-=- U.S. vs U.K Who Makes Better Bands?-=-

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Sorry AC you're idea is flawe - Take Bread for instance an early 70's band, David Gates the songwriter wrote songs beyond his ability to play the instruments, he could compose beyond his ability to play. This is common and the reason session musicians are used. It doesn't make the songwriter less talented, my original argument for Ryder was he is a creative talent, I never stated he was a technical genius. I still consider him as talented as many technically superior performers based on his vision. This was my original argument and I have restated it here.
Technical merit without direction is overated - Look at Jazz.

Frank Zappa auditioned drummers by writing impossible drum music, Terry Bozzio (arguably the best drummer ever) played nearly all of it. Zappa isn't a better drummer or as good a drummer as Bozzio. Which is what you are implying.

You think Ryder is a creative talent, I don't. That's subjective because it's based upon what we both hear. I can't prove Ryder to be shit anymore than you can prove him to be great. It's based on the opinion of what the artist CREATES, not ABILITY. I am NOT saying that technical superiority equals great music either, I've said so many times that this isn't the case. Stop going off everywhere else and stick to the point I am making, please. Thanks.

My idea isn't flawed, but it appears that everyone has the inability to understand it. So here it is one more time:

Technical ability on an instrument, regardless of music that's made, is factually provable. It is. See my Chris Martin/Tori Amos example.

End.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You think Ryder is a creative talent, I don't. That's subjective because it's based upon what we both hear. I can't prove Ryder to be shit anymore than you can prove him to be great. It's based on the opinion of what the artist CREATES, not ABILITY. I am NOT saying that technical superiority equals great music either, I've said so many times that this isn't the case. Stop going off everywhere else and stick to the point I am making, please. Thanks.

-AC

You see AC your point is different to my point when I say Ryder is talented, you didn't stick to my original point and argued about his technical ability making him untalented. I have never claimed his talent on technical ability. You were arguing something different.

- real end

SWS

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You see AC your point is different to my point when I say Ryder is talented, you didn't stick to my original point and argued about his technical ability making him untalented. I have never claimed his talent on technical ability. You were arguing something different.

- real end

SWS

No I didn't, we were discussing their "talent" and we reached a point of agreeing that you like them and I don't. I thought you realised that. I was never trying to convince you to say they're shit. I know what your point is.

I stated that as musicians they aren't good at what they do, purely as an aside. You said they were adequate musicians because they can read tab. To which I said anyone can read tab, it doesn't make you a good musician.

You've obviously skipped some bits.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No I didn't, we were discussing their "talent" and we reached a point of agreeing that you like them and I don't. I thought you realised that. I was never trying to convince you to say they're shit. I know what your point is.

I stated that as musicians they aren't good at what they do, purely as an aside. You said they were adequate musicians because they can read tab. To which I said anyone can read tab, it doesn't make you a good musician.

You've obviously skipped some bits.

-AC

- end

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, you're wrong. I'll tell you why:

Jeff Buckley is one of the greatest singers of all time even if we speak solely on technical singing TALENT right? This is provable. Why? Because we can look at his octave range, his timbre, pitch, sustain and strength and compare it to a Britney right up to a singer like Robert Plant and Jeff Buckley will walk it. Because he is superior in each or MOST of those provable levels. It's not a matter of "Well while Jeff has all that, Britney has this so therefore she's not any less talented because it might just be more difficult." Which is my point. You can't sit there and say that superiority isn't provable whilst admitting difficulty exists.

Listen to what I'm saying. If someone can't play the most difficult Tori Amos piece, Beethoven piece or what not, it means they aren't good enough. They aren't talented enough on the instrument. This is fact. Why is it fact? You said that it isn't fact because someone might have less of a memory span or less dexterity......exactly! That means they lack the talent/ability to make the piece happen. It's not "Well I CAN play it, I just don't have the ability to." You're not making sense. Tori Amos's most difficult pieces or when she's showing off, aren't just difficult to those who lack the ability (shock!). They're considered to be extremely advanced even by those who can play it. You are discrediting your own point while trying to save it. You are confusing the ability to LEARN with the ability to PLAY.

About short term memory and those other parts you mentioned. They all count as ability. If you lack the ability to memorise or play certain pieces, then you aren't technically talented enough to play them. It's not "Oh I'm talented enough, I just can't remember all of it and can't play it correctly due to my inadequate dexterity." No, you're just not good enough then.

Someone who can only play Coldplay won't be able to play Blood Roses, Space Dementia or Roundabout. Why? Because they lack the dexterity, memory, coordination? Yes. Which equates to lacking the talent to play it, because they are ALL factors. You are actually stating factors of provable technical prowess while simultaneously saying they don't exist.

There's no grey area in MY point. You're adding the grey area because you are confusing yourself.

My point: Being technically better than someone else on an instrument is factually provable.

It is. As I've proven. If someone proves that they LACK THE ABILITY IN ALL DIFFERENT AREAS to play a certain piece, then they are less talented on the instrument than the person who can play it. Someone who is at their peak in dexterity, coordination, key, fluency, speed and memory, is obviously better than someone who is not. Chris Martin couldn't say to Tori Amos "Look at this!" and play something that Tori Amos couldn't play. Tori Amos could, however, play many things that are so far beyond Chris Martin's reach. Why? Because she's the more technically talented on her instrument. I'm talking about ability to play, not ability to learn. Where's the grey area? It's cut and dry. You not understanding why it's cut and dry doesn't remove from the fact that it is actually cut and dry.

-AC

But if you really can prove using facts that any two songs are more/less difficult than each other, then please do. Try to use actual data directly from the songs and not hypothetical "if you gave player A this they couldn't play it" scenarios.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I never said they don't exist, for the last time. I said that there's no way to universally measure difficulty. You are choosing some sloppy science experiment type of scenario using a player who can play one thing but not the other to suggest that the piece they cannot play is superior. However, this isn't a solid way to judge, because not everyone would have the same results. One person pick up song A with no problem but struggle on song B while another may do the opposite. The fact that ONE PLAYER can play a certain piece but not another proves nothing other than that player's ability to play said pieces.

You're making a vast assumption, I'm not assuming. Take two pianists, right? In a room at a piano. Both learned the same songs, both can play them to an equal degree, right? The next song they have to learn is...I don't know, again say a Tori Amos piece. What conclusion do you draw if person A is left behind as things get more technical and person B continues? The conclusion you should draw is that person B is more technically able. What is your difficulty here? Person A may very well see and KNOW what it takes, but not be able to pull it off. That would mean person A isn't worse at PERCEIVING but PLAYING. Hence showing that advanced technical prowess does exist and is provable.

If I wanna prove that person B can beat your person A. We need only have many varied pieces getting increasingly difficult. If person A bails, it means they weren't good enough. That's just the way it is. There are guitarists who can read and understand Steve Vai's sheet music, those same people will almost definitely lack the ability to actually play it. Therefore they are factually LOWER in instrumental prowess than Vai. Case closed.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There is a grey area, you just aren't acknowledging it. You keep choosing extreme examples and saying it's "factual" that song A > song B when song A is by Tori Amos and song B is by Britney Spears just cause that's the popular opinion.

Never said that, but let's continue:

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
In most cases it's not so extreme, however, and saying that song A is factually harder than song B won't seem as valid. For your theory to work, it'd have to work on any two songs, not just extremely bad ones and extremely good ones. Which is harder to play, a jazz song including improvisation and solo's that's less strict about accuracy or a classical piece that's completely laid out for the player with no need for improvisation but requires lots of attention to accuracy?

Why include on the spot CREATIVITY (which is what improv is, which isn't what we're discussing) and compare it to personal ABILITY? Don't criticise me for making extreme examples only to make an irrelevant one. Neal Peart isn't an amazing improv drummer. He is hailed as one of the most technically skilled drummers of all time though. So your example is worth nothing.

We're judging technical ability, not creativity. We're judging ability on an instrument. In which case it's quite obvious that there are better players factually. When Zappa sent out sheet music to audition drummers, some plearned a bit, some learned none, but Bozzio learned nearly all of it. He is, therefore, the undeniably more technically able. Why? Because they all started at the same point, with the same base. Bozzio kept going where all the other drummers quite clearly flopped. There's no justifiable or believable counter for that. Dave Lombardo of Fantomas is one of the best drummers ever, he is in Fantomas and in Fantomas, takes a long time to learn the music. Bozzio filled in and was reading the sheet music as he went along without rehearsal, playing it note perfect. Because? Yes, he's the better drummer. It's not as hard to him because he is used to playing more difficult material than Dave.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
But if you really can prove using facts that any two songs are more/less difficult than each other, then please do. Try to use actual data directly from the songs and not hypothetical "if you gave player A this they couldn't play it" scenarios.

See above.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're making a vast assumption, I'm not assuming. Take two pianists, right? In a room at a piano. Both learned the same songs, both can play them to an equal degree, right? The next song they have to learn is...I don't know, again say a Tori Amos piece. What conclusion do you draw if person A is left behind as things get more technical and person B continues? The conclusion you should draw is that person B is more technically able. What is your difficulty here? Person A may very well see and KNOW what it takes, but not be able to pull it off. That would mean person A isn't worse at PERCEIVING but PLAYING. Hence showing that advanced technical prowess does exist and is provable.

Why include on the spot CREATIVITY (which is what improv is, which isn't what we're discussing) and compare it to personal ABILITY? Don't criticise me for making extreme examples only to make an irrelevant one. Neal Peart isn't an amazing improv drummer. He is hailed as one of the most technically skilled drummers of all time though. So your example is worth nothing.

-AC

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I understand your point is that it's provable, but you've yet to prove any one piece to be more difficult than another. Saying "put two players in a room and then do this, what do you think would happen?" isn't proving anything. It's debating, sure, but there's still not factual and undeniable data that clearly proves a higher level of difficulty, which is what we were supposed to be arguing over. Once again, I'm not talking about these hypothetical scenarios you keep using. I'm talking about "facts." If difficulty is measurable, there should be a clear and universal method to measuring each song's difficulty relying on data and data alone. Using no logic, only fact. If not, then difficulty isn't measurable and therefore can't be argued as factual

Did you skip the part about Zappa auditioning the drummers? That REAL scenario proved that Bozzio was factually more technically able than those drummers. There is no "opinion" about it. Zappa wrote that music more or less cockily because he didn't think anyone on Earth would ever be able to live up to it. None of them could except Bozzio.

They all had the same sheet music, same human body, same chance to be his drummer. All of them caved in and said they couldn't do it, too hard. Borderline impossible. Bozzio went on to become Zappa's most legendary drummer and one of if not THE most technically superior drummer of all time. It was ability and technical prowess that set them apart. You can sit there and say "Well if it was different music..." but that doesn't matter. That was music that was beyond their ability, it wasn't beyond Bozzio's. Proving, as I've said before, that he is technically and undeniably superior.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Did you skip the part about Zappa auditioning the drummers? That REAL scenario proved that Bozzio was factually more technically able than those drummers. There is no "opinion" about it. Zappa wrote that music more or less cockily because he didn't think anyone on Earth would ever be able to live up to it. None of them could except Bozzio.

They all had the same sheet music, same human body, same chance to be his drummer. All of them caved in and said they couldn't do it, too hard. Borderline impossible. Bozzio went on to become Zappa's most legendary drummer and one of if not THE most technically superior drummer of all time. It was ability and technical prowess that set them apart. You can sit there and say "Well if it was different music..." but that doesn't matter. That was music that was beyond their ability, it wasn't beyond Bozzio's. Proving, as I've said before, that he is technically and undeniably superior.

-AC

I said that difficulty isn't measurable. As long as it's not measurable, you can't argue it as a factual means of proving superiority. Somethings are factual and some aren't.. the difference is the data/lack of data that lies behind them. When comparing olympic runners.. you can use speed as factual criteria because it's measurable.. x miles per hour. I don't see how you can do that with difficulty. Both speed and difficulty exist.. the difference is that speed has factual data that can easily rank any runners while difficulty does not.

You claiming some songs to be "factually harder" is invalid until you provide a clear cut method to measure difficulty.

Sorry but I'm going to be honest here...I never liked the beatles..in fact I hate them. Pink Floyd is great though but There are ALOT of american bands out there that are better than that. I'm going with US. 😄

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I said that difficulty isn't measurable. As long as it's not measurable, you can't argue it as a factual means of proving superiority. Somethings are factual and some aren't.. the difference is the data/lack of data that lies behind them. When comparing olympic runners.. you can use speed as factual criteria because it's measurable.. x miles per hour. I don't see how you can do that with difficulty. Both speed and difficulty exist.. the difference is that speed has factual data that can easily rank any runners while difficulty does not.

You claiming some songs to be "factually harder" is invalid until you provide a clear cut method to measure difficulty.

Well to say that means you are claiming that there are no avenues in which to judge drummers, bassists, guitarists, vocalists etc. When infact, there are many. Just like you can factually judge a runner on speed, you can do so with instrumentalists. You can also do it with dexterity, memory and I don't know, ALL the other criteria I've explained to you. I really don't know why you continually insist it's not measureable.

Playing something in 4/4 isn't anywhere near as hard as Danny Carey's fibonacci time signatures in Lateralus. You keep saying that difficulty isn't measureable and it's ridiculous. Of course it is. I proved so with the scenario before. Many drummers of able ability are given the same music. One of them had the ability to learn more of it than any of the rest. Why? Because in the measurable areas (memory, dexterity, speed, rhythm, fluency etc) he was superior. Terry Bozzio can play an individual beat on each of his limbs. You going to tell me that there's no way of proving that it is more difficult to do that than it is to play a 4/4 beat? You aren't making any sense by saying difficulty isn't measurable. It just doesn't hold any water. Difficulty exists, therefore it's measurable.

-AC

Pick any song and measure the difficulty using a method that can be applied fairly to any song using sheet music so it's purely based on theory and technic. If you can do that I'll gladly admit that it's measurable and I was wrong. Till then it's basically your word vs mine and the discussion really isn't going to progress beyond that.

Creativity exists, yet it's not measurable. Difficulty's existence isn't dependant on whether or not it's measurable.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Pick any song and measure the difficulty using a method that can be applied fairly to any song using sheet music so it's purely based on theory and technic. If you can do that I'll gladly admit that it's measurable and I was wrong. Till then it's basically your word vs mine and the discussion really isn't going to progress beyond that.

Creativity exists, yet it's not measurable. Difficulty's existence isn't dependant on whether or not it's measurable.

Don't you see how badly you're contradicting yourself? For the WORD and concept of difficulty to even exist there has to be a factual way of judging what is and what isn't difficult.

You are being illogical.

My point: Technical superiority in terms of ability on an instrument is provable. It's a simple and obvious claim, simple logic. All it takes is knowledge. I can't quite see why you are unable to grasp it.

There are many, many techniques and exercises on all the instruments in the world, right? If someone is so outstandingly well learned and versed on those, then they can clearly say what is and what isn't a difficult technique. Maybe not to them ANYMORE, but in comparison to easier techniques, or even really hard techniques, the hardest techniques are noticeably difficult. It's not about opinion, as you seem to believe. This is where you go wrong. You seem to believe it's all about what people find difficult. It's not. There are factually such things as novice/beginner, advanced, expert stages etc. Nobody on Earth can look at Victor Wooten playing bass and say truthfully "I think that he is playing easy material." He's not. Hence why he is revered and cited as the most technically able bass player of all time. You seem to believe that this would just be the opinion of the players, but it's not. Because they could prove to you using their knowledge.

If there are two accomplished pianist/guitarists or whatever, and you give them 10 pieces of music each at random. Anything from Coldplay right up to Tori Amos or Yes, from Nirvana to Steve Vai. If at some point, one of the said musicians is able to continue playing the pieces and the other one isn't due to not having the ability, that means they are more technically able. All you seem to be doing is sitting there and denying it when it's fact that this is the case. It's like asking: Who's stronger, me or the world's strongest man? There are many things we can both lift but at some point I won't be able to continue because he is factually stronger than I am and there are ways to prove it. Such as the one you keep denying, the practical test.

-AC

hello everyone!

...

........

meh

****, is there somethingseverly damaged in your head?

it certainly looks that way...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't you see how badly you're contradicting yourself? For the WORD and concept of difficulty to even exist there has to be a factual way of judging what is and what isn't difficult.

My point: Technical superiority in terms of ability on an instrument is provable. It's a simple and obvious claim, simple logic. All it takes is knowledge. I can't quite see why you are unable to grasp it

There are many, many techniques and exercises on all the instruments in the world, right? If someone is so outstandingly well learned and versed on those, then they can clearly say what is and what isn't a difficult technique. Maybe not to them ANYMORE, but in comparison to easier techniques, or even really hard techniques, the hardest techniques are noticeably difficult. It's not about opinion, as you seem to believe. This is where you go wrong. You seem to believe it's all about what people find difficult. It's not. There are factually such things as novice/beginner, advanced, expert stages etc. Nobody on Earth can look at Victor Wooten playing bass and say truthfully "I think that he is playing easy material." He's not. Hence why he is revered and cited as the most technically able bass player of all time. You seem to believe that this would just be the opinion of the players, but it's not. Because they could prove to you using their knowledge.

If there are two accomplished pianist/guitarists or whatever, and you give them 10 pieces of music each at random. Anything from Coldplay right up to Tori Amos or Yes, from Nirvana to Steve Vai. If at some point, one of the said musicians is able to continue playing the pieces and the other one isn't due to not having the ability, that means they are more technically able. All you seem to be doing is sitting there and denying it when it's fact that this is the case. It's like asking: Who's stronger, me or the world's strongest man? There are many things we can both lift but at some point I won't be able to continue because he is factually stronger than I am and there are ways to prove it. Such as the one you keep denying, the practical test.

-AC

Your scenarios point to the fact that difficulty exists and technical prowess exists, sure, but that doesn't give you a free pass to run around claiming which artists are "factually" better than other artists technically or which songs are factually harder. The only way you can make a factual claim is by some universal and objective way to judge any song.

Before you can "measure" anything you must have a universal unit that applies to anything you measure. Ex: Speed, distance, weight, etc. You don't. You must also have an objective way of determining which songs are more difficult. Ex: speed is determined by the distance traveled and the time it took to get there. You don't. All you have is "certain musicians can play things that other musicians can't." You can't just prove that varying levels of ability exist and then expect the rest of it to just be assumed as "factual." You want people to accept that what you say is fact? You have to prove it first.