- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Pantera's Heaviest Album?
- Thread starter SouthernTrendkill
- Start date
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Seems much more likely that you fail at reading comprehension. What points of mine do you take issue with? Can you refute any of it?
Roland Dyens isn't "hypothetically" more skilled then Kurt Cobain. He IS more skilled.
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Hahahaha. That's the same as me saying...
Pantera isn't hypothetically the best band ever, they ARE the best band ever.
Which, of course, I don't actually believe.
What the fuck is your point? Plus that's not even the same thing, you didn't even believe your own statement.
No, that's not the same at all. "Best" is meaningless until you present criteria. "Skill" can be measured objectively because it is composed of characteristics that are objective - it is not matter of opinion that Dyens has better vibrato than Cobain, it is a *fact*.
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
This is incorrect. You don't see how "better" is a loaded word? It's a FACT that he has a "better" vibrato? Not even close. Not even close. Define better.
Composed of characteristics that are objective -- but in what formation? There is no such thing as a decided upon definition or hierarchy for skill. Therefore it requires subjective input. How can this be denied? Are you saying that there IS an objective definition of hierarchy for skill? Because I have not been informed of this. And I would like to know what it is.
Vibrato is a technique, a *skill*, like house building, window cleaning, etc. If you want to take us into that fuzzy philosophical realm where there's no such thing as a well-built house and the ones that collapse are just built "differently", have fun, but I'll stay here in reality where people can be good at things. Like vibrato.
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Vibrato is measurable skill, is it? So what on Earth is the measure of it? The person who modifies the pitch the most wins? Or holds the longest? See, it's subjective.
You'd think so, but isn't it subjective? 
I'm working towards the obvious analogy that if a well-built house is objectively better than one that falls apart under pressure, then surely strong and consistent vibrato is objectively superior to weak and inconsistent vibrato. A musician with unlimited vibrato ability that can be employed to perfection under any circumstance is surely better at it than one whose vibrato is shaky and not up to even the smallest task.
I'm working towards the obvious analogy that if a well-built house is objectively better than one that falls apart under pressure, then surely strong and consistent vibrato is objectively superior to weak and inconsistent vibrato. A musician with unlimited vibrato ability that can be employed to perfection under any circumstance is surely better at it than one whose vibrato is shaky and not up to even the smallest task.
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
You'd think so, but isn't it subjective?
One of the problems here is that intention is under question. Do you not see the difference between the function of a house and the function of a song? A song does not have the same clear traditional purpose as a house. You're working on the assumption that Kurt Cobain wants to play vibrato in a precise, mechanical fashion. That seems to me to be a pretty big leap of an assumption. Nirvana's grunge was never intended to be precise or consistent; it was the antithesis of that. And if you weren't referencing Cobain & Dyens, then a whole new discussion comes up regarding what is to be considered "unlimited ability," "perfection," "shaky" and "not up to even the smallest task." And if you were referencing them, then you clearly injected your personal opinion into it when claiming their abilities.
And furthermore, vibrato is but one single category. Even if it was a cut and dry case, skill remains subjective because of the make-up and hierarchy for skills has not been decided upon. For one person being able to play both sloppy and precise music moderately well might be percieved as more talented and difficult than playing percisely on a higher level. Do you deny that?
No, not at all. You are failing to make the separation here between music and musicianship, between art and craft. I am in no way comparing the art created by either artist, just the raw skill they possess as musicians. Artistic intent is irrelevant.
I don't know what you mean by "sloppy and precise music".
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Artistic intent is not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing technical intent. I'm not arguing art. If Kurt Cobain never intended to play it precisely, why is his ability knocked for it? That would be the equivelent of me saying that people who play precisely are worse performers because they didn't play sloppily. Who wrote the doctrine that says precise is admirable and slop is not? The point is the intent. If you are playing what you intended to play, you are being accurate. If you are trying to sound sloppy, and you succeed, this is technical (not an artistic) triumph just as much as intending to play precisely and succeeding is. Being able to hold the vibrato and being able to intentionally play the vibrato so it sounds inconsistent are both musical, instrumental, "technical" skills. To put one over the other is to define the inner-hierarchy of skill, which is subjective. Just because it sounds sloppy does not mean that it is sloppy. Part of musical ability is crafting the music to sound certain ways.
As in, they play songs that are precise and they also play songs that are sloppy. That could be considered a great depth of skill because in some people's cases the most difficult thing isn't being able to play one thing well, but being able to play multiple things adequately.
Cobain didn't have the skill to play precisely. He lacked the ability to play the technically demanding things that highly refined guitarists like Dyens can. This isn't a knock against him, because obviously he had no need or desire to be more technically proficient.
Dyens is *more* technically proficient in *more* areas than Cobain. Therefore he is more technically proficient overall.
If a musician's skill can't be measured, how the hell does Juilliard operate? This is beyond absurd.
Fuoco. You are telling me that playing this doesn't require more skill than playing "Hot Cross Buns."
- Aug 22, 2007
- 1,110
- 0
- 36
- 36
Pure conjecture, my friend. Not an inch of anything beyond pure conjecture. Cobain demonstrated some skill at guitar, it is my hypothesis that he intended to play sloppy but could have easily played precisely if he wanted to. You call it technically proficient... but we can't know what the artist's intentions are. How accurate at playing is actually something we cannot know, as we do not and cannot know what they intended to play.
This is not certain. Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not. The point is that it requires subjective judgment to decide it. It's fully possible for someone to consider classical "skill" to be simple compared to rock "skill." You might say this is an art judgment, but that's not what it's about. You've never stopped defining skill, when I've already shown that to define skill is subjective. One could argue that learning classical guitar craft is straightforward and less 'difficult' than learning the ability to play with the necessary command of "style," "feel," and "groove" of rock. Making something sound Earthy is a musical skill, and is it one that Roland Dyens can accomplish? Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't, and that's all I'm arguing. Plenty of people would argue that there are simple tricks and methods to being able to play jaw-dropping guitar parts whereas rock requires skill that is "more legitimate" and ostensibly more "difficult" because it is potentially less static.
Music school... heh, a notion I have never supported. But that is classical music. We've already established that to declare the classical standards as the measure of skill here requires one to make a subjective judgment by defining the hierarchy for skill. Juilliard is no mystery, they define their vision of skill and conform others (students) to it. But just because they do it doesn't mean that they hold the ultimate truth that we shall conform to.
I'm making no specific judgments on what does or doesn't require skill, on postulating possibilities. Skill is an loaded word, everyone brings their own meaning to it. If someone defines skill as playing the work of most difficulty, maybe someone who has been playing since they were 2 finds it very easy to play the things we generally percieve as being complicated, while someone else has a very difficult time playing hot cross buns, and when they master it they are playing something that caused them far more difficulty. If someone defines skill as complexity, then the vast majority of people will agree that the Dyens performance is far more "skilled" than (an average) Hot Cross Buns. But that still requires setting a non-decisive, non-consensus definition for skill. Because of the different potentials for skill's meaning, we can't ever say definitively that one player is more skilled than the other.
I'm sure there are thousands of cases were most of us will agree that one is more skilled than the other, based on our own definitions or even upon a definition decided upon by our small group. I'm not at all trying to argue against that. Technical ability makes sense in theory and it can be agreed upon in groups. The thing is, it's impossible to say definitively, and this becomes extremely important in the world of music where there are the tens of problems I've explained that make a distinction such as "so-and-so guitarist is less skilled than so-and-so" extremely subjective, and never definitive.
So it comes down to this: skill can be (and is) measured (and measurable). You choose not to acknowledge this because you're not in the land of reality and convention and practicality but of airy-fairy philisophical nothingness where there's no such thing as a skilled guitarist or carpenter or farmer or house builder. You're eschewing commonly used and useful definitions in favour of "no one's better at anything than anyone else" bullshit.
Skill, for all intents and purposes, can be measured objectively.
On the "pure conjecture / perhaps he is, perhaps he is not" garbage, if we can not come to a conclusion based on analysis of the entirety of the vast quantities of recorded evidence available then how can anyone ever know anything about anything?
Skill, for all intents and purposes, can be measured objectively.
On the "pure conjecture / perhaps he is, perhaps he is not" garbage, if we can not come to a conclusion based on analysis of the entirety of the vast quantities of recorded evidence available then how can anyone ever know anything about anything?
Similar threads
