Originally Posted by DroidFTW
Trying to turn an art into a science.
Well, there are rules with certain things. Obviously people bend the rules all of the time. But with regards to MUSIC, there is what is called MUSIC THEORY, which has what is considered to be man's way of describing the elements of MUSIC, which is an ART FORM. So, someone that has a background that understands music theory, they will view a piece of music and examine that piece of music differently than someone that isn't. Art has the same rules, kinda sorta. I think Art is just what you like or dislike but there are some scam artists in the art world from time to time. There are artists like Kinkaid, who creates the original piece and then he HIRES other artists that do the mass marketed VERSIONS and then he signs them making people THINK he actually painted it. That's a scam in the art world. But the masses don't know this. Some are reproductions, not originals, etc. etc.
There was another pop artist that would hire other painters to paint the art, he would just sign it and sell them for tons of money but he paid low wages to trained artists to give them a job and he never actually painted anything to my knowledge. If he did, it wasn't what he was selling. I forget his name, but he was exposed on 60 Minutes or something like that and I don't think people suck up to him and pay lots of money if he's still even doing it.
There are other art scams over the years with forgeries, etc.
What a painting is worth is what someone will pay for it. And the art world generally has expert appraisers that give guidance on what it's worth and it's usually based on recent works sold at auctions etc. etc.
But in every type of art form, you are going to have people that have been trained by what are SUPPOSED to be the finest schools, and they sometimes are seen as the experts, even though there are some exceptions. Some of best jazz musicians actually never finished college because some of them were told they were better than their instructors and they were good enough to go on their own and many of them had widely successful careers. Some didn't go because they didn't have the money, but they had a LOT of serious training by parents that were musicians or took private lessons, etc. but some of these people did the same studies they would have done in college, they just did it on their own and learned the same things they would have learned in a higher learning institution.
I know that a lot of the POPULAR music isn't generally taught in colleges because it's not seen as pure forms of music, BUT if you have some of the basics of popular music because you know scales used in blues, jazz, chord progressions, etc. you can create simply pop songs without too much difficulty and that's what the masses generally consider music. But when you create something that doesn't contain all of the elements of music rhythm, pitch, melody, harmony, etc. etc. then someone that is trained in music won't consider it a great example or simply dismiss it as a childish or feeble attempt to create music when it really doesn't have all of the elements of music. I mean, I think the earliest forms of rapping I would consider those beatniks that would write poetry and had a bongo player playing abstract whatever while they vocalized their poetry. Yeah, that didn't last long. Rap has been trying over the years to become legitimate by people rapping on top of more formalized forms of popular music to market it, but they only have had limited success and now they put AutoTune pitch correction to make someone that doesn't how to sing to make it sound like they do. It's basically cheating, or whatever you want to call it and I think it's just dumb, stupid, childish, and is more of a fad, or a gimmick but I wouldn't take it as anything serious.
Street art? Sure, plenty of guys that have talent. Some don't from my point of view. And? You may like what I hate and I may like something you hate. And? If they spray paint a mural on a wall, how can they sell it and make any money? If they do it on private or public property without consent of the owner, then that's illegal. OOOPS. Some of them should maybe see if they can get scholarship to get a free ride at a college and hone their skills. OR they can simply get some canvas, do their thing and try to sell it. If it's good and people want to buy it then great. But I won't say it's not art, it's just something I like don't like would pay for or wouldn't pay for, etc. And? Art ultimately comes down to subjectivity. Plenty of people attend street fairs to sell art and make an honest living. Plenty of opportunity for people to do that.
But music, there are theories that have been established by what are considered experts or masters, just like Classical Indian music has their rules. If you go to Africa, they have their masters that establish what's good and accepted and what isn't and they have their own way of doing things. But it's the pop world that likes to bend/break rules as much as possible and since the computer came into the scene, what they do is record music in a manner that's just not as pure. It used to be where you got the musicians in a good room, put a microphone or two in the room and recorded the entire band or musicians at the same time and that was it and then it just got adjusted for volume levels and that was the extent of it. NO compression, no special effects, no processing to take a performance and turn it into something more artificial. Some like the purist sense of music production because if done properly it captures the essence of the PERFORMANCE of a piece of music, some like the FIX IT IN THE MIX and who cares if the singer can't sing, who cares if the musicians can't play, who cares if they aren't in tune. etc. and then they take what they have and manipulate it into something that's sellable. To a LOT of trained musicians THEY HATE THAT process because it's NOT pure, it's a more dishonest way of creating music and the more respected musicians HATE that process, but some musicians HAVE to because that's how some artists work. Stevie Wonder did most of the performing of all of the tracks, so he had to overdub, but he's a rare exception that's just freakin Genius. He can't help it if he's just freaking gifted. Even if he doesn't play one instrument perfectly. Instead of using a REAL band, they use drum machines, and sampled this, etc. Back in the old days they wouldn't allow anything sold that wasn't performed by REAL musicians. If it had a drum machine, that was just a demo and wasn't released as finished work. so from some people's perspective that came from the more traditional methods of recording music think there is a lot of crap sold on the market and they don't like it and they don't consider it worthy of being called a legitimate form of art that should be sold. You have to at least hear their opinion and respect it if they come from a place of higher knowledge of the art form. Everyone has their own level of what is called INTEGRITY to the art form. What do you think is legitimate and what do you think isn't? I know what levels I would consider legitimate and what isn't, but don't chastise someone that at least has some training and professional experience in the music industry because you lack that experience and knowledge and background. OK?
Now, do you like McDonald's hamburgers? They are made by kids that haven't gone to a culinary academy trained in the art of making food for the professional world. Yeah, anyone can make a hamburger I guess, but would you put a McDonald's hamburger equal to a high quality hamburger that is made from the finest quality beef using the highest quality buns, cooked to absolute perfection on a grill? Well, I think food critics will consider the McDonald's hamburger not even edible, yet they sell billions of them. Same thing happens in the music industry. Get used to it.. Yes culinary is an art form. The best way to judge a work of art is to get a background and education on what are the aspects to even know HOW to judge a piece of art. Can you tell if someone is not in tune? Uneven tempo? a cliche melody line? A gimmick? Do you know how to dissect a piece of music to figure out where the influences came from in terms of genres of music or maybe other musicians that originated a certain style of writing or playing? The list goes on once you start studying MUSIC. Or do you have the same mentality they had on American Bandstand when they had people rate the song and they usually came up with "It's easy to dance to and I can sing to it". and that's all they cared about. Oh OK, Mr/Mrs whomever doesn't know how to LISTEN to music and have any REAL ability to critique it other than the most basic method of judging a song. Welcome to the world of POP music. It's the I don't care method of listening to music. Oh OK. Whatever gets you through the day. Calling me a snob is the wrong word to use. Calling me more musically educated would be more appropriate. I'm not a world expert, but I do know a lot more than most.