Entertainers VS Artists

[StrawberryBlond 13,418]

I think writing is the ultimate decider in whether someone is an artist or not, so I agree with pretty much all your list. An artist creates. Having a voice sounds nice, but no creation is involved. And if you're, for example, a good dancer, well, that's a form of art, but it's nothing to do with the actual creation of music, just the interpretation of it. which isn't the same as creating it. So, nice voices and/or good performers are in the entertainers section if they don't write their own work. Honestly, the word "artist" is flung around with reckless abandon these days. Even singers who are quite clearly manufactured products are calling themselves artists because they write one or two lines on a song. Same for the word "musician." To me, that word always meant someone who plays an instrument. But these days, it's applies to anyone who sings or writes too. It's weird, in every other form of art (painting, theatre, dance, etc), the correct title is given to the correct talent. But in the music business, it's very strange and certain people gain titles they haven't earned. Let's put it this way - my mum paints and she's really good. But she doesn't think she's all that. Despite the fact that she makes many paintings a year through her art club and has even sold one or two, she states that she doesn't want to call herself an artist, not even a painter. She just sees herself as someone who paints as a past-time, nothing more, that her talent doesn't warrant a title as prestigious as "artist." She's very humble that way. Suffice to say, you don't get much of that in the music business. You can just carry a tune that you wrote one line on and abracadabra - you're an artist. It's not that simple.

[Quark 7,018]

20 hours ago, Britney Spears said:

Lmao Madonna is a better songwriter and a more important artist than everyone on the list. Vocals have nothing to do with someone being an artist or not. (Even though Madonna used to have a pretty decent voice)

This is not about the importance of the artist but about the skills they have and how they rely on them to entertain. Madonna is an ok singer at best and she is not a big instrumentalist either. She relies mostly on big visuals and dance numbers to entertain. She does have input in her music but she is not big in this category either. Plus the most important artist would be MJ.

[Quark 7,018]

20 hours ago, RainbowBlonde said:

I never see it that way. So what if I can play guitar really well? How does that make me more of an artist? 

Once again, like I responded to Haroon here, I am just using these labels to describe what has been used in general. When people think of music artists they think of people that are musicians, that create and arrange music with their instrumental skills, that play their music live, and that are very good singers and lyricists. "Artists" is a term that can be used to describe many fields of creation but in general "music artists" are the people who do what I just described. 

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

23 hours ago, Leaf said:

 

That video did not convince me at all 

 

[JbGaga 2,261]

um I think Christina Use to be both and arguably Sia is both.

[JbGaga 2,261]

Pink is also both

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

10 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I think writing is the ultimate decider in whether someone is an artist or not, so I agree with pretty much all your list. An artist creates. Having a voice sounds nice, but no creation is involved. And if you're, for example, a good dancer, well, that's a form of art, but it's nothing to do with the actual creation of music, just the interpretation of it. which isn't the same as creating it. So, nice voices and/or good performers are in the entertainers section if they don't write their own work. Honestly, the word "artist" is flung around with reckless abandon these days. Even singers who are quite clearly manufactured products are calling themselves artists because they write one or two lines on a song. Same for the word "musician." To me, that word always meant someone who plays an instrument. But these days, it's applies to anyone who sings or writes too. It's weird, in every other form of art (painting, theatre, dance, etc), the correct title is given to the correct talent. But in the music business, it's very strange and certain people gain titles they haven't earned. Let's put it this way - my mum paints and she's really good. But she doesn't think she's all that. Despite the fact that she makes many paintings a year through her art club and has even sold one or two, she states that she doesn't want to call herself an artist, not even a painter. She just sees herself as someone who paints as a past-time, nothing more, that her talent doesn't warrant a title as prestigious as "artist." She's very humble that way. Suffice to say, you don't get much of that in the music business. You can just carry a tune that you wrote one line on and abracadabra - you're an artist. It's not that simple.

Your voice is an instrument though 

[Quark 7,018]

Just now, JbGaga said:

um I think Christina Use to be both and arguably Sia is both.

Christina is more lopsided towards the artist side and she has never been particular noteworthy in her showmanship or spectacle. Sia is also more known for her voice, hit songs, than for provided big entertainment spectacles.

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

22 hours ago, doppelganger said:

Gaga's more of an entertainer tbh. 

But she provides so much work and effort into her creations 

[JbGaga 2,261]

Just now, Enigma said:

Christina is more lopsided towards the artist side and she has never been particular noteworthy in her showmanship or spectacle. Sia is also more known for her voice, hit songs, than for provided big entertainment spectacles.

Disagree to the max. She use to put on shows and specticals

 

Sia also puts on a lot of showmanship and proformance in her shows

[Quark 7,018]

4 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

Disagree to the max. She use to put on shows and specticals

 

Sia also puts on a lot of showmanship and proformance in her shows

I saw that performance and I saw nothing that would change my opinion. She is not a great dancer, she doesn't have great theatrics, and her "Show" wasn't particularly intricate or big. Plus one performance would probably not be enough to change her to the both category. It is quite clear that when people think of Christina people think of her voice. 

[JbGaga 2,261]

Just now, Enigma said:

I saw that performance and I saw nothing that would change my opinion. She is not a great dancer, she doesn't have great theatrics, and her "Show" wasn't particularly intricate or big. Plus one performance would probably not be enough to change her to the both category. It is quite clear that when people think of Christina people think of her voice. 

If you go back and look at all her shows it more then her voice. Its not like shes adele sittling on a stool. Yes shes known for her voice and that eclipces anything she does but there was always more when it comes to entertainment.

 

[Quark 7,018]

3 minutes ago, JbGaga said:

If you go back and look at all her shows it more then her voice. Its not like shes adele sittling on a stool. Yes shes known for her voice and that eclipces anything she does but there was always more when it comes to entertainment.

 

I did state in my OP that they would only be put in a certain category if I considered them good enough. Christina is simply not among the top performers or spectacle providers. For example now, many people know that Gaga has a great voice, that she writes most of her songs, and that she is also a great pianist. At the same type people also know that she is just as good of a performer and that she can provide some of the biggest spectacles ever seen. Christina simply only convincingly fulfills one of these sides.

[Psychedelic 1,098]

Madonna has been creatively in charge of her whole career to a big (almost total) extent, plus she writes her songs, has written for others, plays guitar, writes books. You're saying she cannot be an artist just because of her limited vocal range???

The Beatles did not have Sinatra's voice, or any spectacular thing about their singing. Should they not be considered artists?

Gaga is most definitely in both categories and deseves it more than anybody. But I hate it when people in this fanbase judge other people's artistry purely based on their singing skills just becuase Gaga slays at it!

I most definitely prefer people who fit both profiles!

[Psychedelic 1,098]

You also think Justin Timberlake is just an entertainer? You have to be f*cking kidding me 

That guys has an incredible vocal range, plays multiple instruments, writes, composes, produces... 

These facts are not subjective, so don't tell me it is your opinion and educate yourself before posting such non-sense