Post by mihizawi on Jun 8, 2010 0:37:48 GMT
xD... Nicola and Martin, I am a big follower and fan of your epic discussions, they are part of the spirit of this froum!
Ok, and now seriously, I pretty much understand and mostly agree with both your points of view (in this discussion and in many others). But let me add a third point of view, concretely on what is and what isn't an artist. I think we'll all agree with the basic definition of art: anything creative made by a human being which main purpose goes beyond utility. Well, from that definition we could actually doubt about the existencce of true art, as most of it has hidden utilitiary purposes: money, social status, self-acomplishment, etc.
But, let's leave that rather ethical and phylosophical discussion, or I will get expulsed for being way too much off-topic, xD. I want to centre this on the creative part. I agree that all Nicola mentioned is creative and raises the artistic level of the person, in this case, the singer. But then again, just singing can't be artistic? Well, certainly, nowadays, many times it is very, very little artistic or not artistic at all, and that happens when the singer is told "Here's a song, you have to sing it this way, and we'll repeat it till you do exactly what I want".
But I also think just singing can be very, very artistical, even if you don't choose the arrangement or you don't have any artistical imput other than your voice. If the singer puts a part of his sould and his own feelings in a song, it is artistic, no matter how many people have done it in a similar way (Hayley's version of Bach/Gounod's Ave Maria, except that pitched higher, is sung rather true to the original, as sung and recorded by so many singers before, but... she really puts her soul in that song, for me that's very, very artistic). What I mean is that art is expression, and singing too: a lack of expression or a fake of that expression that you don't really mean, for me is not artistic, no matter how good the technique is, but when the singer is convinced about what the song means to him and is able to express it, that's an important component of artistical quality.
Just as an ending point, let me put an example of classical music (but it is absolutely valid for any music you can imagine). In classical music the technique and abbility is very important, and it could seem everything is written there. However, even in the strictest classical music, there's room for expression: yes, it has to be played with the right technique and as it was written, but precisely that knowledge of the technique and the deep understanding of musical theory gives you the tools to make the strict classical music expressive and artistic, to find your own way to perform it. I am very young, and I have much to learn and experience, so, maybe I don't see clearly all the shades that can be seen in a classical music performance, but I certainly feel when one of those performances is artistically outstanding. A clear example of what I mean is the conductor's job in a classical orchestra: is he only a coordinator that gives the rhtyhm? Of course, no, artistically he is the main person there, making the orchestra work and express as a whole.
Michal
Ok, and now seriously, I pretty much understand and mostly agree with both your points of view (in this discussion and in many others). But let me add a third point of view, concretely on what is and what isn't an artist. I think we'll all agree with the basic definition of art: anything creative made by a human being which main purpose goes beyond utility. Well, from that definition we could actually doubt about the existencce of true art, as most of it has hidden utilitiary purposes: money, social status, self-acomplishment, etc.
But, let's leave that rather ethical and phylosophical discussion, or I will get expulsed for being way too much off-topic, xD. I want to centre this on the creative part. I agree that all Nicola mentioned is creative and raises the artistic level of the person, in this case, the singer. But then again, just singing can't be artistic? Well, certainly, nowadays, many times it is very, very little artistic or not artistic at all, and that happens when the singer is told "Here's a song, you have to sing it this way, and we'll repeat it till you do exactly what I want".
But I also think just singing can be very, very artistical, even if you don't choose the arrangement or you don't have any artistical imput other than your voice. If the singer puts a part of his sould and his own feelings in a song, it is artistic, no matter how many people have done it in a similar way (Hayley's version of Bach/Gounod's Ave Maria, except that pitched higher, is sung rather true to the original, as sung and recorded by so many singers before, but... she really puts her soul in that song, for me that's very, very artistic). What I mean is that art is expression, and singing too: a lack of expression or a fake of that expression that you don't really mean, for me is not artistic, no matter how good the technique is, but when the singer is convinced about what the song means to him and is able to express it, that's an important component of artistical quality.
Just as an ending point, let me put an example of classical music (but it is absolutely valid for any music you can imagine). In classical music the technique and abbility is very important, and it could seem everything is written there. However, even in the strictest classical music, there's room for expression: yes, it has to be played with the right technique and as it was written, but precisely that knowledge of the technique and the deep understanding of musical theory gives you the tools to make the strict classical music expressive and artistic, to find your own way to perform it. I am very young, and I have much to learn and experience, so, maybe I don't see clearly all the shades that can be seen in a classical music performance, but I certainly feel when one of those performances is artistically outstanding. A clear example of what I mean is the conductor's job in a classical orchestra: is he only a coordinator that gives the rhtyhm? Of course, no, artistically he is the main person there, making the orchestra work and express as a whole.
Michal
