Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I picked "dislike". I then had to go to here to clear out all of that noise pollution that "Baby" link stuck in my brain.

Ah, Type O! You have made my evening, good sir. "Be My Druidess" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43qnkKCNms) is my favorite tune by them, but I love how Peter Steele (RIP) was able to do such tongue-in-cheek songs so enjoyable to listen to through his deep bass voice and highly entertaining lyrics. To those who say you shouldn't listen to music for the lyrics - I say you're woefully wrong. The lyrics are the primary importance to a song - if you don't have a good story to tell in your song it's pointless to make the damn thing in my opinion.

j.p.

It is interesting. Many of the answers I got to the question of this thread amount to the same thing that I kept seeing on you tube that motivated me to check him out. In other words, Justin Bieber is not as good as so and so other artists from the past or who don't get as much attention. That may be a valid answer to this thread. But on the other hand, none of the following contentions have anything to do with whether Pray is the best record in a generation, or whether One Less Lonely Girl, Never Say Never, Born to Be Somebody, Baby, Mistletoe, Somebody to Love, That Should Be Me, Love Me, U Smile, Rich Girl are good records in any degree:

Whether Bieber plays the instruments on his records or not, or whether he does rock or pop.

Whether he writes all his songs or not.

Whether there are singers you knew in high school whom you thought were better, or whether there are other singers on you tube whom you think are better.

How old he is, how attractive he is, or how young for his age he is, or who and how many his fans are.

Whether he's a pretty girly boy or not, or what gender issues his popularity raises.

Whether he is not as talented as others on specific instruments.

Who discovered and promoted him, or how rich he was before he started.

How socially conscious, poetic, or inspired his lyrics alone are.


For me, if someone's name is attached to good music, then I "like" him or her, and whoever else is associated with him or her.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Good grief. That's part of Valspeak. . So it puts Valspeak into the song. I do Valspeak "like this is totally radical, man."

And I say "like" in that phrase means what I say it means!

I picked "dislike". I then had to go to here to clear out all of that noise pollution that "Baby" link stuck in my brain.

You added to the biggest "dislike" total of all time. Congratulations, you joined the crowd. But you have to admit that Baby got into your brain. It does that. And I would have to do the reverse process, if I sat through the other video even a few seconds.

2. I won't click on the link directly above. I'm sure it's just as pleasant as inhaling fluorine

Yes, older bands were better. And go ahead click on the link and enjoy. It's not a Justin record, it's David Letterman. Be surprised and delighted. And you don't have to inhale the fragrance.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Ah, Type O! You have made my evening, good sir. "Be My Druidess" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43qnkKCNms) is my favorite tune by them, but I love how Peter Steele (RIP) was able to do such tongue-in-cheek songs so enjoyable to listen to through his deep bass voice and highly entertaining lyrics. To those who say you shouldn't listen to music for the lyrics - I say you're woefully wrong. The lyrics are the primary importance to a song - if you don't have a good story to tell in your song it's pointless to make the damn thing in my opinion.

j.p.

Music is the reason to listen to music. Lyrics are fine if they add to the music. If you don't have good music, it's pointless to do anything but write a book.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Music is the reason to listen to music. Lyrics are fine if they add to the music. If you don't have good music, it's pointless to do anything but write a book.

If you're only interested in the music - you can keep to classical artists and there's no need to listen to someone sing. If someone is going to sing - they better have something worth saying to say in sharing for all of us.

On the reverse: If you're only interested in the lyrics though and not the music at all, there's always Tom Waits.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Felix5

It is if you're going to state that one musician is great, back this up with factual information or just accept that it's just an opinion. (it would be too much to ask for you to stop shoving it in everyone's face, but you could at least stop insisting it's factual)

I didn't say anything but that it was my opinion. If you don't want my opinion on this, why are you posting or reading here? It's fine and great if you do or if you don't; but that's not me shoving anything.

.....He was a country singer...

And you wonder why he has limited appeal??

Then why did you bring it up??

Answer me this. Why did Scooter Braun, Mr. Reed, and Usher notice it enough to hire him "on the spot," and not Billy Gilman? You watched the Austrailian 60 minutes doc I posted a while back, I take it? You'd better notice such things if you are going to hire a would-be teenage pop star. They were pretty smart to notice I'd say, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by JDFP

If you're only interested in the music - you can keep to classical artists and there's no need to listen to someone sing. If someone is going to sing - they better have something worth saying to say in sharing for all of us.

How does that follow at all? You can't enjoy how the singer interprets the melody, or the quality of his or her voice? And how does it follow that if someone sings, (s)he or others are not also contributing great sounds and melodies, along with the singing, on the same record?

That "they better" works for you, not me.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Ah, Type O! You have made my evening, good sir. "Be My Druidess" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43qnkKCNms) is my favorite tune by them, but I love how Peter Steele (RIP) was able to do such tongue-in-cheek songs so enjoyable to listen to through his deep bass voice and highly entertaining lyrics. To those who say you shouldn't listen to music for the lyrics - I say you're woefully wrong. The lyrics are the primary importance to a song - if you don't have a good story to tell in your song it's pointless to make the damn thing in my opinion.

My pleasure. A band that appeals to both cusps of a generation is quite a feat. As for Peter Steele, I guess only the good die young. Cf. Jimi Hendrix.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And I say "like" in that phrase means what I say it means!

"Like" can go either way for moi. It can be a "filler" word like "ummmm" or as a verb in this sentence.

You added to the biggest "dislike" total of all time. Congratulations, you joined the crowd.

Yes, hopefully it added a few pixels to the red bar.

But you have to admit that Baby got into your brain. It does that. And I would have to do the reverse process, if I sat through the other video even a few seconds.

Ah, but it's the "chalk screeching on a chalkboard" effect. Once you hear it, it sticks. Other songs of this type are , regrettablely , "Muskrat Love" and of course "Disco Duck".

Yes, older bands were better. And go ahead click on the link and enjoy. It's not a Justin record, it's David Letterman. Be surprised and delighted. And you don't have to inhale the fragrance.

It's passable. Though I'd get more of a kick from that human wildcat, Axl Rose.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ah, but it's the "chalk screeching on a chalkboard" effect. Once you hear it, it sticks. Other songs of this type are , regrettablely , "Muskrat Love" and of course "Disco Duck".

Those never stick in my brain, I'm glad to say, thank you very much. Baby is at least catchy and charming.

I mean, those who click dislike for Baby, really think that it's worse than the decade after decade of disgusting tripe we have been subjected to for 30 years? Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those never stick in my brain, I'm glad to say, thank you very much. Baby is at least catchy and charming.

Ah, but what is catchy and charming to you could well be yucky to others. The taste in music, is again a subjective thing. First, let's take rap for example. I don't really care for it, but I do find it understandable that it appeals to others. If you've grown up in the mean streets, it confirms that you're not the only one who has experienced it. Now, as for Bieber, in a subjective manner of course, neither the lyrics nor the songs unto themselves have meaning and the genre itself (like rap) "sound nice". From the above, it appears that you find the genre itself appealing. and/or even the lyrics have meaning.

I mean, those who click dislike for Baby, really think that it's worse than the decade after decade of disgusting tripe we have been subjected to for 30 years?

Of course some folks will deem it so. This is obvious. We all have our shit list of our worst songs which comprise of "disgusting tripe we have been subjected to for X years". It works for me like this: My Boom cousins played late 1960's on. So what happened. I happened to like the psychedelic music along with the earliest heavy metal (Iron Butterfly/Steppenwolf). Disco/adult contemporary happened. I deemed those as yuck, so I just got some LP's (yes, I'm showing my age here), and with some outliers weathered that dry spell with aforementioned "good music". When 1978 happened and this is easy to remember, Judas Priest /AC*DC came along with subsequent 1980's glam metal, and I was happy again. (Until Grunge came along and again ruined my day.) This is easy, too young for Disco, too old for Grunge.

Gimme a break.

?
Eric << feedback;
if (Eric == NOT_LIKE_FEEDBACK) {
Eric :== NOT_HAPPY;
}
else {
Eric :== HAPPY;
}

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ah, but what is catchy and charming to you could well be yucky to others. The taste in music, is again a subjective thing. First, let's take rap for example. I don't really care for it, but I do find it understandable that it appeals to others. If you've grown up in the mean streets, it confirms that you're not the only one who has experienced it. Now, as for Bieber, in a subjective manner of course, neither the lyrics nor the songs unto themselves have meaning and the genre itself (like rap) "sound nice". From the above, it appears that you find the genre itself appealing. and/or even the lyrics have meaning.

No, the genre has nothing to do with it at all. Most pop, like most rock or country, has not appealed to me over the last 28 years or so. It is my taste, but even so it seems amazing that people could dislike a song that is if-anything better than most others today, and certainly not leading a trend toward tripe, but if anything the reverse. It seems people who dislike it, don't like anything by a 16 year old, especially one even younger than his age, or more famous than they think he should be; or else they really have the very-bad taste to really think "Baby" is any worse than what has been out there. I'm not "unhappy" about it when I say "gimme a break"; it just seems very very very far-fetched. So I think prejudice must have more to do with it.

Like I said, I don't think American pop/rock listeners have much music appreciation these days. They are rarely exposed to good music; it's not really part of the mainstream culture anymore. Some people are aware of good music though; they take the trouble to seek out classical music and older rock. They may not like Bieber either, but at least they know some good music. It's too bad there is so little current music to appreciate, and that oldies and classical are the only thing out there- and only if you seek it out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, the genre has nothing to do with it at all. Most pop, like most rock or country, has not appealed to me over the last 28 years or so. It is my taste, but even so it seems amazing that people could dislike a song that is if-anything better than most others today, and certainly not leading a trend toward tripe, but if anything the reverse.

1. Yes, agree it's your taste. I'll fix my program
?
Music << feedback;
if (Music != NOT_ERIC_TASTE) {
system("mv Music /dev/null");
printf("Music is tripe\n");
}
else {
printf"("Music is not tripe\n");
}

------
Tripe..............Looks pretty Epicurean to me.


Note the resemblance to luscious morels

It seems people who dislike it, don't like anything by a 16 year old, especially one even younger than his age, or more famous than they think he should be; or else they really have the very-bad taste to really think "Baby" is any worse than what has been out there. I'm not "unhappy" about it when I say "gimme a break"; it just seems very very very far-fetched. So I think prejudice must have more to do with it.

No, I think this is more of a binary decision. It's either a "like" or "dislike". If there's a song I come across on youtube, I bookmark it. If I think the song sucks, I don't bother.
?
Music << feedback;
if (Music != NOT_RAGS_TASTE) {
system("mv Music /dev/null");
printf("Music sucks\n");
}
else {
printf"("Music is awsome\n");
}

Like I said, I don't think American pop/rock listeners have much music appreciation these days. They are rarely exposed to good music; it's not really part of the mainstream culture anymore. Some people are aware of good music though; they take the trouble to seek out classical music and older rock. They may not like Bieber either, but at least they know some good music. It's too bad there is so little current music to appreciate, and that oldies and classical are the only thing out there- and only if you seek it out.

And the above is an objective opinion? Think of it like TeeVee "reality" tow truck shows. I don't care for them. I'm also not fond of 3rd Rock from the Sun, and 2 and half men being on 3 channels at the same time. I, in a subjective manner, choose to channel surf over to Boomerang and watch Tom and Jerry. However since there are multiple instances of said shows seems to imply that lots of folks do indeed like them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is my taste, but even so it seems amazing that people could dislike a song that is if-anything better than most others today, and certainly not leading a trend toward tripe, but if anything the reverse.

Not a particularly ringing endorsement, aside from noting that a single data point might just be an outlier, and not indicative of a trend change.

That aside, he has talent. He is playing toward a particular market segment, and is being branded as such (in the marketing, not cattle sense). But that genre is not one which I care for in any way, so my name goes squarely in the 'don't like it' category.

Originally Posted by Joral

Not a particularly ringing endorsement, aside from noting that a single data point might just be an outlier, and not indicative of a trend change.

That aside, he has talent. He is playing toward a particular market segment, and is being branded as such (in the marketing, not cattle sense). But that genre is not one which I care for in any way, so my name goes squarely in the 'don't like it' category.

Don't forget though, I am saying that at least one of his songs, transcends any genre or market segment, by virtue of its musical quality and subject matter. If it's possible, I am trying to share my appreciation for this particular record. It is magical.

Pray

I watch Jeopardy regularly, and this week the teen tournament is on. Today a category was Pop Music, and the easiest $200 "answer" was (more or less) "a Canadian pop sensation heard in this sensation" (I won't ask you to guess which song they played, since most participants here aren't sampling the songs), and One Less Lonely Girl came on (one of his finest songs, although he didn't write it). The guy who answered correctly was almost as cute (sorry Felix) as Bieber, and even had a Bieber hair style, which he discussed. He didn't win though. Alex, who is Canadian, said with enthusiasm "right you are!" when he got the question. In the category next to it, the top or easiest answer was "Prayer." Then in double jeopardy, they had a "she's so cool" category, and the top/easy answer was Selena Gomez. I missed that one, but I was wondering when my new knowledge of Bieber would help me get a Jeopardy question right (I am usually so poor in my knowledge of popular culture). If I hadn't checked him out by now, today's show probably would have prompted me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure I would know how to compare drum solos. I don't know who is better, and no doubt many are better than Bieber. I would just disagree that Bieber "is not talented" in that respect.

Alright, your opinion. Just letting you know that I'm speaking from a background of daily experience with percussion and drums. For the past 7 years, I've played with and (informally) taught other aspiring drummers under 18 years old. Comparing Justin Bieber's skills to all of those kids, he's about halfway up the list. But these kids I'm comparing him to, play 2-3 times a week in school, plus whatever extra they do outside of class.

It's not hard to gauge his skill level after looking at 30 minutes worth of video. For example, I did martial arts. We do these forms called kata, which is basically a set of movements that applies all of our basic strikes, blocks, footwork, etc. You can gauge someone's skill level based on what their kata look like. Similarly, I can judge someone's drumming ability based on how their basics look/sound while they're playing, if they can keep time, etc. In Bieber's case, there's little variety in his playing. And in the videos where he plays off-stage, he rarely keeps a steady tempo.

To call a drummer talented you're looking at someone who:

• Keeps a rock-solid tempo
• Plays a wide variety of beats (rock, jazz, hip-hop, blues, latin, etc.)
• Has excellent 3-way coordination and proficient 4-way coordination
• Can sight read rhythms
• Has a lot of creative juices; meaning that they can improv. and play off the cuff
• And most importantly, someone with a high musical IQ. This means that they can think and problem solve while playing. If someone screws up, it's up to the drummer to keep the beat moving, so that the guitarist or whoever can queue everyone else to come back in. The song will go to hell if the drummer stops. Everyone else is allowed to mess up. lol

This concludes today's music lesson.
Point blank, I didn't hear anything out of the ordinary. He just sounds like someone who has played before. Not a beginner, but whatever comes after it, which is pretty much every person I play with on a weekly basis. Again, I wouldn't call him bad, but nothing that should garner attention.

Now if I judge him as a singer who can play guitar, piano, and drums plus dance... he is talented. But as a drummer alone, nothing close. It's not a "maybe he is", his skills just aren't at that point.

Originally Posted by Cole94

Alright, your opinion. Just letting you know that I'm speaking from a background of daily experience with percussion and drums. For the past 7 years, I've played with and (informally) taught other aspiring drummers under 18 years old.....
Now if I judge him as a singer who can play guitar, piano, and drums plus dance... he is talented. But as a drummer alone, nothing close. It's not a "maybe he is", his skills just aren't at that point.

Don't forget trumpet too, and he also writes some of his songs, plus his personality and charisma, and the way he delivered those top 10 lines on Letterman shows his acting talent....

I certainly can observe that he has a lot of coordination and agility in his drumming. This native ability is what I would call "talent." What you are saying is he hasn't developed his talents to learn all the skills of someone more dedicated to the instrument.

He also displays a similar talent in sports. He will never be a pro basketball player, but you'd have to be impressed with some of his moves and shots revealed in the various videos.

You being a 94 cohort, is interesting. You have a lot of knowledge about drumming, and already a teacher (thanks for the "music lesson"), and not shy about discussing/debating. Of course that is Bieber's cohort too, and that young organist I referred you guys to, Gert van Hoef. There's some evidence of what astrologers forecast about those born in this period. In any case, I'm impressed with you guys.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't forget trumpet too, and he also writes some of his songs, plus his personality and charisma, and the way he delivered those top 10 lines on Letterman shows his acting talent....

I certainly can observe that he has a lot of coordination and agility in his drumming. This native ability is what I would call "talent." What you are saying is he hasn't developed his talents to learn all the skills of someone more dedicated to the instrument.

He also displays a similar talent in sports. He will never be a pro basketball player, but you'd have to be impressed with some of his moves and shots revealed in the various videos.

I think your definition of talent is what my definition of a skill is. For you, (correct me if I'm wrong) talent is the ability to do something. For me, talent means you can do something very well. My idea of "very well" musically, might be a lot stricter than most people. If I apply my definition of talent to all of Bieber's abilities, the one thing I think he does "very well" is perform; keep in mind I mainly play music. You see him doing about 5 or 6 things, and each of those things impresses you. So, as far as perception of talent, it depends on personal experience.

When I listen to him, read his lyrics, and watch him perform, I seperate everything instead of appreciating the whole product. If you look at each of his abilities individually, he's not talented as far as being highly skilled in each one. But when realizing it's all together, it is a talent that he can do so many things. So I suppose we're just coming from completely different points of reference.

This is weird, because I always listen to judge's tapes for things like concert, jazz, and marching band. On the tapes they seperate brass, woodwinds, percussion, etc. Each section is graded on a scale of 20 and their scores would be added together to a maximum of 100 total. So it didn't matter what the other sections were doing, if the percussion got a 20, we did our job, and just had to maintain that quality. Basically, my ears are trained to listen to individual instruments and sounds, I isolate everything, and look for exceptionally high quality. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You being a 94 cohort, is interesting. You have a lot of knowledge about drumming, and already a teacher (thanks for the "music lesson"), and not shy about discussing/debating. Of course that is Bieber's cohort too, and that young organist I referred you guys to, Gert van Hoef. There's some evidence of what astrologers forecast about those born in this period. In any case, I'm impressed with you guys.

Well my philosophy is "Whatever you do, do it well." I was actually a pretty shy person up until I became involved with music. In a music class, you can't sit back and disappear like in other classes. It was a great way to break the shell. I had to participate and I quickly discovered that sounding bad is embarassing.

In addition, when I came to high school, there were a lot of people better than I was, and there wasn't much (at the time) that I was good at aside from playing music. If I was shown up, I wouldn't have anything, so me and my twin practiced like maniacs and coming into our sophomore year, we were second only to the section leaders in the band. The next step was to learn from them and take over as leaders for the percussion, which we did at the end of that sophomore year. From there its just been staying as sharp as possible in case anyone better comes along. "Staying sharp" can include anything from playing, maintaining the ability to explain/teach, listening to music across all genres, etc. This eventually leaked into other areas of my life and things started to improve at that point. What do you know, working hard actually works! It just had to start with things I loved to do.

Linking this with the Turning Theory, as a Millenial, I cooperate with and use other people improve my craft. It's a strange mix of "civic-mindedness" and competitiveness. Pretty useful for things like college and the working world.

I think that one of the faults of my generation is the fact that a lot of people can't be independent. The reason I like to work together with peers, is to pick up skills from them and eventually surpass them, it's a plus that I can usually get along with anybody. It's another plus that we usually become friends through friendly rivalry. That's sort of how drumming works. Trade beats with another drummer, each person learns something new.

Originally Posted by Cole94

I think your definition of talent is what my definition of a skill is. For you, (correct me if I'm wrong) talent is the ability to do something. For me, talent means you can do something very well. My idea of "very well" musically, might be a lot stricter than most people. If I apply my definition of talent to all of Bieber's abilities, the one thing I think he does "very well" is perform; keep in mind I mainly play music. You see him doing about 5 or 6 things, and each of those things impresses you. So, as far as perception of talent, it depends on personal experience.

When I listen to him, read his lyrics, and watch him perform, I seperate everything instead of appreciating the whole product. If you look at each of his abilities individually, he's not talented as far as being highly skilled in each one. But when realizing it's all together, it is a talent that he can do so many things. So I suppose we're just coming from completely different points of reference.

This is weird, because I always listen to judge's tapes for things like concert, jazz, and marching band. On the tapes they seperate brass, woodwinds, percussion, etc. Each section is graded on a scale of 20 and their scores would be added together to a maximum of 100 total. So it didn't matter what the other sections were doing, if the percussion got a 20, we did our job, and just had to maintain that quality. Basically, my ears are trained to listen to individual instruments and sounds, I isolate everything, and look for exceptionally high quality. Does that make sense?

To me "talent" is something innate, you are born with talent. Skill is something one develops with practice.

Originally Posted by Odin

To me "talent" is something innate, you are born with talent. Skill is something one develops with practice.

True. If someone is born with a talent for music, it definitely comes more natural than someone without. So I guess if that's what we're talking about, Justin Bieber does have musical talent, but his skills are underdeveloped. Then I do agree with you Eric.

So wait... is there a difference between "a skill" (what I meant) and "having skill".

Edit: Ha, weird how I turned this topic over to English.

Originally Posted by Cole94

Linking this with the Turning Theory, as a Millenial, I cooperate with and use other people improve my craft. It's a strange mix of "civic-mindedness" and competitiveness. Pretty useful for things like college and the working world.

I was trying to make this point in another thread about the importance of collaborating with others in film school.

Originally Posted by Cole94

True. If someone is born with a talent for music, it definitely comes more natural than someone without. So I guess if that's what we're talking about, Justin Bieber does have musical talent, but his skills are underdeveloped. Then I do agree with you Eric.

That's good. But you do appreciate more than drumming, when it comes to music, do you not? even though it is your field?

I am still hoping more people will give a chance to Justin's great song. That's what this thread is really about. Don't miss out. You know which one I mean by now (it isn't Baby). A remarkable piece of work; a bit of a miracle something like it could happen today, let alone from the biggest pop star. Check it out please!

Originally Posted by millennialX

This post is in response to Cole who mentioned John Legend. Google some of the stuff John Legend and the Roots have been collaborating on and you will realize that Justin isn't the only next best thing since the awakening (i know you never said that, btw).

I like Wake Up Everybody pretty well (I still like Bieber's Pray much better). Legend reminds me of Marvin Gaye. I haven't heard others by him that I like yet. We can hope that (maybe) Legend and others are also part of a better pop music scene now, for the first time since the Awakening ended (speaking of "waking up" ).