Post female artists that are:

Post female artists that are:
>singers
>songwriters
>producers
>sound engineers
>visual artists
>live performers

All of the above, no exceptions.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/djheather
youtube.com/user/mreebee3
claireboucher.carbonmade.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=Anjh6CB86EE&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

you forgot one
>shit

>Sexton Paynedongus
/thread

>0 google results
???

ez

>In 1977, she began her solo career with her album Annie in Wonderland, produced by Roy Wood who played most of the musical instruments, and who also duetted with her on one track, and also performed on the Intergalactic Touring Band album.
Is she a producer and sound engineer?

>noodling around in garageband makes you a producer
also for the record, the mixing in both AA and Visions is terrible

Visions has a few good songs

Fuck the production

>being this dumb
>confusing mixing with producing
>implying she's still using garageband, and not ableton live

>also for the record, the mixing in both AA and Visions is terrible
Visions: Sebastian Cowan, AA: Spike Stent. And it wasn't bad at all.

>visual artists

Intothetrashitgoes.jpg

Fuck you. The production was really good and detailed.

...

I assume they don't have to be good at any of those things judging by your pic?

Apso can we fucking stop with Grimes this is the thrid thread I've been in a row where shes been mentioned.

>Intothetrashitgoes.jpg
You.

>I assume they don't have to be good at any of those things judging by your pic?
Ignore the music quality and post just artists that have these skills. Music quality is subjective anyway.

If you end up with a product out of it (such as an album) then yes.

dabbles

Local / National Celeb -- DJ Heather

twitter.com/djheather

Quincy Jones?

>female

Just because she's a singer and producer doesn't mean she's a good one

Also pic related because gender is questionable

Madonna. Lady Gaga, every tumbler girl with a guitar and a 4 track. Now shut up.

Mree
youtube.com/user/mreebee3

>Madonna. Lady Gaga, every tumbler girl with a guitar and a 4 track. Now shut up.
Not yet, kid. Prove your point.

>gender is questionable
Yeaaaaaaaah...

>Just because she's a singer and producer doesn't mean she's a good one
True. But she's good not because she's a singer and producer, but because her output (her art) is great. Why it's great, that's a whole other story, discussed many, many times on Sup Forums.

>Also pic related because gender is questionable
I said no exceptions. Bowie was a man.

Well that was easy.

Death Grips.

They're actually good at it too

>Death Grips
>good
kek'd loudly

...

>Death Grips
>female

>Death Grips
>women

I'm not gonna correct that. Good one, sir.

I'm pretty sure that's just Yoko Ono and no one else. Also, Yoko Ono is, was and always will be shit.

>Music quality is subjective anyway
It's not. Preference is subjective and subjectivity refers to looking at one's self with respect to whatever it is that's being discussed. Don't use words you don't understand. Also, Grimes isn't a 'visual artist' and 'visual artist' itself is a redundant term that was a desperate attempt from the art world to take their word back from idiots. Most 'visual art' doesn't even rely on visuals.

>Not understanding that qualitative : quantitative as subjective : objective
Also pic/link related - claireboucher.carbonmade.com/

What are you on about? Quality is definitive and therefore objective. Somethings quality is defined insofar as it's own objective and how well it achieves it. That can only be gather by looking at something with respect to itself. The term for looking at something with respect to itself is 'objective'.
>'but muh subjectivity'
Is simply a defense mechanism to call something you like 'good' and then run in circles with your fingers in your ears. Like whatever you want to, but don't mistake a preference for anything other than your deciding to like somethng

>Also pic/link related claireboucher.carbonmade.com/
As Someone who actually is an art-maker (and someone who understands that referring to yourself as an 'artist' is labelling yourself as not an 'artist') I don't need a link to a synthpop twee girl's portfolio site to know that she doesn't make anything that constitutes the label of 'art'. That picture you posted is the woman in question standing next to a stylised and vapid nothing illustration. You don't know anything about 'art' at all.
If you plan on trying to argue with me, which would be pointless, at least go google the names of a few contemporary (actual) artists so you can at least pretend that you know what you're talking about.

Björk

I thought you had a containment board, you annoying faggots. Also, what's the point of doing all those things if your skills are mediocre?

yoko ono is the only person associated with the beatles worth remembering

Fly has some pretty cool stuff though

Yeah, she did a lot for the perception of women in the creative world which was previously male-dominated and her mainstream exposure through Lennon helped out a bunch. She is also considerably less cringe-inducing than a lot of her contemporaries.

>grimes
>singer
ok kid

>What are you on about?
Go read about the inherent differences between qualitative and quantitative data and then you will understand.

>As Someone who actually is an art-maker
As someone who has over a decade of professional working experience in Manhattan's fine art world (aka the most highly respected and elitist arts community on the planet) I am extremely well-versed in what does and doesn't make someone a visual artist. Grimes' original artworks have been known to FEATURE in NYC and London gallery showings since 2012.

The contemporary fine art world has already spoken - Grimes is a legit visual artist.

b-but she sucks in all of those...

>go subvert exam marking criteria to fit my lack of an argument because I don't know anything about the history of creative criticism or the way in which it operates
No, I won't do that.

>Manhattan's fine art world (aka the most highly respected and elitist arts community on the planet)
Lol, that's bullshit. The most prestigious Galleries in the world, of course excluding national galleries that are curated by the government, are the likes of the Serpentine in London. I've never even heard of your commercial 'gallery' (a.k.a. painting shop).

>I am extremely well-versed in what does and doesn't make someone a visual artist
Obviously not, you just called a synth pop musician a visual artist because you has a portfolio site full of nothing illustrations (which even in terms of illustration criticism are below average).

>Grimes' original artworks have been known to FEATURE in NYC and London gallery showings since 2012
Really? What galleries? Rented spaces that literally anyone get grab a hold of or commercial spaces set up for celebrity circlejerk parties? You're confusing 'art' for the bourgeois appropriation of the term to sell bad paintings they acquired from dead tenants of their rented properties to the middle-class having convinced them that buying that trash was a sign of status. Stealing the term back from them is literally the basis for all works created for the past 100 years. So you obviously have no idea about anything to do with 'art'.

>The contemporary fine art world has already spoken - Grimes is a legit visual artist
Nah, you aren't the art world, you can't even name a contemporary practitioner. You're a laughable waifufag who wants your beloved Grimes the be heightened by applying terms you consider grandiose to her, despite her simply being a generic recording performer whose entire output is made exclusively out of radio pop constructs and therefore with the express intention of selling a product. Art-making is about communication.

...

The only female artist that deserves my devotion is based Grouper.

>No, I won't do that.
Fair enough - stay ignorant then.

>Lol, that's bullshit.
Yes. It's also completely true.

>you has
I have English skills, yes.

>Really? What galleries?
Places like the Audio Visual Arts (AVA) Gallery in the East Village and the Guggenheim (where the picture of her posing in front of a giant print was taken.)

>Nah, you aren't the art world,
To be honest I'm actually not a big fan of her art (most of the time it is just too damn weird for me.) However that doesn't mean I don't know for a fact that it has artistic value (since it clearly communicates with people to the point of being featured at some of the greatest visual art venues in the world.

It's a shame that there aren't more women interested in the more technical side of music. When it comes to acoustic performing musicians, I feel like it's a pretty even ratio between men and women. Even finding women who play electric guitar is a chore, let alone female producers, electronic musicians and engineers.

I feel like Bowie's sexuality was the only ambiguous part of him, not his gender.

>Fair enough - stay ignorant then
So ignoring the context of what I wrote is your way of arguing. Of course it is.

>Yes. It's also completely true
Manhattan, or rather New York is not the centre of the Art world and hasn't been since Warhol died. London and Berlin are the big cities right now. Even California has been having more important shows in the past 3 or 4 years than New York has.

>thinking a typo negates a point

>Places like the Audio Visual Arts (AVA) Gallery in the East Village and the Guggenheim
AVA is a commercial gallery, a.k.a. a painting shop (albeit a higher brow one) and she didn't 'show in the Guggenheim', she was involved in a symposium there and did a show at said symposium. Also, the Guggenheim is a national gallery. So I predicted both and you didn't even understand that I had done so. An artist-run space showing her work would mean something and only if she was invited to come in and didn't pay to use the space herself.

>To be honest I'm actually not a big fan of her art
>her art
You can't phrase things like that. There's no 'her art'. Even if she had actually made any work, it couldn't be phrased as 'her art' because what 'art' refers to - that being the intangible concept communicated through a medium to an audience' isn't something that can be phrased as belonging to someone. You've clearly never so much as discussed art properly before.

>most of the time it is just too damn weird for me
That's not how you view art, you can't look at it in terms of yourself. Again, confirmed to know nothing about art.

>being featured at some of the greatest visual art venues in the world
the only places she's been featured are p4k festivals, medium capacity music venues, phone network tv ads and waifu threads on Sup Forums.

Don't use the term art if you can't even name an artist, don't argue about it when you don't know how. You just derailed your own thread via sperging out.

>It took 20+ replies to get to the right answer and nobody's recognizing it
Is Sup Forums kill?

Nah, people with common sense just ignore the Grimesfag threads because the intellectually afflicted Cult of Grimes are impossible to have a discussion with.

Why won't mau5trap let her release something? I've been waiting since TSID.

tara jane o'neil

Thom Yorke

k.flay is my mufu

youtube.com/watch?v=Anjh6CB86EE&feature=youtu.be