talent does not equal the ability to simply and literally pick up an instrument and produce sounds with it. anyone with fingers can accomplish this. i agree that those with less talent can produce better music than those with far more talent. perfect example: i love the ramones and hate ted nugent.
yes they would be wrong. to deny slayer is to discredit one's self utterly and eternally.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Yes, and it's a skill, a talent. It doesn't mean they are a talented guitarist, it means they possess the talent that is the ability to play the instrument.
Frank Zappa was not an amazing drummer, he did possess talent to play drums though, he was also an amazing writer for the drums.
They wouldn't be wrong, I do know you know this.
Why, do you want to pick the opposite of whatever I choose?
Thanks for continuing to state the obvious for us AC.
It is opinion...and it is subjective...but it's informed subjective opinion. And when informed subjective opinions come together and all pretty much point to the same thing...you start to see a truth being demonstrated (although not proven by any facts).
Meaning these informed opinions have been tried and true many times over where these people have more often than not agreed that someone like Brittney Spears makes poor music.
There's a reason it's overwheliming in consensus.
Now, you gotta wonder why that is.
I think I know why it is...
Because at the end of the day, there truly is bad music...and people can point to that overwhelmingly time and again.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 18th, 2007 at 06:03 PM
Good boy. So the "Informed" part adds...what? POSSIBLE credibility. Not truth and fact, it adds possible credibility.
There are writers from the NME, a FAMOUS music magazine, that have "informed" opinions on music. They would tell you that Lil' Chris makes good music. Informed just means experience, more or less. Profession does not add anything more.
So? What's your point? Loads of people agree that she makes poor music, it's not A truth. It's a mass opinion.
Yeah, they all happen to share an opinion. That's the reason.
Because it's a common opinion, as is the opposing one.
No, people can point to music they think is bad. It will never be a truth.
dont load my point into a completely different one and then agree with it. you know what i said and what i meant. the ability to plug in an electric guitar and make noise with it (whether that means hitting a string or just throwing it to the ground) does not equal talent and music. if someone listens to the odd sound a guitar makes when hurled at the ground and says "whoa that was cool", does that make it music?
i understand. talent does not necessarily mean amazing. never disagreed
IT WAS A FRIKIN JOKE
dude, for real...
unpucker your sphincter a bit and lighten up.
i guess epIII has you in a huff but i assure you this is simply me stating my own views.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Gender: Unspecified Location: Lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain
D-Did you even read the second part of my post? I am quite sure I addressed that.
Just for fun though I'll reply to this "Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality."
Reality - The state of being real, yes? Real - true or occurring in fact, yes? True - the actual state of a matter or in conformity with fact. It cannot be reality if there are not facts to support the theory. I'm sorry, no I'm not, but you are wrong, factually.
__________________ "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity." — Thor Heyerdahl
Hitting a string or throwing it does not equal playing it. If you have the ability to play a guitar properly, it is a skill and a talent. There are billions of levels of talent, saying a beginner has the talent to play the instrument properly does not mean I'm saying he's Hendrix.
To answer your second question, if they want it to, yes. Have you ever heard Fantomas?
Go an listen to Atlantis to Interzone by Klaxons. Like it or not, that's a song and that is music. That song came about by Simon of the band completely messing around with his keyboard, not INTENDING to write or play anything. His literal thought process was "That sounds good.", and to him, it did. So regardless of whether anyone disagrees, neither are right or wrong.
Good.
He doesn't have me in a huff, he has me rather confused for reasons stated. What also confuses me is you coming in saying things that are quite obviously untrue. I don't get why you would do that. As a joke, perhaps. I just don't see the continual need to keep playing the pragmatist.
You're not giving any weight or consideration to this very real point.
THAT'S your problem.
You're blocking out the reality of the situation...simply becasue there's no facts associated with it.
But you're not considering what it might mean in light of my argument about music being "truly" bad, and how these people are demonstrating that, without ever really proving it.
That is why you fail to understand and others don't.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 18th, 2007 at 06:13 PM
You are arguing that people with informed opinions will agree Britney is crap. Ok, so what? So what if they do?
It doesn't mean her music is factually bad, it means loads of people with opinions, informed or otherwise, agree that they THINK her music is bad.
Writers having an "informed" opinion does not make them any more right or less agreeable. Schecter, as a long time listener, has an informed opinion. People on this site have INFORMED opinions, some more so than others.
There are some opinions more or less credible than others, but people agreeing means nothing more than they share an opinion.
YOU assuming that it means something greater is where YOUR problem lies. Your thought process is:
"Loads of people with informed opinions agree...that MUST mean something.". Yes, it means they share an opinion, that's all.
Furthermore, you don't have the right to decide what opinions are informed or not.
You saying "Anyone who denys Slayer being good, discredits themselves." is fine by me, I do get that you are joking. Or, maybe you're not, maybe to you, someone saying they suck lessens your view of them, and that's cool, there's nothing I have a problem with there.
My only point was; Do you actually believe they are factually, truthfully and objectively incorrect to not like Slayer's music? I don't believe that's your opinion, but continually insisting it, even as a joke, had me wondering.
continually? i said it once, punctuated it with a smilie for the slow-witted (not you) and those who would use it as a torch of victory to run with (you)
anyway, if someone throws a guitar across a stage and calls it music, i say they are wrong. thats the point i was making. its mostly a gray area yet in some extreme cases its clear what is quality (creative and/or birthed by talent) music and what is not. remember rosanne barr singing the national anthem? not music imho.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Gender: Unspecified Location: Lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain
Funny how you don't realize how absurd you sound. Also what I said wasn't an "I agree/I disagree" comment. You are like Christians, whenever one questions their beliefs they hide behind "faith" which is really just Christian-talk for "irrational belief".
Stop embarrassing yourself, you are wrong, say it.
__________________ "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity." — Thor Heyerdahl
You made an irrelevant point though. That's like throwing a brick and calling it music. Nobody is suggesting nor debating, what constitutes MUSIC, but what is objectively good or BAD music, which doesn't exist.
If you throw a guitar on stage, some may like the sound, some may not, regardless of whether or not it's music. Those who like the sound and those who do not, are not wrong. You are too hung up on what is considered music, rather than skipping that part and focusing on whether it's possible or not for music in existence to be factually good or bad, which it isn't. Just the music produced.
I did...but I didn't clue in that you were referring to my post.
And from what I gather, all you're saying is that music that is missing some of those listed redeemable qualites, simply equals "music that is missing some of those listed redeemable qualites". It doesn't equal "bad music".
But my point is, informed opinions have learned from experience that music that is missing those qualities doesn't last, doesn't stand the test of time, and it seems to get an overwhelmingly negative reaction by other's who have these informed opinions.
So, if overhwelmingly negative reations to certain music by people with informed opinions aren't a sign of that music being bad...then what is?
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 18th, 2007 at 06:38 PM
you're switching meanings between 'what is and isnt music' and 'what is good and bad music.' imho factually bad music isnt music at all and subjectively bad music is actual music (talent/technique....some remedial ability at least) whether or not many or most dislike it. thats been the point all along.
i never said that those who like the sound of a guitar thrown across the stage are wrong in liking it. i said they are wrong in calling it music. i already stated this. this is becoming irritating
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
Last edited by Schecter on Apr 18th, 2007 at 06:41 PM
KMC Community Forums
Apr 18th, 2007 05:55 PM
