Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

[Zantera]

Yeah you can't argue about it really. Anything that's based on opinions is subjective and not objective. I know some people love to look for loopholes so that they can justify being "right" about something that's essentially just an opinion.

[hefdaddy42]

Nickelback is not really what I'm talking about.  Clearly, they have a large fanbase and have been successful for many years.  They are clearly good at what they do, although what they do doesn't appeal to me very much.

People that are really bad at artistic endeavors are generally not going to have a large fanbase.  Because they are just awful at what they do, so no one really likes them.

And I'm not arguing about anything.  I love all of you guys.  But the idea that there are no real talentless hacks out there is mindblowing to me.

[Zantera]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

If you compare Dream Theater (a successful band of over 30 years) against a random garage progressive rock band who just started, you could easily draw the conclusion that DT are probably the more individually skilled band (with all the experience of playing), but if that random garage band made an album, some people might like it more than a DT album. So it's a very hard thing to draw a line with, because while we can discuss who has the more talent and stuff like that, it's pretty much impossible talking about quality as a measure, considering we all have different criteria for what qualifies as such.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Nickelback is not really what I'm talking about.  Clearly, they have a large fanbase and have been successful for many years.  They are clearly good at what they do, although what they do doesn't appeal to me very much.

People that are really bad at artistic endeavors are generally not going to have a large fanbase.  Because they are just awful at what they do, so no one really likes them.

And I'm not arguing about anything.  I love all of you guys.  But the idea that there are no real talentless hacks out there is mindblowing to me.

I would argue that Nickelback is the miraculous exception to the rule.  They are terrible AND have somehow magically convinced people to love them.  That's some pretty powerful black magic going on there.  Like "Led Zeppelin sold their souls to the devil in order to sound like they did" kinda mojo.

[hefdaddy42]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

I agree with all of this.  However, it doesn't take into account Guitarist C, who is just not very good at guitar and just makes awful noise with it.  Guitarist C should probably just put down the guitar and pick a different hobby/profession.

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

[Mindflux]

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

We already mentioned Nickelback.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

And Hef, I've met many Guitarist Cs.  And yes, they definitely do exist.

[hefdaddy42]

And let me tell you, coming from a church background: there are plenty of Singer Cs out there.

[ariich]

And let me tell you, coming from a church background: there are plenty of Singer Cs out there.

That's a bit different though, that's about a performer not being able to achieve what they want to achieve.

But where do you draw the line there? Some of the most successful artists get that way because they're always feeling inadequate and pushing themselves to do better. If they didn't achieve what they wanted to, doesn't that make them just as bad as the singer who can't sing in tune?

[jammindude]

And let me tell you, coming from a church background: there are plenty of Singer Cs out there.

That's a bit different though, that's about a performer not being able to achieve what they want to achieve.

But where do you draw the line there? Some of the most successful artists get that way because they're always feeling inadequate and pushing themselves to do better. If they didn't achieve what they wanted to, doesn't that make them just as bad as the singer who can't sing in tune?

This thread has taught me that he's not really singing off key at all....he's just singing between the notes.   He is not better or worse than JLB. 

[antigoon]

Is Beyonce objectively a better artist than Steven Wilson and Arjen Anthony Lucassen

Yes.

[Jaffa]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

I agree with all of this.  However, it doesn't take into account Guitarist C, who is just not very good at guitar and just makes awful noise with it.  Guitarist C should probably just put down the guitar and pick a different hobby/profession.

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

What if some people enjoy listening to Guitarist C? 

[TioJorge]

Please rename this thread to 'Octavarium'.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

I agree with all of this.  However, it doesn't take into account Guitarist C, who is just not very good at guitar and just makes awful noise with it.  Guitarist C should probably just put down the guitar and pick a different hobby/profession.

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

What if some people enjoy listening to Guitarist C? 

If people enjoy guitarist C,  then it's easily likely that they're being purposely obtuse, just to be edgy or hipster or pretentious or whatever.

[King Postwhore]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

I agree with all of this.  However, it doesn't take into account Guitarist C, who is just not very good at guitar and just makes awful noise with it.  Guitarist C should probably just put down the guitar and pick a different hobby/profession.

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

What if some people enjoy listening to Guitarist C?

Then they need to have their ears checked.

[jammindude]

People in this thread have claimed that while musicians at least have a tangible quality by which you can judge their ability, acting does not. I have come up with a definition that makes acting ability an objective tangible product.

Whether or not someone is a good actor, completely relies on wether or not they have the ability to immerse the majority of an audience into a roll. If they have failed in immersing the majority of the audience, they have failed as an actor.

Thus, acting MUST have concensus, or it fails.

[jammindude]

In fact, I'll do you one better.

All art must have the concensus of either the public, or the artistic community,  or both. If it has neither, it fails as art.

And in this context, consensus of either hinges on praise of merit....not just satirical popularity of "so bad it's good"

As Michael Nelson from MST3K recently said..."praising someone for making a film with a ton of heart and no skill would be like praising a restaurant for having the desire and heart to cook...even though the food made everyone sick. Some people simply should not be making films, just like some people should not be cooking at a restaurant. "

(Or words to that effect)

EDIT: Also...I reserve the right to redefine my entire explanation should the need arise. 

[ThatOneGuy2112]

Whether or not someone is a good actor, completely relies on wether or not they have the ability to immerse the majority of an audience into a roll. If they have failed in immersing the majority of the audience, they have failed as an actor.

Thus, acting MUST have concensus, or it fails.

All art must have the concensus of either the public, or the artistic community,  or both. If it has neither, it fails as art.

I can't help but feel that there's something inherently wrong with this. Essentially, this is saying that art must have the general consensus of being deemed as "good" in order to be "good". What of those of a dissenting opinion? Sure, one could say that for every 100 undying fans of Dark Side of the Moon, only one person will hate it--but does that still make the 1% wrong? Is that opinion suddenly less valid?

I don't know, I've always figured that one could explain their subjective opinions using objective truths, but whether those truths make the piece of art in question successful or not is entirely subjective. You can objectively call a particular guitarist a sluggish player, but there's no axiom that states that that playing style couldn't sound pleasant to someone's ear.

Stating things such as "this sounds bland" or "this sounds riveting" are still subjective statements and fit into an entirely different ballpark from objective statements.

Although we can look at a red rose and agree that the rose is, in fact, red, there's really no way of knowing whether or not what we see is the same exact color. We're limited by our own personal ongoing experiences, unable to jump into someone else's conscious and experience the world through their eyes. Maybe your red is different from my red. And I think opinions work very much the same way.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Well worst thread 2014 has definitely been decided.

[?]

Well worst thread 2014 has definitely been decided.

Oh yeah

[bl5150]

Well worst thread 2014 has definitely been decided.

in your opinion 

[Jaffa]

In all sincerity, I've enjoyed the discussion.  Sorry that some people find it so objectionable. 

[TioJorge]

 

[ariich]

In fact, I'll do you one better.

All art must have the concensus of either the public, or the artistic community,  or both. If it has neither, it fails as art.

And in this context, consensus of either hinges on praise of merit....not just satirical popularity of "so bad it's good"

As Michael Nelson from MST3K recently said..."praising someone for making a film with a ton of heart and no skill would be like praising a restaurant for having the desire and heart to cook...even though the food made everyone sick. Some people simply should not be making films, just like some people should not be cooking at a restaurant. "

(Or words to that effect)

EDIT: Also...I reserve the right to redefine my entire explanation should the need arise. 

What about things that are panned by the majority but not loved until later? Vincent Van Gogh was absolutely laughed at for being a load of rubbish while we was alive. Was he objectively bad then?

[jammindude]

In fact, I'll do you one better.

All art must have the concensus of either the public, or the artistic community,  or both. If it has neither, it fails as art.

And in this context, consensus of either hinges on praise of merit....not just satirical popularity of "so bad it's good"

As Michael Nelson from MST3K recently said..."praising someone for making a film with a ton of heart and no skill would be like praising a restaurant for having the desire and heart to cook...even though the food made everyone sick. Some people simply should not be making films, just like some people should not be cooking at a restaurant. "

(Or words to that effect)

EDIT: Also...I reserve the right to redefine my entire explanation should the need arise. 

What about things that are panned by the majority but not loved until later? Vincent Van Gogh was absolutely laughed at for being a load of rubbish while we was alive. Was he objectively bad then?

I wasn't there for Van Gough...so I don't know all the details.   But in every case I can think of, it had to have one or the other to survive.

Modern day examples include Office Space and Caddyshack.    Both were completely panned upon release.   Bombed at the box office (mostly because it was simply unknown) and panned by critics (who didn't see the humor).     But once the public DID see it, it got legs because both movies then had the consensus of the public once it actually got to them.    This forced critics to re-analyze their view.     If they had gotten into the public eye and then never gotten legs (due to simply not being funny) they would have failed, and we would never have heard of either movie.

[Podaar]

In all sincerity, I've enjoyed the discussion.  Sorry that some people find it so objectionable. 

I know some folks are sick of this subject, but I just have to point out: Consensus is NOT an objective measure but is a subjective measure.

Okay, back to lurking. 

[ariich]

In fact, I'll do you one better.

All art must have the concensus of either the public, or the artistic community,  or both. If it has neither, it fails as art.

And in this context, consensus of either hinges on praise of merit....not just satirical popularity of "so bad it's good"

As Michael Nelson from MST3K recently said..."praising someone for making a film with a ton of heart and no skill would be like praising a restaurant for having the desire and heart to cook...even though the food made everyone sick. Some people simply should not be making films, just like some people should not be cooking at a restaurant. "

(Or words to that effect)

EDIT: Also...I reserve the right to redefine my entire explanation should the need arise. 

What about things that are panned by the majority but not loved until later? Vincent Van Gogh was absolutely laughed at for being a load of rubbish while we was alive. Was he objectively bad then?

I wasn't there for Van Gough...so I don't know all the details.   But in every case I can think of, it had to have one or the other to survive.

Modern day examples include Office Space and Caddyshack.    Both were completely panned upon release.   Bombed at the box office (mostly because it was simply unknown) and panned by critics (who didn't see the humor).     But once the public DID see it, it got legs because both movies then had the consensus of the public once it actually got to them.    This forced critics to re-analyze their view.     If they had gotten into the public eye and then never gotten legs (due to simply not being funny) they would have failed, and we would never have heard of either movie.

Sure, sometimes (such as in your examples) it's because of a lack of exposure. Other times it's because it doesn't fit with what the industry/society considers to be good at that time. That was certainly the case for Van Gogh, and was the case for a number of classical composers/works as well. Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" is famous for being absolutely hated and inciting a riot at its premiere.

[hefdaddy42]

The main problem is that what makes someone better is a very subjective line to draw. Guitarist A might be more technically skilled than Guitarist B, but Guitarist B might have an unusual technique that results in a very atmospheric playing that Guitarist A doesn't achieve. I've heard several artists where they might not be the best when it comes to singing, or playing their instrument, but they know how to compose their songs. And I know artists who have all the benefits of being skilled at what they do, but the end result isn't very fascinating.

I agree with all of this.  However, it doesn't take into account Guitarist C, who is just not very good at guitar and just makes awful noise with it.  Guitarist C should probably just put down the guitar and pick a different hobby/profession.

Guitarist C exists.  But some people seem to be saying that he doesn't.

What if some people enjoy listening to Guitarist C?

No one "enjoys" listening to Guitarist C.  Guitarist C is someone who can't play but wishes he could.  Some people (like close friends or family members) may encourage him or come to see him perform, but they don't "enjoy" him because he's awful at it.

[ariich]

Isn't that a bit different though? You're talking about technical ability/competence, rather than artistic quality. I thought we were talking about the latter.

I completely agree that to some extent the former can be measured objectively.

[hefdaddy42]

Isn't that a bit different though? You're talking about technical ability/competence, rather than artistic quality. I thought we were talking about the latter.

What's the difference, to poor Guitarist C?  That's all I'm saying.

I completely agree that to some extent the former can be measured objectively.

Well, OK. 

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

You know what CAN be measured objectively?  The amount of fluid expelled in a pissing contest.

[hefdaddy42]

You know what CAN be measured objectively?  The amount of fluid expelled in a pissing contest.

Well, I'm about done.  I'm not as fanatical  (or as far to the extreme) as JD on this.

[Progmetty]

I think prog fans are extremes, they're either too open minded or too narrow minded.
I'm a prog fan that enjoys Eminem, Backstreet Boys and any big pop hit that's too cheesy, it can't be just mildly cheesy, I'm talking Friday and Gangham Style cheesy.

[Jaffa]

Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

[hefdaddy42]

Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

I, for one, have no interest in such hypotheticals.