Here's a question. Can you somehow find or develop raw talent later in life, like discover you are a great writer when you are 40?
Isaac Newton was supposedly just an average student, but then a couple of years later he was inventing calculus. I don't think you could explain it by saying he was just lazy. If you had Isaac Newton's brain, you would probably be able to learn every math course you took completely effortlessly. I remember one math student in college who was much smarter that all of the other math majors. He could look at difficult calc problems in all different ways after immediately learning the process. I myself could get an A in most calculus courses if I tried. This guy was on a level a million miles above me. And I'm sure Isaac newton was on a level a million miles above even a highly promising mathematician today. So how could Isaac Newton only do modestly well in school? Maybe the talent somehow spontanteously appeared.
As for rappers, or most musicians today, they have no talent because they have no originality. You see every rapper dance around on stage and they have all the same moves. Now look at Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Jim Morrison, or Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin. Each had their own unique way of moving. They were obviously musicians first, but because they had personality it just transferred into everything they did. Mick Jagger has more originality than most rappers even if you don't count his music. Most rappers have nothing to really say that's special.
Paul wins the award for best post in the history of mankind. You are hereby ordered by THEM: The Powers That Be to send him your most attractive female relatives to be his sexual playthings.
I win the award for most flagrant use of hyperbole in the history of mankind.
None of which you support. You're like Headline News with just the headlines. A person whose insults profoundly outnumber his insights.
[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>
The fact that I chose to put in the quote, "Ludacris is a talented rapper." is because that quote in itself is the one that made me ponder the use of the word talent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You specifically responded to one of my points made in another thread by saying that to call Ludacris a "talented rapper" is to misuse that word. Furthermore, you ridicule that point through classless laughter- calling it an "insanely asinine remark." How does something that specifically addresses a point made in another thread not belong in that other thread? Your more general point about what comprises "talent" belongs anywhere you choose since it can either broaden the scope of the original thread or provide enough depth to start a new thread. Do you not understand the distinction?
[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>
I didn't start this thread to "to deliberately and deceitfully advance" my argument. If I wanted to respond to that drivel, I would have posted my argument in that thread.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did respond to my point, though you chose to do so in another thread. Your point cannot be that calling my statement "insanely asinine" and a "misuse" of the word talented fails to address my statement in the other thread. Since, you criticized it, how does that fail to address it?
As for rappers, or most musicians today, they have no talent because they have no originality. You see every rapper dance around on stage and they have all the same moves. Now look at Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Jim Morrison, or Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin. Each had their own unique way of moving. They were obviously musicians first, but because they had personality it just transferred into everything they did. Mick Jagger has more originality than most rappers even if you don't count his music. Most rappers have nothing to really say that's special.
Talent does not depend on originality. Talent can be many things, and rappers have a technical form of talent- flow, etc. They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are, I think when we think of that type of talent, we value it very lowly. That does not mean that the talent does not exist, it just means that it compares poorly to other types of talent like symphony composing or even sheryl crow's singing and songwriting, I think this is a fair point to make,
<strong>Here's a question. Can you somehow find or develop raw talent later in life, like discover you are a great writer when you are 40?
...
Maybe the talent somehow spontanteously appeared.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love threads that contain nothing but two people arguing. If you want to bitch at each other, couldn't you at least have the decency to do it via private message or email? WE DON'T CARE!
Back to your post, spindler, I doubt that his talent spontaneously appeared. As I said in an earlier post, talent and success have nothing to do with each other. I'll agree with you that Newton was a talented mofo, but perhaps he didn't bother to do his homework. That is, he had the raw telent, but didn't use it.
Why, thank you very much for the compliment, 'rat. Appreciate it. And yes, send the womens my way...
And moogs, I didn't break a sweat on that post! I was actually somewhat startled at how quickly it came. After all, when something is based in reality and actual events, all you have to do is write it down. I wasn't making any of that stuff up...think about it!
1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. 2 a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
I've heard music by certain people that contains no artistic accomplishment whatsoever, tho some people still say they are talented.
I've also heard sportscasters say Randy Johnson is talented. He throws a mean fastball and basically strikes everyone out. Is he real good or is he talented? Where does one make the distinction?
"They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are"
OK. I will agree that a rapper like Ludacris has SOME talent. I myself can't dance but probably at least 40% of people can do it well enough so you could call it a talent. It is a talent to be in a rock band, play an instrument, and write some lame songs that know one would want to listen to twice. I myself certainly could not write any song.
But I think PScates was talking about talent on a bigger level, like having something really special to contribute. Cindy Lauper had a couple of songs that were catchy. If she actually wrote them, then she had a talent to write a song catchy enough to be worth listening to on the radio. Most bands you would see at a club sing songs that aren't anything special. You wouldn't want to hear them 500 times on the radio before they were played out. I think PScates meant talent enough where a person deserved to be paid for what they were creating. Many people can dance fairly well, but you have to have a lot of talent to be in the class where you could try out to do it professionally.
"They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are"
OK. I will agree that a rapper like Ludacris has SOME talent. I myself can't dance but probably at least 40% of people can do it well enough so you could call it a talent. It is a talent to be in a rock band, play an instrument, and write some lame songs that know one would want to listen to twice. I myself certainly could not write any song.
But I think PScates was talking about talent on a bigger level, like having something really special to contribute. Cindy Lauper had a couple of songs that were catchy. If she actually wrote them, then she had a talent to write a song catchy enough to be worth listening to on the radio. Most bands you would see at a club sing songs that aren't anything special. You wouldn't want to hear them 500 times on the radio before they were played out. I think PScates meant talent enough where a person deserved to be paid for what they were creating. Many people can dance fairly well, but you have to have a lot of talent to be in the class where you could try out to do it professionally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's important to realize that Talent is Talent. However, I believe I was wrong about the whole thing. The distinction should be Talent vs. Skill.
Comments
Isaac Newton was supposedly just an average student, but then a couple of years later he was inventing calculus. I don't think you could explain it by saying he was just lazy. If you had Isaac Newton's brain, you would probably be able to learn every math course you took completely effortlessly. I remember one math student in college who was much smarter that all of the other math majors. He could look at difficult calc problems in all different ways after immediately learning the process. I myself could get an A in most calculus courses if I tried. This guy was on a level a million miles above me. And I'm sure Isaac newton was on a level a million miles above even a highly promising mathematician today. So how could Isaac Newton only do modestly well in school? Maybe the talent somehow spontanteously appeared.
As for rappers, or most musicians today, they have no talent because they have no originality. You see every rapper dance around on stage and they have all the same moves. Now look at Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Jim Morrison, or Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin. Each had their own unique way of moving. They were obviously musicians first, but because they had personality it just transferred into everything they did. Mick Jagger has more originality than most rappers even if you don't count his music. Most rappers have nothing to really say that's special.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
I win the award for most flagrant use of hyperbole in the history of mankind.
1) Disingenuous writing style
2) Whining
3) Drivel
4) Psuedo-Superior Drivel
5) Being boring?
6) Self righteousness
7) Acting like a "scorned woman"
8) Being a dumbass
9) Acting like a simpleton
None of which you support. You're like Headline News with just the headlines. A person whose insults profoundly outnumber his insights.
[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>
The fact that I chose to put in the quote, "Ludacris is a talented rapper." is because that quote in itself is the one that made me ponder the use of the word talent.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You specifically responded to one of my points made in another thread by saying that to call Ludacris a "talented rapper" is to misuse that word. Furthermore, you ridicule that point through classless laughter- calling it an "insanely asinine remark." How does something that specifically addresses a point made in another thread not belong in that other thread? Your more general point about what comprises "talent" belongs anywhere you choose since it can either broaden the scope of the original thread or provide enough depth to start a new thread. Do you not understand the distinction?
[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>
I didn't start this thread to "to deliberately and deceitfully advance" my argument. If I wanted to respond to that drivel, I would have posted my argument in that thread.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You did respond to my point, though you chose to do so in another thread. Your point cannot be that calling my statement "insanely asinine" and a "misuse" of the word talented fails to address my statement in the other thread. Since, you criticized it, how does that fail to address it?
Or maybe he's just a freak of nature.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>.
As for rappers, or most musicians today, they have no talent because they have no originality. You see every rapper dance around on stage and they have all the same moves. Now look at Mick Jagger, David Bowie, Jim Morrison, or Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin. Each had their own unique way of moving. They were obviously musicians first, but because they had personality it just transferred into everything they did. Mick Jagger has more originality than most rappers even if you don't count his music. Most rappers have nothing to really say that's special.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Talent does not depend on originality. Talent can be many things, and rappers have a technical form of talent- flow, etc. They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are, I think when we think of that type of talent, we value it very lowly. That does not mean that the talent does not exist, it just means that it compares poorly to other types of talent like symphony composing or even sheryl crow's singing and songwriting, I think this is a fair point to make,
<strong>Here's a question. Can you somehow find or develop raw talent later in life, like discover you are a great writer when you are 40?
...
Maybe the talent somehow spontanteously appeared.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I love threads that contain nothing but two people arguing. If you want to bitch at each other, couldn't you at least have the decency to do it via private message or email? WE DON'T CARE!
Back to your post, spindler, I doubt that his talent spontaneously appeared. As I said in an earlier post, talent and success have nothing to do with each other. I'll agree with you that Newton was a talented mofo, but perhaps he didn't bother to do his homework. That is, he had the raw telent, but didn't use it.
Then again, maybe his teachers just sucked.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand..... aw, f*ck it. radiohead is talented (particularly colin greenwood).
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
And moogs, I didn't break a sweat on that post! I was actually somewhat startled at how quickly it came. After all, when something is based in reality and actual events, all you have to do is write it down. I wasn't making any of that stuff up...think about it!
And what do you mean "marginally talented"?
Why I outta...
Okay, apparently there is no special talented involved in creating double posts...sigh.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
NOUN:
1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. 2 a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
I've heard music by certain people that contains no artistic accomplishment whatsoever, tho some people still say they are talented.
I've also heard sportscasters say Randy Johnson is talented. He throws a mean fastball and basically strikes everyone out. Is he real good or is he talented? Where does one make the distinction?
Nice job, pscates. I propose that we legitimize his theory of thread posting by giving it a name: Paul's Puppies.
(Pavlov's already got the market cornered on "dogs")
"They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are"
OK. I will agree that a rapper like Ludacris has SOME talent. I myself can't dance but probably at least 40% of people can do it well enough so you could call it a talent. It is a talent to be in a rock band, play an instrument, and write some lame songs that know one would want to listen to twice. I myself certainly could not write any song.
But I think PScates was talking about talent on a bigger level, like having something really special to contribute. Cindy Lauper had a couple of songs that were catchy. If she actually wrote them, then she had a talent to write a song catchy enough to be worth listening to on the radio. Most bands you would see at a club sing songs that aren't anything special. You wouldn't want to hear them 500 times on the radio before they were played out. I think PScates meant talent enough where a person deserved to be paid for what they were creating. Many people can dance fairly well, but you have to have a lot of talent to be in the class where you could try out to do it professionally.
<strong>ShawnPatrickJoyce wrote:
"They are considerably more talented at rapping than you and I supposedly are"
OK. I will agree that a rapper like Ludacris has SOME talent. I myself can't dance but probably at least 40% of people can do it well enough so you could call it a talent. It is a talent to be in a rock band, play an instrument, and write some lame songs that know one would want to listen to twice. I myself certainly could not write any song.
But I think PScates was talking about talent on a bigger level, like having something really special to contribute. Cindy Lauper had a couple of songs that were catchy. If she actually wrote them, then she had a talent to write a song catchy enough to be worth listening to on the radio. Most bands you would see at a club sing songs that aren't anything special. You wouldn't want to hear them 500 times on the radio before they were played out. I think PScates meant talent enough where a person deserved to be paid for what they were creating. Many people can dance fairly well, but you have to have a lot of talent to be in the class where you could try out to do it professionally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's important to realize that Talent is Talent. However, I believe I was wrong about the whole thing. The distinction should be Talent vs. Skill.