50 Greatest Live Acts Right Now

[viberunner]

You guys are fighting over a fistful of shit artists.

[Guest]

so your case was "am I an idiot?"

Case closed, indeed.

[kaosmark2]

Nick Cave

[Guest]

You have different tastes.

[eFestivals]

most geniuses are really easy to spot

Firstly you'd have to agree with the idea that there are actually genius'.

It's not an idea I go with at all. I don't believe that people have truly original ideas, I think that people have ideas whose time has come. Basically, that when the level of knowledge has built up to a particular level, new ideas become rather obvious deductions from that body of knowledge.

There's actually a lot within history that seems to back up this idea. An easy example is the propeller screw.

Of course, not everyone will be coming up with new ideas. For anyone to be able to do it, they first have to acquire the necessary level of knowledge that is then able to trigger the ideas to build on top of it.

So from this, it gets to mean that inventors 500 years ago will seem far more inspired than inventors today - but that's merely because there were far fewer people with all of the required knowledge to build something new on top of that.

I don't believe that anything different goes on within music, aside from there being the additional requirement of applying the technical skill; those with the better technical skill do better at getting their new adaptations out of their heads to actually sound like the idea they'd had.

[The Nal]

Firstly you'd have to agree with the idea that there are actually genius'.

It's not an idea I go with at all.

Edited August 5, 2013 by The Nal

[russycarps]

Firstly you'd have to agree with the idea that there are actually genius'.

It's not an idea I go with at all. I don't believe that people have truly original ideas, I think that people have ideas whose time has come. Basically, that when the level of knowledge has built up to a particular level, new ideas become rather obvious deductions from that body of knowledge.

There's actually a lot within history that seems to back up this idea. An easy example is the propeller screw.

Of course, not everyone will be coming up with new ideas. For anyone to be able to do it, they first have to acquire the necessary level of knowledge that is then able to trigger the ideas to build on top of it.

So from this, it gets to mean that inventors 500 years ago will seem far more inspired than inventors today - but that's merely because there were far fewer people with all of the required knowledge to build something new on top of that.

I don't believe that anything different goes on within music, aside from there being the additional requirement of applying the technical skill; those with the better technical skill do better at getting their new adaptations out of their heads to actually sound like the idea they'd had.

Edited August 5, 2013 by russycarps

[russycarps]

yes, your powers of comprehension are as astute as always...

not sure I'd call Springsteen a genius, even though him being top of this list is possibly the only thing I agree with

[Guest]

It depends on your definition of genius then I guess. If you use the one below, completely original thought isnt strictly necessary. Also, the arts are about more than just technical skill arent they! I hate comparing science with the arts, it feels so wrong.

"exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability"

Edited August 5, 2013 by tonyblair

[kaosmark2]

corrected for you....

[Guest]

Fuck off. Going on about how you can't describe something as talented, or make offhand comments dismissing people's claims about something is ridiculous. It kills discussion and jokes if you demand people emphasise subjectivity endlessly.

Edited August 5, 2013 by tonyblair

[eFestivals]

It depends on your definition of genius then I guess. If you use the one below, completely original thought isnt strictly necessary. Also, the arts are about more than just technical skill arent they! I hate comparing science with the arts, it feels so wrong.

"exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability"

that's the sort of definition I'm working from.

If it's about having the necessary pre-requisite knowledge then nothing about it is about exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.

I'll leave you to think on that one.

[russycarps]

which is pretty subjective, especially in a creative aspect.

[eFestivals]

PS....

> Also, the arts are about more than just technical skill arent they!

I dunno, are they?

I'd say that we all have 'things' (feelings, visions, sounds, etc) that we wish to express.

It then comes down to our individual ability as to how well we are able to express those things in our chosen media.

I'd certainly agree that an amount of natural talent can make a big difference with that tho - although it's not always necessary. Those who have skills in the right areas can gain that ability via practice.

(That's not me saying that anyone can teach themselves the ability. Some people just don't have it - I'd make a crap musician no less than I'd make a crap brain surgeon; but I have pretty strong skills in other areas. We all have skills in some areas and not others.)

[kaosmark2]

unlike responses like that..?

I make no demands at all

[Guest]

"Correcting" someone to enforce subjectivity is patronising and pointless.

[TheGayTent]

Clearly that list is meaningless shit as 99.99% of these sort of lists are.

It's worked exactly as they intended though...

[The Nal]

The really annoying thing is that he’ll be thinking “people are just so fucking stupid. They don’t understand good music when they hear it. They’re all out buying One Direction.”

No, Johnny. You’re just sh*t.

He was once quoted as saying he was a better songwriter than Dylan!

[mrtourette]

Clearly that list is meaningless shit as 99.99% of these sort of lists are.

It's worked exactly as they intended though...

[russycarps]

How could something like this ever be factually correct?

[LondonTom]

Whether it's NME or Rolling Stones or another form of media desperate for attention, these lists are thrown together to stimulate debate rather then to be factually correct. How could something like this ever be factually correct?