff shouldn't be sold and promoted or given a recording contract, but then again. That's me.

Just adding some levity....

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by drblank

The difference is that Mozart caters to a different crowd. Yummy is for teenyboppers with little or no music education with a brain the isn't exactly fully developed. Now, we also have what some people refer to as a DEMO. I don't know if Ken Scott, George Massenberg, or George Martin are reading and would like to post their comment, but I would consider recordings that are heavily reliant on editing, Melodyne, Auto-Tune and other techniques to basically "FIX IT IN THE MIX" techniques would be considered DEMOS. At least that the qualification. Now, in the art world, they only create one master and then sometimes they'll make either reproductions of lessor quality to sell to the masses. (posters, etc.) But they wouldn't consider people that are untrained singers/musicians that need to be modified to be sellable as LEGITIMATE. For instance, your child creates the best art in the world to their parents, but not to art critics. To me that music that is created to attract untrained kids isn't really qualified as art. This includes certain genres like RAP, HIP/HOP, and i'm gonna throw Smooth Jazz, and a couple of other styles into the same category like speed metal etc. Some of this stuff shouldn't be sold and promoted or given a recording contract, but then again. That's me.

Just adding some levity....

I kind of think you're falling into the trap of defining genres as being more of less artistically evaluable. Can't do that, because you can't define them. Yummy gets a pass because it's for underdeveloped brains? Moz is in the mix because he wrote for more highly developed brains?

Where does Elvis Costello fit the mix? Imogen Heap? Jimmy Buffett? Johnny Cash and Dylan? Bernard Herrmann? Jack White? Me? You? Quick. Define them all, and get them all properly placed in the evaluable mix.

It's interesting to read what Ken Scott, George Massenberg, or George Martin consider to be great art. Those are three opinions that add to the collective, but their opinions will never affect mine. It's just as interesting for me to read what you consider to be great art. You're in there too.

As far as what's demos or not, Melodyne, beat stuff, auto tune, etc etc... are present on a lot of master recordings, I guarantee it. Multi-track punching is a heavy modification of the original. That's on a few records too.

I understand what you're saying. My gut tells me that the abuse of technology had led us to a whole lot of emotionless trash music. I just don't know how to expand on that thought without falling into trap after trap.

[Happy Musicfan]

'The new Katy Perry movie is so awesome. Go see it ! Best movie ever ! And her songs are truly great - they are classic melodies. She's a great vocalist - there is no one better. She deserves all the success in the world. She's the queen of pop.'

There are actually people who agree with the above. They think that no amount of hype or blind, fanatical praise for Kesha or Bieber or Perry or Gaga or LMFAO is too much. And *that* is what spurs the backlash. When frivolous mediocrity gets hyped and heralded to such a relentless extreme, a counterbalancing set of opinions is inevitable.

It's also recently happened with the Adele phenomenon. When the liking of her became a media megahype bombardment of unconditional worship, many starting questioning the rabid bandwagon mentality surrounding her.

The bashing is just a response to the dogmatic, fanatical worshipping.

[kafka]

There are a couple of clarifications I'd like to make about my post:

1.) success - I'm not talking about commercial success, but artistic success. Did the work accomplish something? Did it make a point or impression, or was it interesting?

2.) critical framework - An artist is trying to accomplish something with their work. What was that? Did they do it? How did they do it? Was it something worth doing? Could they have done it better? That's about as far as I go with it. One can develop a more complex critical framework, if it suits you. Literary and visual art critics do it all the time. That doesn't mean that every critical framework is complete, though.


As far as "bashing" goes, it's a loaded term. Any criticism that degenerates into bashing is of course showing an unnecessary level of intolerance, or fundamental lack of appreciation of those elements that could in all fairness make a work successful in someone else's eyes.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by AyA

Someone said something about critical framework before. I'm constantly astounded at the convoluted and ridiculous framework which modern critique is hung upon. It has gotten to the point where any negative critique of modern dance is answerable by saying it's subjective... Well, to me most if it looks like people taking the piss out of Tourette's Syndrome sufferers... I may be cynical but that's what it looks like.

Yeah. This is one of the problems that modern art instigates, reaching all the way back from Whistler's Nocturnes, paintpot lawsuit. Some of the most beautiful paintings ever conceived, in my opinion, but pure crap in the opinion of John Ruskin, a top art critic of the day.

Critics certainly can't sort the chaff from the wheat. They can huff and haw and make suggestions, but only the perspective of time truly can sort things out.

"Who The #$&% is Jackson Pollock" is a great documentary that successfully illustrates the absurdity and conflict in much of the art critique community.