#1
Okay, so after watching the Grammy Awards tonight, this question started bugging me...

What are your opinions on what makes a musician differ from an entertainer, and is one aspect more important then the other in the musical world? Should one take a mixture of both, or should one do what makes him/her happy and pursue it wholeheartedly without care for whether or not anyone else likes it?

My main reason for posting this is that it is bugging me that certain people who claim to be artists are gaining awards meant for such people, while they are no more then purely aesthetic entertainers... I'm not trying to dog any style of music or say that it is any less worthy of an award, but there is certain musical genius that gets passed over simply because the actual musician(s) did what their passion was and people didnt respond to their "flair" or lack there of...

Since when did lights and smoke and glitz and glamour become a focal point in music that we must base a persons ability to perform and base their skill level on?

So I am posting this to get yalls views on what is most important; the music or the glitz...

Im sorry if this is in the wrong forum, I just figured that this would go best in here... If it needs to be moved please tell me and I will move it...
#2
I think the music is more important, but I hate Kiss.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#4
are you trying to diss katy perry? SHES HOT AND A GOOD SINGER!
Quote by thestonedone
You see this is why it's wrong to rape your guitar... in public.

Quote by mroctoberfest
I want to name an invention the Insta-gasm 3000. I feel very strongly about this.

Gear Setup:
Jackson Rhoads
Digitech Grunge
Fender FM 212R
#5
A musician makes music for his/herself. An entertainer is anyone else who WOWOWOWOWO RADIOHEAD DIDNT WIN?????????
Quote by TGautier13
Because e-cred on a sub-par 4Chan knockoff forum is what everyone strives to achieve.
We believe - so we're misled
We assume - so we're played
We confide - so we're deceived
We trust - so we're betrayed
#7
the Grammy Awards is a popularity contest.

some sell-out, others don't.

but does the majority of the listerners care if the band/artist "sell-out"
nope.. they'll enjoy it when it sound even more like everyother song on there fave playlist.
Quote by joshjhasarrived
Little does the government suspect that it's funds are being rapidly drained through funding infinite free cardboard boxes to bored teenagers on an internet forum.
#8
The concept of selling-out is retarded. Why should anyone care if a band sells out? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MUSIC?

Is the King a f*ckin sellout?
Quote by TGautier13
Because e-cred on a sub-par 4Chan knockoff forum is what everyone strives to achieve.
We believe - so we're misled
We assume - so we're played
We confide - so we're deceived
We trust - so we're betrayed
Last edited by ramm_ty at Feb 8, 2009,
#9
Exactly as victoryaloy said. It is a popularity contest. If they wanted to recognize true musical genius they would recognize the great blues artists of our past and the present ones who get no recognition whatsoever. This can even be said for rap. There are some very talented rappers who are underground, on indy labels or even unsigned, just because they aren't popular or haven't been discovered is the only reason they aren't winning Grammys. I am not saying that all Grammy winners lack talent, but a lot of them win because they are popular and not because they are good musicians. This is nothing new either. I imagine it started in the 80s with pop and glam rock, this idea that your talent and success as a musician is determined by your stage show and popularity. And don't get me wrong, bands can be huge and put on a big stage show and still be good musicians.
Last edited by in2thesun88 at Feb 8, 2009,
#10
Quote by in2thesun88
Exactly as victoryaloy said. It is a popularity contest. If they wanted to recognize true musical genius they would recognize the great blues artists of our past and the present ones who get no recognition whatsoever. This can even be said for rap. There are some very talented rappers who are underground, on indy labels or even unsigned, just because they aren't popular or haven't been discovered is the only reason they aren't winning Grammys. I am not saying that all Grammy winners lack talent, but a lot of them win because they are popular and not because they are good musicians. This is nothing new either. I imagine it started in the 80s with pop and glam rock, this idea that your talent and success as a musician is determined by your stage show and popularity. And don't get me wrong, bands can be huge and put on a big stage show and still be good musicians.
They just had BB King and Buddy Guy play live.
Quote by TGautier13
Because e-cred on a sub-par 4Chan knockoff forum is what everyone strives to achieve.
We believe - so we're misled
We assume - so we're played
We confide - so we're deceived
We trust - so we're betrayed
#11
Quote by ramm_ty
They just had BB King and Buddy Guy play live.

Which is good to hear. But I doubt you will be seeing BB King, Buddy Guy Kenny Wayne Shepherd on the nomination list for Album of the Year any time soon. Watch Kenny Wayne's dvd 10 Days Out...Blues From The Backroads, those are the people that need to be recognized with awards.
#12
I don't really mind "show" musicians making it and stuff until they/the general public claim that they are good MUSICIANS. I'm perfectly fine with people who can put on a show...and play a couple tunes by the way being successful and making money, it's just the reaction of other people sometimes that bugs me.
#13
Well there have been bands throughout history, or at least our history, that have been great musicians and can put on a good show too... Case in point; Eric Clapton, BB King (and the guy just sits there), Buddy Guy, John Mayer, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, I mean the list goes on and on... But they get very little recognition. Most of them go unheard of... The ones I listed were just the mainstream... There are millions of others out there who put on great shows and are great musicians, or who are great musicians and just get up and play without the glam, who get absolutely no recognition for what they do... It pisses me off to no end to watch bands like Coldplay and Kanye West win multiple awards while others get shunned to the side...
#14
Apparently you all forgot that the past the past 3 winners of album of the year have been Robert Plant w/Alison Krauss, Herbie Hancock, and I believe Steely Dan. Popularity contest my ass, you guys just want to be pissed off at the music scene so that you don't look, god forbid, mainstream.

Oh, and showmanship in music is as old as music. You think the cannons in Beethoven's fifth were for musical purposes only?
And look at the blues: playing behind their backs, with their teeth, between their legs: I'd argue the old schools bluesmen (and I don't mean BB King, I mean the guys who inspired him) were more entertainer than musician.
The fact is, pure 'musicians' are almost always boring as hell. I mean, have you ever SEEN King Crimson? They might be great, but I'd rather save the money and just buy the album, because I really don't want to spend an evening with 4 old guys sitting on stools.
Last edited by koslack at Feb 9, 2009,
#15
Its not about not appearing mainstream... Cause I'll admit Im just as mainstream as the next guy... Radio influences alot of what I listen to... However, I also have playlists full of guys who are actual musicians... The rest of the radio stuff is to look cool with it cranked loud while I am driving somewhere or to keep me awake with the loud over the top double bass riffs...

Showmanship has nothing to do with music... It helps and I will admit that, but my 14 year old nephew can jump around like a maniac, but he cant play guitar to save his ass... And like wise, I have friends who are great guitar players, but they couldnt swing their guitar around their neck with pulling an "Alexi Laiho", (We all know what that is right?)... Just having smoke and lights and fog machines doesnt mean your band is any good... In most cases bands use that to draw the attention off themselves for many reasons, usually being bad playing... Thus is the reason for so many artists lip synching these days...

The guys who influenced the older "greater" generation of bluesmen, like BB King and Buddy Guy, were the old men sitting on their porches with nothing more then an old acoustic or a harp playing for their own amusement... I mean by saying that showmanship is the same thing as musicianship is basically saying that Children Of Bodom are on the same level as BB King, which could not be farther from the truth...
#16
The concept of selling-out is retarded. Why should anyone care if a band sells out? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MUSIC?

Is the King a f*ckin sellout?

Was any composer before Beethoven and many afterwards a sellout?
Call me Batman.
#17
You're a musician when you put out an album. But to be good on stage, you have to be both.

And the Grammy Awards aren't worth watching. They seem more based on sales than the music.
#18
"Video killed the radio star."

Blame MTV.
Gear

Gibson '57 Les Paul Reissue
Marshall TSL 601
EHX: Big Muff, Metal Muff, Small Stone, POG, 2880
Ibanez TS808
Voodoo Labs Microvibe
Analogman Chorus
Morley Bad Horsie II
Keeley Compressor (C4)
Nova Delay
MXR 10-band EQ
#19
Quote by music_mike
Its not about not appearing mainstream... Cause I'll admit Im just as mainstream as the next guy... Radio influences alot of what I listen to... However, I also have playlists full of guys who are actual musicians... The rest of the radio stuff is to look cool with it cranked loud while I am driving somewhere or to keep me awake with the loud over the top double bass riffs...

Showmanship has nothing to do with music... It helps and I will admit that, but my 14 year old nephew can jump around like a maniac, but he cant play guitar to save his ass... And like wise, I have friends who are great guitar players, but they couldnt swing their guitar around their neck with pulling an "Alexi Laiho", (We all know what that is right?)... Just having smoke and lights and fog machines doesnt mean your band is any good... In most cases bands use that to draw the attention off themselves for many reasons, usually being bad playing... Thus is the reason for so many artists lip synching these days...

The guys who influenced the older "greater" generation of bluesmen, like BB King and Buddy Guy, were the old men sitting on their porches with nothing more then an old acoustic or a harp playing for their own amusement... I mean by saying that showmanship is the same thing as musicianship is basically saying that Children Of Bodom are on the same level as BB King, which could not be farther from the truth...


T-Bone Walker, Robert Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson and many others. Ask Angus Young where he got the duckwalk from. That statement might be the most asinine thing I've ever read.
#20
Ultimately, as a Musician, you're hired to entertain a crowd, thus you're a musician.

One of the reasons Hendrix is rated so highly with his guitar skills is actually his ability to entertain. He had one hell of a live show.
#21
People beyond musicians listen to music. Chances are, they listen to music to enjoy it. A musician who doesn't seek to entertain might as well be replaced by a CD of theirs.
#22
Isn't the act of playing music entertaining to some person, depending on the music played?

But I'd like to be both, jump around with some chuggs, kick the air on a drum crash, or just staying in place, moving around.

I guess moving around with your guitar shows to the audience that you show great interest in your music that they should be influenced (in a positive way) to enjoy it as well. Then there's that line...
If you play guitar, please don't waste your time in The Pit, and please instead educate yourself in the Musician Talk forum, where you can be missing out on valuable info.
Quote by DiminishedFifth
It's like you read my mind!

I got meself a self-approving sig. Kick. Ass.
#24
Quote by Steven E
are you trying to diss katy perry? SHES HOT AND A GOOD SINGER!


+1

Anyway, I haven't watched the grammies or anything, but to answer the OP's question.

If the glitz are a proper addition to the artist(s) and actually adding to the image, I feel it's important. They keyword is credibility though.
#25
Quote by koslack
T-Bone Walker, Robert Johnson, Blind Lemon Jefferson and many others. Ask Angus Young where he got the duckwalk from. That statement might be the most asinine thing I've ever read.

So Angus Young is in the same generation as BB King? I think you may have your math wrong, but theres about a 20 year difference between Angus and BB... BB King started recording in the 40's and Angus Young started recording in the 70's? Theres a very big difference in the musical genres of the time... By the time Angus Young came about, there was already the birth of "showmen" that happened around the late 50's with the "birth of rock and roll"... Angus' "duck walk" was inspired by Chuck Barry, which of course you did not mention, who came about in the later half of the 50's... So buddy, while my methodology may be "asinine" in your eyes, that still doesn't negate your need for getting your facts straight first...
#26
I think you may have your math wrong, but theres about a 20 year difference between Angus and BB... BB King started recording in the 40's and Angus Young started recording in the 70's?


Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#27
^I meant, age wise there is about a 20 year difference... I think Angus is pushing 60 and BB King is 76... I know there is a 30 year difference in the times they started recording music...
#28
i think its quite unfortunate that music is more about appearance and complacency than actual good music now. this is why rap stars are so popular, 3 minutes of the same beat over and over and over with some guy rapping over it. i find the statement "simple music for simple people" to be far too true. i find the reality of it quite sad.
#29
Quote by z4twenny
i think its quite unfortunate that music is more about appearance and complacency than actual good music now. this is why rap stars are so popular, 3 minutes of the same beat over and over and over with some guy rapping over it. i find the statement "simple music for simple people" to be far too true. i find the reality of it quite sad.


+1
Quote by joshjhasarrived
Little does the government suspect that it's funds are being rapidly drained through funding infinite free cardboard boxes to bored teenagers on an internet forum.
#30
How does a musician get popular? Lot's of people buy thier music. We are assuming people buy thier music because they are pretty and not because they like it, which might be true, but we don't know. If these people are selling records because of thier music, then they are good musicians, simply because lot's of people like it, doesn't matter whether you do or not.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#31
Quote by music_mike
So Angus Young is in the same generation as BB King? I think you may have your math wrong, but theres about a 20 year difference between Angus and BB... BB King started recording in the 40's and Angus Young started recording in the 70's? Theres a very big difference in the musical genres of the time... By the time Angus Young came about, there was already the birth of "showmen" that happened around the late 50's with the "birth of rock and roll"... Angus' "duck walk" was inspired by Chuck Barry, which of course you did not mention, who came about in the later half of the 50's... So buddy, while my methodology may be "asinine" in your eyes, that still doesn't negate your need for getting your facts straight first...



Chuck Berry took the duck walk from T-Bone Walker. What's your point?
#32
Quote by The_Sophist
How does a musician get popular? Lot's of people buy thier music. We are assuming people buy thier music because they are pretty and not because they like it, which might be true, but we don't know. If these people are selling records because of thier music, then they are good musicians, simply because lot's of people like it, doesn't matter whether you do or not.


Most mainstream musicians get popular by networking....and ultimately by record deals and air time on the radio.

It doesn't matter how good you are if you don't know how to make contacts and market yourself, unless you want to rely on the miniscule chance that an agent might see you or hear about you.

And the big record companies are interested in image just as much or more than musicianship.

So, occassionally you'll see a very good musician who isn't necessarily sexy, cool or fun to watch - but these types usually end up working as session musicians or lurking in the shadows on stage behind a pop diva....

You're much more likely to see mediocre musicians who are sexy, cool and entertaining - because they're the ones who sell records.
Gear

Gibson '57 Les Paul Reissue
Marshall TSL 601
EHX: Big Muff, Metal Muff, Small Stone, POG, 2880
Ibanez TS808
Voodoo Labs Microvibe
Analogman Chorus
Morley Bad Horsie II
Keeley Compressor (C4)
Nova Delay
MXR 10-band EQ