"My taste in music is better than yours"

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]Geezus, finally someone else....Lonelynight

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mexicangordo"] Yea, maybe a comparision of Queen and Lady Ga Ga would have been better :P

Nibroc420

How would that make her more talented?

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"] With the Beatles example, they are influential, but to some, that might not have been a good thing, since they might hate their influence. And with the pizza, what if the person has a different kind of tastebuds because of some medical illness, and think that they are bad. [QUOTE="Tetrarch9"]Lonely Night you like those *** pop bands right? like the Brown Eyed Girls. Do you know what they're saying?Lonelynight

Thats just being rude. Just to give someone the chance to be better than someone else. I would say that it would be elitism or them being doucheymexicangordo

1) Who cares if they hate their influence...That doesnt stop them from being incredible influential and incredible important. And good among the eyes of just about every modern band. You can't make everyone happy.

2) I dont know if they are wrong or right...I am no mind reader, I just think its rude. I would at least hope that the person knows what they are talking about.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="mexicangordo"]Geezus, finally someone else....LJS9502_basic

He didn't say that talent wasn't different among individuals.

He's merely saying that differences in talent can't be proven objectively.

For instance, I might think that Freddy Mercury is a more talented vocalist than David Bowie, but there's no way I could actually prove it objectively.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

And this phrase exemplifies why I was arguing a while ago that talent is subjective.

GreySeal9

But what I'm arguing is that objectivity can't really exist when judging talent because it is ultimately a judgment.

Objectivity can only exist in regard to facts in their purest form, not any kind of judgment.

If talent was objective, you would be able to have some kind of objective process by which to determine which band is more talented.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm sure Lady Ga Ga is more popular among people. Wouldn't that make her the more talented performer?Nibroc420

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"] But now you are getting at something totally different. I feel like I am being incredible redundant since Ive been reapting the same things over and over so I'll just directly answer that question. Being good is universal isnt it? I mean you might not like The Beatles, but you can still respect what they have done? Right? Or you might not like Pizza ( :P) but you might be able to see why others enjoy it, right? Again it might not be the case for everything but...Do you kinda see what im saying?

mexicangordo

I do, on some level, understand what you're saying. I think an intelligent person should, except in extreme cases, be able to figure out why somebody likes something instead of simply write it off because they don't care for it.

On the other hand, while I love The Beatles to death (I have all their records), if somebody said The Beatles are not a good band, I don't see how I could prove them wrong. I could potentially argue with them and make a much better case them them, but I couldn't actually prove their premise that The Beatles are not good wrong.

I don't feel obligated to prove anyone wrong. I'm just saying that the The Beatles can't be objectively good unless I can prove it. The most one could do is make a well-supported argument as to why their good, which would limit it to the realm of subjectivity. That is why I think that it all comes down to opinion in the end.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You know how to wound.:x Queen was the more talented.....GreySeal9

How would that make her more talented?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"] Why do you think that it is possible to be objective with music? And what do you use to measure it with?GreySeal9

He didn't say that talent wasn't different among individuals.

He's merely saying that differences in talent can't be proven objectively.

For instance, I might think that Freddy Mercury is a more talented vocalist than David Bowie, but there's no way I could actually prove it objectively.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Can I ask why you don't find talent to be different amongst individuals? Are all athletes possessing the same skill levels?LJS9502_basic

He didn't say that talent wasn't different among individuals.

He's merely saying that differences in talent can't be proven objectively.

For instance, I might think that Freddy Mercury is a more talented vocalist than David Bowie, but there's no way I could actually prove it objectively.

But wouldn't it still be a subjective judgment that more range=stronger, better vocals? After all, one person might think that phrasing and clarity is more important than range.

He didn't say that talent wasn't different among individuals.

He's merely saying that differences in talent can't be proven objectively.

For instance, I might think that Freddy Mercury is a more talented vocalist than David Bowie, but there's no way I could actually prove it objectively.

GreySeal9

I once knew a kid who idolized Eric Clapton. So he bought a guitar and, without ever having touched a single musical instrument his entire life, immediately tried to do a cover of "Layla".

And yes, he was objectively worse than Eric Clapton. If I had to give any objective reasons, I might start by saying that he didn't even have any idea how to play the damn instrument.

Now...that's certainly an extreme example. But such examples do prove that objective differences in quality absolutely exist. Now, once we start comparing artists that are more similar in quality, then it becomes a bit more difficult to objectively determine who is better, but that doesn't in any way mean that such objective differences in quality cease to exist.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. Talent is skill...not popularity. In some demographics she'd be more popular than Mozart or Beethoven. You aren't saying she's more talented?

LJS9502_basic

Imagine going to a concert where the band didn't try to get anyone all hyped up, they just stood there playing music. Meanwhile the whole crowd is just like "lalala i'm listening to musicc" Whats the point of going to that concert if you're going to stand there like 100+ feet from the band, and everyones standing doing nothing?
It's boring.Might as well crank their CD instead.

Popular Performers > Not Popular Performers. Because you need talent to remain popular.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

He didn't say that talent wasn't different among individuals.

He's merely saying that differences in talent can't be proven objectively.

For instance, I might think that Freddy Mercury is a more talented vocalist than David Bowie, but there's no way I could actually prove it objectively.

GreySeal9

But wouldn't it still be a subjective judgment that more range=stronger, better vocals? After all, one person might think that phrasing and clarity is more important than range.

People dont like a bad performance.

Nibroc420

Correction: most people don't like a performance that they KNOW is bad. But if they don't know that it's bad, then what's stopping them from liking it?

Sure people like a bad performance, just like how people like bad food, bad movies, bad novels, etc.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm sure Lady Ga Ga is more popular among people. Wouldn't that make her the more talented performer?Nibroc420

How would that make her more talented?

This is an appeal to popularity and is a fallacy.

The number of fans doesn't say anything about the music itself. After all, how many of these fans are onboard because their friends are into Gaga? How many of these fans will remain fans? How do you determine who is actually a fan?

By your logic, someone like William Hunghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hungwho amassed lots of popularity for being a bad singer and being funny is more popular than an obscure guitar genius because he has more fans.

Sure it can. Two people pick up a guitar. You should be able to find out if one is more talented than the other by just listening to them play. It is possible they might be equal.....but if we did that with everyone that could play guitar....I'd imagine you'd begin to differentiate amongst the exceptional, the good, the average, and the bad players. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] They're all performers. Their job is to entertain their current following whilst adding more fans to their "collection." As such, popularity is a great way to measure which entertainer/performer is more talented. Talent isn't all voice.Nibroc420

Imagine going to a concert where the band didn't try to get anyone all hyped up, they just stood there playing music. Meanwhile the whole crowd is just like "lalala i'm listening to musicc" Whats the point of going to that concert if you're going to stand there like 100+ feet from the band, and everyones standing doing nothing?
It's boring.Might as well crank their CD instead.

Popular Performers > Not Popular Performers. Because you need talent to remain popular.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sure it can. Two people pick up a guitar. You should be able to find out if one is more talented than the other by just listening to them play. It is possible they might be equal.....but if we did that with everyone that could play guitar....I'd imagine you'd begin to differentiate amongst the exceptional, the good, the average, and the bad players. Lonelynight

Since talent is something you are born with, are you suggesting that how good you are is determined at birth?Lonelynight

Who says that talent is something that you're born with? Do you have any proof for that claim, or is it just an opinion that you hold?

IDK if taste is the right word I would use. I feel I might have a better "view" on music than most for a few reasons:

-I don't limit myself to a couple genres. I have enjoyed songs in all different kinds of genres.

-I don't try and force anyone to like a band.

-At the same time, I very much believe in having RESPECT for certain musicians even if you don't like them and I do ask others to show respect. I may not like a band like the Beatles, but I'll be damned if I don't respect them. People involved in LoneleyNights Kurt Cobain thread have seen this aspect here, lol.

-I have had a knack for being able to suggest bands for people. My taste is so broad that I can almost ALWAYS give people new bands to check out.

-I just have a passion and love for music in general. I can love alot of songs played on the radio, yet I also dig in and find lesser-known bands. I just love experiencing music and love giving new bands a try. I have actually developed a habit of going to concerts to see bands I have never heard before and it has made for some truely great experiences.

-I am an aspiring musician myself who has both come to love wonderful simplicity and insane technicality in music.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How would that make her more talented?

GreySeal9

This is an appeal to popularity and is a fallacy.

The number of fans doesn't say anything about the music itself. After all, how many of these fans are onboard because their friends are into Gaga? How many of these fans will remain fans? How do you determine who is actually a fan?

By your logic, someone like William Hunghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hungwho amassed lots of popularity for being a bad singer and being funny is more popular than an obscure guitar genius because he has more fans.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In regard to vocalists one looks at range to get an idea. I much prefer Bowie by a large margin...but even I'd admit Mercury had a stronger voice.LJS9502_basic

But wouldn't it still be a subjective judgment that more range=stronger, better vocals? After all, one person might think that phrasing and clarity is more important than range.

I never said that talent isn't variable among individuals. I don't get why you don't understand that. I do think that some people have more talent than others, I just don't think it can be objectivity proven.

I don't think you understand what objectivity is. It cannot contain opinion whatsoever. It can only deal with pure scientifically provable facts?

There can be no objectivity when it comes to labeling a singer with more range better than one with limited range because the notion thar more range makes a more talent singer is subjective. If you disagree, prove it without using any kind of subjective statements.

You say that a "strong vocalist" is more talented than a "weak vocalist", but what constitutes a strong vocalist comes down to a subjective judgment unless you can prove it scientifically without resorting to any subjective judgements. That somebody is a "strong vocalist" is an opinion. Logically, it can't be anything else.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Because being a performer requires a performance. Sure, YOU may believe that Beethoven or Mozart are more talented than GaGa. However GaGa doesn't just stand motionless on the stage singing. They're all performers, and the better performer would have more fans. As such the one with the most fans is usually the most talented. Except in cases such as the Jonas brothers, who rose to fame due to being fabricated, and then dove down the charts soon after, because people got BORED of their performance.Nibroc420

This is an appeal to popularity and is a fallacy.

The number of fans doesn't say anything about the music itself. After all, how many of these fans are onboard because their friends are into Gaga? How many of these fans will remain fans? How do you determine who is actually a fan?

By your logic, someone like William Hunghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hungwho amassed lots of popularity for being a bad singer and being funny is more popular than an obscure guitar genius because he has more fans.

So he's talented at getting people to see him despite bad singing. That doesn't mean he's a talented performer.

Again, your engaging in an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Who says that talent is something that you're born with? Do you have any proof for that claim, or is it just an opinion that you hold?MrGeezer

You can't say someone has talent because they are a bad singer.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't say someone has talent because they are a bad singer.Nibroc420

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

I guess there's always a problem when it comes objectively measuring art - we can dismantle music, but any kind of reductionist approach may miss the point - the message, soul, connection a person feels or whatever kind of w*** term we can use would be lost in the process. Mind you if a song appears laboured, contrived, plagerised, lazy etc it's perhaps easier to pick out, but even then there's much variance in music reviews – one reviewers genius is another's tosh. Musical taste can be a pretty mercurial and dynamic kind of sense too, so one year you may be grooving on down to some hardcore punk and the next nodding sagely at Aphex Twin spinning some sandpaper on the decks.

But anyway, music isn't like a taste in food, it can be of sizeable part of our identity, hence the value judgments we make about our own and others music..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But wouldn't it still be a subjective judgment that more range=stronger, better vocals? After all, one person might think that phrasing and clarity is more important than range.

GreySeal9

I never said that talent isn't variable among individuals. I don't get why you don't understand that. I do think that some people have more talent than others, I just don't think it can be objectivity proven.

I don't think you understand what objectivity is. It cannot contain opinion whatsoever. It can only deal with pure scientifically provable facts?

There can be no objectivity when it comes to labeling a singer with more range better than one with limited range because the notion thar more range makes a more talent singer is subjective. If you disagree, prove it without using any kind of subjective statements.

You say that a "strong vocalist" is more talented than a "weak vocalist", but what constitutes a strong vocalist comes down to a subjective judgment unless you can prove it scientifically without resorting to any subjective judgements. That somebody is a "strong vocalist" is an opinion. Logically, it can't be anything else.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't say someone has talent because they are a bad singer.GreySeal9

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.
Also, just because YOU think someone is a bad singer, doesn't make it so.
Opinion =/= Fact.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't say someone has talent because they are a bad singer.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I can say that the more popular singer became popular for a reason. So why is your obscure guitarist so much less popular, if they're better as a performer? Hint: They're not a better performer, and as such are less talented in general than the more popular one.Nibroc420

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.
Also, just because YOU think someone is a bad singer, doesn't make it so.
Opinion =/= Fact.

That actually doesn't make sense. You say talent varies but it can't be proven. That's a contradiction. Nonetheless.....their ARE different talents amongst musicians. Dude I don't want to go around in circles with you again.....simple fact is talents do vary and talent is objective. Someone has talent or not. Someone has limited talent or very versatile talent. Preference and taste are subjective however. What you like is what you like. An individual CAN have good taste be it in music, movies, books, wine etc. Or he could have bad taste. Either way he likes what he likes.LJS9502_basic

It's not a contradiction at all. In my mind, talent does vary, but talent is still something that we judge subjectively. I don't get where the contradiction is. I admit that I think that talent varies, but that people have different ideas of who is talented and who is not.

Objectivity can only contain FACTS and nothing else.

The notion of whether somebody has good or bad taste is an opinion. Taste=culmination of opinions.

So, if you think that talent can be proven, prove without any subjecitve judgments that Queen is more talented than Lady Gaga? If talent isobjective, you should be able to prove it in a way that contains ONLY facts and NO opinions. Can you do that?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I can say that the more popular singer became popular for a reason. So why is your obscure guitarist so much less popular, if they're better as a performer? Hint: They're not a better performer, and as such are less talented in general than the more popular one.Nibroc420

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.
Also, just because YOU think someone is a bad singer, doesn't make it so.
Opinion =/= Fact.

You're right about that, but if you get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented at making money without singing talent, not talented at singing or performing. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

LJS9502_basic

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.
Also, just because YOU think someone is a bad singer, doesn't make it so.
Opinion =/= Fact.

And I'm saying that people wont buy your CD's unless they enjoy your music.
And I'm saying that people wont buy your Concert Tickets unless they enjoy your performances and/or music.

As such, the group with the most fans is the more talented performer. Because no-one buys 400 CD's for themselves.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I can say that the more popular singer became popular for a reason. So why is your obscure guitarist so much less popular, if they're better as a performer? Hint: They're not a better performer, and as such are less talented in general than the more popular one.Nibroc420

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.

Not necessarily; there are a LOT of morons out there.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

LJS9502_basic

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.
Also, just because YOU think someone is a bad singer, doesn't make it so.
Opinion =/= Fact.

"Good" and "bad" are value judgments.

And if you say that talent has a value judgment, you're admitting that it is subjective. Objectivity can only contain facts. Anything else lies outside the realm of objectivity.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Some people like to see a trainwreck, which is why Hung got popular. That doesn't say anything about any kind of talent as a performer.

Joshywaa

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.

Not necessarily; there are a LOT of morons out there.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That actually doesn't make sense. You say talent varies but it can't be proven. That's a contradiction. Nonetheless.....their ARE different talents amongst musicians. Dude I don't want to go around in circles with you again.....simple fact is talents do vary and talent is objective. Someone has talent or not. Someone has limited talent or very versatile talent. Preference and taste are subjective however. What you like is what you like. An individual CAN have good taste be it in music, movies, books, wine etc. Or he could have bad taste. Either way he likes what he likes.GreySeal9

It's not a contradiction at all. In my mind, talent does vary, but talent is still something that we judge subjectively. I don't get where the contradiction is. I admit that I think that talent varies, but that people have different ideas of who is talented and who is not.

Objectivity can only contain FACTS and nothing else.

But the notion of whether somebody has good or bad taste is an opinion. Taste=opinion.

So, if you think that talent can be prove, prove without any subjecitve judgments that Queen is more talented than Lady Gaga? If it objective, you should be able to prove it in a way that contains ONLY facts and NO opinions. Can you do that?

[QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Clearly if you can get paid for singing despite being a bad singer, you're talented.

Nibroc420

Not necessarily; there are a LOT of morons out there.

The fact that people like William Hung came become popular and can make millions of dollars tells me that people are morons is all I wanted to say pretty mooch.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

Not necessarily; there are a LOT of morons out there.

Joshywaa

The fact that people like William Hung came become popular and can make millions of dollars tells me that people are morons is all I wanted to say pretty mooch.

Talent is what you are born with, skill is what you have acquired through practice. Being talented means that you will have an easier time learning and learn faster than those who are not talented.
Even if a someone starts to play the piano at age 3 and spends as much time practicing as Franz Liszt, if he is not as talented as Liszt, their level will still be different.Lonelynight

And I'm saying that people wont buy your CD's unless they enjoy your music.
And I'm saying that people wont buy your Concert Tickets unless they enjoy your performances and/or music.

As such, the group with the most fans is the more talented performer. Because no-one buys 400 CD's for themselves.

Nibroc420

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

As LJ said, you don't get THAT popular without having to appeal to many people who quite simply don't know anything about music. A hell of a lot of fans of hugely popular bands quite simply don't have any informed grounds for saying that the artist is good or bad. All they have to go on is "I like it", but there are a hell of a lot of reasons why people like stuff that have absolutely nothing to do with it being "good".

Now don't get me wrong...that doesn't mean that the most popular artists are bad. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to assume that they are good simply because they have lots of fans. People DO like garbage, and sometimes a LOT of people like something that just plain isn't very good.

Since talent is something you are born with, are you suggesting that how good you are is determined at birth?Lonelynight

While I do believe in being born with a better ability towards things, musical ability is most certainly something that requires ALOT of practice and is very much a skill.

I am a pretty great example of how this works too. I got Guitar Hero (not to suggest this equates to actual music ability) and played it constantly. I start off borderline failing on Easy and Medium like alot of people do. After about a year of constant playing I finally got competent on the expert difficulty, but not to the point of a friend of mine who had started at the same time.

Flash forward to Rock Bands release and I feel drawn to the drums. I do whatever I can to play on the drums, but in my friends band set-up we originally start with the friend I mentioned earlier playing drums (was their game not mine) with me being the guitarist. We rock pretty well, but my friend was having some difficulty drumming, despite having drummed a bit before in school band.

Well, I go pick up the game for myself and within a month I am beating the hardest songs on expert drums. My friend however is still struggling with drums, yet whenever he picks up that guitar he just blows me away.

We end up switching spots and after that we were just completely dominate. With all the practice we put in, he just ended up being a fantastic guitarist whereas I ended up being a natural on the drums. It still required quite a bit of effort on both our parts though, and when we put forth that effort towards the different instruments we managed to achieve very different results.

This same thing carried over for me to real instruments too. I can barely play my bass, yet when I finally got myself a real drumkit I was playing full songs immediately. First thing I did when I set up my kit was play In Bloom by Nirvana, which is the same song I first started teaching myself on bass actually.

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

MrGeezer

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.

If 400 people go "Hey i like Rebecca Black!"

And you go "Hey I like Beiber!"

It's a 400:1 ratio, and you seem to think your opinion outweighs those numbers.

So we look at sales, Who enjoys these artists? Which artist sells more?

You're trying to discount everyone else's oppinion by calling them idiots who dont know music.

Clearly they enjoy the music that is produced, or they wouldn't listen to it. As such the one with the most sales is the most talented performer.

[QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I don't see how the intelligence of your fans contributes how good you are?Nibroc420

The fact that people like William Hung came become popular and can make millions of dollars tells me that people are morons is all I wanted to say pretty mooch.

I don't know, man. He didn't really have a personality; I think what happened was he auditioned on the show and it was SO bad that they aired it (to get the classic Simon Cowell rebuke (:roll: )) and people obsessed over him which led to some suits sitting down in an office saying "We can profit off of this asian man" so they approached him and said "Look. You like money, right?" And Hung said " Yes" so they were like "Okay, you will put this T-Shirt on: and you will sing at ball games, and appear on commercials singing that crappy song over and over again...here's 25 thousand dollars go make a crappy album full of covers" "okay"

To which the general public responded with "We need to give this man money"

And he became a millionaire.

That's my take. :|

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

You're making the very wrong assumption that everyone knows quality.

Nibroc420

You're making the assumption that YOU are the sole judge of quality.