Show me where I specifically said I had any links or books that I could actually show you and I'll concede. We both know I didn't and that you made the assumption to make yourself look good. If you're gonna ignore the explanations I've given you, then I can't help you.
There are two kinds of people: Those who know their stuff and those who don't. I'm the latter. The sooner people accept that not everything is opinion (a bulk of it is, but not all) then the sooner we can get on with business here.
Stopa voiding my question. The only thing you're doing right now is pumping out "Red Tape" to conceal your crap, and we "both know it". Without any sources of data for "Talent", what the hell gives you the right to call things talentless like you do, and then say you're right about it, and say it isn't subjective? Or better yet, how you change positions constantly to make yourself you look better? You cosntantly tell everyone that what they listen to is sht, and earlier in this thread you were claiming people had no talent.
__________________
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Last edited by NinthCorona on Jan 9th, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Avoiding your question? You're avoiding the answer just because it's not the answer you want, kid. I gave you your explanation and all you are doing is avoiding it in favour of requesting an answer that would be more to your liking. Sorry to let you down here, but I don't cater to people. That's all I'll say on that matter. You asked a question, I gave you two huge parts about it. You chose to pick out the one sentence because nothing else was to your "liking". Not my problem.
Secondly, your inability to interpret my posts aside, I've never changed opinion. Music (in terms of what we each hear and perceive) is, was and will always be subjective. Never have I denied this (I challenge you to find where I have). Ability on an instrument isn't down to opinion is it?
Can you actually sit there, listen to Tori Amos and say "She's playing easy stuff, that's what I believe."? Or with Hendrix? No. Because he's not. Nor is she. You CAN say that you don't like what you HEAR, but you cannot say that which they are playing is easy. Because it's not. There are levels of difficulty. This has always been my stance, you not noticing it doesn't mean I've changed. It means you won't be in any Shirlock Holmes-esque novels for a while.
As for me telling someone what they listen to is shit, that's my opinion, in terms of what I hear and what I think of it. Never would I (or could I) claim any different. So why don't you get a grip on what your point is, what my answers are and stop clutching at every available straw? Can you do that? Hmm? Sweeeeet.
You know, through all of this, my original question was "Where do you get your factual information?" And you couldn't even answer that. Avoiding the question
Did I ask for an explanation on anything? No, I didn't, my question:
You still haven't answered it.
Am I misinterpreting? Maybe. But you should perhaps take a lot more time wording your posts corectly to get your meaning across.
This is where I got my question from:
"
If their are requirements for Talent, than that would imply that there is data to look at. You claimed that if "that guy" from Linkin Park is a better bassist than Geddy Lee, you are factually wrong. Factually? By saying that, people will assume that you know him to be worse than Geddy Lee, because you claimed it was factual, which would imply there was physical date, of written form, somewhere. Therefore, you would've had access to such a source of information.
Hence, where do I get my factual information from?
I explained to you where I get my information. Information is learned, perceived, not necessarily taken from somewhere tangible. If you continue to choose to dodge my explanation/answer, then I cannot help you.
Or maybe everyone else has understood it besides you and that you should stop diving in head first (yes this is the case). Typical, you accuse me of doing all that, but when you balls your own argument up, no admission.
Imply? No I didn't imply anything. You read it with what you THOUGHT I meant, in mind, then proceeded to sprint with it, not stopping for anything. Whilst on the way, instead of taking into account your misinterpretation, accusing me of changing. I never change, you've just got the wrong end of the stick. It was connected to my explanation and answer that followed.
It doesn't imply that, you're the one jumping to all different kinds of conclusions. You are specifiying mediums that I didn't specify. I made a comment and you are taking it upon your presumptuous self to say "So then you mean that the info can be found here and here?". I didn't say, mean or imply that. You misjudged and misconcluded that. Your fault, not mine. The pieces are there, you're putting the puzzle together wrong.
Read EVERYTHING I said here:
"'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.'"
Only when you have done so, will I reply to any of your further questions. Because the answer is there, I can make it no more clearer. I actually described and spelled it out.
They were a phenomanan at the time. They were new and good for that time, and just like Deano said, if you were there, withnessing that, you wouldnt be saying what you are saying now.
Anyway, i love tool - my fave band ever. They are original, amazing and revolutionary, however, in 40 years time there might be a lot of tool like bands, and kinds would say ''tool are overrated'' etc...
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
You really can't make the claim of "if you were there you wouldn't be saying that". I highly highly doubt that EVERYONE that lived in that time thought the Beatles were the greatest thing ever, or even good. It's simply not everyone's style of music.
And just like I cant say that they are not overrated because I am indifferent to them, you cannot say that they are, based on the fact that you dont like them.
For their style of music they were not overrated for many many many people, otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversation. And as far as I have gathered, your style is not ''pop'' thus you cannot know the overrated of a style of music you do not like or listen, no?
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
My dad was there, as was my grandfather. They both loved/love The Beatles but even my dad says that he doesn't understand just why people praise them as the greatest thing ever. Infact, I'd bet that if we could go back in time, we'd discover that a lot of it was hype-based. They were the first to do some things, not the best. I love The Beatles, I think they made some very good music. Excellent, infact. They are overrated though. To claim they are the best at everything ever, better than anyone before or more importantly, after, is severely overrating them.
Moreover, why does it matter if we were there or not? The music is what matters and the music is the same today as it was then. To suggest that being there means you'd "understand" is to suggest that the hype of the craze is counting in their favour, when it has NOTHING to do with the music. Which again points to them being overrated.
Think of all the truly phenomenal bands that came after and then tell me that claiming The Beatles have no competition ISN'T overrating. Not liking a band doesn't mean you can't judge them impartially, so your claim holds zero water.
As for Tool, they're not original per se. You can easily trace their heavy influences but I still wouldn't say there'll be any Tool-like bands, at least not in terms of ability.
Difficulty is a bit of a tricky criteria to judge off cause it's not universally measurable. It's true that some pieces are almost universally regarded as being harder or easier than other pieces but there's no solid factual data to back that up. Besides, a lot of songs fall into a sorta grey area when you compare them as far as difficulty goes.. different people will find different songs to be more difficult. A slow complex song can be harder to some while a fast yet simple one may be harder to others. There's no solid line between "hard" and "easy," it's more of a spectrum and different people will have different spectrum's based on what's harder for them to do. To me sight reading may be more difficult.. to my friend memorizing long pieces may be more difficult. Everything from hand size to short term memory can effect the difficulty of a piece.
There's not? Give the sheet music to the more difficult music of Muse or Tori Amos, Yes or E.L.P, to someone only able to play Coldplay music and we'll see how factually harder things can be. Piano is one of the instruments where hand size etc isn't AS critical. It's just keys to press, not notes to bend and shape. So if someone who can play piano, can't play certain things then it's obvious they just aren't good enough. I can't play like Keith Emerson and it's nothing to do with my hand size or dexterity, because I can play most of what I set out to play (though I'm not much of a play-others-songs kind of person). It's because I'm not good enough to play Keith Emerson stuff. I am not enough of a technically talented pianist/keyboardist to play it. So no, it's not as blurry as you think.
You're more or less running around in a circle then agreeing with me. Some people don't have the ability to play Rush's more difficult basslines, most infact. Because of the sheer all round difficulty. There are many established bassists including the world's best such as Trevor Dunn who cite Rush as having the hardest basslines ever to play or learn. This coming from a man who is, besides Geddy Lee, probably the best on the planet. The fact that people differ doesn't mean that difficulty and the ability, or lack thereof, is non-existant. Some people just aren't instrumentally talented enough. Hendrix is the best ever, but there's probably some Vai/Satch stuff that is out of the man's reach because he's just not technically able enough.
It is possible to judge music objectively even if it's something you're not a fan of. The Beatles are a good band, I will say that much even though I personally do not like them. My parents were around then and they both liked the Beatles, though neither of them think they're the best thing ever, as so many people say. But overrated? Certainly yes. There are a great many bands who are better than they, yet people call the the best band ever and say they changed music and things like "if not for them _______ wouldn't exist"....but you cannot PROVE that.
Just because something is hyped beyond all belief does not make them good or not overrated - it just means that many of the people who make the claims of "best thing ever" are swept up in the hype.
To add to my previous post about The Beatles, people go on about how the music they produced is always relevant, timeless and better than everything else, but it can't be that timeless if you had to be in the time when they were at their peak to truly appreciate it. If anything, not being there makes you more of an objective listener to those who were.
I never said it's completely subjective.. I know there that the difficulty does exist, I said it's not black and white. There's no universal unit used to measure difficulty. The same goes for "talent." It doesn't mean that difficulty doesn't exist, nor that talent doesn't exist, just that it's not a "factual" means to prove superiority. The fact that one person may not be able to play Tori Amos while they can play Coldplay is not proof that the Tori Amos piece is more difficult in general, it's proof that it's more difficult for that person. When it's an example as extreme as this, we can all pretty much assume that the Amos piece IS more difficult, but this does not prove it so.
The only way you can reach the conclusion that the Amos piece is more difficult is to rely on your own judgement as a musician or on the judgement of fellow musicians, therefore it's invalid to label such a claim as "factual." Where's the facts? There's no data. Of course most people will agree that the Amos piece is harder. However when you take two songs that are closer to each other in skill level then the whole "difficulty" thing can go either way, it depends on the individual player. If it were a factual issue, there'd be no grey area.
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Fortress, North Pole with Santa
Account Restricted
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.
__________________
herd behavior is a comical thing - Thanks Silver Spider
KMC Community Forums
Jan 9th, 2006 04:12 PM
.
Stopa voiding my question. The only thing you're doing right now is pumping out "Red Tape" to conceal your crap, and we "both know it". Without any sources of data for "Talent", what the hell gives you the right to call things talentless like you do, and then say you're right about it, and say it isn't subjective? Or better yet, how you change positions constantly to make yourself you look better? You cosntantly tell everyone that what they listen to is sht, and earlier in this thread you were claiming people had no talent. 
