Rate the Guns N' Roses version of "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

[Elite]

Honestly, I haven't read WR putting other people's opinions down. Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.

Although I don't agree with the portion of his views transpiring in this discussion, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what his reasoning is and where it comes from.

I'm kind of in the same boat, but the thing is, this is thread #100 where the exact same thing is happening and part of what makes it so frustrating to 'engage' in discussion with WildRanger is that he just drops some opinion or made up 'fact' without any backup, usually something that's bound to receive the same sort of reactions they get here and then when he's called upon to explain what he means, he just disappears never to answer again. It's kind of fascinating in that sense, but we're also going down the same 'some music is objectively better than other music' bullshit rabbithole that somehow each and every one of his thread turns into, just because of the way he asks his questions.

The discussion I am trying to have with WR isn't frustrating at all (for me, at least) so far. I am not interested in changing his mind about the objective / subjective axis. I want to understand the way he comes to his conclusions because it's fascinating. 

It gets frustrating, because you won't get an answer most likely, as time has proven before. Then we get the next thread about ranking some songs or asking why band X is regarded as good (etc. etc. you get the gist) and the same discussion starts all over again

[Elite]

And of course Adami ninja'ed my thoughts exactly but in shorter terminology.

[The Walrus]

Indi, you're in for the long haul. Look at what it did to poor Yoda. Even Jedi mind tricks don't work on this evil.

[Adami]

And of course Adami ninja'ed my thoughts exactly but in shorter terminology.

Well, my post seems to be the last one on a page, so it'll get ignored lol. So you're good.

[Indiscipline]

I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.

I have been married two times 

[KevShmev]

Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.

Come at me.

I will come at you!

But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!

I'm calling the cops. That's not social distancing.

It is if we do the Seinfeld "ass out" hug.

[Adami]

I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.

I have been married two times 

[The Walrus]

Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.

Come at me.

I will come at you!

But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!

I'm calling the cops. That's not social distancing.

It is if we do the Seinfeld "ass out" hug.

[bosk1]

What's your standard? 

Artistry, talent and quality of music.

Define that.  Right now, objectively.  Give me a number on "quality of music".

8675309.

Nicely played Jenny.

Wasn't she a garden tool?

[Stadler]

Music elitists like WildRanger are so funny.

Wait, if I say Justin Bieber's music is worthless and with no quality and any artistic merit(very common and popular opinion) then it makes me an elitist? Interesting.

Well, I didn't use the word "elitist".  I used the word "snob" and it fits.  It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).

By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper.   It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight.   We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts.  Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis.   You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.   

[Stadler]

I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.

I have been married two times 

I've been reading these replies in order, and I swear to god, when I read Adami's post I thought the exact same thing. 

[Indiscipline]

 

Brothers in arms, sir

[Dream Team]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

[The Walrus]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

[WildRanger]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

[The Walrus]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

No.

Say it with me:

[Indiscipline]

Questions:

Am I not letting my personal taste be dictated (which negates development) by someone else's personal taste in both instances?

Are we sure I am not limiting my taste's development if I'm neglecting B?

Are we sure the fans/musicians/critics group and the majority buyers group don't overlap somewhere?

What happens to the system when the kid has grown listening to all the right classics and still likes Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga?

Short answers:
1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Probably somewhere they could overlap
4) Then there is nothing wrong with that if he dig/get those classics

Thank you! I really want to fully understand your system.

I'm really interested in the reasoning behind the two nopes, if you have time.

The fourth answer is damn intriguing and spawns other questions:

Is there something wrong if, once I got those classics, I still don't dig them?

What if Bieber and J-Lo become classics one day? After all, once upon a time, The Beatles were mainly a hugely commercial product for "youngsters and girls" and Beethoven was arguably the first "pop star musician". Should we question developments then?

Have you ever loved or disliked a piece of music while oblivious to its ranking in the critics' opinion?

Hey Wild Ranger, are you cool with picking those up?

[Elite]

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

What's the fucking point in asking the same question over and over?

[Elite]

And what does 'knowing shit about music' even mean? Do I need to understand the musical qualities of the music, the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, dynamic and timbral subtleties in the music, or the cultural references in the music, why the music is structured the way it is, or its placement within history and/or society etc. etc. in order to enjoy it?

And while we (read Indiscipline) are at it; would WildRanger be so kind to get back at my question as well?

[Stadler]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

"Objective" means that it is replicable, it is universal, and it is provable.  I won't acknowledge this, at least not on a blanket level, because one would STILL have to "provide" the standard by which the "best" was derived.  Sure, if you say "Favorites; I like these best", and "Best; factored box office for the first year of release", then sure.  I acknowledge.  But too often, "Best" just pushes the subjectivity down a layer.   "I think this is the 'Best' because the script was tight, the directing was unique, and the acting really delivered on the emotion of the story".  Uh, ok.  So did "Naked Gun 33 1/3".   If someone else can't take those standards - tight script, unique directing, and emotional acting - and arrive at the same film every time, it's not objective, no matter how you parse it.

[Podaar]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

That depends on what definition of objective you are using.

Yes, in the case of your second list, you are attempting to be objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts). However, the other definition (not dependent on the mind for existence; actual) is where art fails the objectivity test. All art is completely reliant on the mind and is by definition subjective.

A majority of expert/popular opinion is still opinion.

[Stadler]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

What's your standard?   Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.?  Probably Maiden.  Global?  Maiden.  Number of guitar players?  Maiden.  Debut album sales?   Godsmack.   Lip rings on album covers?  Godsmack. 

[WildRanger]

Well, I didn't use the word "elitist".  I used the word "snob" and it fits.  It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).

By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper.   It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight.   We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts.  Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis.   You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.

Can't agree with you at all.

Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on. 
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.

And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth. "Truth" is a much more appropriate word than "fact".

And now give me an answer: Why are guys as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis so widely appreciated and Justin Bieber doesn't get 1% of their appreciation? Are there REASONS for that? Tell me.

[Adami]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

What's your standard?   Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.?  Probably Maiden.  Global?  Maiden.  Number of guitar players?  Maiden.  Debut album sales?   Godsmack.   Lip rings on album covers?  Godsmack.

And none of those make any band better. So you can do objective measures, but none of it translates to overall better.

[NoseofNicko]

Well, I didn't use the word "elitist".  I used the word "snob" and it fits.  It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).

By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper.   It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight.   We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts.  Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis.   You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.

Can't agree with you at all.

Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on. 
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.

And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth. "Truth" is a much more appropriate word than "fact".

And now give me an answer: Why are guys as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis so widely appreciated and Justin Bieber doesn't get 1% of their appreciation? Are there REASONS for that? Tell me.

Justin Bieber gets tons of appreciation. I can't stand his music, but a lot of people love it.

[Adami]

Dude's also sold over 7 million albums in 10 years. A one year tour of his had almost 3 million people attend.

Dude seems pretty popular.

[WildRanger]

I'm really interested in the reasoning behind the two nopes, if you have time.

The fourth answer is damn intriguing and spawns other questions:

Is there something wrong if, once I got those classics, I still don't dig them?

What if Bieber and J-Lo become classics one day? After all, once upon a time, The Beatles were mainly a hugely commercial product for "youngsters and girls" and Beethoven was arguably the first "pop star musician". Should we question developments then?

Have you ever loved or disliked a piece of music while oblivious to its ranking in the critics' opinion?

OK.

Is there something wrong if, once I got those classics, I still don't dig them?

I can't know how many classics you could dig. There is a big chance that you would like many of those classics. It's nearly impossible to dislike them all.

What if Bieber and J-Lo become classics one day? After all, once upon a time, The Beatles were mainly a hugely commercial product for "youngsters and girls" and Beethoven was arguably the first "pop star musician". Should we question developments then?

It's not gonna happen. No way. Those famous music stars will never get recognition and appreciation that The Beatles and Beethoven have. The Beatles and Beethoven will always be relevant and remembered, their impact in music history is timeless.

Have you ever loved or disliked a piece of music while oblivious to its ranking in the critics' opinion?

I'm not sure, maybe. I listened a lot of acclaimed classics and I liked nearly all of them.

But I can tell you about painting. Pablo Picasso is one of the most acclaimed painters of all time and I don't like his paintings at all, they look "ugly" to me. But I can't deny their artistic merit. I just can't say his paintings are trash because I don't like them.

[WildRanger]

Dude's also sold over 7 million albums in 10 years. A one year tour of his had almost 3 million people attend.

Dude seems pretty popular.

Also McDonald's food is pretty popular and sold in large amounts. But it can't refute the truth it's unhealthy.

[Stadler]

Well, I didn't use the word "elitist".  I used the word "snob" and it fits.  It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).

By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper.   It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight.   We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts.  Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis.   You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.

Can't agree with you at all.

Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on. 
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.

And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth. "Truth" is a much more appropriate word than "fact".

And now give me an answer: Why are guys as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis so widely appreciated and Justin Bieber doesn't get 1% of their appreciation? Are there REASONS for that? Tell me.

Well, I answer reluctantly because I don't know what you mean by "appreciated".    But, to humor you, assuming it's accurate, it could be simply because their first albums were in 1967, 1978, 1962, 1969/1972, 1965, 1961, and 1951, respectively, as opposed to 2010.  Give us until 2050 and we'll revisit the question.   And maybe, just maybe, that "appreciation" is wrong.  Maybe we SHOULD be appreciating Beiber more.   After all, Miles Davis is a fucking hack.  Has he ever had a #1 record?  Toured stadia?  Sold a million copies of any of his singles?  He doesn't belong in the same conversation as Justin Beiber.

[Stadler]

Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?

Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.

You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

What's your standard?   Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.?  Probably Maiden.  Global?  Maiden.  Number of guitar players?  Maiden.  Debut album sales?   Godsmack.   Lip rings on album covers?  Godsmack.

And none of those make any band better. So you can do objective measures, but none of it translates to overall better.

Of course it does; "overall better" is just an amalgamation of those individual lists.  If you don't have a repeatable, provable standard, it's all opinion.  Not "truth" or "fact".

[The Walrus]

Dude's also sold over 7 million albums in 10 years. A one year tour of his had almost 3 million people attend.

Dude seems pretty popular.

Also McDonald's food is pretty popular and sold in large amounts. But it can't refute the truth it's unhealthy.

So is eating paint chips, but that hasn't stopped you.  You are the biggest troll this forum has ever seen, I'd wager

[Stadler]

It's not gonna happen. No way. Those famous music stars will never get recognition and appreciation that The Beatles and Beethoven have. The Beatles and Beethoven will always be relevant and remembered, their impact in music history is timeless.

But of course, you didn't answer the question.  Unless you can tell the future, in which case, I will immediately agree with you if you give me the lottery numbers for next Wednesday's PowerBall drawing.

But I can tell you about painting. Pablo Picasso is one of the most acclaimed painters of all time and I don't like his paintings at all, they look "ugly" to me. But I can't deny their artistic merit. I just can't say his paintings are trash because I don't like them.

And yet, you'll do exactly that with Justin Beiber.  Interesting. 

[NoseofNicko]

He's not a troll. A lot of people actually think like he does. They're young and immature.

[The Walrus]

He's not a troll. A lot of people actually think like he does. They're young and immature.

The second quoted part of Stadler's last post is exactly why he is a troll. Either that or he's just a bit weak in the upper story. But he can't be that ignorant after all the explanations he's been given, so he has to be a troll.

[pg1067]

Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?

Objectively better AT WHAT?

I don't know a damn thing about Godsmack beyond what I'm reading on Wikipedia.  I imagine Maiden has sold more albums, but that shouldn't be surprising given that Maiden has been around a lot longer and has way more albums.

On the other hand, Godsmack appears to have 4 Grammy nominations to zero for Maiden.

Once again, asking whether something is "objectively better than" something else, you have to be clear about the relevant criteria.  As you phrased the question, it is utterly meaningless.

Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on. 
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.

And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth.

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Justin Bieber has sole more than 150 million records.  He made a movie that was seen by millions and made millions of dollars in profit.  He is a MASSIVELY popular.  He is a hugely successful business person who has made millions on multiple business ventures.  If he's "talentless" and "objectively . . . one of the most hated singers on this planet," how has that happened?  While he might very well be hated by a lot of folks, it also seems to be an objective fact that he is also one of the most LOVED singers on the planet" (after all, one can be both "most hated" and "most loved").

He's "just a singer/performer, not an artist"?  Well...ok, if you define "artist" not to include "singers," but I think you'd be on that island alone.  Also, (1) Justin Bieber plays multiple instruments, and (2) wasn't Marvin Gaye also "just a singer/performer"?  Do you have to be primarily a player of a musical instrument to be considered an "artist"?  What about Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holliday?  Were then "just singers/performers, not artists"?