"Courage" album - Official Topic

[Celine Fan 77]

Celine can be an artist if allowed.. for me the improvisations she makes here on that song 'lilly of the lake' which is so boring if you listen to the original but look where Celine bring it by just fooling around, for that video alone I think she has much more to offer as an artist than you'd think , she just miss the confidence

 

Same goes for her creativity, her hidden talents as a pianist, her work as a songwriter, how she owns each song she covers... She's proven to be far more than an entertainer, I'm pretty sure 99% of us agree.

[Kristinaz]

Same goes for her creativity, her hidden talents as a pianist, her work as a songwriter, how she owns each song she covers... She's proven to be far more than an entertainer, I'm pretty sure 99% of us agree.

 

She's incredible in her work as a songwriter, pianist and even as you said how she takes on covers. I am sure most of us agree she has many talents and some I bet she didn't even realize she had but the main thing I've learned even just within my own self is you have to want it and want to feel it. If you don't feel it then it won't work. So when Celine commits herself 100% to her work that's when it becomes more then just her being an entertainer that's when you get the type of work where you know she gave her everything. The stuff that she does that are half hearted are obvious (I have no idea if that made sense lol made sense in my head)

Edited June 7, 2020 at 10:36 PM by Kristinaz

[PuraVida]

The wedding song for Anne-Marie is basically “Tout près du bonheur” but with some English lyrics.

 

First I read that as "the wedding song for Anne Murray"

[PuraVida]

Reference song https://youtu.be/IHD0_bAgWGI

 

I never knew he was referencing a song. I thought he was playing something classical or just coming up with a melody...I wonder if Celine was saying the original song was "amazing"..

[guigafs15]

 

 

I’m going to sound like a broken record, but again, Celine is an entertainer, NOT an artist. I know many on here disagree with me, and in my opinion, are a bit in denial of the fact, but it is what it is. Rene’s passing has proven that time and time again. Celine is one hell of an entertainer. She has amazing talent, but that’s where it ends. C’est la vie.

 

I agree with you, 100%. Celine has a great talent but her whole career it's a marketing choice, specially the english one. It's not an expression of herself, there's no desire or passion. It's always a marketing move. Even her singing... David Foster has said that Celine, unlike others, always do exclatly what she is asked for in the studio, she doesn't change a bit or, like the critics said, don't imprint personality. There's no creativity, just a bunch of white men in suits deciding what's the best next move, financially.

 

She's just like Britney Spears: a product of the industry. While Britney entertain her audience with her dance, Celine do it with her voice and personality. And this is what she loves: being in a stage, entertaining people.

[PuraVida]

I agree with you, 100%. Celine has a great talent but her whole career it's a marketing choice, specially the english one. It's not an expression of herself, there's no desire or passion. It's always a marketing move. Even her singing... David Foster has said that Celine, unlike others, always do exclatly what she is asked for in the studio, she doesn't change a bit or, like the critics said, don't imprint personality. There's no creativity, just a bunch of white men in suits deciding what's the best next move, financially.

 

She's just like Britney Spears: a product of the industry. While Britney entertain her audience with her dance, Celine do it with her voice and personality. And this is what she loves: being in a stage, entertaining people.

 

As far as I know, she has never recorded something she didn't like...except for Titanic. And I have heard David Foster say that, but we also have recording sessions where she does various takes very freely and interprets it her own way...and she goes into the session without rehearsing the song first so she can do it fresh.

 

Before she was a big name, she was covering Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson...so clearly she was always going to go in the "pop" direction. So, I don't think she is being manipulated per se....but I've never heard her speak in depth about cohesive messages or cohesive visions behind an album. Could we imagine her doing a Beats 1 w/ Zane Lowe interview like Lady Gaga recently did going into depth about each track and the process? I'm not sure. But on the macro level, I think she is being true to herself because mostly her songs are about love. She sing about love. And it makes sense because she had been in love with the same man since she was 18 until he passed.

[manolo19]

I never knew he was referencing a song. I thought he was playing something classical or just coming up with a melody...I wonder if Celine was saying the original song was "amazing"..

 

My guess is while they were rehearsing he actually played for her the first song he wrote on the piano and Celine loved it so much she just ad lib opera on it and the result beyond amazing but I'm 99% sure Celine never actually heard the original song sung by Hana pestle who happened to be Ben Moody ex-girlfriend.

[jpatdeleon09]

Still Céline is an artist. C’est la vie

 

[LukeD]

Singing is a form of art. Celine is a singer. Therefore, Celine is an artist. Also, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

What can be subject of debate is the extent to which she is good artist. And this heavily depends upon the standards of those who judge, as well as rules of vocal pedagogy. How some of you bring songwriting skills to the discussion is beyond me. This is the equivalent of doubting the artistry of Meryl Streep on the basis that she does not write her films. You are essentially expecting a singer to also be a songwriter, forgetting that these are two different professions, also unrelated in terms of skill-sets they involve.

 

Please, adhere to universally accepted terms. And do not mix apples and oranges.

 

Just my two cents.

[jpatdeleon09]

Singing is a form of art. Celine is a singer. Therefore, Celine is an artist. Also, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

What can be subject of debate is the extent to which she is good artist. And this heavily depends upon the standards of those who judge, as well as rules of vocal pedagogy. How some of you bring songwriting skills to the discussion is beyond me. This is the equivalent of doubting the artistry of Meryl Streep on the basis that she does not write her films. You are essentially expecting a singer to also be a songwriter, forgetting that these are two different professions, also unrelated in terms of skill-sets they involve.

 

Please, adhere to universally accepted terms. And do not mix apples and oranges.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Exactly!

 

[LukeD]

Exactly!

 

Aww this is nice and fun! Thank you..! Edited June 8, 2020 at 07:43 AM by LukeD

[PuraVida]

Singing is a form of art. Celine is a singer. Therefore, Celine is an artist. Also, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

What can be subject of debate is the extent to which she is good artist. And this heavily depends upon the standards of those who judge, as well as rules of vocal pedagogy. How some of you bring songwriting skills to the discussion is beyond me. This is the equivalent of doubting the artistry of Meryl Streep on the basis that she does not write her films. You are essentially expecting a singer to also be a songwriter, forgetting that these are two different professions, also unrelated in terms of skill-sets they involve.

 

Please, adhere to universally accepted terms. And do not mix apples and oranges.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Some terms deserve to be questioned and made more complex.

 

I wasn't expecting singers to be songwriters. Those are apples and oranges, as you said. Same with acting and screenwriting. What I believe is that artists create an independent aesthetic/vision without any restrictions but their own imagination. In doing so we get to understand how they view the world and perhaps we take a message or lesson from that. Artists make something from nothing. Artists create and performers interpret. It is not a devaluation per se, just another category. Some people can be both artists and performers.

 

What we see on screen from Meryl Streep is her being a means to someone else's end. The director is telling her what he/she wants from her...correcting her movements, facial expressions, speech and accents, etc. in a given take as they see fit to fit their vision. The audience sees her, but what we are really getting is a person whose behavior and personhood is mediated through at least two layers...that of the script and that of the director. She doesn't have the complete and total autonomy of an artist. To the degree that Meryl makes her own acting "choices"...we are seeing how Meryl interprets someone else's view of the world; we are not seeing her view of the world itself. Meryl as an actress and Celine as a singer both have incredible talent, just not artistry. An artist never puts on a role, as what they do is purely them. A performer is using empathy and imagination to be someone else.

Edited June 8, 2020 at 08:09 AM by PuraVida

[Ajax]

Some terms deserve to be questioned and made more complex.

 

I wasn't expecting singers to be songwriters. Those are apples and oranges, as you said. Same with acting and screenwriting. What I believe is that artists create an independent aesthetic/vision without any restrictions but their own imagination. In doing so we get to understand how they view the world and perhaps we take a message or lesson from that. Artists make something from nothing. Artists create and performers interpret. It is not a devaluation per se, just another category. Some people can be both artists and performers.

 

What we see on screen from Meryl Streep is her being a means to someone else's end. The director is telling her what he/she wants from her...correcting her movements, facial expressions, speech and accents, etc. in a given take as they see fit to fit their vision. The audience sees her, but what we are really getting is a person whose behavior and personhood is mediated through at least two layers...that of the script and that of the director. She doesn't have the complete and total autonomy of an artist. To the degree that Meryl makes her own acting "choices"...we are seeing how Meryl interprets someone else's view of the world; we are not seeing her view of the world itself. Meryl as an actress and Celine as a singer both have incredible talent, just not artistry. An artist never puts on a role, as what they do is purely them. A performer is using empathy and imagination to be someone else.

 

How did you wake up one day and decided that performers were not artists ? That's pure nonsense for me.

It's an art to sing live in front of people, not just a talent. Artistry shouldn't go through your own test or perception. When people are on stage there's no one telling them how to correct their movement, their facials expression, their vocals. You also forget that a director can ask the same thing, and will obtain totally opposite results depending on the interpret own sensitivity, interpretation, background, personnal history and so on.... Director may ask Marion Cotillard or Meryl Street the same thing, and will obtain 2 different results. Director, composer may also choose one actress, singer other another because they know that results will be that different and want this actress or this singer. Composer may write songs or movie around an actress, actress or singer can inspire directors, composers for a whole movie, a whole album, they want a singer because they won't obtain anything comparable with another one, for a same ability, talent. There are also so many director, composer letting their artist carte blanche on songs. Performers, interprets, bringing movies or songs to opposite directions.

It's a pure form of art to be on stage and captivate people, it's a pure form of art to sing and interpret, behind a director guidance or not . You want to question things and gives it more complexity ? Your example lacks all of that and are totally binary, like performers and artists. No.

Edited June 8, 2020 at 09:27 AM by Ajax

[LukeD]

Some terms deserve to be questioned and made more complex.

 

I wasn't expecting singers to be songwriters. Those are apples and oranges, as you said. Same with acting and screenwriting. What I believe is that artists create an independent aesthetic/vision without any restrictions but their own imagination. In doing so we get to understand how they view the world and perhaps we take a message or lesson from that. Artists make something from nothing. Artists create and performers interpret. It is not a devaluation per se, just another category. Some people can be both artists and performers.

 

What we see on screen from Meryl Streep is her being a means to someone else's end. The director is telling her what he/she wants from her...correcting her movements, facial expressions, speech and accents, etc. in a given take as they see fit to fit their vision. The audience sees her, but what we are really getting is a person whose behavior and personhood is mediated through at least two layers...that of the script and that of the director. She doesn't have the complete and total autonomy of an artist. To the degree that Meryl makes her own acting "choices"...we are seeing how Meryl interprets someone else's view of the world; we are not seeing her view of the world itself. Meryl as an actress and Celine as a singer both have incredible talent, just not artistry. An artist never puts on a role, as what they do is purely them. A performer is using empathy and imagination to be someone else.

I disagree.

 

The term you have constructed is not complex. It is actually quite narrow and I hope you can realise that. You are equating artistry to creativity only, therefore narrowing the scope of the term. Artists can only be creators and those who bring these creations to life are treated as passive conduits at best.

 

The main issue I have with this is that performing is an art in its own right. There are technical skills involved and an element of expression. There is also a sense of freedom as there are various ways to interpret what one is given - a song in the case of Celine. Just listen to the studio version of Le Ballet and then any live performance of the song. Different worlds.

 

For these reasons, I feel that application is just as important as creation, as far as communicating emotions/ideas to an audience is concerned.

[PuraVida]

How did you wake up one day and decided that performers were not artists ? That's pure nonsense for me.

It's an art to sing live in front of people, not just a talent. Artistry shouldn't go through your own test or perception. When people are on stage there's no one telling them how to correct their movement, their facials expression, their vocals. You also forget that a director can ask the same thing, and will obtain totally opposite results depending on the interpret own sensitivity, interpretation, background, personnal history and so on.... Director may ask Marion Cotillard or Meryl Street the same thing, and will obtain 2 different results. Director, composer may also choose one actress, singer other another because they know that results will be that different and want this actress or this singer. Composer may write songs or movie around an actress, actress or singer can inspire directors, composers for a whole movie, a whole album, they want a singer because they won't obtain anything comparable with another one, for a same ability, talent. There are also so many director, composer letting their artist carte blanche on songs. Performers, interprets, bringing movies or songs to opposite directions.

It's a pure form of art to be on stage and captivate people, it's a pure form of art to sing and interpret, behind a director guidance or not . You want to question things and gives it more complexity ? Your example lacks all of that and are totally binary, like performers and artists. No.

 

Let me flip the question on you...why are performers artists? What are your demonstrable, affirmative criteria so others can follow your logic rather than just refuting someone else's criteria? I explained, or tried to, the reasoning behind my thought. When I said complexity, what I meant was being clear/specific with definitions as opposed to just saying "singing is an art. 1 + 1 = 2. end of discusion" The question is why.

 

I am not saying that I have no respect for performers, or that they aren't skilled, or that they don't make me feel a beautiful range of emotions...but is that your definition of an artist? Someone who makes you feel emotions? A loved one or a pet can do that as well, does that make them artists? What if I went into my living room and sang My Heart Will Go On completely out-of-tune in front of my family? Am I an artist? Why or why not?

 

And I'm not saying that all performers e.g. actresses are clones or equally talented, or that they interpret art in exactly the same manner...but my point is, the general tone/boundaries/essence of the idea and emotion is set by someone else and their meaning and vision. And you're dead wrong; if a director got "totally opposite results" from either Cotillard or Streep, one of them would get fired. If the part was written for a grieving, depressed widow, and one of them played "totally opposite" as a flirty, optimistic woman then they would not be a good actress. There would be significantly more alike about their performances of the same part than was different. You are carrying out someone else's story and message about life, not your own...even if you give a certain twist. There is no "opposite direction"...it is the general emotional/aesthetic flavor of someone else as clearly articulated in a script.

 

Now, if someone is unscripted and completely left to their own devices, then that's 100% authenticity and then we get to know who they are as artists themselves. If we told Streep and Cotillard to each go in a room and then said "show me heartbreak"...whatever each of them did would be art because it would be coming from them, and them alone...they are 100.00% free in the creative process. Whatever words or experiences or movements they chose would be self-inspired. In the end, they could have similarities or differences, but we would be able to call both of their performances art.

[PuraVida]

I disagree.

 

The term you have constructed is not complex. It is actually quite narrow and I hope you can realise that. You are equating artistry to creativity only, therefore narrowing the scope of the term. Artists can only be creators and those who bring these creations to life are treated as passive conduits at best.

 

The main issue I have with this is that performing is an art in its own right. There are technical skills involved and an element of expression. There is also a sense of freedom as there are various ways to interpret what one is given - a song in the case of Celine. Just listen to the studio version of Le Ballet and then any live performance of the song. Different worlds.

 

For these reasons, I feel that application is just as important as creation, as far as communicating emotions/ideas to an audience is concerned.

 

"Passive conduits" is not the language I used. I said "means to someone else's end"....often times, those ends are very, very beautiful. It's not dreary, and I think performers obviously bring life to a piece of art. I think "Power of Love" is an incredible song, but the artist in the whole equation is the songwriter---not Celine, not Laura Branigan, and not Jennifer Rush. Their versions aren't entirely drastically different, and in the sense that they are different a lot of that has to do with their natural differences in tone of voice and range. The core of the message of the song, the chordal relations in the music, and the lyrics all stayed the same...the artist set the musical fundamentals.

 

I feel most people who have lived enough life who sang that song could have just as much emotion as any of those singers above. I know how much I've sung that song at the top of my lungs in the car and really felt the song (lyrics and melody). Does that make me an artist? Or is the only thing keeping me from being an artist that I don't have anywhere near the correct pitch and vocal range that they have?

[Ajax]

Let me flip the question on you...why are performers artists? What are your demonstrable, affirmative criteria so others can follow your logic rather than just refuting someone else's criteria? I explained, or tried to, the reasoning behind my thought. When I said complexity, what I meant was being clear/specific with definitions as opposed to just saying "singing is an art. 1 + 1 = 2. end of discusion" The question is why.

 

That's basically what I just did. I explained, demonstrated how more complex it is in comparison to your binary and narrow version.

As said interprets can be the muse of the director, an interpret can be at the origin of a song, a movie, a global work. Composer would not exist without them. Lots of directors, composer ask them to bring their work in other places. Lots of directors would have not even thought that this song, this character would go finally in that direction due to the performer, interpret. The relation is tight, complex. You should study the complexity between a director and an actress it is well documented and you would see the complexity, the ascendancy of one on the other. It's the same between the interpret of a song and the composer and it happenned a lot in Celine's discography too.

 

I insist that you can have opposite recations from two actress. Your demonstration of one being fired and the opposition between a widow versus an optimistic woman is laughable. Do you know about versatility and nuances and how a same feeling can be expressed in so many different way? And why some directors would die to have this role by Catherine Deneuve and not by Marion Cotillard why they would have the same script ? In your world, every interpret would be commutable, while this song, this movie would absolutely not be the same depending on the interpret. That's scary to even have to point that out.

 

That's also what LukeD explained, and that's what make any interpret and performers out there true and complex artists

[Kyle_Jared]

Singing is a form of art. Celine is a singer. Therefore, Celine is an artist. Also, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

What can be subject of debate is the extent to which she is good artist. And this heavily depends upon the standards of those who judge, as well as rules of vocal pedagogy. How some of you bring songwriting skills to the discussion is beyond me. This is the equivalent of doubting the artistry of Meryl Streep on the basis that she does not write her films. You are essentially expecting a singer to also be a songwriter, forgetting that these are two different professions, also unrelated in terms of skill-sets they involve.

 

Please, adhere to universally accepted terms. And do not mix apples and oranges.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Don't even bother acknowledging the likes of what he posts.. Yet seems fit to come on here constantly complaining. That is an art form in itself LOL. C'est la Vie! lo.

Edited June 8, 2020 at 12:37 PM by Kyle_Jared

[Xpresso]

So Madonna is an artist for the songs that she wrote, but she's not an artist on the songs she didn't write! That's nuts!

 

Just look up the dictionary to know what an artist is.

[Davey84]

So Madonna is an artist for the songs that she wrote, but she's not an artist on the songs she didn't write! That's nuts!

 

Just look up the dictionary to know what an artist is.

 

or just listen to this song...

 

 

[LukeD]

"Passive conduits" is not the language I used. I said "means to someone else's end"....often times, those ends are very, very beautiful. It's not dreary, and I think performers obviously bring life to a piece of art. I think "Power of Love" is an incredible song, but the artist in the whole equation is the songwriter---not Celine, not Laura Branigan, and not Jennifer Rush. Their versions aren't entirely drastically different, and in the sense that they are different a lot of that has to do with their natural differences in tone of voice and range. The core of the message of the song, the chordal relations in the music, and the lyrics all stayed the same...the artist set the musical fundamentals.

 

I feel most people who have lived enough life who sang that song could have just as much emotion as any of those singers above. I know how much I've sung that song at the top of my lungs in the car and really felt the song (lyrics and melody). Does that make me an artist? Or is the only thing keeping me from being an artist that I don't have anywhere near the correct pitch and vocal range that they have?

I know you did not use this specific term. This was me paraphrasing the process of mediation you described in which a performer is given specific instructions as to how to bring to life a specific creation. I think we understand the same thing, simply used different vocabulary.

 

In your example, you bring emotion to the table disregarding the elements I mentioned earlier. I said performing is a form of art as it requires a combination of 1) technical skills 2) the quality of being expressive 3) freedom to interpret 4) ability to communicate emotions to the audience. You singing at a top of your lungs in your car obviously lacks elements 1 and 4. I do not see how you would be perceived an artist in that sense.

[LukeD]

Don't even bother acknowledging the likes of what he posts.. Yet seems fit to come on here constantly complaining. That is an art form in itself LOL. C'est la Vie! lo.

 

I was merely picking a side to the ongoing debate to be honest. Did not mean to respond to anyone specifically or I would have quoted the post.

 

Complaining is such a common theme in this forum! There are those who persistently complain about Celine not standing up to their expectations (how dare she?). And then there are those who (usually rightfully) complain about those who complain. C'est la vie!

[CelinesDIVO5]

Singing is a form of art. Celine is a singer. Therefore, Celine is an artist. Also, 1 + 1 = 2.

 

What can be subject of debate is the extent to which she is good artist. And this heavily depends upon the standards of those who judge, as well as rules of vocal pedagogy. How some of you bring songwriting skills to the discussion is beyond me. This is the equivalent of doubting the artistry of Meryl Streep on the basis that she does not write her films. You are essentially expecting a singer to also be a songwriter, forgetting that these are two different professions, also unrelated in terms of skill-sets they involve.

 

Please, adhere to universally accepted terms. And do not mix apples and oranges.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Agreed! Diane Warren writes wonderful songs, but her voice is a mess. Should she not be considered an artist because she can’t sing her own songs??

[jpatdeleon09]

Don’t forget James Horner. Céline almost turned down MHWGO because Horner’s singing lol but he’s an amazing artist (songwriter/composer/movie scores) Edited June 8, 2020 at 05:09 PM by jpatdeleon09

[PuraVida]

That's basically what I just did. I explained, demonstrated how more complex it is in comparison to your binary and narrow version.

As said interprets can be the muse of the director, an interpret can be at the origin of a song, a movie, a global work. Composer would not exist without them. Lots of directors, composer ask them to bring their work in other places. Lots of directors would have not even thought that this song, this character would go finally in that direction due to the performer, interpret. The relation is tight, complex. You should study the complexity between a director and an actress it is well documented and you would see the complexity, the ascendancy of one on the other. It's the same between the interpret of a song and the composer and it happenned a lot in Celine's discography too.

 

I insist that you can have opposite recations from two actress. Your demonstration of one being fired and the opposition between a widow versus an optimistic woman is laughable. Do you know about versatility and nuances and how a same feeling can be expressed in so many different way? And why some directors would die to have this role by Catherine Deneuve and not by Marion Cotillard why they would have the same script ? In your world, every interpret would be commutable, while this song, this movie would absolutely not be the same depending on the interpret. That's scary to even have to point that out.

 

That's also what LukeD explained, and that's what make any interpret and performers out there true and complex artists

 

The same feeling, by definition, cannot be expressed in "opposite" ways. That is a logical error. You were the one to bring up the words "totally opposite" which, I, found laughable. Nuance is a separate question.

 

As I stated, I already agreed that performers can have nuance in their interpretation. There is some room for interpretation within a performance, of course...and that is the beauty of performance. But the singer/actress will never be the one to set the basic terms of expression, and unless you have total freedom over the fundamental meaning/boundaries/and essence you are not an artist.

 

The point is that art can coexist without a performer, but the performer cannot exist without the art. An interpretation is not a piece of art, and you can never technically truly "reinvent" something, you can only create something different. Celine literally gets told how to sing in studio most of the time, usually following a carbon copy of a demo someone else made from a song someone else wrote expressing their point of view on the world. And same goes for live performances (2006 "Summertime" carbon copy of Rene Olstead). If Celine were tasked with writing a song on the exact same theme, she would produce something different and show her own viewpoint. But that's not what happens 99% of the time.

[jpatdeleon09]

Céline is an artist.

 

Edited June 8, 2020 at 05:12 PM by jpatdeleon09

[LukeD]

When I said complexity, what I meant was being clear/specific with definitions as opposed to just saying "singing is an art. 1 + 1 = 2. end of discusion" The question is why.

 

I sense my dismissive tone bothered you.

 

Let me explain. My post was somewhat dismissive in the sense that it drew upon a universally accepted notion of art involving a wide range of activities including singing. You want to challenge what is universally accepted and this is fine by me. Besides, you definitely have the right to do so. It is you, however, who ultimately dismisses a considerable range of skills by saying only creators are artists. In that sense, the burden of proof falls on your side. We can agree to disagree anytime, sticking to our respective definitions, but please do not think you have reinvented the wheel here. Or that your definition has any sense of complexity. It is quite the opposite actually.

[PuraVida]

Agreed! Diane Warren writes wonderful songs, but her voice is a mess. Should she not be considered an artist because she can't sing her own songs??

 

I would say she is an artist, just not a performer. They can be mutually exclusive. And neither is a dirty word! We need both.

[SuperLove4Celine]

 

 

Agreed! Diane Warren writes wonderful songs, but her voice is a mess. Should she not be considered an artist because she can’t sing her own songs??

 

Diane creates art out of nothing. She creates lyrics and musical compositions from her own artistry. Celine, though, relies on others to do the heavy lifting for her. She is a paint by numbers singer with an exceptional voice. Sure, she can blend the blues and the greens better than someone else who doesn’t have the trained technique, but all she’s doing is going off of somebody else’s template, their work, their artistry. Celine has shown glimmers of hope at being an artist. The piano work in “Ce n’etait qu’un reve,” and chorus in “Don’t Save It All For Christmas Day” are a couple examples, but she has done practically nothing else. If she couldn’t bother to write one damn song for the “Courage” album, an album supposedly about the death of Rene and having the strength to move on afterwards, that speaks volumes to me. How the hell is relying on someone else to write about the death of your husband art? It isn’t. It’s laziness and disrespectful, in my opinion. And as for the different arrangements of her songs on stage vs. on her albums? That is more than likely thanks to people like Scott and Mego. I highly doubt Celine has ever actually sat down at the piano, the drums, or picked up a guitar and wrote brand new arrangements herself. Again, she’s relied on others to do the hard part for her.

[CelinesDIVO5]

 

 

Let me flip the question on you...why are performers artists? What are your demonstrable, affirmative criteria so others can follow your logic rather than just refuting someone else's criteria? I explained, or tried to, the reasoning behind my thought. When I said complexity, what I meant was being clear/specific with definitions as opposed to just saying "singing is an art. 1 + 1 = 2. end of discusion" The question is why.

 

I am not saying that I have no respect for performers, or that they aren't skilled, or that they don't make me feel a beautiful range of emotions...but is that your definition of an artist? Someone who makes you feel emotions? A loved one or a pet can do that as well, does that make them artists? What if I went into my living room and sang My Heart Will Go On completely out-of-tune in front of my family? Am I an artist? Why or why not?

 

And I'm not saying that all performers e.g. actresses are clones or equally talented, or that they interpret art in exactly the same manner...but my point is, the general tone/boundaries/essence of the idea and emotion is set by someone else and their meaning and vision. And you're dead wrong; if a director got "totally opposite results" from either Cotillard or Streep, one of them would get fired. If the part was written for a grieving, depressed widow, and one of them played "totally opposite" as a flirty, optimistic woman then they would not be a good actress. There would be significantly more alike about their performances of the same part than was different. You are carrying out someone else's story and message about life, not your own...even if you give a certain twist. There is no "opposite direction"...it is the general emotional/aesthetic flavor of someone else as clearly articulated in a script.

 

Now, if someone is unscripted and completely left to their own devices, then that's 100% authenticity and then we get to know who they are as artists themselves. If we told Streep and Cotillard to each go in a room and then said "show me heartbreak"...whatever each of them did would be art because it would be coming from them, and them alone...they are 100.00% free in the creative process. Whatever words or experiences or movements they chose would be self-inspired. In the end, they could have similarities or differences, but we would be able to call both of their performances art.

 

A song is not really a script though. You can interpret a song any way you want and it’s going to come off however you interpret it. For example: Lara Fabian’s “I Will Love Again.” The single version of the song is a dance hall bash, and with the interpretation Lara gave to that version, the song comes off as an anthem to be strong and move on. Then she did a ballad version. Same exact lyrics, but the interpretation is completely different. More melancholy. Still saying “I will love again...” but the mood of the song is more “I need time to move on, I have to take one day at a time.” as opposed to “I will move on, and I’ll do it strong. The attitude is completely different.

 

To be able to sing a love song like Celine does, and make you believe that she believes what she’s singing is pure art. Anyone who can carry a tune can sing a song. But not everyone who sings can make you believe the lyrics they are singing.