Dub-Stepping Violinist Lindsey Stomp Earned $6 Million Via YouTube

[dyre]

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.

As someone who plays violin pretty decently, and whose dad plays it professionally in a classical orchestra, I have no qualms with her doing crap pop (gotta roll with the times. Even the London Symphony Orchestra did an album on video game music). Heck, I think Imagine Dragons is pretty good. But in terms of technical ability, she's not just "not great." She's...well, I'll be generous and say "mediocre." Though, I guess these days it's more about flashy videos than actually being good at your instrument. I'm barely in my 20s but sometimes I feel like I'm getting old...

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

......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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.

Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.

Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.

Yaaaay.

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.

Yes, I'm actually going with harder and more unique. Certainly harder and more unique than covers of Imagine Dragons.

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.

An empty promise to back an equally empty statement doesn't matter at all.

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?

I'm expressing certainty that while you can display increasing incredulity, you have no reasonable means or motive to prove what you said. I then linked the emptiness of that promise, to the emptiness of your overall statement. What you're trying is painfully reductive, and of course implies that the value of any performance is diminished by any other. In a more literal sense though, aside from simple classical pieces, a lot of classical and neo-classical music is beyond what most people will ever be able to attempt.

Meanwhile, a donkey with a kazoo could play Radioactive.

Okay, youre super erudite, gold star, but could you actually give a straight answer to the question?

 

[andago]

Yes, I'm actually going with harder and more unique. Certainly harder and more unique than covers of Imagine Dragons

To put it into context you were originally dismissive of someone because their work was in no way unique. I and whoever else went through the ABSM in the UK around the same time, learnt to play Mozart as a fledging pianist. The only difference between my performance and that of a concert pianist is not in creative expression or artistic interpretation, but a vast gulf of skill.

People seem to think pure skill at the violin is what makes her famous and seek to diminish her accomplishments based on the fact that other violinists perform more complicated pieces on a regular basis. It isn't, it is a combination of her ability at the violin and more importantly her personal interpretation and arrangements of music into a more unique format. If you think an orchestral violinist writes arrangements and conducts the music themselves, I'm not sure you understand how an orchestra or orchestral music as a whole works.

For example if you search for "Sibelius Violin Concerto" and "Pokemon Violin Dubstep" you will probably find example of extremely skilled violin playing shown in the first, and examples of more creative expression shown in the second.

The only person perhaps comparable is Vanessa Mae, who is sadly possibly more well known currently for cheating her way into the Winter Olympics than her violin work.

Has anybody stated that she was the best violinist ever? Nobody in the thread has to my knowledge. But then, many good bands are not the best musicians. Technical ability is... not central to one's ability as a performer or composer. What she has done is create something new, and continues to create and entertain. She engages with her audience and, or at least appears to, genuinely have fun and enjoy her work. That is rare enough in the normal music scene, and among the classical artists, virtually unheard of.

Basically this is what I meant probably expressed better!

 

[votemarvel]

Anyone have a link to a video where it is just her violin work? The stuff posted is nice but there are a lot of other instruments playing.

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

......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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, because doing covers of long dead classical and baroque musicians is so much harder and unique.

Yes, exactly. Saying it sarcastically makes it no less true.

Not to mention her actual albums sell perfectly well and she is one of the highest selling independents.

Yaaaay.

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.

Yes, I'm actually going with harder and more unique. Certainly harder and more unique than covers of Imagine Dragons.

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.

An empty promise to back an equally empty statement doesn't matter at all.

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?

I'm expressing certainty that while you can display increasing incredulity, you have no reasonable means or motive to prove what you said. I then linked the emptiness of that promise, to the emptiness of your overall statement. What you're trying is painfully reductive, and of course implies that the value of any performance is diminished by any other. In a more literal sense though, aside from simple classical pieces, a lot of classical and neo-classical music is beyond what most people will ever be able to attempt.

Meanwhile, a donkey with a kazoo could play Radioactive.

Okay, youre super erudite, gold star, but could you actually give a straight answer to the question?

I already did, or are you so desperate for a "gotcha" moment that you can't read it?

I probably missed it. Or my English is too bad for me to understand it.

But why not just give a straight answer that a Swede like me can understand? 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? Please keep it simple; English ain't my nativity language.

 

[dyre]

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.

As someone who plays violin pretty decently, and whose dad plays it professionally in a classical orchestra, I have no qualms with her doing crap pop (gotta roll with the times. Even the London Symphony Orchestra did an album on video game music). Heck, I think Imagine Dragons is pretty good. But in terms of technical ability, she's not just "not great." She's...well, I'll be generous and say "mediocre." Though, I guess these days it's more about flashy videos than actually being good at your instrument. I'm barely in my 20s but sometimes I feel like I'm getting old...

Has anybody stated that she was the best violinist ever? Nobody in the thread has to my knowledge. But then, many good bands are not the best musicians. Technical ability is... not central to one's ability as a performer or composer. What she has done is create something new, and continues to create and entertain. She engages with her audience and, or at least appears to, genuinely have fun and enjoy her work. That is rare enough in the normal music scene, and among the classical artists, virtually unheard of.

Maybe I'm a bit of a purist, but I've always felt that technical ability was a prerequisite to good performance. Artistry is what differentiates you from the crowd, but you have no right to compete unless you've achieved technical mastery. It doesn't help that I'm actively bothered by her technique/lack thereof when I see her videos. It's like...reading a book in which there's a grammatical error in every sentence. You try to focus on the story, but you can't help but cringe as you read it...

That said, I do wish classical artists would branch out a bit more. They're pretty much digging their own graves right now. But talking to some of my dad's colleagues, it seems that they feel the same way about repertoire that I do about performance quality.