The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist?
Old 11th January 2017
  #151
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
if one intends to make art, then for me I see it as art.
This is 'exactly' the conversation that was had in the other thread. Too bad it was closed.

The problem with your view above is that you can't ever be 100% certain of my true intent of course. So if that is the criteria for something being art then me placing a burrito on a window sill is art as long as I say it is. I still maintain that's nonsense, because at that point anything can be art as long as someone claims it is, and then in turn the meaning of the word is nil.
Old 11th January 2017
  #152
Gear Head
If you have to publicly defend your art, then you are probably a businessman/entrepeneur moreso than an artist - but an artist nonetheless! As for OP, there are plenty of artists that don't even create their own work, so its a moot point; you are artistically contributing something in a way - whether you are interpreting another man's work, or even if you are lip-syncing.

Music stays alive not because of the creator, or the interpreter, or the physicist (gearslut!), etc. individually, but because of everyone involved!
Old 11th January 2017
  #153
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
Is a musician always an artist?
Most of the ones I know are p*ss artists. Does that count?
Old 11th January 2017
  #154
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
thumbnailing now relatively obscure composers as such as Daniel Steibelt,
So to use the Steibelt vs. Beethoven example, the article says,

"As a man Steibelt was vain and bombastic. As a composer he was superficial and trite. Consequently, the gates of obscurity opened wide to him when he died in St. Petersburg in 1823. No man bore the stigma of plagiarism more openly. His most widely know pianoforte work of merit is his “Etude”, a collection of studies. Steibelt’s life is an excellent illustration of how the public may be deceived by the pretensions of an artificial and insincere composer."

it would seem that history got it right? Perhaps even at the time, though he was popular, maybe like KennyG, he was thought of in certain ways. Hate to keep picking on KennyG, but he is, or was popular, but does he have a chance of being thought of as a Beethoven? He's probably not even that good of an example.

But do you think it's possible that Beethoven's place will diminish into also ran, and Steibelt will be thought of as a great genius in the future?
Old 11th January 2017
  #155
Gear Addict
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

'Artistry' and 'newness' are subjective qualities in and of themselves. I asked for the objective units in which one would measure 'newness' and have gotten no reply. If you want to blast your opinions out there, go ahead, that's your right. But please do not try and tell us your opinions are based on 'objective' criteria. That's a pathetic attempt to place your opinions above the opinions of others, and some of us won't stand for it.
that's wild.
you're tackling my opinion with your opinion, amazing.

what you don't really want to understand is that art has objective characteristics to it, it has a degree of subjectivity, sure you might say "it doesnt touch me, i dont consider it art" but you're analysing it through objective criteria, whether you know it or not. Emotionally experiencing OR NOT an art form IS objective, (using another user's example) saying Coltrane did something new IS objective, you can go back in history and see for yourself it hasnt been done before. Based on that, I decide FOR MYSELF what is and what is not art, and what is merely artistic/a derivative art piece.

And about me placing my opinion abover others, by Kant's theory, someone who shares my opinion is actually of an inferior intellect compared to someone who shares your opinion. The thing is I created this thread so people could share their opinions, I definitely wasn't expecting people in their feelings, who keep quoting me writing essays, first implying I only considered art the things I like, then that I was imposing my opinion on everyone else (which by default I wasnt, since I literally ended OP questioning what was everyone else's opinion, and havent quoted anyone contesting their opinion, like you did with mine).
Old 11th January 2017
  #156
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
This is 'exactly' the conversation that was had in the other thread. Too bad it was closed.

The problem with your view above is that you can't ever be 100% certain of my true intent of course. So if that is the criteria for something being art then me placing a burrito on a window sill is art as long as I say it is. I still maintain that's nonsense, because at that point anything can be art as long as someone claims it is, and then in turn the meaning of the word is nil.
Those were the days.

My position is, and was, that it doesn't make the meaning of the word nil, because art describes the aesthetic feeling one gets from looking or listening or whatever...you've got the burrito...food...you've got the windowsill....a windowsill...and then you have the feeling from looking at them and admiring them or whatever your feeling is, the shapes, colors, shadows, light, and whatever other sorts of feelings you may or may not get....that's art. There is an artistic quality to everything.
Old 11th January 2017
  #157
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
My position is, and was, that it doesn't make the meaning of the word nil, because art describes the aesthetic feeling one gets from looking or listening or whatever...you've got the burrito...food...you've got the windowsill....a windowsill...and then you have the feeling from looking at them and admiring them or whatever your feeling is, the shapes, colors, shadows, light, and whatever other sorts of feelings you may or may not get....that's art. There is an artistic quality to everything.
If it's all subjective then anyone who thinks something lacks that quality is as right as someone who thinks it has the quality. They're both right and wrong at the same time. That "works" because the word is now rendered meaningless.

Massacring children in war? Yeah, it has a certain artistic quality to it if you're a psychopathic maniac. But it's still a subjective opinion and thus defines the activity as art, according to your logic.

What is "art"? Nothing, and everything. A completely meaningless word.
Old 11th January 2017
  #158
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post

...but, the greatest example would be JS Bach.
Reading about Bach (this forum is like going to school), in a nutshell, he was extremely successful and admired during his lifetime, died, had a slight decline in that his music seemed dated compared to whatever was going on, then a biography and revival officially put him on the map not too long later as one of the greatest of all time where he has been ever since.

I still feel, that in general, though there may be some flow and flux, things end up getting written pretty much in stone.
Old 11th January 2017
  #159
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
If it's all subjective then anyone who thinks something lacks that quality is as right as someone who thinks it has the quality. They're both right and wrong at the same time. That "works" because the word is now rendered meaningless.

Massacring children in war? Yeah, it has a certain artistic quality to it if you're a psychopathic maniac. But it's still a subjective opinion and thus defines the activity as art, according to your logic.

What is "art"? Nothing, and everything. A completely meaningless word.
It's the aesthetic quality of something, separate from whatever it is. How is that meaningless? A painting is technically paint and a canvas. But it's the feeling and expression that comes from it that makes it art. Same for anything. I don't see how that's meaningless.

All artists do is try to capture that feeling and express it.
Old 11th January 2017
  #160
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
that's wild.
you're tackling my opinion with your opinion, amazing.
I am not "tackling" your opinion at all. I truly do not care about who you think is an artist and who is not. I also do not care who you 'like'. And I don't care if they are the same thing or if, in your pure 'objective' state, you can keep the two separate.

I am rejecting your implication throughout that there is an underlying 'objective' basis for your opinions. For anyone's opinion, really. I certainly am not claiming an 'objective' basis for my opinion!

That's why these threads devolve into pointlessness. Because no one is satisfied with merely expressing their opinion about art. They have to justify it with "facts".

Neither you nor any of the other 'objectivity' apologists have been able to offer anything resembling a truly objective methodology. It's almost as if you don't understand what the word 'objective' actually means. Just some hand-waving about "analysis" - if there there was a scientific system in place to spit out a number and some 'units' that that number was in. Something that all humans would agree upon.

If something was truly objective, you should be able to build a machine to measure it. If you wanted to weigh bricks, you could build a machine to do it. Determine which of two people was taller? A machine could do it. Which artist was truly "new" and which artist was doing something old "in a new way" and if that new way was new enough to 'count'. Never mind which artist only "seems new" but is really just "rehashing".

It's all vague hand-waving BS. Nobody is capable of designing a machine or a system that will do this because in the end a person has to look at the "data" and judge 'yes' or 'no'. And no two people will look at it the same way.

Quote:
saying Coltrane did something new IS objective, you can go back in history and see for yourself it hasnt been done before.
as 12tone expressed quite clearly, there are plenty of historical antecedents for what Coltrane did. Some people look at those things and say "well he applied them in a new way" and some other people could look at those same things and say "well, to me, this application is not enough".


Quote:
havent quoted anyone contesting their opinion, like you did with mine).
It seems pretty clear that your "opinion" is that your opinion is somehow grounded in "objectivity", so yes, I contest that!
Old 11th January 2017
  #161
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
if one intends to make art, then for me I see it as art.
This is 'exactly' the conversation that was had in the other thread. Too bad it was closed.

The problem with your view above is that you can't ever be 100% certain of my true intent of course. So if that is the criteria for something being art then me placing a burrito on a window sill is art as long as I say it is. I still maintain that's nonsense, because at that point anything can be art as long as someone claims it is, and then in turn the meaning of the word is nil.
I think a burrito on a window sill would be art, as long as you intended it to be art. That's the deciding factor, someone does something with the intention of communicating something beyond using language. You see the burrito as art, and declare it so. I'm left wondering what the hell you were thinking? And I'll look for the artistry, and signs this was placed by an artist.

If you are an experienced artist, you might have placed it on the sill with mathematical precision in context to the frame, and I might pick up on that. And you probably considered the aluminum foil creases.. Maybe on may 5th at 4:20pm of every year the sun reflects off the foil perfectly lighting up other small random artworks on the walls around the room? Then we are talking about a potential priceless masterpiece.

that's the criteria I was taught in school: was it thought out and deliberate, even if its random was it deliberately meant to be random? And then consider the artist's history and knowledge... they could have cranked out another generic piece, instead they choose something not so common.
Old 12th January 2017
  #162
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
I think a burrito on a window sill would be art, as long as you intended it to be art. That's the deciding factor, someone does something with the intention of communicating something beyond using language. You see the burrito as art, and declare it so. I'm left wondering what the hell you were thinking? And so I focus my attention to burrito. And I'll look for the artistry, and signs this was placed by an artist.
If Picasso placed the burrito on the sill, he'd have charged admission for people to see it.

If Magritte placed it, he would have left a sign saying, "this is a burrito"...
Old 12th January 2017
  #163
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
I think a burrito on a window sill would be art, as long as you intended it to be art. That's the deciding factor, someone does something with the intention of communicating something beyond using language. You see the burrito as art, and declare it so. I'm left wondering what the hell you were thinking? And so I focus my attention to burrito. And I'll look for the artistry, and signs this was placed by an artist.
I don't even think you necessarily have to intend something as art and call it art. That may be the official step in being an "artist" and creating "art" and potentially sharing it with others. But you can simply experience things as art, which it seems to me, is where all artists begin. You can look around right now wherever you are and experience the art of it. If the word "art" doesn't cover that, what word does?
Old 12th January 2017
  #164
I would place a sign with it saying "This is not a burrito"
Old 12th January 2017
  #165
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Reading about Bach (this forum is like going to school), in a nutshell, he was extremely successful and admired during his lifetime, died, had a slight decline in that his music seemed dated compared to whatever was going on, then a biography and revival officially put him on the map not too long later as one of the greatest of all time where he has been ever since.

I still feel, that in general, though there may be some flow and flux, things end up getting written pretty much in stone.
I don't know man - I mean Bach died in 1750, and the real Bach revival didn't happen until around 70 years later, by Mendelssohn et al...that's like 3 generations and a whole musical epoch removed.

He was very admired and respected during his lifetime, but much more in a provincial sense, and more as a performer and virtuoso than a composer - it's not like he was known throughout Europe as well as someone like Handel or D Scarlatti, who were born in the same year as JS.

If anything, the fact he wore out two wives having a sh*tload of kids, many who were musicians of note, and some of them being teachers of very famous composers, that his legacy and reputation remained intact...but in terms of general public recognition - not very much, until the early part of the 1800's.
Old 12th January 2017
  #166
Gear Addict
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I ".




as 12tone expressed quite clearly, there are plenty of historical antecedents for what Coltrane did. Some people look at those things and say "well he applied them in a new way" and some other people could look at those same things and say "well, to me, this application is not enough".
some other people could say that, but those same other people can't give me an answer after I ask them "can you show me someone before Coltrane who did what Coltrane did then?" and their argument dies right there, because no one had done exactly what Coltrane did. Same thing happened with all the examples I mentioned before, Michael Jackson didn't invent dancing or horror movie soundtracks or shouting random adlibs, but there wasn't a Thriller before he made one, was there? So you can say "to me thats not enough" all you want, but once some asks you to name another Michael Jackson before Michael you have nothing to really rely on other than your stuck up response of "ok but Michael creating something that didnt exist before is not enough for me to say he made something new" - I hope you know thats what you're saying by the way
Old 12th January 2017
  #167
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post
I would place a sign with it saying "This is not a burrito"
Magritte would have if it were a picture or painting - for a real life tableau, an ironical statement referential to the pipe piece would have been made...hence the difference!
Old 12th January 2017
  #168
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post

He was very admired and respected during his lifetime, but much more in a provincial sense, and more as a performer and virtuoso than a composer - it's not like he was known throughout Europe as well as someone like Handel or D Scarlatti, who were born in the same year as JS.
According to wiki, "In his own time Bach's reputation equalled those of Telemann, Graun and Handel".

So he was not acclaimed for being a composer as much as he would be later, so there is flow, but he was a success and respected and taken seriously. It's not like he was a complete unknown, or thought of as some sort of Vanilla Ice, and then years later, the world thought, oh, that untalented buffoon?, we've changed our minds and realized he was a genius.
Old 12th January 2017
  #169
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
According to wiki, "In his own time Bach's reputation equalled those of Telemann, Graun and Handel".

So he was not acclaimed for being a composer as much as he would be later, so there is flow, but he was a success and respected and taken seriously. It's not like he was a complete unknown, or thought of as some sort of Vanilla Ice, and then years later, the world thought, oh, that untalented buffoon?, we've changed our minds and realized he was a genius.
wiki schmiki...

I knows what I knows, and I don't need no damn Wiki to know it.

Most accounts have Bach not having much recognition equal to how important he was, just sayin'

WTC books 1 & 2 might be the holy grail unlocking the potential of equal temperament harmony, which became the lingua franca of music theory.

Mozart and Beethoven and others of their ilk were well aware of Bach, the common person in Europe between 1685 and 1820 - really no friggin' clue...
Old 12th January 2017
  #170
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
That's why these threads devolve into pointlessness. Because no one is satisfied with merely expressing their opinion about art. They have to justify it with "facts".
Everyone skipped my art.
No one interested in shattering my monstrous ego?
It can't be shattered. My art's the best.
Really, that's my subjectivity.
I am subjective about every song and every
work of art in the universe. So is everyone else.
And mine's first place. It's closest to me,
it's more of a representative of what all good
art is to me than anything else ever could be.
I think Dali said once, when I wake up sometimes
on the morning, I think, 'I'm Salvadore Dali!'
Something like that.
Old 12th January 2017
  #171
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Magritte would have if it were a picture or painting - for a real life tableau, an ironical statement referential to the pipe piece would have been made...hence the difference!
I'm not an artist, well, I don't see myself as one...


What have I learned from this topic ?

Art can not be defined, that's the beauty and power of art.... let's keep it that way.
Old 12th January 2017
  #172
Lives for gear
 
RRCHON's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
This is 'exactly' the conversation that was had in the other thread. Too bad it was closed.

The problem with your view above is that you can't ever be 100% certain of my true intent of course. So if that is the criteria for something being art then me placing a burrito on a window sill is art as long as I say it is. I still maintain that's nonsense, because at that point anything can be art as long as someone claims it is, and then in turn the meaning of the word is nil.
If it was your intent to make art it is art.

That doesn't mean I have to like it, respect your efforts, or even try to understand it. It doesn't make it not art. Even a stone mason can be an artist, the criteria is intent and translation of intent. If you wanted and intended to make a life like bronze statue of a horse as art but ended up with something that looks a radiation addled mutilated camel then you would have to be honest with yourself and admit you failed at your attempt. Someone one might come and love it... but the artist's or craftsman intent is what separates a tract home from an architectural building that would be considered art.

Just because you anyone can make art... doesn't make it all good.

Take Calligraphers and illuminatators and an other example. You can write your child a note that tells them to take out the trash, your intent was to communicate that you wanted the trash taken out. Now, compare that your intent to a calligrapher's or illuminator who intended to copy an old script or even your note to take out the trash and make it convey more than just the message that the trash needs to go out .... they wanted it to be beautiful and touching and have texture and all those other words we use that just ca not covey intent. Maybe they failed and the note does nothing beyond just stating ' take out the trash," but it still is art..... then the observer has to decide whether they like it or not, that is a different mechanism all together.

Art does not stem from art appreciation, but its value does. So if you need to attach value to it... that is a personal issue and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Unless, we reconfigure the original premise to be about art appreciation rather than what constitutes art or not.
Old 12th January 2017
  #173
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
wiki schmiki...

I knows what I knows, and I don't need no damn Wiki to know it.
That's because you're so smart.

Quote:
Most accounts have Bach not having much recognition equal to how important he was, just sayin'

WTC books 1 & 2 might be the holy grail unlocking the potential of equal temperament harmony, which became the lingua franca of music theory.

Mozart and Beethoven and others of their ilk were well aware of Bach, the common person in Europe between 1685 and 1820 - really no friggin' clue...
So common people were not that into him, so what?

They're not into him now either. Probably never will be.
Old 12th January 2017
  #174
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRCHON View Post
If it was your intent to make art it is art.

Ok. You state that with a fair amount of certainty.

So suppose you see some piece of supposed art, and the creator says he intended it as a piece of art. Would you then say it is art regardless of what it is and how it was produced?

Suppose he admitted to someone else that his goal was to fool people into thinking crap was art. Then is it art, to you?
Old 12th January 2017
  #175
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
I think a burrito on a window sill would be art, as long as you intended it to be art. That's the deciding factor, someone does something with the intention of communicating something beyond using language. You see the burrito as art, and declare it so.
Yeah, but you don't actually know the intent of the supposed artist, do you? You only know what the person claims the intent was.

And I will keep arguing that things aren't "art pieces" just because someone says so. I think it requires intent (I agree), but also some level of craftsmanship. There's no skill in going to Chipotle and getting a burrito and placing it in a window. Zero skill. Nada.

At best it's art as anti-art, but that's inherently contradictory of course.
Old 12th January 2017
  #176
Lives for gear
 
RRCHON's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
My apologies if I mischaracterized, sincerely sorry...

I dunno - what may widely be deemed masterpieces, myriad factors go into it. Personally, maybe it's because of overexposure and whatnot, I cannot listen to,nor watch - it turns into something too prosaic, mainstream and overtly pedestaled, if there is such a word. (Of course not all things considered masterpieces, but a good lot of them, I'd rather check out maybe things done by the same artists but maybe perhaps more obscure - I find it much more interesting)


No worries, no offense taken.

I have somewhat of a discovery fetish my self, it does feel rewarding to sift through a pile of manure to find that rare and undiscovered gem. Though as I've gotten older I can appreciate mainstream aesthetics and expressions as well.

As my personal criteria for what constitutes exceptional art have gotten more and more stringent I find it easier to tolerate more mundane and mediocre works and accept them for what they are. True giants and maestros are few and far between in all recorded history... it is selfish to think that one would be lucky enough to share a life time on this planet with just one and just pompous to think that in the span of a life time one would share this planet with a multitude of them.

It doesn't make contemporary artists less artistic to me, I just prefer enjoy what is around me the best way I can and defer judgement to time and those who come later and may or may not choose to build legends out of people that were and will always be just human beings trying to express themselves.

Old 12th January 2017
  #177
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
That's because you're so smart.



So common people were not that into him, so what?

They're not into him now either. Probably never will be.
This digression is needlessly obfuscatory...

I only brought up Bach in reference to one of theblue1's posts, in which you asked for examples, in which I thought Bach was the best case...nothing more nothing less.

The fact remains, Bach is in the pantheon of greats, and during his lifetime and subsequent deacdes later he wasn't per se...and it really wasn't until 70 years after his death that he got proper acclaim...and to point out I what believed was a historical inaccuracy on your part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Reading about Bach (this forum is like going to school), in a nutshell, he was extremely successful and admired during his lifetime, died, had a slight decline in that his music seemed dated compared to whatever was going on, then a biography and revival officially put him on the map not too long later as one of the greatest of all time where he has been ever since.
dude...70 years is not 'not too long later', it's practically a lifetime...
Old 12th January 2017
  #178
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Yeah, but you don't actually know the intent of the supposed artist, do you? You only know what the person claims the intent was.

And I will keep arguing that things aren't "art pieces" just because someone says so. I think it requires intent (I agree), but also some level of craftsmanship. There's no skill in going to Chipotle and getting a burrito and placing it in a window. Zero skill. Nada.
Art has to have a level of skill? What level? What is the bare minimum? Now we're back to monkeys painting! When a child paints a painting, is that enough skill? Or is that not art?

I'd ask again about a word to describe what I said above about the aesthetic quality of things. What word would you use to describe that, and why isn't "art" a good one?
Old 12th January 2017
  #179
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Suppose he admitted to someone else that his goal was to fool people into thinking crap was art. Then is it art, to you?
Trolls and idiots make art, too. It is the artwork of a troll/idiot, but art nonetheless.

A magician fools you into thinking something is under the hat, when its really not there - which makes the reveal amazing. That's part of the "art" of magic, and any form of expression or performance can utilize this. So, the act of someone fooling a crowd into staring at sh** for extended periods of time can be considered an art.

Even then, sh** can be observed and studied to find out if something is wrong with your intestines or if you need to alter your diet. I'm sure an artist talented enough can use some medium to express a moment of sh** and evoke ideas of the diet of an alcoholic or the terrifying last moments of someone running from a bear. I will say, though, that it speaks volumes of the mental stability of the person that thinks their sh** is a masterpiece and proudly displays it somewhere - even moreso the patrons that support it.

A I-IV-V chord progression is really a collection of complex interrelated mathematical concepts, including relationships between the frequencies of intervals, but the approach to presenting this progression can vary enormously by choice of instrument, amplification, effects, timing, etc.

If Bach were alive today and saw what can be done with the same progressions he worked with, he would either be amazed or disgusted. Actually, I can't really even speak for him, as he might even brush it off as an uninteresting variation in sound or presentation and go back to writing something for next Sunday or having more sex with his wife.
Old 12th January 2017
  #180
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
This digression is needlessly obfuscatory...

I only brought up Bach in reference to one of theblue1's posts, in which you asked for examples, in which I thought Bach was the best case...nothing more nothing less.

The fact remains, Bach is in the pantheon of greats, and during his lifetime and subsequent deacdes later he wasn't per se...and it really wasn't until 70 years after his death that he got proper acclaim...and to point out I what believed was a historical inaccuracy on your part:



dude...70 years is not 'not too long later', it's practically a lifetime...
Okay.

I just think, generally speaking, as I said, reputations may flow, but I don't think they shift that much for the most part. And Bach didn't seem to have a bad reputation.

And now his reputation is pretty much written in stone, right?
Loading mentioned products ...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get instant access to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump