I dunno, HH. He looks pretty buffed up but I wouldn't say it's steroids.
The ones in the GDF Abortion thread...of course!
What posts do you think I'm referring to? The ones in this thread that I recently made. Either way, I've smashed that debate too many times from too many people. If you wish to go at it again, create a thread.
Whatever, I wasn't expecting you to prove it anyway, I was expecting you to fall short as everyone who's made the same claim has done before. I was basically just going to laugh at your attempt to prove that "talent is measurable," something that is obviously unprovable. It's really not worthy of it's own thread.
Since you amuse me I'll indulge you for the sake of seeing how stupid you can make yourself look.
Fact; Talent is proveable because it's measurable. Why? Because you can't prefer who is better at something. You cannot.
You cannot say someone is better just because you prefer them, if they are infact inferior.
You cannot say "I think Madonna is a more talented guitarist than Joe Satriani." You may very well prefer her music, but you cannot say with any credibility or factuality that she possesses greater instrumental talent.
Fact is, she doesn't.
You cannot say ?uestlove of The Roots is a better drummer than Dave Lombardo. You may prefer his music, but he doesn't have the technical ability equal or close to Lombardo. Fact.
Talent is measureable for example in vocals by judging pitch, timbre, octave range, sustain etc. Someone with a one octave range, not good pitch and 3 seconds worth of note-holding ability is factually not as talented as someone who has a 4 octave range and can hold a note for minutes.
First, that is not talent you speak of, it is skill. Talent is often misunderstood to mean that someone is simply good at something. Incorrect. Talent is the natural endowment of the ability to excel in any area of life. Skill is the gained ability to actually participate in the activity in question, and is something that can be posessed by anyone regardless of talent. You can be a talented guitarist just like you can be a talented cook, only your talent in this area is not measurable because someone with little talent can obtain the skills to complete the task well, if enough effort is put forth. Likewise, someone with a lot of talent in an area can never even consider the activity that they are naturally prone to success in, and never discover their hidden potential. Or perhaps they do pursue the activity, only in a half-assed way that doesnt meet the standards of effort the skill demands. In the balance between application and god-given ability lies the confusion of how talented someone really is.
Second, youve yet to even begin to explain how and with what talent is measurable. I guess I shouldnt claim that talent is NOT measurable, but certaintly we do not currently possess the means to actually measure talent, so any claim that talent IS mesaurable is, as of right now, illogical. Perhaps i have misinterpreted your claim to be more literal than it really was?
Finally, somewhere along your post you mustve changed your goal from proving that talent is measurable to proving that talent is not subjective. If by subjective you mean that it only exists as a fragment of our minds then no, talent is not subjecitve. If by subjective you mean that who possesses more talent and how much talent each person possesses is up for debate then yes, yes it is subjective.
Last edited by daTROOF on May 13th, 2006 at 05:35 AM
Man, you start off talking in synonyms, and then just get more and more muddled. Give it up.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
No...it's talent. You are getting yourself confused here buddy, as Krunk'd said. Not to matter, desperate men do desperate things.
tal·ent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlnt)
n.
A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
Note "Superior quality". You can't deny that superior quality, in the fact that we can judge and measure the degree to which this naturally endowed talent exists. So yeah, enough of your jibber jabber, foo'. Don't come in here speaking about "God-given" ability and such horsecrap. You can't "learn" to be as good as say, Steve Vai. That's a pathetic claim. So in closing, what I said about talent is factual and you've replied with blabbering. That's just a fact of life. Talent isn't subjective. Everybody can learn to do things, more or less. Sure. The point is that you cannot deny if someone is factually better than another. That is why it's objective, not SUBjective.
I did that, with the example of vocals and singing. You judge singers on different areas and the higher or more a singer is able to accomplish, the better they are from a technical and factual standpoint.
You can measure somebody's technical singing ability by how I showed. Just like you can measure someone's guitar talent with speed and dexterity, same with a drummer.
No it's not is it? How on Earth is it subjective who has more talent?
Is it subjective as to who's the better singer out of me and Marvin Gaye? Me and Jeff Buckley? No, not from talent it isn't. If you got a singing coach and he gave us all singing drills, octave and sustain tests, pitch tests etc, I would fail all of them, Jeff Buckley wouldn't. He has undeniable technical singing talent. If someone claims that Britney Spears is a more talented vocalist than Jeff Buckley, I can prove them wrong in that sense. That's how talent isn't subjective.
Now before you confuse/embarass yourself further for charging in here like Macho Man Randy Savage and getting it wrong, I suggest you think before replying.
Seriously, Sean Paul ain't all that. If I'm being honest with myself, then I'm hotter.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Is it just me or does your definition agree with me? Superior quality isnt a definition, its the last two words of a definition. The definition is natural endowment or ability OF superior quality.
You cant objectively say that someone cant learn to be as good as Vai. You can logically assume that but its not impossible. Besides that, that only lends to the argument that talent exists, not that you know how to measure it.
Thats technical ability, i want to see you measure RAW TALENT. Please, use you godlike abilities to measure the talent of any singer you please.. I want to see a precise measure (measure, not description) of how talented they are in comparison to others.
Its subjective cause we dont have the means to precisely measure talent at the moment. It may be a fact whos more talented, but as of right now we dont have an objective way of determining such a fact, so it remains up for debate.
Its easy to use extreme examples in your favor. Freddie Mercury vs Jeff Buckley. Whos more TALENTED? Its debatable, isnt it?
You've confused yourself again. I'll try to be more blunt than a dictionary definition.
If superior quality exists, and we know it's superior quality because we can compare it to quality that is INFERIOR, and know for sure that it is superior, then we quite clearly can't say "I don't think it's superior" if it factually is.
You missed the point. The crux of the matter is, you cannot prefer better if better is provable. If I race Maurice Greene and lose, you can't say "Yeah, but I think AC is faster." I'm not, factually. Ergo, if someone is factually more talented on an instrument and has an ability of superior quality, you can't deny it. Therefore, the conclusion? Talent isn't subjective.
What are you talking about now? Technical ability IS talent. What do you mean by raw talent? There's talent...and that's it. Here's a good example:
Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil is a good vocalist, I like the music she makes and I personally like her voice. She's a good singer and she has talent (because she is undoubtedly superior to those who have a lesser ability). When compared with Kate Bush who has a four octave range, it's not subjective as to who is the more talented singer. Because Kate Bush has superior quality. How do we know? Because she can perform things that Cristina Scabbia cannot. Just like Cristina Scabbia, if tested, could perform things that...say, some lame mimer off American Idol couldn't.
Talent comes from somewhere unexplainable, if it's natural. There are some singers who are have voices that you couldn't achieve if you trained for it. A Kate Bush or Jeff Buckley. If that's what you mean by raw, then yes. However, that "raw" talent is measured by musical science. Octave range, pitch, sustain, timbre etc. How do you think they decide that these people have octave ranges? They measure them. They don't just say "Erm....you have...I dunno...2 and a half."
In what sense? We have the means to measure ability, and the quality of that ability. Which is defined, by the dictionary, as talent...if it's of a superior quality. Ergo, it's not subjective.
It's not. Infact, I'll come back to this, infact, I'll just blow that out of the ocean now:
I prefer Jeff's music, Freddy had an amazing natural voice though. In terms of technique, it isn't very debateable. Why is it? Here's why:
"His recorded vocal range spanned nearly four octaves (falsetto included), with his lowest recorded note being the F2 and his highest recorded note being the D6, according to the standard C scale. His highest recorded head voice note was the F5. On the other hand, perhaps the most incredible aspect of his voice was not his vocal range, but the exceptional tone that he maintained over a three octave range as well as his forceful, powerful delivery. However, due in part to the fact that he suffered from vocal nodules (for which he declined surgery), he would often lower the highest notes during many concerts."
Freddy had a near, NEAR four octave range, with the highest recorded note being, as stated, D6. That's truly incredible. However, not the fact that he hardly ever used that. He opted to stay over three solid octaves and be more powerful and emotive.
"Known for his distinctive voice and his vocal range of at least 3.5 octaves, (recorded range A2 to E6)."
Jeff Buckley's highest recorded note was E6, and you can hear that in his live performances as well as his album. His common range was AT LEAST a 3.5. So you see, technically, Jeff is the better singer. Not by much, but he has the better ability. He's more technically talented as a singer by recorded history.
However, many people prefer Mercury because of how powerful and emotive he was. THAT is subjective, that doesn't make him a better singer, a more talented singer. People prefer Cobain to Mercury, doesn't make him a more talented singer.
So take your "THERE'S NO WAY TO DETERMINE!" theories, leave the thread, and come back when you've done a degree of research.
"Make I see the gal them krunk'd out pon the floo from you don't want no worthless performer
From you don't want no man wey can't turn you on gal make I see your hand them up on ya..
Can't tan pon it long.....naw eat no yam...no steam fish....nor no green banana
But down in Jamaica we give it to you hot like a sauna.."
Secrets out. Spread the word.
Wurd.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
KMC Community Forums
May 12th, 2006 02:02 AM
i see
