So a representative from the scientific community comes to God and says, "Well, we've been talking and we've decided that you've become obsolete... we're now able to duplicate all your work, and would like you to retire". So God says, "Ok, that's fine, but just to make sure, tell you what; let's have a friendly competition: let's both make a man, and do it old school, right from the dirt." The scientist agrees and bends down to get some dirt. God says, "whoa there buddy, you get your own dirt".

I think it's ridiculous to call yourself a musician unless you have single handedly created quantum mechanics, atomic structure and so forth, all the way up to building the raw materials which instruments are made out of, designing a system of music based on equal mathematical proportions of frequencies, designing a system of organic inputs and outputs capable of recognizing the frequencies and reproducing them at set rhythmical intervals, along with a neural net capable of assigning some emotional and subjective significance to certain combinations of frequencies etc. etc. Oh and since now almost all music is created, amplified, or reproduced with some form of technology or other, don't forget to discover the laws of electricity, logical circuits, blah blah blah... I know I must be leaving some stuff out. Otherwise you're just working with existing things. And that's not real art. Clearly.

There is obviously a lot more to being a true musician/artist than I first surmised. My mistake

 

Sorry, my mistake:

of course, everybody is an artist and a musician, who combines some tracks of other people to a shiny und new, unbelievable creative MIX!
No, he is not an artist, he is a GENIUS!
The greatest who ever lived on earth.

See, it's easy to be sarcastic, still you don't say a lot with it.

But in one point you may be right: there might be more to being a musician/artist then you first surmised, indeed.
It's never too late to find out.
A good starting point is learning an instrument and some music theory.

 

LOL lampwiikk , i had a friend that used to talk like that,we called him ceefax!

 

Music from CeeFax, now that's art lol

http://youtu.be/V4rxDsEmmtw

That's my point Gulliver, sarcastically saying that EVERYBODY that DJs is an artist and musician is ridiculous. But, carried to it's logical extreme (using something that somebody else created, i.e. an instrument, a musical system, another song, which of course is itself usually just a collection of existing recognized frequencies and rhythms, produced on an instrument that someone else invented and manufactured and using software that someone else created, to create something new, automatically invalidates what's created) the argument that NOBODY who DJs is an artist and musician is equally ridiculous.

 

I think we could argue about that for hours, because you don`t get (I think don't want to get) my point.

I said: a DJ, who is a DJ like in the sense of the word, playing records in clubs or whereever, is not an artist/musician.
Whereas a DJ who is creating his own music, can be called producer, or whatever, but he is not only a DJ anymore.

Btw, I liked your joke about God and the scientists

 

being both a professional classical pianist and a music producer and a live performer of electronic music I have no f*cking clue what this thread is comparing and contrasting

 

John C im proper LOLing

 

"The point is... ummm... I'm not sure what the point is. I'm not even sure there IS a point"

@John C., definitely most intelligent post to date, lol, I'm serious

 

My original thread title had nothing to do with dj's or classical musicians, as I previously stated it was changed. The thread actually said 'Differences between......'The comparison question was very very simple!!!!. Here it is once again, ready.'is there a difference between a musician, no scrap that, i'll simplify it even more, a guitarist, now when I say guitarist just a guitarist , plays guitar and OTHERS record, engineer and whatever the music played!!!, and a guitarist who plays, records and engineers his/her own sounds (eq, compression etc etc), everything right up to the end result!!!. Now the eagle eyed would have noticed that this scenario is slightly different to the original scenario as I said 'The guitarist' My brother, and Those who produce electronic music with their DAWs (Myself) and not only play the music/sounds whatever AND then engineer (eq compress etc etc) the music/sounds they THEMSELVES.......To me there's a very clear and distinct and also simple difference and may I add at this point, neither are right, wrong or better, as it's music and whatever makes each party complete and fulfilled as a musician can only be a positive, seriously lol!!!............Actually another point on this............I think I'll leave it here be happy people!!!!!!!

 

I think the question is a bit deceiving, I don't care about either - genuine musician or home producer - as long as the end result is enjoyable. Ronald McDonald could have made it and I wouldn't care. It's not who or even how something is made that matters to me, if I like the end result or not that's all that matters. You could make a great track with a tooth brush and a garbage can probably, if you have the talent and creativity.

For example Alan Parsons is somebody I have long followed, as an engineer first and as producer and later as an artist. This guy knows his trade, but ended up making crap music after all anyway. His latest albums are embarassing to listen to, for me at least, despite the perfection of every tiny little aspect of the recordings themselves. Quincy Jones is another one that comes to mind. Had a great run of brilliant productions and then sank into perfectionist mediocrity music wise, to me at least. This is why I am not a fan of anybody. If Madonna makes a great track that I enjoy then that is just as good as Pink Floyd's next great track or some extreme death metal band or even a hip hop act.

You can produce the greatest record of all time from a technological and studio technology point of view, 45 minutes of sheer perfection, but if the music itself sucks, it's a waste of time for me to listen to it. A very personal judgement of course but hey, we all listen with our own ears.

Fandom is one of the most silly things, to me. I have never understood it. I just don't fit in there. I never have been a FAN of anybody. But I have liked - and disliked - a huge lot of music though the years. But it's always based on the music, and the music only, not the history or reputation or commercial success or even worse the media hype about an artist.

Decisions like whether or not to put reverb on that snare are an opinion, a choice somebody can make, or not. I don't think it has anything to do with knowledge or ignorance from any of the parties.

 

LOL. I'll give it a try...I can tell I'm in perfect dispostion for it, the plan just migh face a problem, I avoid recordings as much as I can, I don't trust physics

 

Just playing a instrument well doesn't make you a good musician.
A good musician is someone who understands music well.
(naturally it is easier for a good musician to learn a instrument.)

That have nothing to do with understanding how to record sound.

And it is so much more complicated than that. define a good musician or good music...