22 Apr 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOriginally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read my first post on this topic. It should give you some idea.
[b]For the most part, pop artists are in it for the money. Prince certainly made a lot of it.
So true. Not sure why so many seem to be ripping you.
Though pop performers ("artists" is a misnomer the vast majority of the time) are often lauded as "musical geniuses", for the most part they are instead "entertainment geniuses". It's really about the "show" (dance, lighting, pyrotechnics, etc.) rather than a demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity. LIke McDonald's, it's like so much pablum doled out to the masses.[/b]
This is your first post. You aren't explaining at all what makes a musical genius, at best you're trying to explain - albeit poorly - why people like Prince aren't musical geniuses.
So, what makes a musical genius?
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by Great King Rat"... rather than a demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b][b]For the most part, pop artists are in it for the money. Prince certainly made a lot of it.
So true. Not sure why so many seem to be ripping you.
Though pop performers ("artists" is a misnomer the vast majority of the time) are often lauded as "musical geniuses", for the most part they are instea ...[text shortened]... it poorly - why people like Prince aren't musical geniuses.
So, what makes a musical genius?[/b]
22 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatImpressive drum kit....The guitar is echo tracked so you can get all kinds of effects live that way.
What about this live performance? [youtube]ED8_xaxeiWk[/youtube]
Look at K T Tunstall, Black Horse and the Cherry Tree, live, you can see what she does, which is all her:
Pretty impressive I thought.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by Great King RatWould I be correct to assume that the link you provided in you previous post was as a " demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity"?
No, rather what an entirely unclear explanation.
Seems like you figured it out.
Given the context in which it was written. seems like it would have been logical to dismiss out of hand the thought that I was speaking of "lectures" - especially the part about "a demonstration...of instrumental virtuosity".
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by Great King RatOne thing I think that defines genius, and this criteria shows in people like Andre Segovia: Do you start a whole school of similar music? Segovia and Prince both did I think anyway, I know Segovia did, I assume you know who Segovia is. How many imitators are there of a style, how did a person effect the next generation of musicians.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b][b]For the most part, pop artists are in it for the money. Prince certainly made a lot of it.
So true. Not sure why so many seem to be ripping you.
Though pop performers ("artists" is a misnomer the vast majority of the time) are often lauded as "musical geniuses", for the most part they are instea ...[text shortened]... it poorly - why people like Prince aren't musical geniuses.
So, what makes a musical genius?[/b]
22 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd it takes genius to create. There is a reason they make the big bucks. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
No, it doesn't take "musical genius" to create popular music. For the most part what makes popular music popular is that it's easy to understand and easy to follow. In short, it's easy to digest (think pablum).
Do you similarly believe that it takes a culinary genius to create popular food? Was Ray Kroc a culinary genius?
I don't know who Ray Kroc is, but yes, it takes culinary genius (or natural selection, ie getting recipies from around the world and picking the ones that go down best) to create popular food.
An "entertainment genius", but I have no reason to believe that he was a "musical genius".
Not even the fact that he created a large collection of great music?
You keep removing the distinction I was making in order to try to make your argument. Do you think that valid?
The distinction is not as clear cut as you would like. Music is only good if it entertains. It is an entertainment.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseHere's a great quote on genius:
One thing I think that defines genius, and this criteria shows in people like Andre Segovia: Do you start a whole school of similar music? Segovia and Prince both did I think anyway, I know Segovia did, I assume you know who Segovia is. How many imitators are there of a style, how did a person effect the next generation of musicians.
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, it's really not difficult to understand what sh meant by that comment.
She clearly has a guitar. It is not 'all her'.
But this is the level on which you seem to like to argue.
It also seems to be the level on which you view the arts if not the world, so I'll leave you to it.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, it most certainly is, and I most certainly did. Did you understand what I meant by my comment?
Well, it's really not difficult to understand what sh meant by that comment.
But this is the level on which you seem to like to argue.
Yes, a bit too sophisticated for you apparently.
Since you missed it, sonhouse is partial to unmodified 'natural' guitars. He presumably believes that music made with an unmodified guitar is somehow harder to do, and presumably therefore more skilful. My point is that he is talking nonsense. Both artists have used the instruments available to them to create great music. One is not superior to the other just because of sonhouse's personal preference in music. If I was to create wonderful music solely with the use of a computer program and had no guitar skills whatsoever, I could still claim musical genius if my music was great.
22 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDid you look at the link?
Would I be correct to assume that the link you provided in you previous post was as a " demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity"?
Seems like you figured it out.
Given the context in which it was written. seems like it would have been logical to dismiss out of hand the thought that I was speaking of "lectures" - especially the part about "a demonstration...of instrumental virtuosity".
And no, seeing how you wrote "demonstration of a deep understanding of music or instrumental virtuosity"? It is not at all logical to dismiss out of hand the thought you were talking about lectures.