TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- DJ is NO SKILL ???
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

a DJ is a musician. But a musician is not necessarily an artist. Here is the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge a DJ is a musician. But a musician is not necessarily an artist. Here is the difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've just made a grand and significant sounding statement without beginning to explain the reasoning behind it. Which isn't very helpful.

I just look at the basic definitions of the words:

quote:

A musician is a person who plays or composes music. Musicians can be classified by their role in creating or performing music: * A singer (or vocalist) uses his or her voice as an instrument. * An instrumentalist plays a musical instrument. * Both singer and instrumentalist can be improvisers, who create real time music. * Composers and songwriters write music. * A conductor coordinates a musical ensemble.

And a DJ plays a musical instrument!

quote:

Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art. It is also used in a qualitative sense of a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, an artistic practice. Most often, the term describes those who create within a context of 'high culture', activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking, photography and music � people who use imagination, and talent or skill, to create works that can be judged to have an aesthetic value. Art historians and critics will define as artists those who produce art within a recognised or recognisable discipline.

Thanks wikipedia.

Music is an art, so a musician is necessarily an artist. You are contradiciting yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Music is an art, so a musician is necessarily an artist. You are contradiciting yourself.

Do you read the definitions? An artist is more than a simple "music technician" as can be a musician.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge Do you read the definitions? An artist is more than a simple "music technician" as can be a musician.

* A singer (or vocalist) uses his or her voice as an instrument.
* An instrumentalist plays a musical instrument.
* Both singer and instrumentalist can be improvisers, who create real time music.
* Composers and songwriters write music.
* A conductor coordinates a musical ensemble.

Which one of those is NOT "a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art"?

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge Do you read the definitions? An artist is more than a simple "music technician" as can be a musician.

You're an idiot.

An instrumentalist can be a simple technician for me. For instance, I don't consider the sound engineers who create the instrumental parts for rnb/hip hop as artists, because they are like artisans.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge An instrumentalist can be a simple technician for me. For instance, I don't consider the sound engineers who create the instrumental parts for rnb/hip hop as artists, because they are like artisans.

And yet you quote an article that says the exact opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're an idiot.

lol, that's not because you are not in agreement with my point of view that I am an idiot. The debate between SMC and I was peaceful and quite interesting so far.

Don't agress people like that.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC * A singer (or vocalist) uses his or her voice as an instrument. * An instrumentalist plays a musical instrument. * Both singer and instrumentalist can be improvisers, who create real time music. * Composers and songwriters write music. * A conductor coordinates a musical ensemble. Which one of those is NOT "a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art"?

As I said in my previous post, an instrumentalist is likely to make something not deemed to be an art. But that's just point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge An instrumentalist can be a simple technician for me. For instance, I don't consider the sound engineers who create the instrumental parts for rnb/hip hop as artists, because they are like artisans.

They write, arrange and produce the instrumentals for rnb/hiphop. If they're not musicians then nobody who creates instrumental electronic music is.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC They write, arrange and produce the instrumentals for rnb/hiphop. If they're not musicians then nobody who creates instrumental electronic music is.

For me, the work of an artisan involves an economic interest and an artistic dimension, while the work of an artist is not involved in its principle, even if it can also be integrated in the economy.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge For me, the work of an artisan involves an economic interest and an artistic dimension, while the work of an artist is not involved in its principle, even if it can also be integrated in the economy.

So if Dr. Dre gave away his beats without making any money they would turn from non-music into music?

quote:

Originally posted by SMC So if Dr. Dre gave away his beats without making any money they would turn from non-music into music?

I didn't say that an artist shouldn't make money! If Dr Dre makes his music only for aesthetic value, so yes he is an artist for me, even if he sells 12 millions of his shit. But if he makes it only to make money, he is not an artist for me.

Edit: as for the original discussion, a bedroom dj who wants to learn djing because he will get rich is not an artist, while some outstanding guys like Cut Chemists, DJ Shadow, etc. are pure artists.

Edit #2: but what is for you an artist?

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge I didn't say that an artist shouldn't make money! If Dr Dre makes his music only for aesthetic value, so yes he is an artist for me, even if he sells 12 millions of his shit. But if he makes it only to make money, he is not an artist for me.

So, if art is the work of an artist and the intentions of a person decide if he is an artist or not, that means that you would have to know the creator of a piece of music or maybe even be that person, in order to conclude if what you are listening to is art or not.

Interesting how one of the dumbest threads ever turned into an art debate.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC So, if art is the work of an artist and the intentions of a person decide if he is an artist or not, that means that you would have to know the creator of a piece of music or maybe even be that person, in order to conclude if what you are listening to is art or not.

Yes, you can argue too that the industrial design of the 70s should be considered as an art, as well as the 'ready-made' pieces like the Duchamp's toilet! But I don't like the era of our postmodern relativism, where everything is art, and everybody can be an artist.

There are 2 possible explanations to understand these mutations of the artistic activity:
1/ This is the end of Art, that is to say that the modern art is only a masquerade. Art has proven its own autodestruction.
2/ The nihilism of the modern Art has reached the limits of the objective representation, ie that Art has reached its historical bound. That's exactly what Hegel said: the question is no more "What is an artwork? but rather "Why do am I an artwork?". The contemporary period sees for a bunch of decades the end of Art. It doesn't mean that there are no more artworks, but that Art has reached such a level of autoreflexion that it has became philosophically "adult".
So, it is because we see something as artistic that it becomes an artowrk.

there is no right and wrong in opinions

"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty."
-David Hume

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews Interesting how one of the dumbest threads ever turned into an art debate.

True that... they ruined a perfectly idiotic thread...

Can we PLEASE go back to "...TIESTO is an Olimpic playing trance mover..." It was more fun that way...

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge Yes, you can argue too that the industrial design of the 70s should be considered as an art, as well as the 'ready-made' pieces like the Duchamp's toilet! But I don't like the era of our postmodern relativism, where everything is art, and everybody can be an artist.

Why not? Nobody forces you to like what others think is art or even to agree on that it is art.

quote:

There are 2 possible explanations to understand these mutations of the artistic activity: 1/ This is the end of Art, that is to say that the modern art is only a masquerade. Art has proven its own autodestruction. 2/ The nihilism of the modern Art has reached the limits of the objective representation, ie that Art has reached its historical bound. That's exactly what Hegel said: the question is no more "What is an artwork? but rather "Why do am I an artwork?". The contemporary period sees for a bunch of decades the end of Art. It doesn't mean that there are no more artworks, but that Art has reached such a level of autoreflexion that it has became philosophically "adult".

The thing is that this analysis of the evolution of art, however reasonable it may be, does not tell us anything about what art is.

quote:

So, it is because we see something as artistic that it becomes an artowrk.

True, but that kind of contradicts your position.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Music is an art, so a musician is necessarily an artist. You are contradiciting yourself.

I draw beard on peoples face in Magazines, but i actually don't consider myself as an artist.

quote:

Originally posted by Soeder I draw beard on peoples face in Magazines, but i actually don't consider myself as an artist.

It doesn�t matter if you consider yourself as an artist or not, your way of thinking won�t deny the existence of art.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC This endless DJ - musician or not discussion is really annoying. A DJ is not a musician, he's a DJ. To DJ is one type of performance/art/whatever and creating music is another. What is the point in comparing the two like if they're alternatives to each other? They're not. They're two different things that get regognition for the differnt things they do. It's like having a bus manufacturer vs bus driver discussion, where the manufacturer is the musician, the driver is the DJ and the passengers are the audience. Does the driver have any skills? - No, he sucks. The engineer rocks! - Wrong, the driver is an engineer imo! - stfu, most drivers can't drive. We should only have engineers working, then the busses will go automatically.

DJ is a musician !!!

DJ should really understand music really well, so THEY CAN CHOOSE A GREAT SONG FOR US. They can be a producer too.

DJ is about Music.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge a DJ is a musician. But a musician is not necessarily an artist. Here is the difference.

True.

DJ is about music.

Musician is about music.

Both are the same, just they have a DIFFERENT WAY.

quote:

Originally posted by Beethoven DJ is a musician !!! They can be a producer too.

They can't without musical background and technical knowledge.

Djs are often the ones who sit in the studio next to the engineer and just tell what they want. They often can't even play keyboards or know the basic notes. But gladly take the credit from others productions.

You don't learn producing or develop your musical ear by mixing some tunes together. You actully need to play some real instrument for that. DJs often have good view whatkind of tracks work in the dance floor. But it doesn't make dj a musician in my eyes.

Of course there are lot's of djs who also have the musical background and know their way in studio. But it doesn't make you a musician if you just play other peoples music. You need to have more than that.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.