Why are bands with so much talent so often panned by lesser musicians with so little talent or, worse yet, critics with no talent?

I considered this "method of panning;" taste can't be argued, but talent can. My only answer to that question has to be that both bands had big heaps of songwriting talent and musical/technical ability. Whether or not you find them great is up to you.

I could find you dozens of Classical or Jazz snobs who'd argue about your subjective definition of talent.

You know what? Some people don't like your favourite bands. Boo Hoo.

Sure. Fashion is about the stupidest concept ever. A lot of music criticism is just fashionable opinions, anyway, so good comparison.

The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.

This is along the same lines as criticizing clothes. A table is either level or not. Clothes either fit or not. Music is not remotely the same. Flipper were miserable "carpenters" or "seamstresses" compared to Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, and I can actually pan them on those grounds. But, of course you wouldn't pan Flipper on grounds of talent. As I said, these terms only apply to mega-popular acts.

You do if the egg is fresh.

Does this phrase "wilful obtuseness" mean anything to you?

http://prehistoiredufolk.free.fr/images/SillyWizard.SoMany....JPG

How about "devil's advocate?" Just because we're arguing differently doesn't mean I can't continue to play along.

x-post but would you deny that the magic and talent are linked? It is the presence of magic that forces us to ignore the talent.

Is that really the only way you judge a table? What about it's finish, it's aesthetic appeal, it's use of veneers and marquetry, it's use of space and material. Carpentry is every bit as complex/simple and value bound as music. If that's what you think about making a table then I'd take Dr Johnsons opinion on Zep/Floyd or whoever above yours.

No, not "like" but agree on if the artist has talent and what kind of talent. If I go to a music school and my instructor is teaching me that the Sex Pistols had more talent in their little finger than Mozart, I'm going to question his sanity.

1. Personal opinion is irrelevant when measuring talent.
2. Measuring talent is based on the personal opinions of a large group of people.

You'd be talking out of your ass by saying, for example, that a band has "mindless, common verse-chorus-verse songwriting" if you are a frustrated musician who can't write a single catchy song in the manner you are panning in the review and happen to be fixated on Zappa at the moment and the concept of writing nontraditional songs due to your complete inability to craft a decent "standard song." Your review could be more about your own goals, expectations and frustrations rather than the music itself.

"Wrong. Bands "with so much talent" does not equal "bands I like."

Right. It involves bands that you have decided are talented, according to a democratic consensus. Which means that as long as anyone can back up why they think that these bands aren't talented with a reasonable argument, they're just as entitled to that opinion.

Then you bloviated for a while, called me a twat, and basically twisted your panties until you were unable to sit.

"I think it is you who is exaggerating this "epidemic" of Zep hatred because I never called it an epidemic or made anywhere near as big of a deal out of it as you have."
You posted about it, not me, drama queen. If it wasn't some trend or something you thought merited discussion because it was a common enough experience, why the fuck did you post it?
I would advance my "like to make up arguments to win on the internets" hypothesis again.

Basically, the question I posed was intended to express exactly these sentiments: "Being a lesser musician now for the last 20 years, it wouldn't seem right for me to pan any accomplished musician as a 'talentless hack,' but I see lots of other arrogant SOB's doing it. Where does it come from, this arrogant sense of superiority? What is this all about that someone who (for instance) can't play a lick of music, knows nothing about music theory and has only been on this planet for (let's say) 20 years thinks he knows fuck all about music? That he thinks he is fit to even judge Kenny G., John Tesh or some other easy target? Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd are classic easy targets, but why? Is it jealousy? Rebellion?"

Anyone is entitled to any opinion regardless of how wrong they are. This issue was never in question.

And the answer to that is "People often call bands they don't like 'talentless hacks' the same way I call you a 'douchenozzle'— in a figurative and descriptive way." You're clearly not literally a retard, and yet the way you're acting reminds me of one.
Further, since there are just as many talentless (or "lesser talented" if we must be PC) musicians who love great bands, talented bands, and shitty bands, untalented bands, that there's no real correlation between anything here. Why do some people call President Bush an moron? He's clearly intelligent enough to get elected and exercize power, even though I disagree with his policies. Should only presidents who have won two terms be allowed to call him a moron?
Why do you even care?

Please prove that. Come on, where's your proof?! We need evidence, man! Evidence! Remember? I happen to know for a fact that the people I'm thinking of were not being figurative and descriptive, but completely condescending and dismissive.

Why do you even care?

More importantly, why do you? You jumped in with both feet. I didn't push you. And you're clearly enjoying yourself. So get off the high horse.

I just find it interesting. Bizarre. And annoying if I get sucked into a real heated debate about Jethro Tull vs. Grateful Dead and I can't leave, don't really care either way, but find myself biting my tongue as I'm getting drunk, which is a time I don't want to be censoring my thoughts and watching I don't offend one of your inlaws.

Conversation generally goes like this:
A: so and so is a talentless hack
B: yeah?
A: yeah, its bullshit, man, do you like 'em?
B: they're alright
A: oh, they suck
B: well, I like 'em
A: it's all just scales, anyone can do that shit... and off-key... oh you should've seen some of the shows I got dragged to...
B: well, they still wrote and recorded the songs
A: pfft. yeah and they suck!
B: but I like 'em (laughing, frustrated)!
A: anyone can write songs like that
B: you keep saying that, but if anyone could everyone would--
A: and everyone DID, that's what I'm saying!
B: no they didn't, I don't know anyone who sounds like that. Did YOU write any songs like that? How many of your songs were hits?

etc.

This is great. I just noticed this. You're still trying to correlate a level of talent with a matter of taste, as if what I was suggesting is that panning talented musicians is only something untalented people do. I mean, that's hilarious! You still can't understand the actual words in the thread title!

Here's a riddle for you (and for you, it definitely is a riddle):
If you know nothing about biology, do you have any reason to feel you are a superior biologist? If you know nothing about biology, is it WRONG to appreciate a biologist's knowledge?

http://www.furry.org.au/Drhoz/other/biology/elleand%20flipper.jpg

You're back to your bullshit assertions. Lemme go a little Tolstoy on you: A musician is a talentless hack if he can't make me appreciate, with no musical training, the point of his composition.

And hey, you know nothing about being a critic. How can you judge whether someone's assertion that, say, Zep are talentless hacks, is good criticism until you know how to be a critic?
"Ah," you froth back, massaging your cock for emphasis, "the underlying act is creating the music, not critiquing it."
"Bullshit," I reply, watching you grasp for inarticulate ways to insult me, "the underlying act is appreciating the music. Communicating that is the secondary act, and by describing someone as a 'talentless hack,' I'm communicating my feelings on their performance. You can agree or disagree based on what you know of my tastes and the music."

But maybe if you had the balls to say that you liked something that someone else didn't like to their face instead of trying to set up bullshit wankfests on the internet, you wouldn't have all these discussions where the bad man asserts that someone you consider talented isn't. Disagree and give your reasons, or shut the fuck up and go back to crying yourself to sleep, cuntflaps. Either way, get offa the damn internet, since you're too much of a pussy to be on it without whining about some guy who likes Flipper making fun of your band or haircut or whatever.

Talk about a "bullshit argument"?!

You say: "How can you judge whether someone's assertion that, say, Zep are talentless hacks, is good criticism until you know how to be a critic? "the underlying act is appreciating the music. Communicating that is the secondary act, and by describing someone as a 'talentless hack,' I'm communicating my feelings on their performance. You can agree or disagree based on what you know of my tastes and the music."

This is why I brought Ben Weasel up immediately. Entertaining. Relevant. But not open-minded and well-rounded. Not a good critic. Someone you trust because he feels the same way as you. But who the fuck are YOU? You have every right to state your opinion, of course. But who the fuck are YOU, you worthless little worm?

Been drinking tonight?

*whispers* Guess what? I win, you lose. Still. Again. Repeatedly.

Let me pose a question for you that you can comprehend. It's not anything I'd normally bring up, but it's something you might normally infer, so here goes: Do talented people have any interests whatsoever?

go to bed.

It really is like that from my point of view. Hey, check out the first ever ILX post. You might learn something.

It's worse than I could've possibly imagined. I'm so sorry for you. I missed this before. I can understand now how you could be so pathetic and ridiculous... the chip on your shoulder, everything. I don't know what your relationship is like these days, but if you're still hogging and slumming with mumsy, tell her I said hello.

And aww, don't go slaggin' your ma just because I boned her. Your ma's been fucked by plenty of nice people. Even Wilford Brimley! He got that moustache in all right.

No, not when Tom quit his job; when Nude Spock preferred to lick peanut butter off his dog's balls.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/e/aes205/jackass.jpg

A : steve austin

Q? BU T WHAT ABOUT BIONIC WOMEN????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!

AHA! I HAVE PROVEDEN MHY POINS.

Anyway. Rolling Stone red book again:

Gentle Giant: one 4-star album, three 3-stars, three 2-stars, one 1-star.

Grinderswitch: four 2-stars.

Queen: three 3-stars, four 2-stars.

Alice Cooper: one 5-star (greatest hits), one 4-star (love it to death), three 3-stars, four 2-stars, three 2-stars, one 0-star (lace and whiskey)

Motorhead: No entry. (As I expected. As far as I can tell, nobody gave a shit about them in the States until the early '80s, at least.)

I won't repeat most of the tired arguments in this thread, but outside of the Bowery hardly anyone was listening to punk rock in the U.S; so the trad, bloated norm not only persisted well into decade's end, but never went away.

Ha, ha, man how apropos!

Thanks for the Rolling Stone updates. It almost seems to me as if they were out of touch back then, but surely they weren't. Things have just

out differently.

Enough people were, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it here today.

Bollocks