Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
UltraViolet, I hate to say it, but you are the very essence of an Elitist. You are like the English teacher who prattles on and on about how great Shakespeare's plays are and that all entertainment today is worthless garbage (never mind the fact that Shakespeare's plays were originally for the common folk). I suppose Sir Richard Branson is not a real businessman because he never finished the UK equivalent of High School, nor did he ever attend a University to study business.
You say:
What you are arguing is that your ability to play complicated songs on a guitar or other instrument is what makes you a musician. I always thought it is pleasing to the ear that makes a good musician. You can play the longest and complicated instrumental solos (like so many Heavy metal songs do), but I find them to be quite boring. In fact, I find most Classic Music to be quite mediocre. I have found some tribal songs, by non-professions, to be much more asthetically pleasing, but I guess they do not meet your Elitist standard.
Unlike the Elitists of this world claim, music and talent is wholly subjective.
Music theory is mathematical patterning.
There is nothing subjective about this.
Either you know it all over your instrument or you don't.
The more mathematical patterning you know all over your instrument,
the more "stuff" you can play.
It's really no mystery, and there's nothing subjective about it.
What you like, connect with, and find meaning in is subjective.
The personal musical experience is subjective.
But Basic Musicianship is not.
It is knowledge, and ability.
The ability to hear & play your way through a line or a chord progression
is NOT subjective.
The ability to analyze a piece of music in "terms" of music theory is not.
Ask a professor at any University Level Music Department.
These things are all part and parcel of BEING a musician.
The be all end all? Most certainly not.
But integral? Most definately.
UltraViolet said:The more mathematical patterning you know all over your instrument,
the more "stuff" you can play.
It's really no mystery, and there's nothing subjective about it.
Let's not confuse a slick product with an actual talented singer or musician, unlike UltraViolet, I have no musical talent myself and even I can hear she is mediocre at best.
That being said, she is not there for me to enjoy she is there for kids, who seem to love her. I don't see any evidence that she is a bad role model for them, at the moment anyway, and even if she were, a pop stars' influence won't corrupt a child with a solid moral upbringing, kids aren't idiots.
Having a music career is hardly evidence of musical talent these days, Myley Cyrus seems bratty to me, but what would you expect, you would have to be made of stone to have the upbringing she has had, in her fathers limelight then her own career and not be influenced by it.
[B]monta[/B] said:Let's not confuse a slick product with an actual talented singer or musician, unlike UltraViolet, I have no musical talent myself and even I can hear she is mediocre at best.
Again, the ball is in your court to prove that there is some objective standard of what talent is and what it is not.
He is most definately not alone.It is obvious you have NO IDEA at all what I 'am arguing'.
So tell me, is Jerry Lee Lewis a musician? He had no formal training and taught himself how to play the piano by listening to the radio. If you started talking to him about mathematical patterning he would laugh in your face. To him it was all about the music, not being able to say he learned how to play from some high brow school. You're claiming that studying the mechanics of creating music is intergral to being a musician, well I would say there are too many examples of that not being the case to support your claim.
I am tired of this. We are going in circles Ultraviolet. All we are really debating is what is the definition of musician. I think that you are in the majority as to what the word "musician" means in the English language. Can we please stop all this intellectual masturbation, now?
Music Universities will not "degree" you if you do not have a firm grasp on what all these patterns are called.
Even if you can hear & play your way brilliantly through all of them, as many "illiterate" but brilliant musician can.
But please do not consider me elitist in this regard.
I did not make the educational rules.
If you can jam... REALLY jam... I couldn't care less what you call any of it.
Did any of you all quit getting your panties in a wad long enough to read post 170? I'm not used to getting my posts unreplied to.
So your objection to Miley Cyrus is that she can't REALLY jam? How do you know? Yes, yes, I know you listened to her play on YouTube and you were unimpressed. I still say you're not in a position to judge and that your standards for Miley Cyrus might be a bit higher than you would judge someone who wasn't already successful. How do you feel about Avril Lavigne, Shannon Curfman, Kenny Wayne Shepherd or Johnny Lang? These were all young artists who made it big at a very young age. How do you feel about their success and status as musicians?
Also, I personally think universities degree anyone who passes the test regardless of what they actually grasp, but I admit to a personal bias against the educational system in general and a total lack of knowledge of how "musical" universities operate.
So lets all kiss and make up then. Agree to disagree.
So lets all kiss and make up then. Agree to disagree.