Most irritating...

[NoWave]

Originally Posted by iain-3tr

ok, people defending chart music... wot u wld define as a talented musician?

i wld say a talented musician is one which can keep re-producing hits or keep producing good songs. there will be many talented musicians in the charts but some have one hit then disapper, they may have talent, but they aren't talented, if u see what i mean.

what does everyone else think?

A talented musician is someone who writes a piece of music that someone else enjoys. Simple as that. I really don't understand how people can disagree with me on this.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by NoWave

A talented musician is someone who writes a piece of music that someone else enjoys. Simple as that. I really don't understand how people can disagree with me on this.

Because you don't need to be particularly musically talented to make a piece of music that someone else enjoys. Christ, the Mr. Blobby song went to number 1, that says it all.

Oh, and if you're going to claim that a talented musician is someone who WRITES a piece of music that someone else enjoys, then that rules out a lot of people in pop music, being as they don't write their own music. I'm sure a lot of the session musicians that write the music are actually talented, however they don't really use that talent particularly well when writing simple pop music. Yeah, they're using their talent to write commercial music that your average Joe will like, but they're certainly not using their talent to write an intelligent piece of music.

I don't understand why people have difficulty accepting that some people are just plain better at writing music than others. If I make a shitty photoshop that makes someone laugh, and a lot of people like it, does that mean that it's as good a work of art as the mona lisa? Of course not, and anyone who would think that it is, clearly has been smoking too much.

Hey a lot of people liked the robot costume I made for halloween, that means I'm now a great scupltor, right up there with Michelangelo. Sweeeeet.

[NoWave]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Because you don't need to be particularly musically talented to make a piece of music that someone else enjoys. Christ, the Mr. Blobby song went to number 1, that says it all.

Oh, and if you're going to claim that a talented musician is someone who WRITES a piece of music that someone else enjoys, then that rules out a lot of people in pop music, being as they don't write their own music. I'm sure a lot of the session musicians that write the music are actually talented, however they don't really use that talent particularly well when writing simple pop music. Yeah, they're using their talent to write commercial music that your average Joe will like, but they're certainly not using their talent to write an intelligent piece of music.

I don't understand why people have difficulty accepting that some people are just plain better at writing music than others. If I make a shitty photoshop that makes someone laugh, and a lot of people like it, does that mean that it's as good a work of art as the mona lisa? Of course not, and anyone who would think that it is, clearly has been smoking too much.

Hey a lot of people liked the robot costume I made for halloween, that means I'm now a great scupltor, right up there with Michelangelo. Sweeeeet.

All you keep proving with these posts is your own arrogance. Something that is technically complex but unenjoyable is crap. There is no defence for it regardless how much musical knowledge it took to write.

Accepting that as truth there is therefore only one way of judging music. Is it enjoyed by someone? If so, it is good music. Regardless of it's technical complexity or the people who like it.

If about 10 people in the entire world like it, it's still good music because someone likes it. By the same logic if the vast majority of people like it, it's good music because people like it. Neither is superiour to the other.

Please don't interpret this to mean that the more people like a type of music the better it is. I'm merely saying it's not bad music.

And FYI Session musicians don't write Jack Shit. They perform the pieces of music that are handed to them.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by NoWave

All you keep proving with these posts is your own arrogance.

Wow, resorting to personal attacks, that sure shows what a strong argument you have! Oh NoWave, you're such a card. I for one would like to subsribe to your newsletter!

So I'm arrogant for thinking that some music is better than others, regardless of whether I like it or not, but you continuing to tell me that my opinion is wrong, and that your opinion is right isn't arrogant? I'm so arrogant, I even admitted that I would consider myself to have inferior tastes in films in video games, fancy that!

LOLITICS

Something that is technically complex but unenjoyable is crap. There is no defence for it regardless how much musical knowledge it took to write.

Accepting that as truth there is therefore only one way of judging music. Is it enjoyed by someone? If so, it is good music. Regardless of it's technical complexity or the people who like it.

^^^ Guess what? This is just your opinion! Not the truth! Oops, I guess that makes you as arrogant as me! Yay for arrogance!

And FYI Session musicians don't write Jack Shit. They perform the pieces of music that are handed to them.

OK, then the writers. But still, I'd argue that most session musicians are probably a fuckload more talented than the people who mime to their music.

[NoWave]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Wow, resorting to personal attacks, that sure shows what a strong argument you have! Oh NoWave, you're such a card. I for one would like to subsribe to your newsletter!

So I'm arrogant for thinking that some music is better than others, regardless of whether I like it or not, but you continuing to tell me that my opinion is wrong, and that your opinion is right isn't arrogant? I'm so arrogant, I even admitted that I would consider myself to have inferior tastes in films in video games, fancy that!

I made a personal attack on you because in spite of repeating and defending my argument against your (admittedly well-reasoned but ultimately flawed) argument you simply continue to repeat the same point which boils down to "something must be technically complicated to be good". It is irrelevant whether your personal taste includes enjoying some bands that you consider to be not good as we are discussing the classification of good and bad music.

I did make a personal attack on you and for that I apologise. Allow me to rephrase. "Your definition of good and bad music comes across as arrogant, appearing to imply that "my music is more complicated than others, therefore mine is better." which is inherently incorrect."

Let me also point out that the vast majority of the replies in this argument have been flames and I have been personally attacked for my views quite a few times over the course of this debate. Attempting to have a intelligent discussion on UGS is like trying to have a debate while someone throws stones at you. The debate is interesting but the stones are irritating.

However in hindsight I do notice that none of these flames have come from you and I respect you for having the maturity for having a well reasoned debate with me as opposed to simple name-calling.

Now, back to the point. If you enjoy music that isn't technically complex how do you justify it not falling under your definition of good?

[MisterMarc]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I'd say a talented musician is someone who can write intelligent, complex music.

i wouldn't say i was talented by that definition, but what i make is fucking good.
"yeah man, punk rock"

[RealR]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I'd say a talented musician is someone who can write intelligent, complex music. ...

I'd have to disagree. I'd say there are two types. The ones who can write excellent, intelligent and complex music and whose that can write songs that can really hook you. Thats why i think some of the folk who right some pop music have talent. The way they can hook a nation on a rythme is impressive and a talent. The artist performing it might not be talented but the guys writing it are.

[MisterMarc]

Originally Posted by CiSTM K0nFLiqT

I'd have to disagree. I'd say there are two types. The ones who can write excellent, intelligent and complex music and whose that can write songs that can really hook you. Thats why i think some of the folk who right some pop music have talent. The way they can hook a nation on a rythme is impressive and a talent. The artist performing it might not be talented but the guys writing it are.

The Ramones were ultimately as untalented as Girls Aloud. They looked better though

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by NoWave

I made a personal attack on you because in spite of repeating and defending my argument against your (admittedly well-reasoned but ultimately flawed) argument you simply continue to repeat the same point which boils down to "something must be technically complicated to be good". It is irrelevant whether your personal taste includes enjoying some bands that you consider to be not good as we are discussing the classification of good and bad music.

Well since it's clear we're not going to agree on this, I'm going to try not to continue arguing it, and agree to disagree. Nothing anyone is going to say is going to convince me that bands that produce more technically complicated music aren't better. Nothing I say will convince you that I am right, so assuming I have the willpower not to chip in, I'm going to try and stop arguing that point.

I will admit however, that where you set the threshold of complexity that seperates good and bad music, is entirely subjective. That said, to me, manufactured bands like westlife and girls aloud are so irredeemably bad, that I can't see how anyone could class them as good music.

I can understand how people can see bands like oasis as being good, although I don't agree with them, because at least they write their own music, but manufactured bands I just can't understand at all.

I did make a personal attack on you and for that I apologise. Allow me to rephrase. "Your definition of good and bad music comes across as arrogant, appearing to imply that "my music is more complicated than others, therefore mine is better." which is inherently incorrect."

Fair enough, I respect you for the fact that you backed down instead of continuing a flame war with this reply, something which I probably wouldn't have had the will power to do.

Attempting to have a intelligent discussion on UGS is like trying to have a debate while someone throws stones at you. The debate is interesting but the stones are irritating.

Hahaha, very true.

Now, back to the point. If you enjoy music that isn't technically complex how do you justify it not falling under your definition of good?

There's many reasons I enjoy music I consider not to have taken a lot of talent to create. I might enjoy the particular sounds of the instruments and rhythms used, or I might enjoy it purely for its aggressive/relaxed qualities. I might just enjoy the way it makes me feel when I listen to it.

Just as someone might ride a rollercoaster and really enjoy it, but not see it as some kind of deep important experience.


To me, comparing the music of someone like westlife, with the music of someone like Therion, is like comparing the art on a cereal packet with the mona lisa. (although I wouldn't say Therion were on a par with the mona lisa in terms of art, you get my point)

[v_fast_drummer]

All you keep proving with these posts is your own arrogance.

this is such a touchy issue: arrogance!

becuase in reality to become a good muscician arrogance is a must!..read on

i'm sure when yngwie started formulating his style people would say negative things like
'why do you have to play so fast?'
'you are too analytical of music'
'you can't compose, you are all speed'

but due to yngwie's self importance ' i am making a better sound than anyone else!' that he actually managed to formualte a great guitar style we all know and love.

when i hear lets say a 'jazz' guitarist play i will first think that he is good but ultimeatly i feel i make a 'better' sound out of my guitar. it is my 'arrogance' and superiority thinking that will define the sound i make on guitar.

it's all really different 'sound' we all think our 'sound' is better than everyone elses otherwise then we'd all sound more like each other. (may have to read that one twice)

thats the uniqueness of music.

arrogance is key man . I RULE!