The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 7th January 2017
  #31
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
First of all, never once did i talk about my taste in music.
You did not specify what your taste in music is, but you certainly did imply your taste in music as the 'standard'!
Quote:
I think only musicians who are creating something that hasn't been done before should be considered artist
when the obvious example of a great classical musician playing centuries-old compositions is brought out to show the absurdity of this statement, you changed this to allow an exception for musicians that are:
Quote:
“bringing new things to the table”.
And how exactly is "bringing new things to the table" measured? Weighing them a scale? By a decibel meter? By a ruler? Stopwatch?

no, it is measured by someone's taste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Then who decides?

since sfilipee is so adamant that his personal taste is not involved in this, then I will decide. I am the one who decides if someone is "bringing new things to the table" or not, since apparently nobody else wants to step up for the job.

I hereby render my verdict:
any person who plays any instrument, no matter how poorly, any person who writes any song, no matter how derivative, is bringing something new to the table. You don't have to like that something. You don't have to think it is something much. But to my taste it is something and that therefore, such a person is an 'artist'.

This not only includes Coldplay, it includes the 11 year old who has been playing guitar for a week.

There. Glad that is settled. I sure hope everyone is OK with having to abide by a definition of "artist" that is determined by someone else's taste!
Old 8th January 2017
  #32
Lives for gear
 

It's funny. I know this is a big thing for many people. I've just never had any interest in defining what makes art art or an artist an artist. I don't even think of music as art. Never have.
Old 8th January 2017
  #33
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
are you really an artist if all your songs sound like Radiohead rip-offs?
isn't Radiohead a Queen rip-off? just change the voice, slow down the music, make everything softer, add some hip hop and electronic influences...

is an artist someone who convincingly mixes stolen ideas from a wide range of genres?
Old 8th January 2017
  #34
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
oh Liszt, that copycat. He's not an 'artist'. Rip-off artist, maybe!
Not according to his peers - from Chopin to Grieg - many of whom admired his musicianship as well as his showmanship and happily worked alongside him. Plagiarism was incredibly looked down upon at that time, and he wouldn't be working with any of them if he was a rip-off artist...

He was cocky and could easily imitate other composers of his time, but so did Mozart...
Old 8th January 2017
  #35
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by General TAWH View Post
Insanity is to art what garlic is to salad.
I'll make an effort to avoid the koolaid when you start eating a bowl full of garlic cloves.
Old 8th January 2017
  #36
Lives for gear
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
You did not specify what your taste in music is, but you certainly did imply your taste in music as the 'standard'!


when the obvious example of a great classical musician playing centuries-old compositions is brought out to show the absurdity of this statement, you changed this to allow an exception for musicians that are:


And how exactly is "bringing new things to the table" measured? Weighing them a scale? By a decibel meter? By a ruler? Stopwatch?

no, it is measured by someone's taste.



since sfilipee is so adamant that his personal taste is not involved in this, then I will decide. I am the one who decides if someone is "bringing new things to the table" or not, since apparently nobody else wants to step up for the job.

I hereby render my verdict:
any person who plays any instrument, no matter how poorly, any person who writes any song, no matter how derivative, is bringing something new to the table. You don't have to like that something. You don't have to think it is something much. But to my taste it is something and that therefore, such a person is an 'artist'.

This not only includes Coldplay, it includes the 11 year old who has been playing guitar for a week.

There. Glad that is settled. I sure hope everyone is OK with having to abide by a definition of "artist" that is determined by someone else's taste!
again, i never EVER mentioned or implied what my taste in music, but keep trying. anyways I'll repeat: my perception of what an artist is has nothing to do with my taste, but with what I think an artist must do, and that is thrive to make something new. You can try to be edgy and come back with a "you can fart on a record and it's new so by your defitinion it's art", be my guest, but you'll keep wasting your time.

To me, the music is just the means to make art, but the art itself is in the blending of influences, just like someone else posted that Pablo Picasso quote, there's also a Paul Mccartney quote where he says something like it's not who you steal, it's HOW you steal. Now if you're just taking a band that you like and copying all of their songs, I dont really know what you're creating, you're just living your dream of being a musician. And that's cool.

All my favourite artists have blatant influences, from Prince to Kate Bush, or even an artist someone mentioned earlier: Bjork, but these are people who took their time to create something new instead of just reashing their favourite artists.

How much did The Beatles take from The Kinks? a lot, but also added a lot of other things to it and created amazing unique bodies of work (which personally doesnt touch me at all), and those bodies of work went on to inspire the Beach Boys on Pet Sounds, which doesnt sound just like a Beatles rip off. This is how you make art, this is why you are an artist, because you thrive for it.

There's a lot of music i love but i wouldn't call the people who made it "artists", they're musicians, they're making music for me to enjoy, artists, in my opinion, have a different goal than just making music for you to enjoy.

You know how many D'Angelo rip offs came about when that whole neo-soul wave popped off? or Portishead carbon copies in the 90's? So you're riding a wave and you're an artist? of what?

(i forget that people forget we are on a discussion board and that by default your post is your opinion, therefore I must always end my posts with "the post above is only my opinion, i'm not implying anything i say is the gospel, a rule from the gods or how you have to live your life")
Old 8th January 2017
  #37
Lives for gear
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
isn't Radiohead a Queen rip-off? just change the voice, slow down the music, make everything softer, add some hip hop and electronic influences...
so basically what you're saying is Radiohead is a Queen rip-off if you change everything about Queen. I'm baffled
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
is an artist someone who convincingly mixes stolen ideas from a wide range of genres?
I don't know about the word convincingly or "stolen", but yes, thats closer to my definition of an artist than what the other guy was implying.
Old 8th January 2017
  #38
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
so basically what you're saying is Radiohead is a Queen rip-off if you change everything about Queen. I'm baffled
I'm just trying to better understand your idea of what a rip-off constitutes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
I don't know about the word convincingly or "stolen", but yes, that's closer to my definition of an artist than what the other guy was implying.
Imagine for a second now if Radiohead could have just taken a cheap amp and mic and recorded themselves jamming over some Queen being played in the background on a broken vinyl player, whereas Coldplay put way more time and effort and work into "jamming over someone else's idea," maybe even to the point of a weird fetish or obsession. Would that make Coldplay the greater "artist" in that hypothetical case?

Regardless, I think Radiohead and Coldplay are equally on the same level in their own creative ways.
Old 8th January 2017
  #39
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpyter View Post
Not according to his peers - from Chopin to Grieg - many of whom admired his musicianship as well as his showmanship and happily worked alongside him. Plagiarism was incredibly looked down upon at that time, and he wouldn't be working with any of them if he was a rip-off artist...

He was cocky and could easily imitate other composers of his time, but so did Mozart...
No insult intended to Liszt. You misunderstood the ironical point of my remark.

I am just pulling sfilipee's chain.

Just trying to point out that one person's"something new to the table" is another person's "rip-off copy cat". The whole idea of 'who is an artist' and who is not is just someone trying to take what he likes and turn it into some kind of general philosophical or scientific principle.

I for one am not buying any of it.
Old 8th January 2017
  #40
Here for the gear
 
Carterlink's Avatar
 

Eliminate all influence and what do you have left?
Old 8th January 2017
  #41
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Arteest, or artist?

You know there are many wannabes of the former, but really so few of the latter...
Old 8th January 2017
  #42
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
No insult intended to Liszt.
Are you bringing up his humongous facial warts again?
Old 8th January 2017
  #43
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
again, i never EVER mentioned or implied what my taste in music
that is not my point
what is "implied" is that your taste in music (whatever it is) underlies every permutation of your idea for this thread. The "definition" of who is an artist.

Quote:
anyways I'll repeat: my perception of what an artist is has nothing to do with my taste, but with what I think an artist must do, and that is thrive to make something new.
Nonsense. The perception that that "something new" exists (or does not exist) - counts or doesn't count - is in and of itself a matter of taste. You can't get away from it by pretending you have some deeper, 'objective' standard. Are Coldplay "artists"? Not according to you. The real reason is because you don't like them. Someone who does like them will simply say they ARE doing 'something new'!

Boom.

There's nothing left to talk about. The premise falls apart. It puts you right back where you started. They suck, no they don't suck is what both of you are really saying. Same old same old.
Quote:
All my favourite artists have blatant influences, from Prince to Kate Bush, .
You misunderstand what I am saying... I couldn't care less who your favorite artists are. I certainly did not come here to defend Coldplay or to put down Kate Bush or to disagree with whatever your taste in music actually is.. It's the actual premise - that there is a way of talking about or defining who is and who is not an artist. This is just the same old, same old - thinly disguised. The only way it would be interesting would be if you could come up with a definition that was not dependent on what someone likes.

Quote:
How much did The Beatles take from The Kinks?
See, right there - it's OK for the Beatles to 'take' from the Kinks but not OK for Coldplay to 'take' from Radiohead? It's not whether I agree or disagree with that, it's that I am asking what could be MORE subjective?

I wonder how much did the Kinks, (formed in 1964) take from the Beatles (formed in 1960?) Maybe just the whole idea of having a band with 4 guys with long hair and tight pants playing guitars! The capriciousness of your "exceptions" to the 'originality' rule is just another example of how your definition of who is and who is not an artist always ultimately keeps coming back to your taste. I don't have to "know" what your taste exactly is to see that you are completely relying upon it for pronouncing your judgements.

Quote:
i forget that people forget we are on a discussion board and that by default your post is your opinion
That's not my problem with your premise. I find your definition of an 'artist' defective in that it depends solely upon opinion. The 'something new' business just kicks the can down the road. If you had started a thread called "what bands do you like?" or "Coldplay sucks!" at least it would have been up-front.
Old 8th January 2017
  #44
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
I think only musicians who are creating something that hasn't been done before should be considered artists
That's a pretty stringent qualification, if not almost literally impossible, as almost everything can be traced through a lineage or continuum..

Let's see...just this last century (just some off the top of the head): the second Viennese School, Stravinsky, Giacinto Scelsi, Varese, Harry Partch, Capt Beefheart, Ornette Coleman, Xenakis, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, James Brown, the minimalists, the early electronic pioneers, Trane, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Cage, Pierre Henry/Schaeffer, etc...it'll be a pretty exclusive list, no?

Very few in the pop/jazz/rock/R&B/classical spectrum would fit your criteria, only because of the intrinsic derivative nature of it.
Old 8th January 2017
  #45
Gear Nut
 

I always wanted to get a t shirt made that says
'Coldplay Must Be Destroyed'.
Old 8th January 2017
  #46
Lives for gear
 
sfilipee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
that is not my point
what is "implied" is that your taste in music (whatever it is) underlies every permutation of your idea for this thread. The "definition" of who is an artist.



Nonsense. The perception that that "something new" exists (or does not exist) - counts or doesn't count - is in and of itself a matter of taste. You can't get away from it by pretending you have some deeper, 'objective' standard. Are Coldplay "artists"? Not according to you. The real reason is because you don't like them. Someone who does like them will simply say they ARE doing 'something new'!

Boom.

There's nothing left to talk about. The premise falls apart. It puts you right back where you started. They suck, no they don't suck is what both of you are really saying. Same old same old.

You misunderstand what I am saying... I couldn't care less who your favorite artists are. I certainly did not come here to defend Coldplay or to put down Kate Bush or to disagree with whatever your taste in music actually is.. It's the actual premise - that there is a way of talking about or defining who is and who is not an artist. This is just the same old, same old - thinly disguised. The only way it would be interesting would be if you could come up with a definition that was not dependent on what someone likes.


See, right there - it's OK for the Beatles to 'take' from the Kinks but not OK for Coldplay to 'take' from Radiohead? It's not whether I agree or disagree with that, it's that I am asking what could be MORE subjective?

I wonder how much did the Kinks, (formed in 1964) take from the Beatles (formed in 1960?) Maybe just the whole idea of having a band with 4 guys with long hair and tight pants playing guitars! The capriciousness of your "exceptions" to the 'originality' rule is just another example of how your definition of who is and who is not an artist always ultimately keeps coming back to your taste. I don't have to "know" what your taste exactly is to see that you are completely relying upon it for pronouncing your judgements.



That's not my problem with your premise. I find your definition of an 'artist' defective in that it depends solely upon opinion. The 'something new' business just kicks the can down the road. If you had started a thread called "what bands do you like?" or "Coldplay sucks!" at least it would have been up-front.
But see, when did I say I don't like Coldplay? I like Coldplay, I actually love their first couple of albums, but to me they are not artists, they just took a Radiohead formula and ran with it for those couple of albums.

Again, this is not about taste, there's a lot of music I love that i wouldnt call it's creators "artists", just musicians doing their job. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Oh and based on your comment about The Kinks /The Beatles influence, I'll just disregard anything else you say as you having nothing else to do, since that same influence i mentioned has been well documented, through multiple Beatles members. I'm only speaking about things I know here, I'm not down to talk out my ass just for the sake of arguing.

I like how you end your post tho, my definition of artist lies on my opinion, yea, just like everything else in life, it's my opinion, and i opened this thread so people could share their opinion of what an artist really is too
Old 8th January 2017
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post

I like how you end your post tho, my definition of artist lies on my opinion, yea, just like everything else in life, it's my opinion, and i opened this thread so people could share their opinion of what an artist really is too
But that's the whole point. Threads like these are, at best, meaningless and, at worst, just descend into pointless sophistry. If you go by dictionary definitions, the term "artist" is sufficiently vague and general that it can be applied to almost anyone engaging in any of the arts (including music). Conversely, if you go by the broad range of common and academic usage, no musician (of any sort) is an artist, since the word (if not otherwise qualified) will most often be taken to refer solely to practitioners of the visual arts. (Talk to the average joe in the street and tell him you're an artist and the first and most common assumption will be that you're a painter, illustrator, sculptor, etc.)

So dictionary definitions and common usage get us nowhere and it all, really, just comes down to personal value judgements. You say Coldplay aren't artists. I say they are. I don't even like them much, but I'm prepared to call them artists. Neither of us is right or wrong. There's no strict standard or clear definition that you can apply that favours either of us. Any attempt you make to come up with one ultimately just reduces to "well, so-and-so is an artist because I think so and I'm going to construct my arbitrary criteria in such a way that so-and-so meets them, while such-and-such doesn't".

So...in the end, it's purely a subjective judgement based on some arbitrary criteria and, as such, devoid of any real meaning other than whatever it represents to the person saying it.

But that still doesn't stop the subject cropping up in some shape or form every six months or so around these parts. It rarely ends well, never even approaches anything like an agreed definition of anything (since that's pretty much impossible under the circumstances) but does work wonders for the sale of popcorn amongst those who enjoy watching train wrecks.
Old 8th January 2017
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee

I think only musicians who are creating something that hasn't been done before should be considered artists
That's a pretty stringent qualification, if not almost literally impossible, as almost everything can be traced through a lineage or continuum..

Let's see...just this last century (just some off the top of the head): the second Viennese School, Stravinsky, Giacinto Scelsi, Varese, Harry Partch, Capt Beefheart, Ornette Coleman, Xenakis, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, James Brown, the minimalists, the early electronic pioneers, Trane, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Cage, Pierre Henry/Schaeffer, etc...it'll be a pretty exclusive list, no?

Very few in the pop/jazz/rock/R&B/classical spectrum would fit your criteria, only because of the intrinsic derivative nature of it.
And then, who is to decide precisely what has and hasn't 'been done before'? How do we set up criteria for that?



With regard to the example of Coldplay. I'd like to think they're perfectly delightful guys who treat their kids and dogs and groupies with dignity and respect -- but I really have an abreaction to their music far out of proportion to even my own 'objective' evaluation of their merit -- they do, after all, greatly please a great many fans. Go figure. But they do.

I'm perfectly willing to call them artists.

Would I call Coldplay great artists? I wouldn't. Someone else might. God love 'em.

But I don't have any problem calling them artists. To my thinking that's a role/job description. It's not qualifying them as good artists, bad artists, or anywhere in between. Good art, bad art, that is, of necessity, a subjective valuation.

Really, it's just like I would call that tone deaf guy with the out of tune guitar who is playing his heart out on the corner an artist. He's making art. Maybe not art that pleases me -- or even that I can stand to listen to. But it is work put in to create something primarily for aesthetic appreciation. Good or bad.

Any other sort of definition puts us right back on the slippery slope of subjective valuation and individual preference.
Old 8th January 2017
  #49
Lives for gear
I read a book by Carl E. Seashore called The Psychology of Music, it's an old book but a very interesting read.

In it he states,

"The only true musician is The Composer - all other musicians are merely a technician"

A bit controversial I thought, but there's an interesting view in there in reference to this thread's title.
Old 8th January 2017
  #50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I read a book by Carl E. Seashore called The Psychology of Music, it's an old book but a very interesting read.

In it he states,

"The only true musician is The Composer - all other musicians are merely a technician"

A bit controversial I thought, but there's an interesting view in there in reference to this thread's title.
That's why those robot orchestras have become so popular.


To be sure, if the only goal is the faithful, accurate reproduction of the music as written on the page, there would be something to Seashore's axiom.

But what does that perfect human automaton musician do when he gets to the frequent compositional notation, play with passion?
Old 8th January 2017
  #51
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
That's why those robot orchestras have become so popular.


To be sure, if the only goal is the faithful, accurate reproduction of the music as written on the page, there would be something to Seashore's axiom.

But what does that perfect human automaton musician do when he gets to the frequent compositional notation, play with passion?
I'm not saying Seashore is right, but if I follow his reasoning, "playing with passion" is just one more technique in the tool kit of the "technician" along with faster, louder, slower, bouncy, staccato, legato etc.

I think when he refers to "technician" he doesn't imply robotic (remember it's a very old book).

For Seashore, Musician means to Create. Creative. Artist.

To just play is a technician.

I do get his distinction, although it's a little mean in it's inference.
Old 8th January 2017
  #52
Oh, for sure, I got the distinction. (And I certainly didn't think you were throwing all in with Seashore, either, FTM. )

I guess, to me, Seashore's axiom just seems a bit, let's say, 'over-reductive.'

But, to be sure, I think there's a continuum you can place folks on that reflects those seemingly 'polar' qualities. (But, of course, you're right back on the subjectivity slippery slope again, too.)

Old 8th January 2017
  #53
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee View Post
Again, this is not about taste, there's a lot of music I love that i wouldnt call it's creators "artists", just musicians doing their job. Whats so hard to understand about that?
there's more to "taste" than whether you like it or not!

Whether you believe the person is "bringing something new" is ALSO a matter of "taste".

What's so hard to understand about that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww
So...in the end, it's purely a subjective judgement based on some arbitrary criteria and, as such, devoid of any real meaning other than whatever it represents to the person saying it.
Old 8th January 2017
  #54
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by sfilipee
I think only musicians who are creating something that hasn't been done before should be considered artists
That's a pretty stringent qualification, if not almost literally impossible, as almost everything can be traced through a lineage or continuum..

Let's see...just this last century (just some off the top of the head): the second Viennese School, Stravinsky, Giacinto Scelsi, Varese, Harry Partch, Capt Beefheart, Ornette Coleman, Xenakis, Thelonius Monk, Miles Davis, James Brown, the minimalists, the early electronic pioneers, Trane, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Cage, Pierre Henry/Schaeffer, etc...it'll be a pretty exclusive list, no?

Very few in the pop/jazz/rock/R&B/classical spectrum would fit your criteria, only because of the intrinsic derivative nature of it.
Both of you are laboring under an unacknowledged assumption. That the art that contains 'something that hasn't been done before' also needs to be "good". (As if "good" wasn't another arbitrary criteria!)

Extrapolating from my own experiences working in recording studios that are open to the general public, I would say that for every Captain Beefheart, there are literally thousands of individuals who also "unique" (thereby satisfying the definition of "something new") yet whose music is craptastic. It's actually not that much of an achievement to do something that is merely bizarre. There are a nearly infinite number of unlistenable artistic cul-de-sacs yet unexplored.

We only acknowledge the 'different' artists that we appreciate as being good.

By the arbitrary standards of the OP, all those crappy (but "new" ) musicians are "Artists" - not good artists of course, but Artists with a capital A. Meanwhile, a band who can play their own instruments, write their own songs but perhaps wear their influences a little bit too openly for the OP's taste are not artists.

What a load.
Old 8th January 2017
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Then who decides?
A&R.

Quote:
And based on what criteria?
Usually if they think it will sell.
Old 8th January 2017
  #56
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Both of you are laboring under an unacknowledged assumption. That the art that contains 'something that hasn't been done before' also needs to be "good". (As if "good" wasn't another arbitrary criteria!)

Extrapolating from my own experiences working in recording studios that are open to the general public, I would say that for every Captain Beefheart, there are literally thousands of individuals who also "unique" (thereby satisfying the definition of "something new") yet whose music is craptastic. It's actually not that much of an achievement to do something that is merely bizarre. There are a nearly infinite number of unlistenable artistic cul-de-sacs yet unexplored.

We only acknowledge the 'different' artists that we appreciate as being good.

By the arbitrary standards of the OP, all those crappy (but "new" ) musicians are "Artists" - not good artists of course, but Artists with a capital A. Meanwhile, a band who can play their own instruments, write their own songs but perhaps wear their influences a little bit too openly for the OP's taste are not artists.

What a load.

Well, you maybe right, but the way culture works is through acknowledgement, both from a popular, critical, and scholarly perspective...short of that, we get to the "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" conundrum.

Which leads me to remember the time when Rickey Henderson stood on top of the base stealing world, and scribes were taking potshots at his intelligence, or lack thereof, mostly because of his elocutionary uniqueness - to which a certain sportswriter from the SF Chronicle, who might have been Bruce Jenkins if memory serves, son of the great arranger Gordon Jenkins, who said "how can anyone question Rickey's intelligence - I mean he invented his own language..."

Yeah, there can be many distinct things, but without the crucible of relative perspective, judgement, study and criticism, it's really for naught.

I maybe no different than the OP, but to not take any stand is as 'what a load' as well...
Old 8th January 2017
  #57
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

...and in regards to the topic at hand, my definition of an artist is a person who pours their soul, their passion and life energy into their discipline. We have artists in all facets of life AFAIC...though I generally see much less in the music world as opposed to the culinary arts.

It's sad to see cooks pour more soul into what they're doing, making their craft exploding with pathos and ethos, more so than musicians...I mean what the hell is going on?!?
Old 9th January 2017
  #58
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Well, you maybe right, but the way culture works is through acknowledgement, both from a popular, critical, and scholarly perspective...short of that, we get to the "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" conundrum.

Which leads me to remember the time when Rickey Henderson stood on top of the base stealing world, and scribes were taking potshots at his intelligence, or lack thereof, mostly because of his elocutionary uniqueness - to which a certain sportswriter from the SF Chronicle, who might have been Bruce Jenkins if memory serves, son of the great arranger Gordon Jenkins, who said "how can anyone question Rickey's intelligence - I mean he invented his own language..."

Yeah, there can be many distinct things, but without the crucible of relative perspective, judgement, study and criticism, it's really for naught.

I maybe no different than the OP, but to not take any stand is as 'what a load' as well...
Hey, a fellow baseball nut. Perfect for this thread, we could make up
some Yogiisms and Stengelese.

Yogi - Art is 90% mental and the other half is physical.

Casey - Now I ain't sayin that that guy's an artist
and I ain't sayin that he ain't, but if he don't hit and run, or
lay down a bunt when there's a man on first with no outs
and he goes swinging for them fences instead and strikes out,
well he ain't no artist I need in the lineup for this here game
in this here series.
Old 9th January 2017
  #59
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
It's sad to see cooks pour more soul into what they're doing, making their craft exploding with pathos and ethos, more so than musicians...I mean what the hell is going on?!?
There definitely is that ethos in food.

But with food there is instant gratification and satiation, you can't download it or copy/paste it, you can survive without music or even the ability to hear it, etc. Food is absolutely necessary for survival.
Old 9th January 2017
  #60
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by General TAWH View Post
Hey, a fellow baseball nut. Perfect for this thread, we could make up
some Yogiisms and Stengelese.

Yogi - Art is 90% mental and the other half is physical.

Casey - Now I ain't sayin that that guy's an artist
and I ain't sayin that he ain't, but if he don't hit and run, or
lay down a bunt when there's a man on first with no outs
and he goes swinging for them fences instead and strikes out,
well he ain't no artist I need in the lineup for this here game
in this here series.
Yogi was a linguistic artist of the highest order.

Casey, not too far behind...

Bob Uecker - perhaps the greatest exponent of the malapropistic arts, bar none.

...go Giants!!! Start an odd year thing!
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
Forum Jump