How important is talent in music?

My understanding is that Britney Spears can't sing well. For some reason, a lot of people want to make an argument that if she can't sing well, she isn't talented enough. Consequently, no matter how enjoyable her music may be, she should be ignored as a musician.

I look at music completely differently. If a computer could generate music and I found it enjoyable, I would listen to it. Can a computer have talent? What difference does it make?

Why can't music just stand on its merits separate from its creator?

If music is enjoyable, why does it matter who created it?

a reply to: Profusion

I suppose it's all up to the listener. Personally, when I hear auto tune or beat machines, emotionally, I'm separated from the music. Also, admittedly, most of the stuff I listen to currently has been double tracked or re-amped or gone through some type of extra production so the argument could be had both ways.

Depending on the beats or hertz used it affects you differently, there are threads on it and studies.

Secondly,
many bands are great in the studio and crap in a live performance.
For instance Cheap Trick, the greatest self proclaimed garage band, are three guys who stick to what they know. They are great live, great on a CD.

If you are cool with computer generated music you are welcome to it.
I'm not. I'm not paying dollar one if an "artist" is all hat and no horse.
JMO of course.

a reply to: Profusion

Talent in music is so hard to find that we need tv talent shows to spot them.

a reply to: Profusion

Music is entertainment. Talent isn't necessarily required to entertain people, but its inclusion does make it better.

People might like Britney Spears, but she does not exude talent like Prince, Bob Dylan, Elvis, Queen or Guns N' Roses. The former was corporate made, the latter worked their arses off and got where they did simply due to their talent and dedication. You may argue that the examples i mentioned became corporate-influenced when they went big, but their music is definitely a result of their humble beginnings and authentic experiences, rather than music made on business models.

originally posted by: Profusion
My understanding is that Britney Spears can't sing well. For some reason, a lot of people want to make an argument that if she can't sing well, she isn't talented enough. Consequently, no matter how enjoyable her music may be, she should be ignored as a musician.

I look at music completely differently. If a computer could generate music and I found it enjoyable, I would listen to it. Can a computer have talent? What difference does it make?

Why can't music just stand on its merits separate from its creator?

If music is enjoyable, why does it matter who created it?

In a sense your right, however we have to get into integrity and human achievement in some discussions as well as culture and cultural evolution.

It also has to do with the level of pleasure philosophically speaking.

So in a sense music is a form of science with its own theory and acoustic physics.

One can play around with newtons laws and make folk music or can head into einstein for jazz and classical cutting edge theory going into more modern forms of avante garde.

So in a sense its also about the devotion not just talent of the musicians to their craft mixing crearivity with the theoretical practice.

Take Radiohead.

They started with a garage emo punk sound and devoted themselves to understanding music and the cultural relevance of each albums expression of that moment.

There has always been a distinction for high art and folk art. Folk art is great and can be just as emotionally satisfying but high art is for the artists who are driven to actually explore meanings and explainations of what sound is and how it can be creatively arranged to create a piece that explores the artists individual potential.

You need it to create music.

You also need it to appreciate music.

a reply to: Trueman

Thats simply not true. Talent is everywhere. Those shows have one goal. To make money off amateur talent.

Talent is hardly the most important factor. Creativity and integrity are much more important. Talent is the thing that pushes the integrity over into virtuosity which doesnt have to be shredding. Peter Gabrielle for instance is a virtuosic writer and arranger but you wont hear him shredding keyboard solos very often or making vocal r n b runs.

a reply to: Astyanax

Disagree on both parts.

Talent would have to be defined but hard work and creativity are more important aspects of higher arts. Some of what is considered talent is the ability to focus for long periods of time and reach goals.

On listening i think we can look at ethnomusicology and anthropology abd see music can be both performed and listened and apreciated by anybody and everybody.

Advertising and programming have effected the situation your talking about. I dont believe its an inherent reality.

Music (like many creative mediums) is both an art and a craft.

The "art" part is the creative side of music, the "craft" side is the technical proficiency. "Talent" is an understanding of at least one of these components, my favorite stuff is a balance between the two.

Example

Bob Dylan = Art

Dragon Force = Craft

Pink Floyd = Art + Craft

a reply to: luthier

Yay! a Luthier chimed in!!!!

Somewhere on YouTube is an interview of Sonny Landreth where he describes picking above the slide as well as below it.By picking above it it brings another layer to the song. I'm describing it poorly, but it was fascinating!

There are also some 'tubes of Richard Thompson's unusual style.

I'm not a musician, but I like their songs and got nosy and needed to find out "the why's"
ROFL!!!

a reply to: Profusion

Well that is essentially what Brittney Spears' music is. It's computer generated music using a VERY auto-tuned voice attached to a pretty face. Though keep in mind that Brittney WAS on the Mickey Mouse club, she does have some singing ability. It's just not great. That being said I don't listen to her music.

I appreciate talent in my music. Here's a MUCH better performing artist that came out the same decade as Brittney Spears.

a reply to: Profusion

If a computer could generate music and I found it enjoyable, I would listen to it.

a reply to: Profusion

With enough $$$...you can market a potato. It doesnt take talent to market a hit song, c.d.

MS
Copyrighted Songwriter

Considering the huge popularity of EDM, and I'd have to say no, you don't need any talent...whatsoever. You don't even need to know music theory anymore. Just mix some prefab loops, pump yer Brofist, and thow a pie or two. Sad really.

I have been musical director on a few films and discovered that technical mastery isn't talent. Talent is more like "soul" and charisma; Very subtle, but after listening to 1k's of cuts you can easily tell who's got the goods and who's selling BS.

a reply to: Profusion

How important is talent in music?

If you want to be a concertmaster, like a first violinist in a symphony orchestra, it's critical.
If you want to produce the crap that's played on most radio stations, it's not even a factor.

a reply to: olaru12

Personally disagree. As a tech, musician, and sound engineer. 13 years of it in Austin Tx.

Creativity is king.

There are thousands of talented singers for instance in every city and state. Talent is a minor part of music in comparison with crearivity and technique. When all things are present is when you get what most people call talent.

Prince learned to play several instruments. Thats technique, he took rick james sound to a whole other level thats creativity, and he has soul (talent).

If you erased the fact he learned technique he would be just another guy, prob no where close to what he is. He recorded hi first album on his own. Couldnt do that without technical mastery.

Or take say Bjork. She is so massive as an artist because she combines all aspects of the art. Including breaking new ground.

Imo. Talent alone is the weakest of the aspects of art. They are innate gifts but without honing those skills and creativity your just another great singer. Every highschool has dozens of those. Most of which will just sing for fun.

a reply to: Profusion

I create music using samples that i cut up and turn into different vibes and grooves.

But i only like using samples that are recordings of accoustic real life instruments.

Since dubstep stamped all over the electronica scene you see a shift into creating crazy sounding bass vibes. I don't like it because dubstep is just too easy to create. And everyone only seems to be wobbing it in the same direction. Doesn't make it all that creative to me.

But music is music. Listen to it and buy the ones you like. That's what i do now. If i find myself repeating a song i found randomly? I buy it. But only that song. When it comes to albums i tend to stave off buying them unless it is an artist whom i have bought several albums before, and thuroughly enjoyed.

I have thrown money on albums in the past where only 1 song i can enjoy is found. So i started using spotify to listen to albums before i make any purchases. Only because i want to avoid accumulating any more trash tracks in an album.

Just like most rap songs of today. I can only ever buy a rap album from asheru or unspoken heard. I just can't listen to all of this new c(rap.)

Especially considering the younger audience only like rap artists who can rap really fast like bus driver, or eminem. I personally don't care for how fast one can rap but wether or not the words they put together make any logical sense without over doing it just to add in another word that happens to rhyme phonetically or literally.

originally posted by: Profusion
My understanding is that Britney Spears can't sing well. For some reason, a lot of people want to make an argument that if she can't sing well, she isn't talented enough. Consequently, no matter how enjoyable her music may be, she should be ignored as a musician.

I look at music completely differently. If a computer could generate music and I found it enjoyable, I would listen to it. Can a computer have talent? What difference does it make?

Why can't music just stand on its merits separate from its creator?

If music is enjoyable, why does it matter who created it?

By in large, musician's these days are not as talented. The main reason is that entertainment is packaged so music companies aren't looking for raw talent so much as a full package. In other words, you can be the best singer, but if you don't have the right look or maybe can't dance, you aren't as likely to be successful. Music companies rather back artists who might be mediocre across a bunch of disciplines if they believe they can package it.

The other issue is that music has become so disposable. Very few artists can produce multiple albums of content anymore. It is about getting one or two hit singles and on to the next hot act.

Add in the fact that almost any idiot can promote themselves on Youtube and go viral, you get a lot of artists getting exposure who wouldn't have made it past the lobby at a record company otherwise.

Very few singers can really sing without massive production aids. Don't even get me started on hip hop with these skinny jean homo thugs and their ghost written autotuned mumble lyrics.