Music Banter - View Single Post - When is the artist no longer really the artist?
View Single Post
Old 08-07-2013, 09:07 PM   #16 (permalink)
TheBig3
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I've been enjoying Kanye West's most recent album lately, and as I usually do with albums I like, I went and read the Wikipedia entry on it. In doing so I discovered that, like his previous overblown album, this current streamlined minimalistic one also involved dozens of co-producers, co-writers and other assorted collaborators. I wasn't really surprised but it did make wonder if I'm really enjoying Kanye West here or if I'm enjoying some of the other people involved. I realize this type of massive group collaboration is common in pop music, but Kanye West isn't a Britney Spears where everyone assumes the performer isn't really the mastermind. He's definitely considered the creator of his releases, and often praised for the things he does with music.

I'm bringing that up as an example, I'm not intending to talk about him specifically. My question, about artists in general, is when are they no longer really the artist? If you didn't do the majority of the writing or performing, if your primary role was simply getting a bunch of talented people in a room together, does it make any kind of sense to give you full credit as the artist?

What do you guys think?
Well, it might be his executive vision. Directors or CEOs don't do it all, either. But at the end of the day, its their name on the label. I think its harder to determine when the album is well received.

If Yeezus sucked, everyone would have no problem saying "Jesus, Kanye **** the bed on this album, huh?" And that would be justified (in my mind).
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote