Instrumentalist, artist or entertainer?

[Vynns]

Hello. I posted the following in the section "miscellaneous" a while ago. I haven't gotten that many responses, probably due to it not being posted in the right forum. Mea culpa, man. As I'm interested in what you guys think of this, I'm reposting it here:





Evening all,

A few days ago I was watching a band doing a show in the neighbourhood. They were a coverband. I myself am not really a big fan of coverbands, because I'd rather hear something new, or the original artists perform their own pieces. That being said, I had a great night, thanks to the band (and one lovely lady, but that's a different story). You see, they had the most awesome stage show ever, for a local coverband that is. The singer was hanging from the rafters, stagediving, the works. All the bandmembers were looking like they had the time of their lives and everyone was dancing. They even got me dancing, and that's saying something.

They weren't, however, very good instrumentalists. The singer had a voice that was nothing special (kinda generic), the guitarist fumbled more than I would deem acceptable and the bassist was eq'd very badly, to the point that his sound was a barely intelligible throb. The drummer was the one who kept this outfit together.

Despite these problems, they got everyone dancing and merry and whatnot. This got me thinking... these people are not very original. They're not very good at their instrument either. But they entertain marvelously. Could these be three seperate things altogether? And if so, what other characteristics would an allround musician have?

So. I propose three different aspects of being a musician:

- The Instrumentalist;
This would of course be measured by your proficiency on instruments. Your craftmanship, if you will. Can you play different instruments? Is your technique faulty at best, or is it flawless? Do you know more than one way to play it? (Slapping versus tapping versus picking versus fingering etc).
I would also contend that your command of music theory would fall into this category, as theory is also a tool to create your vision.

The session musician for instance, would fall into this category, being a person with as good as flawless technique and a thorough grasp of music theory. In his role as session musician however, he would not write any music himself and (with exceptions of course) just play what he is asked to play. Likewise, as his venue is the studio, the entertainmentfactor would not come into play.

- The Artist;
This is the visionary, the man with the plan, churning out conceptalbums and writing profound music and lyrics. This category is where the creative minds are. The people who have something to say. the people who have a vision and have chosen music as their way of conveying what's in their head to the world. Also, it is not a domain for musicians exclusively, as of course people like Da Vinci, Rembrandt and van Gogh would fall into this category.

This aspect is measured by the artisticness ('s that a word?) of your work. Some people would fall without question in this category, Bob Dylan comes to mind. However, I would also count people like the Sex Pistols as great artists. Lord knows they aren't great instrumentalists (Neither is Dylan btw), but what they did was revolutionary and they changed music forever with it.

- The Entertainer;
This would speak for itself I would think. The coverband I started this post with would fall into this category. People who entertain greatly, who know how to make people feel good, be it through music, through dance, or through stand up comedy. This would also be applicable to, for instance, circusartists.

Also, of course, Spinal Tap would fall into this category. Reasonable instrumentalists and artists, but very funny. I'm sure you can think of other examples.



These three categories would not be mutually exclusive. Think of them more as three aspects of musicianship, all of which would be present in every musician, to a degree.

Now, these are my own three categories. You may disagree with this classification and by all means, criticize it, add to it, or change it. But what I was wondering, is what you think yourself more of as? An instrumentalist, an artist or an entertainer?

[Steve]

If you start a category for hack money whore, stick my name in that colum.

[TheBasicBassist]

i think of myself as an instrumentalist.

=]

[DoomandHeavy]

I'd say a mix of artist and entertainer. I spend almost all my time playing or thinking about music, but I also want the people I'm playing for to have a good time.

[funkalicious101]

Artist. I do it all for myself.

[jerry]

Originally Posted by Steve

If you start a category for hack money whore, stick my name in that colum.

Pretty much raps up everything about me too.

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by Steve

If you start a category for hack money whore, stick my name in that colum.

lol...I fall in that category sometimes. But I actually try to cover ground in all 3 categories. I do sessions, I've been in original bands helping to write the music/record almums, and I do a lot of cover stuff, where I dress as the 'Rocker' and try to entertain. I like to do it all. I don't consider myself an expert at any of them though.

[Dogbertday]

I'm a musician... meaning I'm making a career out of being all three of those... and then a little bit extra in there too

[JimmyM]

Entertainer all the way, and damn proud of it. I don't care how good you are...if you don't entertain me, you suck. That doesn't mean I'm not entertained by a great instrumentalist or artist, nor does it mean I ignore my own instrumental or artistic side of making music. But you have to be able to keep a crowd's attention. If you're boring to watch onstage, I don't even see the point in playing live.

[hbarcat]

Entertainer.


The best bands interact with their audiences and connect with them - that's the basis of entertainment. Of course, there are a lot of things that go into making that connection and even a lot of technically good artists don't know how to do this - and they end up sucking.

[iridiumrocks]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Entertainer all the way, and damn proud of it. I don't care how good you are...if you don't entertain me, you suck. That doesn't mean I'm not entertained by a great instrumentalist or artist, nor does it mean I ignore my own instrumental or artistic side of making music. But you have to be able to keep a crowd's attention. If you're boring to watch onstage, I don't even see the point in playing live.

Very true. I have watched many bands who were great instrumentalists, but stood on stage like a statue and looked totally bored. You have to enjoy what you are doing and that will come across to the crowd. If you're having fun, so will they.

[Ekim]

Originally Posted by iridiumrocks

Very true. I have watched many bands who were great instrumentalists, but stood on stage like a statue and looked totally bored. You have to enjoy what you are doing and that will come across to the crowd. If you're having fun, so will they.

Sometimes. But I've seen "good time bands" whose music came off flat to me.

And I'd rather watch someone stand still and pour their soul into their playing if that's what it takes for their music to come out.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Ekim

Sometimes. But I've seen "good time bands" whose music came off flat to me.

And I'd rather watch someone stand still and pour their soul into their playing if that's what it takes for their music to come out.

Well, entertainment takes all forms. What works for KISS wouldn't work for Chick Corea or the Eagles. I'll take a guy standing still if his presentation entertains me. But for me, it always has to be entertaining on some level.

[NickyBass]

I suppose it's genre specific.

In jazz and funk, I really dislike 'over-confidence.' It is a big turnoff when guys act like they are grooving hard, or playing some intense solo- when they are just wanking around. I wouldn't mind watching them if they were humble, but it just irks me. It's insulting.

I think that musicianship and artistry come first---then you can be an entertainer.

However, I am more entertained by good music than by bad acting.


For other genres, it's different.

[Joe.shaffer]

Artist first by a long shot, my music is me. Entertainer comes in pretty strongly too though. If people aren't enjoying what I'm giving them, I failed.