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.