Daft Punk is overrated.

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Whatever. I can't believe that you are jealous that I am more punk than you. Don't judge me just because I'm really passionate about indie music. Once, I heard this shitty band called The Ramones that totally ripped off of Green Day. It made me angry, actually, how anyone could be such blatant thieves. I punched a hole in the while because it was so offensive. As someone who is knowledgeable about punk, it seemed quite wrong.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Trust me, as a punk rocker, I can totally bring my cowboy hat to wear over my dreads. Being punk, it's pretty much what's required of me.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

St Jimmy is pretty good.

I liked Give Me Novacaine. More like old school Green Day.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

I liked Give Me Novacaine. More like old school Green Day.

I'm actually not that big of a Green Day fan. I only liked "Warning". And that's because I had the album growing up.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Definetly overrated, I agree.

 

[Dufflepud]

It is an objective fact that they have achieved a level of commercial success not commensurate with their level of artistic ability.

"Artistic ability" is not something that can be measured objectively. As such, you cannot compare their commercial success to it objectively, and cannot objectively say that the two are disproportionately. What you're doing instead is throwing objectivity out the window.

Daft Punk isn't really my thing, but your statement is utterly, incorrigibly false.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

"Artistic ability" is not something that can be measured objectively.

That's idiot. Some people are objectively talented and some people are objectively untalented. For example Mozart had objectively more talent than Britney Spears. To say the contrary would be a denial of reality. Of course, many people prefer Britney Spears to Mozart, but that is subjective, that just means that many people have objectively bad taste in music, while some others have objectively good taste in music.

So there's objectives criterias which allow us to say that Britney Spears's artistic abilities are inferior to thoses of Mosart, and also that Daft Punk's artistic abilities are overrated. And they are overrated.

 

[Dufflepud]

"Idiot" is not an adjective, first of all.

Secondly, you gave an extreme example, in which you compared two PEOPLE, not one person to their commercial success. One could, for example, objectively say that superman is better at hand to hand combat than I am. However, that doesn't mean that one could objectively measure "skill in hand to hand combat," let alone compare it to a person's level of success. The statement that Daft Punk's "musical talent" which cannot be MEASURED objectively, does not match up with their commercial success, which CAN be measured objectively, is unfounded.

If the OP had said "Daft Punk's musical ability does not match their commercial success, I would have agreed with them. However, instead they misused the words "objective" and "fact," and so I can't agree with them.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

I believe there is one song I like from them (face to face) and even that's some low grade shit.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

How shall we go about examining someone's talent?

Talent is like honor, if you need it to be defined, you don't have it.

There's many art school, and every year, thousands of people compete to enter in theses schools. There's many candidates, few are chosen. If there's was no way to measure artistic talent, to considerate who have the potential to be a better artist than others, theses selections would be impossible. But, of course it's not the case. Hitler tryed to enter in one of theses school, but he failed, was refused. An it was justified: he truly had no talent in painting, he was a terrible painter. It's dumb to say that everything is subjective and that there's no way to measure talent. Good painters exist, bad painter exist too. Hitler was a bad one and it was measurable objectively. Same for music. There's good music and good musician, and there's bad music and bad musicians.

As someone could say for example, "Mozart is more well known, thus more talented."

While another person could say, "Brittney Spears, profited more off of her talent. Thus, she is more talented."

We talk about artistic abilities, not fame of profit, don't be stupid.

To say one artist is more talented then another, isn't. You're just disagreeing with someone's tastes.

No. Taste is about if you prefer sad music or happy music, energetic music or relaxing music, Pop or Jazz, Rock or R'nB. Saying that nobody is more talented than another and that it's just a matter of state. There's people who dance well, paint well, sing well, are imaginatives and creatives, and some others who dance bad, sing bad, paint bad and have no talent. That's objective and telling the contrary is being in denial of reality.

As you're saying that preferring a lesser talented artist means that you have bad taste in music.

Yes.

So doesn't that borderline on a narrow minded way of thinking?

No.

Because it boils down to your idea on music and talent.

It's not about MY idea of music and talent. It's an obective thing, so it's not just about me.

Artistic talent itself is not objective, it's subjective.

As I've explained, you are wrong.

If we follow your idea, therefore I could just pee and fart on your face and claim that it's an artistic performance, which is as good as another. This statement is actually one of the biggest vector of mediocrity of our age. When everything is considered as equal and just a matter of personal taste, whatever degenerated guy who knows nothing about art can do the most mediocre thing and claim this is art. The personal vulgarity of anyone is legitimized like something as great as a true work of art, there's no necessity for quality anymore, since everything is subjective all you have to do is not being truly a good artist, but making people say that what you do is good art. Which means mundane network and hype.

We could discuss this for days, but no definite conclusion could be made. As there is not a conclusion to be made about two people's ideas of music and talent.We could both cherry pick "justifications" for days upon days about which artist is more talented. Any argument claiming to be objective will fall apart since everyone would be putting their own biases and perspective into their argument in the end.

The member of the jury who decided that Hitler was untalented did not need to discuss it for days. They just had a reasonably fine appreciation for art, and understood quickly that this guy had no potential in the field of graphic art.

Just like we can understand quickly that Britney Spears is less talented than Mozart and that Daft Punk is overrated.

So, again, you are wrong.

 

[1487610420]

I believe there is one song I like from them (face to face) and even that's some low grade shit.

 

[freeeekyyy]

[MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION] OP: If you're basing that opinion off of "Get Lucky," I suggest checking out the other tracks on the new album. Because your description doesn't seem to fit what I'm hearing at all.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Admittedly, Human After All was crap. I wasn't really a fan of Discovery either. Homework I liked, but I'm willing to admit IT was repetitive; it was good despite that. But Random Access Memories really, really isn't. Not compared to 95% of the music out there right now. Again I ask: have you heard anything other than Get Lucky?

Listen to this and honestly tell me this is inferior to the crap on the radio right now:

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

This is like an incredibly shitty, slow, autotuned Strokes song.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

This is like an incredibly shitty, slow, autotuned Strokes song.

I agree.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

This is like an incredibly shitty, slow, autotuned Strokes song.

Lmao


[MENTION=9331]freeeekyyy[/MENTION]

 

[five sounds]

Listen to this and honestly tell me this is inferior to the crap on the radio right now:

Music on the radio should never be used as a standard for quality.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I'm not saying that it's incredibly impressive music; but I think the OP is being unfair. Makes it sound like it's absolutely horrible, and it really isn't.

 

[HongDou]

To be honest I don't know who this "Lucky" is and I don't know why Daft Punk wants him so bad-