Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Not true.. difficulty doesn't have to be measurable to exist. Look at my example with creativity.. which you've already agreed is "subjective." That doesn't equate to it not existing..
Creativity isn't difficulty though. Difficulty isn't always subjective. Such as when it gets to a point where there is clearly a better that is provable by existing techniques being more advanced than others.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
There are ways to prove it because weight is measurable. Pounds, kilograms, whatever. We can factually measure weight. You've been unable (or unwilling) to do so with difficulty, so far.
Instrumental skill is measurable, why are you not seeing that? Speed, dexterity, fluency. Do you play piano or keyboard? If so, you know techniques. Go watch some videos of concert pianists and then watch a video of Chris Martin or some other pianist. Apply those techniques and marking criteria to both players and see who's better, and why.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.
If technical prowess exists and difficulty exists, then do you clearly acknowledge that it's possible to be technically better on an instrument than someone else? (If you say no we may aswell end the debate).
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.
I don't? I swear I've been spending most of this time explaining to you that dexterity, fluency, memory, speed, control etc all count toward it.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
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.
I can't account for you not looking at what I'm posting. I've done all I can over the net, that's not to say it's any less proveable. As I said, take the criteria I've repeatedly given you and apply it to any scale of musicians on any instrument.
There is such a thing as technical prowess (provable as it means ability with techniques), difficulty? Yes. So then there is such a thing as having greater technical prowess than another musician. Do you not agree?
-AC