So what? Are cover albums not real art?Adam Jensen said:As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.martyrdrebel27 said:my favorite part of this story is that the labels wanted nothing to do with her before, and now they're beating down her door. hahah screw those corporate bottom-liners. they're destroying real art. the age of information is bringing it back.
Sounded really good but I could not listen past the one ten mark. The moment the drop hits it is physically unpleasant to listen to. That is why I cannot suffer dupstep, the sudden loss of a coherent melody is somehow beyond words in describing how much it bothers me without being painful. The fact that the violin remained unchanged while the backing music did not made it somehow worse. Skinny Puppy is all over the place yet it somehow does not bother me in the least, what is that all about?!Elfgore said:First things first, I only knew like the first three people. Everyone else I'm completely clueless about. Second, no mention of Crystallize [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHjpOzsQ9YI]? Clearly her most popular and awesome song there, original too.
jamail77 said:Record Labels are pretty willing to get behind covers, as a large percentage of the classical/opera market is based on such (there are original works in those genres, granted). Even in more mainstream music (sort of), there's stuff like Kidz Bops, or Me First & the Gimme Gimmes. You even have groups like Apocalyptica, Van Canto, or Fozzy who all started out with at least one album of complete covers as their debut on labels.Adam Jensen said:If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.
I can promise you that the amount of people who've covered classical and baroque works is enormously higher than the amount who've covered Imagine Dragons. So more unique? Nnnnnope.UniversalAC said:Yes, I'm actually going with harder and more unique. Certainly harder and more unique than covers of Imagine Dragons.ravenshrike said:Really? You're actually going with harder and more unique. I mean, for some pieces harder is certainly true, though not all, but more unique? Every violinist and their mother covers classical and baroque works. The number that genuinely try something original can probably be counted without taking your socks off.UniversalAC said:Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.ravenshrike said:Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.UniversalAC said:The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.Adam Jensen said:I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.jamail77 said:......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.Adam Jensen said:As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
Yaaaay.ravenshrike said:Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.
No. Definitely not. The only music that is art is rehashing classical music that's at least several centuries old. That everyone who's picked up a string instrument has done a rendition of. Without adding a single unique flair to it as that would be "ruining it". /serttheking said:So what? Are cover albums not real art?
In general I don't like her covers much, I prefer her originals. Maybe I'm an outlier but wasn't her most popular song Crystallize which is original?Adam Jensen said:I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.jamail77 said:......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.Adam Jensen said:As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
Wait. I just wanna be clear here. Do you mean that the amount of people who've made Imagine Dragons covers are more numeruous than the ones who've covered, say, Mozart?UniversalAC said:An empty promise to back an equally empty statement doesn't matter at all.Queen Michael said:I can promise you that the amount of people who've covered classical and baroque works is enormously higher than the amount who've covered Imagine Dragons. So more unique? Nnnnnope.UniversalAC said:Yes, I'm actually going with harder and more unique. Certainly harder and more unique than covers of Imagine Dragons.ravenshrike said:Really? You're actually going with harder and more unique. I mean, for some pieces harder is certainly true, though not all, but more unique? Every violinist and their mother covers classical and baroque works. The number that genuinely try something original can probably be counted without taking your socks off.UniversalAC said:Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.ravenshrike said:Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.UniversalAC said:The only reason I know her name is because of her cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix. I remember her as, "That midget mormon violinist". She's not bad, but she's not great either. There are a lot of really talented violinists out there who don't do music video covers of crap pop.Adam Jensen said:I know she does original work, but let's be honest. That's not what she's famous for. She's famous for cover stuff and it's her fame based on that that record label parasites wish to capitalize on.jamail77 said:......She also plays original music. Quite frequently actually relatively speaking. I'm not sure how that slipped you by considering they mention record labels rejecting her then clamoring for her when she started doing well. Why would she approach record labels and they her after the fact if she didn't play original music, only covers? If record labels deal in covers, that's news to me, but then again I don't keep up with the music business all that well let alone how it works.Adam Jensen said:As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.
Even if she didn't play her own original music I would definitely consider covers art especially hers. I mean, if she's not changing the arrangement in some way she's adding something to it and if she's not doing that the dancing is most certainly her own (She practically invented violin dancing, or whatever a good name for it would be, as far as I know. Don't think anyone else even does it, even 8 years after she started) and the design of the environment/effects/whatever hers and whoever helped her create it. To so narrowly define art I'm sorry to say this comes off as callously pedantic to me. As if all art needs to start out as an original thought when we all know how much has been borrowed, if not directly copied short of lawsuit or malice, to create something new.
Yaaaay.ravenshrike said:Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.
Except in the rare cases where sheet music for your instrument is readily made available in some form, all you can really do is "interpret" the piece (especially given that some of these companies have copyright lawyers and love to use them). And while the idea or theme of the piece might not be your own, there's a lot of room for artistic expression in how exactly you go about taking one piece and finding your own way to perform it.Adam Jensen said:As much as I like her and I'm happy for her success I wouldn't call what she does real art. She's just using her skill to play music created by somebody else.