The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all referred to as "artists"?
Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
"art·ist (ärtst)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."
Erm?
The vast majority of these people don't even play instruments, nor do they write the music they release or the lyrics to them.
The likes of Radiohead, Oasis and so on - perhaps, yes. They create their own music, style, lyrics etc.
But all these singers who indeed, can't really sing anyway, I don't get it. And the depressing thing is, they get paid millions for singing averagely in a studio to a synthetic beat before it's tweaked and released - only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Meh.
Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
"art·ist (ärtst)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."
Erm?
The vast majority of these people don't even play instruments, nor do they write the music they release or the lyrics to them.
The likes of Radiohead, Oasis and so on - perhaps, yes. They create their own music, style, lyrics etc.
But all these singers who indeed, can't really sing anyway, I don't get it. And the depressing thing is, they get paid millions for singing averagely in a studio to a synthetic beat before it's tweaked and released - only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Meh.
...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all referred to as "artists"?
Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
"art·ist (ärtst)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."
Erm?
The vast majority of these people don't even play instruments, nor do they write the music they release or the lyrics to them.
The likes of Radiohead, Oasis and so on - perhaps, yes. They create their own music, style, lyrics etc.
But all these singers who indeed, can't really sing anyway, I don't get it. And the depressing thing is, they get paid millions for singing averagely in a studio to a synthetic beat before it's tweaked and released - only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Meh.
Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
"art·ist (ärtst)
n.
One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."
Erm?
The vast majority of these people don't even play instruments, nor do they write the music they release or the lyrics to them.
The likes of Radiohead, Oasis and so on - perhaps, yes. They create their own music, style, lyrics etc.
But all these singers who indeed, can't really sing anyway, I don't get it. And the depressing thing is, they get paid millions for singing averagely in a studio to a synthetic beat before it's tweaked and released - only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Meh.
Forza wrote:
> only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Answered your own question there.
> only for it to be bought by thousands of idiots.
Answered your own question there.
Forza wrote:
> ...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all
> these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all
> referred to as "artists"?
I think it's because if they were referred to what they actually are, "Pubescent teenage girl money fleecing harvesters" then the cash spinning bubble would quickly burst.
Nice post thought. I was loosing faith in the new arrivals to these boards. Unless you’ve been here before and I take it all back.
:D
> ...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all
> these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all
> referred to as "artists"?
I think it's because if they were referred to what they actually are, "Pubescent teenage girl money fleecing harvesters" then the cash spinning bubble would quickly burst.
Nice post thought. I was loosing faith in the new arrivals to these boards. Unless you’ve been here before and I take it all back.
:D
I'm not Azul, before anyone says anything.
The music industry just really depresses me at the moment. I love music, but really - the industry is somewhat a disgrace.
The music industry just really depresses me at the moment. I love music, but really - the industry is somewhat a disgrace.
I think now the Industry is in two.
One that creates the music, and one that just in it for the money.
One that creates the music, and one that just in it for the money.
anything
*cough*
*cough*
I know what you mean. If you listen to the lyrics of like every britney spears song.. well.. theyre pretty much all the same. the worst part is, these cookie cutter lyrics arent even hers! how is it that she has to have some stooge in a studio write all of her songs, if theyre all the same? the same goes for many others as well. I mean, if theyre getting paid so dam much money, they should at least TRY to be original.
Forza wrote:
> ...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all
> these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all
> referred to as "artists"?
>
> Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
>
> "art·ist (ärtst)
> n.
>
> One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of
> imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value,
> especially in the fine arts."
good point.
Blue et al are clearly defined as
bol-locks (b-oll-ox)
(adj)
one, or collection of, untalented ass-clowns with hair care endoresements and a single, shared, non-functioning brain cell (see "X, Liberty" or "block, new kids on the")
> ...all these pop "singers" such as Blue etc etc, and all
> these other generic manufactured acts - why is it that they're all
> referred to as "artists"?
>
> Artists and solo artists - I don't get it.
>
> "art·ist (ärtst)
> n.
>
> One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of
> imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value,
> especially in the fine arts."
good point.
Blue et al are clearly defined as
bol-locks (b-oll-ox)
(adj)
one, or collection of, untalented ass-clowns with hair care endoresements and a single, shared, non-functioning brain cell (see "X, Liberty" or "block, new kids on the")
Ahaha, agreed.