Latest on MJJC

Artist & Instruments

babykinsilk05

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
794
Points
0
Location
Providence, RI
Ok so I started this thread because I'm just about sick and tired of hearing people say that an artist isn't truly talented (or is less talented then another artist) bescause he or she does not play an instrument. Why is it that people tend to think that an artist who plays an instrument(s) is more "talented" then an artist that doesn't? What is it about playing instruments that make people go gaga? Is that really a testemant to how musically talented someone is? shouldn't how well an artist can put PEN to PAPER and write a song that touches the hearts and minds of people all over the world be more important? Shouldn't how well an artist delivers this song (in terms of conviction and emotion) be just as if not more of a bases on which to determine his or her talent level? I mean I get that's its hard work but is it really that important? Anybody can be TAUGHT how to play the piano, guitar, drums etc and yes, it takes determination on the part of the learner to get it right...but it takes just as much hard work and determination, not to mention a special talent, to know how to express ones self lyrically in a way that truly RELATES to people, that can save a persons life, change a way a persons sees and feels about the world they live in, about themselves, and that can stand the test of time IMHO. Why do people constantly overly praise an artist that plays an instrument and put down those that don't.

The best example of this I can think of as I write this I have to say is what happens when people talk about Michael and Prince, (I DO NOT intend to start a "vs" thing so please do not go there...they are both loved by me (and others) for different reasons) I can't help but notice that Mikes talents always seems to get down played when talked about in the same sentence as Prince and the one thing people grab onto is the "Prince plays instruments" thing. Again, why is there SO MUCH importance placed on that? And it happens with other artist as well.
 
Last edited:
babykinsilk05 said:
shouldn't how well an artist can put PEN to PAPER and write a song that touches the hearts and minds of people all over the world be more important? Shouldn't how well an artist delivers this song (in terms of conviction and emotion) be just as if not more of a bases on which to determine his or her talent level?
Click to expand...
Some people make instrumental music like with jazz & classical, so singing and lyrics aren't relevant and playing an instrument is important. Others like Take 6 and Bobby McFerrin make acapella songs and instruments aren't important but vocal ability is. You could say the same thing about people who consider an act who writes their own material more talented than someone who just sings. Why is it important that an act write material? Frank Sinatra, Johnny Mathis, Ella Fritzgerald, & Elvis Presley didn't, but they are held in high esteem as vocalists. Some people say writing is personal. Just because someone writes their own stuff doesn't make it "personal". Look at the B-52s. I don't know what "Rock Lobster", "Love Shack", or "Girl From Ipanema Goes To Greenland", has to do with anybody's life. KC & The Sunshine Band just made party tunes. But somebody who can do more than one thing is more impressive than somebody who does one thing to some people. If Mike could only sing, but could not dance, would he have been as popular? Probably not, because that is part of his appeal. That is also why a multi-instrumentalist is more impressive to people than someone who just plays one instrument. This is also why people are more impressed by a singer who can sing gospelly like Aretha Franklin or in different voices like Mike than someone who sings plain or in one style like John Denver or Bob Dylan.
 
DuranDuran said:
Some people make instrumental music like with jazz & classical, so singing and lyrics aren't relevant and playing an instrument is important. Others like Take 6 and Bobby McFerrin make acapella songs and instruments aren't important but vocal ability is. You could say the same thing about people who consider an act who writes their own material more talented than someone who just sings. Why is it important that an act write material? Frank Sinatra, Johnny Mathis, Ella Fritzgerald, & Elvis Presley didn't, but they are held in high esteem as vocalists. Some people say writing is personal. Just because someone writes their own stuff doesn't make it "personal". Look at the B-52s. I don't know what "Rock Lobster", "Love Shack", or "Girl From Ipanema Goes To Greenland", has to do with anybody's life. KC & The Sunshine Band just made party tunes. But somebody who can do more than one thing is more impressive than somebody who does one thing to some people. If Mike could only sing, but could not dance, would he have been as popular? Probably not, because that is part of his appeal. That is also why a multi-instrumentalist is more impressive to people than someone who just plays one instrument. This is also why people are more impressed by a singer who can sing gospelly like Aretha Franklin or in different voices like Mike than someone who sings plain or in one style like John Denver or Bob Dylan.
Click to expand...

Intresting...thanks!
I guess at the end of the day it comes down to personal prefrence and opinion on what deems somebody "talented".
 
Because playing a musical instrument often times takes YEARS to master. It takes skill, talent and determination. Not that singing doesn't either, but many times singing is just something many people are born with. It's one of those things you either got it or you don't. But with musical instruments, you can work and practice and dedicate yourself and get better. Guitar is an example of how difficult it is, yet how easy it looks. Guitar takes FOREVER to master because there is SOO much to it. Yet guitarists are usually in the background behind the lead singer. Unfair! But...that's just how it is! I know I played flute for 7 years in school and it was 'uncool' to be in band for some reason, because being in choir was so much 'cooler'. I was in choir too but...for some reason having a musical talent that requires an instrument is often over looked.
 
I think the artist is being seen as more versatile if they play an instrument or two. That's what happens with me -- I sing, play drums, play guitar, and dance.
As someone said above, everything takes skill. I don't know, but I guess people think it takes more skill to play an instrument. They're wrong. It takes skill to do ANY of that. Plus, YEARS of training in dancing, and years of practice on drums, guitar, and singing for me.
 
babykinsilk05 said:
Ok so I started this thread because I'm just about sick and tired of hearing people say that an artist isn't truly talented (or is less talented then another artist) bescause he or she does not play an instrument. Why is it that people tend to think that an artist who plays an instrument(s) is more "talented" then an artist that doesn't? What is it about playing instruments that make people go gaga? Is that really a testemant to how musically talented someone is? shouldn't how well an artist can put PEN to PAPER and write a song that touches the hearts and minds of people all over the world be more important? Shouldn't how well an artist delivers this song (in terms of conviction and emotion) be just as if not more of a bases on which to determine his or her talent level? I mean I get that's its fun but is it really that important? Anybody can be TAUGHT how to play the piano, guitar, drums etc...but it takes a special talent to know how to express ones self lyrically in a way that RELATES to people and stands the test of time IMHO. Why do people constantly overly praise an artist that plays an instrument and put down those that don't.

The best example of this I can think of as I write this I have to say is what happens when people talk about Michael and Prince, (I DO NOT intend to start a "vs" thing so please do not go there...they are both loved by me (and others) for different reasons) I can't help but notice that Mikes talents always seems to get down played when talked about in the same sentence as Prince and the one thing people grab onto is the "Prince plays instruments" thing. Again, why is there SO MUCH importance placed on that? And it happens with other artist as well.
Click to expand...


Your down playing, playing an instrument(s). Your right, anyone can learn how to play an instrument. But it takes a special talented person to create something (sometimes a masterpiece) out of nothing. That's the difference. It adds a whole other level to ones talents. That's why Prince gets that upper hand when it comes to Michael. There is no denying that Prince is a more talented musician. Michael would be the first to tell you that. In fact he consider himself an entertainer more so the an musician. Now when it comes to singing talent. Michael is more talented then Prince. And Prince knows it. Whether he wants to admit it or not. lol....


Musicianship is more praised because many feel that it takes more God given talent and practice, then signing does. Although singing does take a great deal of God given talent and practice.
 
An artist who can make music is talented, especially if the music appeals to people on a higher level. Lots of haters really seem to lay into Mike for lip-syncing (even though he sung live for 25 + years and, as This Is It shows, could still sing) and also for not playing instruments. Supposedly he could play percussion and also the piano a bit.

But really, I don't care about that because the man composed. I mean, lots of kids in high-school can play instruments. Lots of people can play, but how many of them can actually compose a song? Very few.

And the voice is an instrument, so..... yeah.
 
babykinsilk05 said:
Ok so I started this thread because I'm just about sick and tired of hearing people say that an artist isn't truly talented (or is less talented then another artist) bescause he or she does not play an instrument. Why is it that people tend to think that an artist who plays an instrument(s) is more "talented" then an artist that doesn't? What is it about playing instruments that make people go gaga? Is that really a testemant to how musically talented someone is? shouldn't how well an artist can put PEN to PAPER and write a song that touches the hearts and minds of people all over the world be more important? Shouldn't how well an artist delivers this song (in terms of conviction and emotion) be just as if not more of a bases on which to determine his or her talent level? I mean I get that's its hard work but is it really that important? Anybody can be TAUGHT how to play the piano, guitar, drums etc and yes, it takes determination on the part of the learner to get it right...but it takes just as much hard work and determination, not to mention a special talent, to know how to express ones self lyrically in a way that truly RELATES to people, that can save a persons life, change a way a persons sees and feels about the world they live in, about themselves, and that can stand the test of time IMHO. Why do people constantly overly praise an artist that plays an instrument and put down those that don't.

The best example of this I can think of as I write this I have to say is what happens when people talk about Michael and Prince, (I DO NOT intend to start a "vs" thing so please do not go there...they are both loved by me (and others) for different reasons) I can't help but notice that Mikes talents always seems to get down played when talked about in the same sentence as Prince and the one thing people grab onto is the "Prince plays instruments" thing. Again, why is there SO MUCH importance placed on that? And it happens with other artist as well.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean. I'm sick of people telling me that Michael Jackson is not a real songwriter just because he sings and beatboxes the music he comes up with into a tape recorder.
 
Singing as a musical instrument and art as something to master technically has been severely degraded by shows like Idol. It downplays the technicality and mastery that can make a good voice truly astounding.

YES, emotional connection and showmanship plus innate ability are important aspect but there are SIMPLE fundamental things like actually shaping vowel sounds correctly and pronouncing words, phrasing and breathing correctly that the best singers do which make their voices sound above par. Michael was an astonishing master of his voice, both emotionally and technically. I WISH people would acknowledge the work put into singing as an art more these days and attribute those qualities to Michael.

But I think that shows like Idol which hardly focus on the fundamentals of singing make it look like just being able to hold a tune is adequate enough to be truly considered professional.

If top class singers and singing itself held more esteem then I think Michael would get more credit - the credit he deserves.

That said, mastering any instrument takes a lot of talent. I truly respect those who master whatever they play, whether it be playing through perfect aural ability or by study of musical theory, ingenious lyrical content, and overall intense practise. No matter how much talent you're born with, you can always find something to fine tune :) I really respect the dedication that it takes to reach the top.
 
StarSecret said:
Singing as a musical instrument and art as something to master technically has been severely degraded by shows like Idol. It downplays the technicality and mastery that can make a good voice truly astounding.

YES, emotional connection and showmanship plus innate ability are important aspect but there are SIMPLE fundamental things like actually shaping vowel sounds correctly and pronouncing words, phrasing and breathing correctly that the best singers do which make their voices sound above par. Michael was an astonishing master of his voice, both emotionally and technically. I WISH people would acknowledge the work put into singing as an art more these days and attribute those qualities to Michael.

But I think that shows like Idol which hardly focus on the fundamentals of singing make it look like just being able to hold a tune is adequate enough to be truly considered professional.

If top class singers and singing itself held more esteem then I think Michael would get more credit - the credit he deserves.

That said, mastering any instrument takes a lot of talent. I truly respect those who master whatever they play, whether it be playing through perfect aural ability or by study of musical theory, ingenious lyrical content, and overall intense practise. No matter how much talent you're born with, you can always find something to fine tune :) I really respect the dedication that it takes to reach the top.
Click to expand...

I agree with your entire post...I too have tremendous respect for people who can play an instrument because I completley understand what it takes to truly master it, what I wish is that people would hold other aspects of an artist's abillities in equal regard.
 
I dont have time to read through all of this right now... but...

1) Michael DID play instruments, but as a performer he was a vocalist.
2) The voice IS an instrument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top