Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > >> Esben Stien wrote: >>> Jeremy <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> The guy is very good at doing his thing but it's no art and you don't >>>> need to be talented to do such a thing. >>> What a load of crap;). >>> >> Hello Esben, >> >> Maybe you could argument that a bit more? Why is my opinion "a load of >> crap"? > > > Maybe you could flesh out your argument that "it's not art". Hello Erik, Thanks for your reply, that's a question to which I can reply sensibly. I'm have to take care thought that I'm not mixing things up. Art, talent, craftsmanship, skills... I just don't like what he's doing, that's right. And that's what I used as my standing ground. Not good. But it provoked a good discussion, so it wasn't in vain. Personally for me art is something that spawned from a creative process, that is a display of someone's talent and that has an original approach. > > Yes, his music is in a particular genre that you may not like, but he is > the only person in that genre who is making music the way he does. That's right, couldn't agree more. > > So lets look at what he can do. He can sing in tune, he can sing harmonies, > he can compose his own songs, he can write his own lyrics, he can beatbox, > count rhythms, emulate synthesizers using his voice and effects pedals and > he can do all this performing live. Those are all skills, except for the composing and lyrics parts. > > He can do all this well enough that Roland wants him on their stand demoing > their equipment at London Internations Music Show > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4LH5CN3JU4 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Fi-S63aMk > > I say he is both talented and what he creates is art. So it's commercially interesting enough for a big company to endorse him. For me that has got nothing to do with art and talent and to me your conclusion seems wrong. I'd like to point out that even though I don't like what the guy is doing I'm the last one to admit he isn't good at what he's doing. The way he masters his equipment is certainly admirable and yes, he's a good vocalist. But for me this is not so much art as eeeehhhmmm, what's a good example, Barnett Newman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman) maybe. That's the first example that comes up in my mind. Which brings up another aspect of art, at least for me, it provokes certain emotions. Either because it was the intention of the artist or because the artist chose an unconventional way of displaying his talent. And that is something the guy in the video doesn't do. His choice of music and the way he expresses it are very conventional, even so conventional that a big company wants to endorse him. It also makes me doubt the motives of this guy, does he consider he's own work as art or does he want to make a living out of it? Making a living out of it means compromises. Compromises and art don't go together I think. Art should originate from the artist, unhindered by any compromises (when thinking about this Lady GaGa pops up in my mind, she is the contrary to what I just said and a good subject on discussing the statement I just made about compromises). Best, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
