by hillary_step 113 Replies latest social entertainment
Question for Hillary_Step when he returns:
What is enjoyed as good music by the untrained ear, is not neccessarily viewed as good music by the trained ear.
So you feel a person needs "proper" training to know what is "good" music.
Does a person need "proper" training to make "good" music?
Obviously not, as many, if not most of the great musicians of our time, had little if any "proper" training.
So how can someone naturally make "good" music, but another person can't naturaly hear "good" music?
Next thing you know the "taste" police and music and wine snobs will be telling me that me eating my rib-eye steak medium RARE...is in bad taste....because it's my personal preference. Especially when the traine "experts" all KNOW that the only way a civilized man should eat his meat is medium....or like my dad "well done" yuck! But hey to each his own.
This topic is illogical....maybe it would have been more accurate to define what one MEANS "good" and "bad" is...
For example...balanced arrangements, dead on beat, masterful lyrics, etc... being "good"; and choppy, missed beats, non-sensical lyrics...being "bad"...
Problem is... people's "taste" DOES matter....trained ear, palate, eye...aside.
If I like my music raunchy, my steak almost raw and my wine non-Lafite Rauthchild....who gives a flying f*ck? Why would any decent person impune it as "bad"...when its all subjective.
Do any of you SNOBS have wives...? How do you ever get along?
u/d (of the trained ear, palate and medium rare class)
p.s.- I'd like a reply on them Kingdom Melodies...
Six.....
So you feel a person needs "proper" training to know what is "good" music.
The more training that a person has in their genre, the better the music they make. The more trained an ear is to music in its genre, the better the undestanding of that ear will be.
Does a person need "proper" training to make "good" music?
What do you mean by proper? Robert Johnson, arguably one of the most gifted of the blues guitarists was a terrible player. He disappeared for two years and returned a uniquely gifted player. He would not reveal who taught him, but he was trained. It is obvious that a person who is musically trained is more competent than one who is not.
Obviously not, as many, if not most of the great musicians of our time, had little if any "proper" training.
Can you name who you consider to be a great musician - then we can discuss who or who did not train them?
So how can someone naturally make "good" music, but another person can't naturaly hear "good" music?
Go back to U/D silly wine analogy. You will find the answer to my question to this question already stated.
By the way, are you a professional musician?
Best regards - HS
U/D,
In your desire to oppose everything that I say, regardless of its merits, you have rapidly become one of this boards most embarrasing posters.
Do you actually expect the posts that you placed here today to be taken seriously by anybody with just a tad of a brain? Read them through carefully. They are pure nonesense. You have yet to even attempt to understand the issue being discussed, yet you feel justified in splashing your usual verbal dysentry all over the board. Have you no sense of self-judgment at all.
Look at your analogy. Look at my reply. Attend to the issue at hand.
It's the same as, What's "good" wine? The one YOU like...No, that is *your* definition of a good wine. It may be a disgusting wine, made from the poorest grapes of a vineyards harvest, but it becomes good because a person thinks it to be so? A trained professional wine-maker would have far more knowledge of what constitutes a good wine, than an amateur, and that is my point as noted above. It is the very same with music. Personal preference can never be a measure of what is good, and what is bad music.
Tell me. Does a professional wine-maker know a better wine, than a non-professional, Answer yes, or no, or just shut up and get back to your knitting.
HS
If you want ME to be a professional musician I'll be for you, honey.
six.....,
Coryell, it seems,certainly does not feel my statement to be 'ridiculous'.By your logic he never should have bothered playing until he got proper training?
Please explain where I have even *intimated* any such thing? Do you actually read what a person posts before you reply? It is a sure sign that you are going to read illogic when you hear many XJW's use the word 'logic'.
HS
lawrence,
I have a friend in Phoenix and he says there are 3 great musicians of the 20th century - (Duke Ellington, Sting, and Stevie Wonder). He's a player, and has become a musical SNOB.
And?
See, the problem with Ellington's statement is quite simply this - Duke never made it to the CROSSROADS, so he was a SNOB too. How about you?
I am not a musical snob, and neither was Ellington as his *music* and my own music proves but I am a musical professional. How about you?
HS
What do you mean by proper? Robert Johnson, arguably one of the most gifted of the blues guitarists was a terrible player. He disappeared for two years and returned a uniquely gifted player. He would not reveal who taught him, but he was trained. It is obvious that a person who is musically trained is more competent than one who is not.
Well, what do you mean by "training"? I use the term "proper" as your posts show a strong leaning towards academic, institutional training. To me, training means a lot of things, least of which is "book" learning.
The more training that a person has in their genre, the better the music they make. The more trained an ear is to music in its genre, the better the undestanding of that ear will be.
Actually, I would say the more knowledge a person has of all genres, the better music they will make in their chosen genre.
Can you name who you consider to be a great musician - then we can discuss who or who did not train them?
I named five: Miles, Coltrane, Mingus, Monk, and Bird.
By the way, are you a professional musician?No, I'm about as amature as they come. I could never really learn to play guitar, so I ended up making them instead. Go figure!
Please explain where I have even *intimated* any such thing? Do you actually read what a person posts before you reply? It is a sure sign that you are going to read illogic when you hear many XJW's use the word 'logic'.
You said:
In the 80's he went back to music school and learned the basics of music, which he had never done. He was humble enough to admit that compared with what he could achieve with musical training, what he did in the past faded into insignificance. How do his fans measure what is of better quality in his music, what sounds good to their ears, or what has been achieved with greater training.
"..what he did in the past faded into insignificance." To me that means you feel that what he did before receiving "academic training" is now essentially useless music. Yet you did enjoy it at one time?
And yes, I do read what a person posts before I reply.
become one of this boards most embarrasing posters.
Yay... so will I get an award from RR's thread?
In your desire to oppose everything that I say, regardless of its merits
Another... highly subjective "opinion"...(H_S opinion=fact) (u/d opinion=sillyness) And for the record...I in no way ever initially disagreed with you...I posted a quote from a book I have...but what the hell do I know about wine growing up in a wine region of California.... I could be a wine "snob" if I so chose... but I'm not like that.
I drink Coors light beer too... (all beer snobs resist)....I don't like beer...but beer flavored water is OK...
So again...Are the Kingdom Melodies "good" music (3rd request)...cuz I don't give a sh*t if they are.... I've alway HATED THEM.
Not my style...
u/d (of the most embarrasing poster on this board class)
