Warrior General Games

also: U MAD?

Originally posted by vladykins
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?
Originally posted by jdbolick
I don't know why you make me just keep repeating points I've already made, but ...
Originally posted by jdbolick

You don't build the best house by hammering nails at a 45 degree angle. You build the best house by hammering nails better than anyone else. Again you're thinking about trying to be different instead of just looking at who does something the best.

That's why they say "jack of all trades, master of none." Being able to do a lot of stuff doesn't mean you have more talent than someone who can do something extremely well. Nickelback and Linkin Park aren't selling records by accident, due to luck, or because record companies decided they would. Record companies try to promote lots of groups, but only a few achieve huge success. That's because those groups are more talented.

is someone saying linkin park and nickelback suck?

or are we just pointlessly arguing. if this is the case, i want in.

Originally posted by vladykins
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.

lol

lol

Originally posted by jdbolick
That's why they say "jack of all trades, master of none." Being able to do a lot of stuff doesn't mean you have more talent than someone who can do something extremely well. Nickelback and Linkin Park aren't selling records by accident, due to luck, or because record companies decided they would. Record companies try to promote lots of groups, but only a few achieve huge success. That's because those groups are more talented.


That's just not true at all. It's a combination of all 3. If the Beatles came out with the exact same music they played in the 60s today, no one would listen to them. Is it because they didn't have talent or is there more with trends and timing at play? On top of that "talent" is such an abstract concept that most of us equate to natural, genetic gifts for something. A lot of why bands become successful is just working their asses off. And every case is different. To attempt to paint this issue as the most talented always are the most successful is just ignorant. They definitely need some baseline of talent, but hard work, timing, and a bit of luck, are all big factors.

Originally posted by GMathiasf
If the Beatles came out with the exact same music they played in the 60s today, no one would listen to them.

:notsureifsrs:

Originally posted by GMathiasf
That's just not true at all. It's a combination of all 3. If the Beatles came out with the exact same music they played in the 60s today, no one would listen to them.
Someone in the thread already pointed out that they're still selling huge amounts of songs & albums. It's just silly that some people pretend that Nickelback and Linkin Park aren't talented even though they are extremely successful. Again, that didn't happen by accident.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by GMathiasf

That's just not true at all. It's a combination of all 3. If the Beatles came out with the exact same music they played in the 60s today, no one would listen to them.
Someone in the thread already pointed out that they're still selling huge amounts of songs & albums. It's just silly that some people pretend that Nickelback and Linkin Park aren't talented even though they are extremely successful. Again, that didn't happen by accident.

sorry man, talented musicians are guys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0rvReE-4c

not guys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcnHjjLdNXQ

Originally posted by jdbolick

Someone in the thread already pointed out that they're still selling huge amounts of songs & albums. It's just silly that some people pretend that Nickelback and Linkin Park aren't talented even though they are extremely successful. Again, that didn't happen by accident.

accident no? But to act like luck and timing aren't at least factors in it is as off-base as saying they have no talent at all. As far as the Beatles still selling albums, you are smart enough to know that isn't really relevant to what I said. Do you sincerely think that if the Beatles today came out with the same music they came out with in the 60s they would be successful?

Originally posted by GMathiasf
Do you sincerely think that if the Beatles today came out with the same music they came out with in the 60s they would be successful?

Yes

Originally posted by GMathiasf
accident no? But to act like luck and timing aren't at least factors in it is as off-base as saying they have no talent at all. As far as the Beatles still selling albums, you are smart enough to know that isn't really relevant to what I said. Do you sincerely think that if the Beatles today came out with the same music they came out with in the 60s they would be successful?

Silly argument, because if they came out today they would immediately be compared to that style of band that existed in the 60s and would just be labeled as a new era version not the innovative guys they were.

talented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7oH6Ku27Us

not talented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afrdo2qneoI

Originally posted by GMathiasf
Do you sincerely think that if the Beatles today came out with the same music they came out with in the 60s they would be successful?

lol