Originally Posted By disneylandfan8 At this point, I think the Idols Tour is what he is working on for the moment. Hopefully, we'll here more soon. DWB, did you read the Rolling Stone article??
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Sadly not, it is blocked on line here in the UK, and I do not tend to buy magazines.
Originally Posted By SFH Not agreeing or disagreeing with WK99 here... but I wanted to point out two things: 1. People (singers or not) use their sexuality and being coy about it to their advantage all of the time... especially entertainers. Gay, straight, chaste, unchaste... C'mon, you can list them off. I'm not saying that's right or wrong... just VERY COMMON. 2. Except when referring to a spouse, when have you ever heard singers making a big deal about who they are seeing? Does Mick Jagger get on stage and talk about the Brazilian models he impregnated? Does anyone get up there and say, "I had a lot of fun with a groupie last night"?
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa ~~~Before the Beatles, MOST acts did not write their own material.~~~ then they are not real artists but delivery specialists ~~~~Dinah Washington, Frank Sinatra, Sarah Vaughn, Nat King Cole, Elvis Presley, Tony Bennett, Ella Fitzgerald, et al not "real artists"~~~~ that is correct, they are not legitimate artists if they did not create. An artist creates. I will ask again even if you are scared to answer,,,,,,, So would you respect me as a social leader if I recited "I have a dream" word for word? So would you respect me as a comedian if I used George Carlin's line for line? I didn't think so, so why give these idol singers a pass when they sing other people and group's songs, lyric for lyric? WHY??
Originally Posted By danyoung LOWB, that's simply drivel. An artist creates, yes, but that's not limited to just writing a song. Song stylists like Sinatra and Bennett and all the others listed above are incredible artists who create performaces that are unmatched by anyone else in their time or ours. Their art was in the translation of the music from the printed page to the ear, and is every bit as valid as those who penned the songs.
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa I promise to deliver King's "Dream" speech with a new twist by accentuating certain words. As for George Carlin's jokes wait until you hear my delivery. I will be even funnier than him because I will stutter with a high pitch. It feels good to know that I will be respected as a real artist who masters his craft even if I use other people's lines verbatim. Sorry but I just don't like people who take works of art from Milli Vanilli or Vanila Ice and bastardize it on national stage. Leave our heroes alone by respecting their works.
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa But honestly, I really like Van Halen's redo of "you really got me" and Jimi Hendrix's take on the National Anthem so maybe I'm being too harsh with these idols
Originally Posted By Mr X ***that is correct, they are not legitimate artists if they did not create. An artist creates.*** So don't call them "artists", call them musicians. ***delivery specialists*** While this just seems like some sort of weird way of cutting them down, how do you account for the majority of classical instrumentalists, vocalists and conductors who don't do any composing. They're "delivery specialists" too? Seems fairly demeaning to some talented people.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ya, Luciano Pavorati really sucked, no artistry there. And Michael Jackson was not a great artist when he did his version of Come Together? What about all the colour in artists at Disney (and other animators) over the years, after all, the pictures had already been drawn. And master craftsmen who carve or do metal work must not be artists if they create another's designs. And lest we forget Andy Warhall must not be an artist. after all, the Campbell's soup can was already designed. Let us not forget that West Side Story could never be considered art, you see, they were just copying Romeo and Juliette written 400 years earlier. And where do we draw the line? The sculptures of Michealangelo and Rodin are amazing, but they are just copying the human form. Same goes for many portrait artists. Art is subjective, no doubt. But one does not need to be fully original to be an artist (heck, Whitney Houston and J K Rowling have made a fortune from recycling other people's work - but they put their own spin on things, made stuff people like, and that sounds pretty artistic to me).
Originally Posted By danyoung >I promise to deliver King's "Dream" speech with a new twist by accentuating certain words. As for George Carlin's jokes wait until you hear my delivery.< You're talking apples and oranges here. Carlin writing material and then delivering it was of course pure genius. Another comic quoting Carlin's routines word for word would be completely wrong. Comedy is not meant to be delivered by many people the way music is. On the other hand, do you think all working comics write every word they speak? Do you think Leno or Letterman or Carson write their own material? Nope - it's a collaboration of many people, capped off by the talented performer, who is using all his training, all his ability, all his ARTISTRY, to convey the material to his audience. Writing and performing have always been, for me, two different skill sets. If someone can write the material they perform, then they're doubly talented. But they are no more or less of an artist than the singer who searches among thousands of songs to find just the right piece, and then creates a delivery that is unique to him. I'm guessing you don't watch American Idol, so you probably didn't see Adam Lambert's cover of Tears For Fears' song Mad World. If you had, you would have seen a totally different, completely unique take on the song that was his own arrangement. It was probably the single greatest performance that I've ever seen on Idol. To say that he is not an artist is to insult his amazing talents. And I'm not a giggling schoolgirl - I'm a musician with over 30 years experience. I think my standards are pretty high, and Lambert blew them away.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I'm guessing you don't watch American Idol, so you probably didn't see Adam Lambert's cover of Tears For Fears' song Mad World. If you had, you would have seen a totally different, completely unique take on the song that was his own arrangement<<< Um Dan, I am totally with you on this thread, but I thought I would set the record straight on that performance, it was an arrangement by Gary Jules from Donnie Darko (just like the Country Western number he did was someone else's arrangement). It does not strip away his talent, but in case our advisary comes back, I thought I would give you the heads up. But this does beg the question, is an actor and artist? I would (as would the Academy) say yes. Hardly any actor creates their own work.
Originally Posted By danyoung Thanks, dave - I stand corrected. And I was thinking about this thread last night, and wondering about the actor as artist. Sure, if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage. But you need that interpretation to bring the words to life. So yeah, the actor can be an artist just like the singer. And to be clear, actors and singers can also be hacks, too.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Absolutely. I mean imagine: Who is your favorite James Bond, or your favorite Sherlock Holmes, or even your favorite Batman? All the same character, but different actors. The greats, are artists, the hams are hacks. Take someone like Luther Vandross, almost all his songs were written by someone else. Or Meatloaf (definately a performance artist too).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<~~~Before the Beatles, MOST acts did not write their own material.~~~>> <then they are not real artists but delivery specialists> <<~~~~Dinah Washington, Frank Sinatra, Sarah Vaughn, Nat King Cole, Elvis Presley, Tony Bennett, Ella Fitzgerald, et al not "real artists"~~~~>> <that is correct, they are not legitimate artists if they did not create. An artist creates.> What hogwash. Look, I AM a songwriter. And I think we usually don't get enough credit. But it's nuts to say the people I mentioned aren't artists. As someone said, a person who can write and sing is doubly talented. But a great singer is like a great actor who didn't write the screenplay - definitely an artist. Anyone who can't see that can't see the difference between a performance by, say, Dinah Washington singing Cole Porter that gives you shivers down your spine, and Cole Porter singing his own song, to which you say "well, it was interesting to hear him sing." <I will ask again even if you are scared to answer,,,,,,, So would you respect me as a social leader if I recited "I have a dream" word for word? So would you respect me as a comedian if I used George Carlin's line for line?> Aside from the apples and oranges nature of your question, it's interesting you brought up Carlin, because shortly after his death I saw a young standup I'd never seen before DO a Carlin bit word for word as a tribute. I knew the bit very well as a big Carlin fan, and the guy still had me laughing my butt off because he was so good at delivering it. Could the average Joe off the street have made me laugh like that with the same words? Not a chance.
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa not apples and oranges but a very good analogy. you say apples and oranges only because you feel hurt that someone is capping on a show you must like. and as a song writer i cant believe that you would watch and defend that show. Are you true to your art?? its kareoke and they use us young. If its about singing why is there an age limit? singing should have no sex, age, or race discrimintation. the show can not be respected because of kareoke delivery and age discrimination
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBuffa I have seen the show 3 or 4 seasons but only in the early rounds when things are hilarious. great comedy when the judges rip lousy singers a new one. Simon and Randy guy tell it like it is and laugh some of those acts off the stage. I love the show on that level.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I have seen the show 3 or 4 seasons but only in the early rounds when things are hilarious. great comedy when the judges rip lousy singers a new one. Simon and Randy guy tell it like it is and laugh some of those acts off the stage. I love the show on that level.<< You do realize the opening rounds are staged, there is no way some of those bad singers would even make it past the screening process, they are basically "used" to have the first few shows more interesting... I think that is what turned me off about American Idol, the fact that for the most part it seems very staged...
