Just listen to who you want and keep it moving 

anyways 

Okay.

This is a dumb take. You dont get to dictate what is art. Singing is already art. You sing and record it? Art. 

3 hours ago, KillingYourCareer said:

I say let's not be pretentious and gatekeep what is art and what isn't. An unpretentious pop star is still a music artist

while i agree. i think its a discussion that should be had. op isnt totally wrong tbh

 

that being said  "recording artist" is the official job title 

 

3 hours ago, KillingYourCareer said:

I say let's not be pretentious and gatekeep what is art and what isn't. An unpretentious pop star is still a music artist

3 hours ago, T.O.A.D.S. said:

I've never really understood this criticism because directors and actors don't usually write their own scripts (some do, but it's not expected of them to do so) but we expect all singers to write their own songs and if they have more than, like, two songwriters credited we criticise them. Why? 

Fr and tbh, writing is a skill in itself. I know that I may have an unpopular take on the whole writing debacle that rummages pop forums but if they have the knack and talent to exude exceptional song-writing and lyricism, they can obviously be involved in the writing process or take it completely into their own hands. However, I don't see why we have to force other artists to meet up to that bar when they may not have that same expertise in it. Most people would anyway rather a well-written song that was done by other songwriters than lacklustre lyrics written by the artist just because of the pressure that they are just "manufactured" if they don't working in the writing element of a song. They can be very involved in other aspects of the production of the song as well without having to be involved in writing the song. 

Edited September 1, 20224 yr by Blackout2006

7 minutes ago, Badgalbriel said:

This is a dumb take. You dont get to dictate what is art. Singing is already art. You sing and record it? Art. 

This, as well

3 hours ago, Bencharmer said:

I know its common to call "pop singers" "artists" but sometimes it's a big reach.

 

Can we really talk about "art" when the "singer" or mostly the "entertainer" does...

 

- lip sinc

- use autotune 

- doesn't write his/her/them songs or just add their names to get royalties

- put more energy on social media and make up/clothes business than on music

- put a lot of $$$ for a show that doesn't worth the price

 

Discuss ATRL 

 

it seems you dont know much about pop and music. this is generalization that is not even true in most cases. even most famous 'pop stars' are 'self written/produced' like madonna and mariah carey, from currents adele and bilie eilish.

 

its more rare when someone doesnt really contribute to any aspect of music, thats why rihanna, beyonce are often questioned here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how rym of you

if they dont write their songs and/or sing the songs they're not artists lol

I love how atrl can't bring a debate  never appreciating the subtleness of words, like "artist", "product" and "entertainer."

 

So yeah Crazy Frog is an artist just as Beyoncé cause they both sings after all.

 

Britney Jean is just as arty as Tori Amos' Little Earthquakes.

 

Mariah Carey just scream louder than Demi Lovato.

 

But yeah i'm not a music critic so i can't point the difference between all those levels.

 

My point isn't shading any singer/celebrity. We, no matter of our taste, can normally appreciate the difference between a fresh out of the oven French homemade croissant and a microwaved one from Walmart....

 

What is the difference between what we put in our mouth and in our ears? 

4 hours ago, Bencharmer said:

I mean it's like eating MaDonnald's and real food. You can have both but it's important to know what is quality and what is plastic sprinkles.

Madonna writes her own music (not every single one in her earlier career, I know, so you don't have to go copy/paste songwriting credits), so this shade is dumb. Every producer, collaborator, etc. that has been in the studio with her has said she's exceptionally talented at writing, hooks, production, vision, and many of them are acclaimed and legendary producers/writers themselves, so I'll take their word for it over ATRL User Bencharmer's. But thank you for your two cents. 

Edited September 1, 20224 yr by Frogger17

Imo artists have to create. Otherwhise they are just performers 

But a lot of you think good performers who create horrible art should still be considered artists. They are not 

5 minutes ago, Digitalism said:

But a lot of you think good performers who create horrible art should still be considered artists

Finally someone who understands 

If you are given songs to sing then you're not an artist, you're just a celebrity who sings. That's how it works.

well you can be both a pop star and a serious artist. There are some acts who are strictly the former and have no real musical weight in history and all but the terms arent contradictory to each other if that is the point you were making

11 minutes ago, Frogger17 said:

Madonna writes her own music (not every single one in her earlier career, I know, so you don't have to go copy/paste songwriting credits), so this shade is dumb. Every producer, collaborator, etc. that has been in the studio with her has said she's exceptionally talented at writing, hooks, production, vision, and many of them are acclaimed and legendary producers/writers themselves, so I'll take their word for it over ATRL User Bencharmer's. But thank you for your two cents. 

So you take the opinion from other people and can't be a judge yourself? Not being able to analyse what she sings, how she sings, the song, the production, the visual, the whole aesthetic, her true involvement in song writting (and this aspect is REALLY QUESTIONNABLE since 2007)...

 

 

5 minutes ago, GreatestLoveofAll said:

well you can be both a pop star and a serious artist. There are some acts who are strictly the former and have no real musical weight in history and all but the terms arent contradictory to each other if that is the point you were making

Totally. But sometimes the line is really blurry and one aspect take over the rest.

 

You can like or not Tove Lo, Charli XCX or Taylor Swift, you know they are all involved in the whole process of what they do.

 

When it comes to Madonna (mostly now), Jennifer Lopez or Selena Gomez, it's another topic. They can make good songs but being poorly artistic.

1 minute ago, Bencharmer said:

Totally. But sometimes the line is really blurry and one aspect take over the rest.

 

You can like or not Tove Lo, Charli XCX or Taylor Swift, you know they are all involved in the whole process of what they do.

 

When it comes to Madonna (mostly now), Jennifer Lopez or Selena Gomez, it's another topic. They can make good songs but being poorly artistic.

Madonna still writes and co-produces her music now tho? I get Jlo and Selena Gomez- those two unfortunately lack any seemingly respected talent to consider than serious artists and aren't unique outside of their faces. Love them two tho.

1 hour ago, Digitalism said:

Imo artists have to create. Otherwhise they are just performers 

But a lot of you think good performers who create horrible art should still be considered artists. They are not 

Performing is art. What are actors if not performers? :rip:

 

 

1 hour ago, Bencharmer said:

So you take the opinion from other people and can't be a judge yourself? Not being able to analyse what she sings, how she sings, the song, the production, the visual, the whole aesthetic, her true involvement in song writting (and this aspect is REALLY QUESTIONNABLE since 2007)...

 

 

How the hell could I be the judge myself when I wasn't in the studio and neither were you? Were you even born in her heyday? If you don't want to believe anything about her heavy involvement in production, songwriting, etc. because you don't like her, just say that and stop playing obtuse. 

1 hour ago, Digitalism said:

Imo artists have to create. Otherwhise they are just performers 

But a lot of you think good performers who create horrible art should still be considered artists. They are not 

Exactly, in your "opinion," meaning it's not an objective fact and shouldn't be stated as such, as OP is clearly doing. And the word "horrible" is also subjective. Also, you say it's horrible "art" and then say they're not "artists." Well, which lie would you like to tell? Because horrible art is still art, and artists create...what? Art, right? 

I'm sorry but this is so stupid and false 

I agrih

I agree. There are a lot of pop stars that barely possess an ounce of talent or creativity and yet are shoehorned with people that do under the term "artist", and unsurprisingly, their stans are the loudest in this thread .