SR V: To boldly go where no room has gone before

Alex, no offense intended, but there is a big difference between disliking a band or artist, and saying they have no talent whatsoever. I have never liked the Rolling Stones, but I'd never dream of saying they are crap. I grew up with The Beatles, and like quite a few of their songs, though I've never worshipped them, so I believe I'm quite unbiased as regards the topic.

Anyway, I think it is a feature of youth (and I don't mean to sound patronising here) to see everything in black and white - either love or hate. When you grow older, you start realising there is much more grey in the world than plain black or white.

rushfan4 wrote: You're a sock.  What do you know?

I'm a talking sock.

I know what I know.

Raff wrote: Alex, no offense intended, but there is a big difference between disliking a band or artist, and saying they have no talent whatsoever. I have never liked the Rolling Stones, but I'd never dream of saying they are crap. I grew up with The Beatles, and like quite a few of their songs, though I've never worshipped them, so I believe I'm quite unbiased as regards the topic. Anyway, I think it is a feature of youth (and I don't mean to sound patronising here) to see everything in black and white - either love or hate. When you grow older, you start realising there is much more grey in the world than plain black or white.

Alright. Let's split this down then.

1. I don't like them.

That is discerned on a purely subjective level and on the fact that I've given alot of their stuff a fair listen. To say the least, I extremely didn't care for any of it.


2. I think they're talentless.

This is still a subjective opinion, yet not the same as #1. I have listened to their stuff and despite not liking it at all, discern no outstanding musical knowledge among any of the members and I don't detect anything musically worthwhile in any of the stuff I've heard.

I'm sorry, I don't care for being spoonfed something (i.e.: simplistic pop) and that applies to the Beatles full-blown for me. I feel like they weren't really that innovative at all; I recognize their influence in the realm of popular music, but that doesn't mean I think they had talent. I don't.

I base this on the material I've heard, the knowledge of music I have acquired over the years, and on my personal evaluation of what having musical talent involves. In the end, still subjective. 



There are bands I respect even if I don't like them. The Beatles aren't one of them. And I think I'm allowed to voice my thoughts on it without being persecuted.

I tire of people going around trolling into other people's threads and spaces spreading negativity without cause or reason.

Yet, at the same time, I think I should be able to express a negative musically-informed opinion without it becoming an entire "Forum v. Alex" debate. This happens every time VDGG is brought up and I am targeted, and it's happened with a few other artists as well.

I think I'm just as capable of forming a musical opinion as anyone else here, especially as I am a musician, and I have more of a knowledge of musical theory and other facets of it than people may think. I just don't feel a need to flaunt it off like some do, because I don't feel the insecure need to feel superior to anyone else here. I respect everyone else as an individual first, regardless of how much musical knowledge they have. That's irrelevant.

I am not singling anyone out with this message. I actually enjoy discussions like this on occasion; it makes the SR and the forum a more interesting place so long as everything stays civil. I'm not mad at anyone at all; I'm simply saying what I think needs to be said.

There's a difference between being "politically correct" and not allowing someone else who has just much qualifications to express an opinion about something to express it and between getting on someone for obviously trolling. Most of the time, I think this site doesn't know the difference.


Edited by MovingPictures07 - June 09 2009 at 14:43

Raff wrote: Alex, are you being persecuted by me? I think my post was very polite and respectful, and expressed a very general view I hold. If you have ever seen me persecuting people on this forum or elsewhere, you must have confused me with someone else.

No, not at all. As I said, I wasn't singling anyone out.

I'm just saying it's odd how if anyone expresses a negative opinion of any particular band in this thread, it may get some replies, and that's it. But whenever I express one, things have a tendency to go into 4-page long discussions.

For better or worse.

Raff is kind, no lie. And Alex, I hate the Beatles, too.

Padraic wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Yet, at the same time, I think I should be able to express a negative musically-informed opinion without it becoming an entire "Forum v. Alex" debate. No, you have the right to express your opinion, and the others have the right to express their opinion which may run counter to yours.  I'm all for that. I was merely pointing out an observation, and I didn't even say I was sure what it means. If no one else shares your opinion, especially when it is severely in the minority (which you must concede that your opinion of the Beatles certainly is) that's the way the debate is going to go. I recognize that. It's simply frustrating occasionally to have entirely sincere intentions and be in the minority when it comes to everything---and not simply because of being contrary.

Like I said, I'm not angry at anyone, or in general---nor am I feeling any sort of negative emotion whatsoever. I was just pointing something out that's been rolling through my head for a while.

rushfan4 wrote: To say that The Beatles were "talentless" is pretty much the most ridiculous statement ever made in this thread, and there have been a lot of ridiculous things said.  I respect that you are a musician and have more knowledge regarding music composition than I do, but that doesn't make your comment any more ridiculous.    That said, that as much as The Beatles influenced some of the great music to follow them such as Boston, Yes, or Transatlantic, they were also arguably the most popular boy band in history also, and are indirectly responsible for the NSyncs and The Jonas Brothers of the world as well.

Then I suppose my thoughts are ridiculous.

Vompatti wrote: Beetles are fine, but these silverfish make me sick.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK

moreitsythanyou wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Alright. Let's split this down then. 1. I don't like them. That is discerned on a purely subjective level and on the fact that I've given alot of their stuff a fair listen. To say the least, I extremely didn't care for any of it. Valid opinion 2. I think they're talentless. This is still a subjective opinion, yet not the same as #1. I have listened to their stuff and despite not liking it at all, discern no outstanding musical knowledge among any of the members and I don't detect anything musically worthwhile in any of the stuff I've heard. I'm sorry, I don't care for being spoonfed something (i.e.: simplistic pop) and that applies to the Beatles full-blown for me. I feel like they weren't really that innovative at all; I recognize their influence in the realm of popular music, but that doesn't mean I think they had talent. I don't. I base this on the material I've heard, the knowledge of music I have acquired over the years, and on my personal evaluation of what having musical talent involves. In the end, still subjective.  Talent is not entirely subjective. I'm not a big rap fan, but I can acknowledge when they're doing it well even though I don't enjoy it. Out of all of the bands out there, The Beatles are certainly amongst the most "musically worthwhile." Their output was incredibly revolutionary, bringing so many new elements in to rock/pop music (raga, symphonic, hard rock, etc.) Also they had some of the most advanced methods of production for their time. They broke so many boundaries and completely shaped the future of rock music. 1. Production- I'll recognize that, and I must say their production techniques are impressive. I hadn't really thought of that, but that's one positive I can give you, and they're certainly not the artist I hate the most ever--I just don't really find hardly anything of value in their stuff. 2. Talent = subjective- I would say deriving talent, in theory, should not be 100% subjective---but it seems that it is. Critics, fans, and tons of people live their lives flaunting what they think is musical knowledge when they really haven't the background to tell me what the difference between a "beat" and a "rhythm" is. Yet their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but technically isn't talent still in the eye of the beholder, when all is said and done? Just like anything else. The only reason that I'm typing in the color blue right now is because we as a society determine it to be called "blue". If we wanted it called "bafataertjodg", then that's what it would be. Music is an art; and because of that, deciding what bands are truly talented and which are not simply has to be subjective. I may not agree with you; I may recognize what the Beatles did in their music, but if by my definition of 'talent", I still deem them to be talentless---then I'm entitled to that. Just like how a Green Day fan is entitled to say that all prog is crap without having heard more than 1 second of a King Crimson song. It isn't fair, but it's realistic. There are bands I respect even if I don't like them. The Beatles aren't one of them. And I think I'm allowed to voice my thoughts on it without being persecuted. No. You DO deserve to be persecuted.