Yes, but at the same time, it doesn't take away either. Many artists have been brilliant doing other people's songs. Many have made a career out of it. One look at the blues shows that. Joe Cocker is an example in the rock world. Joe is the best example of that. Do we take away from his genius because under half of the songs on the new record are not his. What about You & Me? We just got done having this discussion on the general forum. If you can do it, great, that makes you a bad mofo. But if you don't, it doesn't take away from what you do.
Also, the idea that "If artists compose, sing/dance/act, and even produce.... has to add to the artists professional career" is just blatantly in the "we have to keep score and make it competitive." And brother, music ain't competitive. If you dig it, great. If you don't, the beauty is you're allowed to have your opinion. But in my humble opinion, it's absurd to say "this artist is BETTER than this artist," or "this is art, that is not." It should be, "I like this artist, I don't like that artist," or "I like this art better than this art." I really try to stay away from who's better. It's just impossible. Even if there are 99.9 % that agree, there's still that .01%.
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"
My ReverbNation page for Dees & Friends - check us out!www.reverbnation.com/deesfriends