There are many bands I don't like that I don't consider shit. So no, it's not about what I don't like.
However, I don't listen to shit bands. I'm not gonna listen to shit bands just to have some shit taste for the sake of it. Some of the bands I listen to are nothing amazing, but they're not shit. That will always be subjective though. Talent isn't subjective, music made is.
I have too broad a view on what's shit to sit and explain it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There are many bands I don't like that I don't consider shit. So no, it's not about what I don't like.However, I don't listen to shit bands. I'm not gonna listen to shit bands just to have some shit taste for the sake of it. Some of the bands I listen to are nothing amazing, but they're not shit. That will always be subjective though. Talent isn't subjective, music made is.
I have too broad a view on what's shit to sit and explain it.
-AC
The bands you listen to are not shit in your opinion AC, it's subjective. Talent is also subjective in the sense some people understand one persons music and not anothers based on socialisation, zeitgeist and a myriad of factors, this is going nowhere. If you can't see musical taste is totally subjective I don't see the point of debating this further.
Did I say that the bands I like not being shit, in terms of music they create, was anything other than my opinion? No.
Talent is not subjective because there are actual requirements that can be looked at. EG: If your opinion is that the guy from Linkin Park is a better bassist than Geddy Lee, you are factually wrong. He's not as talented in terms of ability. Technical talent isn't subjective. If you think Rush aren't talented musicians on their instruments, you are factually wrong. If you think they make bad music, THAT is subjective.
Not everything is subjective. The only subjective element of music is the opinion on what is good and bad. Not who's talented and who's not. If you think Britney makes great music, you're not "wrong" per se. If you claim she's a talented singer or musician, you are.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWhere do you get the factual information from then?
Did I say that the bands I like not being shit, in terms of music they create, was anything other than my opinion? No.Talent is not subjective because there are actual requirements that can be looked at. EG: If your opinion is that the guy from Linkin Park is a better bassist than Geddy Lee, you are factually wrong. He's not as talented in terms of ability. Technical talent isn't subjective. If you think Rush aren't talented musicians on their instruments, you are factually wrong. If you think they make bad music, THAT is subjective.
Not everything is subjective. The only subjective element of music is the opinion on what is good and bad. Not who's talented and who's not. If you think Britney makes great music, you're not "wrong" per se. If you claim she's a talented singer or musician, you are.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Did I say that the bands I like not being shit, in terms of music they create, was anything other than my opinion? No.Talent is not subjective because there are actual requirements that can be looked at. EG: If your opinion is that the guy from Linkin Park is a better bassist than Geddy Lee, you are factually wrong. He's not as talented in terms of ability. Technical talent isn't subjective. If you think Rush aren't talented musicians on their instruments, you are factually wrong. If you think they make bad music, THAT is subjective.
Not everything is subjective. The only subjective element of music is the opinion on what is good and bad. Not who's talented and who's not. If you think Britney makes great music, you're not "wrong" per se. If you claim she's a talented singer or musician, you are.
-AC
Carlos Santanna was not as technical as Hendrix, Hendrix however said he wished he could convey emotion like Santanna, Santanna has stated he wished he was as fast and innovative as Hendrix. Subjective.
You don't think Ryder is talented many including many critics think he is. Subjective.
end
- SWS
Originally posted by §cooter
Where do you get the factual information from then?
From where they are researchable.
EG: As been discussed before with singers. If someone says Britney is as talented a singer as Jeff Buckley they are factually wrong. Why? Because there are many catagories that make up what talent means. Technique, styles etc that are regarded higher in difficulty than others. Pitch, timbre, strength, sustain, octave range etc.
Compare Britney in each catagory to Jeff Buckley and it's laughable. Same with say...pianists and keyboardists. As one, by reading sheet music or by known techniques, I can tell what technical ability is better than another. I'm no Rick Wakeman by any means, but if some fan girl says "OMG! Chris Martin is SO much better than...". Then all she can say is that she prefers the music. Not that he is better, unless she knows what she's talking about. A lot of people hear Muse keyboard/piano riffs and assume that the man is some Tori Amos (who is astounding). Point being, some things that you hear aren't necessarily as hard or demanding of talent as you would believe.
Now, someone might very well not be technically astute, but make great music. EG: The quote adhering to Kurt Cobain, "Great guitarist? No. Did great things with a guitar? Yes." That's subjective because it refers to music made, not ability.
Ability is provable, preference isn't.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Carlos Santanna was not as technical as Hendrix, Hendrix however said he wished he could convey emotion like Santanna, Santanna has stated he wished he was as fast and innovative as Hendrix. Subjective.
You don't think Ryder is talented many including many critics think he is. Subjective.end
- SWS
Missing the point again. Look:
"Carlos Santanna was not as technical as Hendrix." Exactly. It's a fact he's not as technically gifted as Hendrix. If you PREFER Santana, then that's up to you. You could never claim he had more technical ability. Hence me saying talent at your trade is provable. Because it's not a matter of "I think this sounds bad", "Yeah? I think it sounds good." It's a matter of "I think he's playing easy stuff." When he factually isn't.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
From where they are researchable.EG: As been discussed before with singers. If someone says Britney is as talented a singer as Jeff Buckley they are factually wrong. Why? Because there are many catagories that make up what talent means. Technique, styles etc that are regarded higher in difficulty than others. Pitch, timbre, strength, sustain, octave range etc.
Compare Britney in each catagory to Jeff Buckley and it's laughable. Same with say...pianists and keyboardists. As one, by reading sheet music or by known techniques, I can tell what technical ability is better than another. I'm no Rick Wakeman by any means, but if some fan girl says "OMG! Chris Martin is SO much better than...". Then all she can say is that she prefers the music. Not that he is better, unless she knows what she's talking about. A lot of people hear Muse keyboard/piano riffs and assume that the man is some Tori Amos (who is astounding). Point being, some things that you hear aren't necessarily as hard or demanding of talent as you would believe.
Now, someone might very well not be technically astute, but make great music. EG: The quote adhering to Kurt Cobain, "Great guitarist? No. Did great things with a guitar? Yes." That's subjective because it refers to music made, not ability.
Ability is provable, preference isn't.
Missing the point again. Look:
"Carlos Santanna was not as technical as Hendrix." Exactly. It's a fact he's not as technically gifted as Hendrix. If you PREFER Santana, then that's up to you. You could never claim he had more technical ability. Hence me saying talent at your trade is provable. Because it's not a matter of "I think this sounds bad", "Yeah? I think it sounds good." It's a matter of "I think he's playing easy stuff." When he factually isn't.
-AC
talent is not just about technical ability, it can be about feel for a note etc. Mambstein was just about the most technical of all and it made him boring with truncated guitar solos etc. I think you miss the point AC talent can be measured in many ways making an overall analysis of talent subjective.
Originally posted by §cooter
You misunderstood my post. I meant where do [b]you get the factual information from. [/B]
I just told you within my post.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
talent is not just about technical ability, it can be about feel for a note etc. Mambstein was just about the most technical of all and it made him boring with truncated guitar solos etc. I think you miss the point AC talent can be measured in many ways making an overall analysis of talent subjective.
Oh dear. I'll say this one more time:
CREATIVE talent is subjective. TECHNICAL talent isn't. ABILITY isn't.
-AC
Whirly, I didn't did I? No. I've always said that music made is subjective. Technical talent and ability are not. Why? Because it's not about what you prefer, it's what IS.
You can't go to a Malmsteen show and say "Eh, I don't think that guy is playing anything hard." Can you? No.
Originally posted by §cooter
Ok, maybe I should be more clear. Links to your data? Page quotes?
What data and page quotes are you talking about? You were asking where I get my factual information from regarding who is factually more talented at something than someone else, correct? I explained how and why in my previous post.
"EG: As been discussed before with singers. If someone says Britney is as talented a singer as Jeff Buckley they are factually wrong. Why? Because there are many catagories that make up what talent means. Technique, styles etc that are regarded higher in difficulty than others. Pitch, timbre, strength, sustain, octave range etc.
Compare Britney in each catagory to Jeff Buckley and it's laughable. Same with say...pianists and keyboardists. As one, by reading sheet music or by known techniques, I can tell what technical ability is better than another. I'm no Rick Wakeman by any means, but if some fan girl says "OMG! Chris Martin is SO much better than...". Then all she can say is that she prefers the music. Not that he is better, unless she knows what she's talking about. A lot of people hear Muse keyboard/piano riffs and assume that the man is some Tori Amos (who is astounding). Point being, some things that you hear aren't necessarily as hard or demanding of talent as you would believe.
Now, someone might very well not be technically astute, but make great music. EG: The quote adhering to Kurt Cobain, "Great guitarist? No. Did great things with a guitar? Yes." That's subjective because it refers to music made, not ability."
-AC
Research = Data. So where is this data? The links? The books? The Quotes?
"From where they are researchable." This implies they have a place to go tofind them. Where is it you go to find out which bands have talent and which don't? Which completely nonb-iased book do you use to gather this data? What source? Links AC, links. Stop dancing around with fancy wordplay and just give us some good, cold blue links, or point us to some Amazon books and their corresponding reviews (Or your favorite bookstore).
EDIT: And on that note, I'll be going to bed. But please, let me wake up to the joyous discovery of blue links leading to un-biased sources with completely factual, data. Or, book page quotes, if neccessary.
Originally posted by §cooter
Research = Data. So where is this data? The links? The books? The Quotes?"From where they are researchable." This implies they have a place to go tofind them. Where is it you go to find out which bands have talent and which don't? Which completely nonb-iased book do you use to gather this data? What source? Links AC, links. Stop dancing around with fancy wordplay and just give us some good, cold blue links, or point us to some Amazon books and their corresponding reviews (Or your favorite bookstore).
EDIT: And on that note, I'll be going to bed. But please, let me wake up to the joyous discovery of blue links leading to un-biased sources with completely factual, data. Or, book page quotes, if neccessary.
I like that tactic. "What I'm gonna do, is assume AC has masses of links based on my misinterpretation of that one line, WHILST ignoring the rest of what he explained to me. THEN, when he he tried to call me up on it, I'll have this to fall back on."
If you become interested in techniques used and practiced by musicians specifically known for their technical skill, you will become familiar of what's easy and what's not easy. EG: Higher octave ranges take a lot more of a natural talent or possibly an extremely honed talent than some random Britney.
You asked where I got the data, I said from where it's researchable and then actually explained to you how I know. You chose to skip it, not my problem. A pianist who plays piano and reads piano music, will know what's factually harder than someone who is guessing by listening to Coldplay. If a girl says "That Coldplay song is technically amazing piano" and doesn't even play piano, and happens to be wrong....do you understand where I'm going?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I like that tactic. "What I'm gonna do, is assume AC has masses of links based on my misinterpretation of that one line, WHILST ignoring the rest of what he explained to me. THEN, when he he tried to call me up on it, I'll have this to fall back on."If you become interested in techniques used and practiced by musicians specifically known for their technical skill, you will become familiar of what's easy and what's not easy. EG: Higher octave ranges take a lot more of a natural talent or possibly an extremely honed talent than some random Britney.
You asked where I got the data, I said from where it's researchable and then actually explained to you how I know. You chose to skip it, not my problem. A pianist who plays piano and reads piano music, will know what's factually harder than someone who is guessing by listening to Coldplay. If a girl says "That Coldplay song is technically amazing piano" and doesn't even play piano, and happens to be wrong....do you understand where I'm going?
-AC
Hmm - but we were arguing something different then, because you were saying The Mondays were not talented, they were excellent muscisians by the end except for Bez and Shaun. Shaun however understood tab and understood scales and basic musical theory so he was not ignorant. They had technical talent to a degree and they understood funk.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anyone can understand tab and scales.If you are trying to say they are technically talented because they can play their instruments...
-AC
They were adequate for what they wanted to play and had some excellent ideas on production and innovative ideas on sampling, so yes they had talent. But using the distinction you not I made they had more creative than technical talent.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou still haven't pulled the links up. I haven't seen any quotes, no links to books, or even honorable mention's. Anylyze my "tacitcs" all you want, even of the day you still haven't posted any links, no data.
I like that tactic. "What I'm gonna do, is assume AC has masses of links based on my misinterpretation of that one line, WHILST ignoring the rest of what he explained to me. THEN, when he he tried to call me up on it, I'll have this to fall back on."If you become interested in techniques used and practiced by musicians specifically known for their technical skill, you will become familiar of what's easy and what's not easy. EG: Higher octave ranges take a lot more of a natural talent or possibly an extremely honed talent than some random Britney.
You asked where I got the data, I said from where it's researchable and then actually explained to you how I know. You chose to skip it, not my problem. A pianist who plays piano and reads piano music, will know what's factually harder than someone who is guessing by listening to Coldplay. If a girl says "That Coldplay song is technically amazing piano" and doesn't even play piano, and happens to be wrong....do you understand where I'm going?
-AC