Originally posted by Gart888
jesus christ, how do people not see that being able to write songs that sell millions of copies requires talent?
it's like arguing with a wall.
Well, let's have an interesting art discussion, since you've also discounted "musicians" listed earlier in the thread who also sold millions of albums as "oh, they are just kiddie bands" or "oh, they didn't write music or play instruments".
Take, for example, much of the modern art out there that sells for millions of dollars, yet it little more than some colored boxes or some smears of paint on a canvas. Is the fact that someone is willing to pay big dollars for these smears mean that the artist is talented, or does it say more about those willing to purchase the "art".
In the case of a mass media, where people are willing to follow what is told to them, then again, selling millions of records or having millions of viewers often tells you as much or more about those purchasing than about the musician or program.
You can declare that not liking Nickelback or thinking they aren't that talented of a band says something about those not liking. Independent thinkers can like or dislike something and I agree that disregarding a band because it is popular is just as bad as listening to it "because everyone else is and it is a top40 hit".
jdbolick questions what talent is. Talent is skill. What is the lead singer's vocal range? How complicated of a guitar cord can the guitarists handle? Drumming complexity? Can the musicians switch styles without much difficulty? Improvisation?
Many of the noted "talented" guitarists aren't in big name bands and don't sell millions of records, but they are the folks that other guitarists aspire to. Anybody who has spent time in or known someone who has spent time in the record industry knows that it's much more about record company executives than it is about real "popularity". Books are in the same case, since NYT Best Seller lists are based off of book store ordering and not actual store purchasing.
