Is Talent Everything?

[Mongoose]

Well obviously they don't need talent to make MONEY, as illustrated with today's bands.

But for creative, witty, charming, catchy, REAL music, yeah, there needs to be talent.

 

[Mongoose]

Well obviously they don't need talent to make MONEY, as illustrated with today's bands. What angers me is that the record companies and today's musician's usually care for nothing BUT money. Grrrr..

But for creative, witty, charming, catchy, REAL music, yeah, there needs to be talent.

 

[Mongoose]

Oops. I pressed quote. I meant to press edit. Oh well. You get the message. LoL

 

[peanutbutter12]

You forget the most important factor in this equasion, the RIAA. "The Man" really is the one who gets the final say of what is popular and what isn't. They are the ones who tell MTV to play a song 400 times a day till it gets embeded into people's heads. And they are the ones who give the bands support to get the media attention.

CJ

 

[nadroj1985]

You forget the most important factor in this equasion, the RIAA. "The Man" really is the one who gets the final say of what is popular and what isn't. They are the ones who tell MTV to play a song 400 times a day till it gets embeded into people's heads. And they are the ones who give the bands support to get the media attention.

CJ

To an extent, this is true. But the fact of the matter is that they would not choose the music they do if it was not music that would appeal to the masses. They don't get the final say on what is popular. They follow what the majority of people want. "The Man" could not make the majority of people like some harsh, experimental, brilliant music popular no matter how many times they played it on MTV, b/c most people would simply not like it.

 

[nadroj1985]

And of course, talent really plays a minimal part in what is popular. So, a lot of people are angry about this because they think talent is what makes the music. I could care less about who is popular, and sometimes, I could care less about who is talented. The Strokes are a very popular band with radio play and MTV videos and all of that. They are not particularly talented. You know what? I don't care. I like the way they sound, and I just really enjoy their music. In the same way, there are a bunch of bands I don't like that are very talented; Metallica is a good example. I respect them, but I don't like listening to them. If I based things on talent, I would praise Metallica and make fun of the Strokes. I don't because talent does not have to be the most important part of music.

 

[Hobo No More]

Dream Theater have amazing musical talent but they are an abysmal band. The stuff they create is shocking. Sorry if anyone likes them but I can't stand them.

 

[Kepa]

Ok, first off, lets realise that these are OPINIONS, so your saying they are an abysmal band is merely your opinion =]

People like the bands they like, because they like them... irrespective of talent.

 

[beetlequeendiva]

It seems like whenever I hear someone talk about their favorite band, they tell me how talented the musicians are....how great the singer's voice is, etc. Is this really the most important thing? Does it have to be important at all?

What else is there? I hate people who like certain music because of how they look, for some people it's all about image rather than talent. I'm sorry but that's shallow, music is 100% talent, 0% image at least that's how it should be. Right now it's like 80% image, 20% talent - it annoys me!!!

 

[nadroj1985]

What else is there? I hate people who like certain music because of how they look, for some people it's all about image rather than talent. I'm sorry but that's shallow, music is 100% talent, 0% image at least that's how it should be. Right now it's like 80% image, 20% talent - it annoys me!!!

I didn't say that image is what matters. Image and talent are not the only two factors in music--i would argue that image is not a factor at all since it doesn't affect the actual music. The point is that I don't think the statement "music is 100% talent" is true for all people. Some do not take talent into account.

 

[beetlequeendiva]

I didn't say that image is what matters. Image and talent are not the only two factors in music--i would argue that image is not a factor at all since it doesn't affect the actual music. The point is that I don't think the statement "music is 100% talent" is true for all people. Some do not take talent into account.

So does that mean you think that music is 100% talent? or what is music made up of????

 

[nadroj1985]

So does that mean you think that music is 100% talent? or what is music made up of????

For me, talent can be a part of it, but it doesn't have to be. As I said earlier, I don't think the Strokes are talented, but I like the way they sound anyway. Talent is just one standard you can judge music by; it is not the only one. Creativity is another one that affects my personal tastes quite a bit.

 

[yod]

Talent is overated.

The most talented rock band you can think of has less real ability than your average Russian high school music student. Most popular rock stars would make a voice teacher cringe with their poor technique. There are dozens of unknown jazz guitarists at North Texas State right now who can smoke any rock guitarist you care to name.

Very few people like music because of talent. The average listener can't tell the talent difference between Scott Stapp and Howard Dean.


Music is an expression of passion. Without passion, it's Muzak.

Bob Dylan is a good example. Aerosmith got by on hudzpah for decades. Since they started actually using their talent I don't like them anymore. The raw passion is gone and they are making music for the money.