BF2S Forums A truely sincere apology

I do agree that lip syncing live is sad. But the quality of a cover is subjective.

Lai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Again.. you fail to recognize the primary goal. The primary goal of McDonald is to "sell like it were ambrosia". They aren't going out to find the finest chefs and use the finest products because the goal is economic.

Fail is fail. It's not about quality. In the comical sense it is about failure to the extreme or in an ironic sense. Does this mean that you admit she has not failed? Why should your opinion matter over millions? Everyone has different taste and quality of music IS open for debate. However, the best way to determine if someone has been successful is to look at their intended goals and compare them to the results.

It means I absolutely admit she has not failed at acquiring a horde of fans and a decent bank account, similar as to how McDonalds has not failed at even becoming perhaps Americas most succesfull export brand. However, it means absolutely nothing when assessing her musical talents. As a musician she's still failed, like McDonalds still fails horribly from a gastronomical perspective. Now, you say we have to look at their intended goals, but to stick with Hitler: are we not allowed to proclaim he failed as a human being, merely because he "succeeded" (you get the point) as Führer, his intended goal?

Your opinion means absolutely nothing. I never challenged or even disagreed with your personal taste. I'm just not as arrogant. You just presume that your own personal opinion means enough to consider her fail. .. despite the fact that she has most likely achieved more than she ever imagined. She is the ultimate judge of her own success.

Well Hitler certainly was successful at taking a good portion of Europe including the Netherlands. Just because the results are not desirable to you it does not mean he failed. Yes on the world stage he failed, but that is because the majority of mankind outnumbered the "number of cattle he/she has acquired".

Kmarion wrote:

Your opinion means absolutely nothing. I never challenged or even disagreed with your personal taste. I'm just not as arrogant. You just presume that your own personal opinion means enough to consider her fail. .. despite the fact that she has most likely achieved more than she ever imagined. She is the ultimate judge of her own success.

Do you then admit that Taylor Swift has failed by the definition of artistic succes (as opposed to commerical succes)?

Kmarion wrote:

Well Hitler certainly was successful at taking a good portion of Europe including the Netherlands.

That was a pointless remark, but to be honest that hadn't so much to do with Hitler's succes than with Dutch epic fail, defending the border with one tank and WWI era MG's on dog carts.

Lai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Your opinion means absolutely nothing. I never challenged or even disagreed with your personal taste. I'm just not as arrogant. You just presume that your own personal opinion means enough to consider her fail. .. despite the fact that she has most likely achieved more than she ever imagined. She is the ultimate judge of her own success.

Do you then admit that Taylor Swift has failed by the definition of artistic succes (as opposed to commerical succes)?

Define of artistic success. You are applying your personal taste to what you think should be the be all end all of quality.

Kmarion wrote:

Well Hitler certainly was successful at taking a good portion of Europe including the Netherlands.

That was a pointless remark, but to be honest that hadn't so much to do with Hitler's succes than with Dutch epic fail, defending the border with one tank and WWI era MG's on dog carts.

I'm not surprised that you think it was pointless. I'm spinning my wheels trying to get you to understand something so utterly basic. Hitler succeeded, the fact that it was so easy to do so really isn't the point. You have a problem separating results and intent.

Ilocano wrote:

Lai wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Lai, how come have you heard of her anyway? I hadn't until this whole Kenya West thing, and I presumed she has utterly no exposure in Europe.

Because I have a 14 year old brother who plays classical oboe, but for some reason has a weak spot for MTV, and because I was at a friends birthday party where the a Hungarian diplomat's son (I believe it was Hungarian, might be something opther Balkan though), tried to convince us Taylor Swift was teh shite!

Oh, I get it now.  Classical music snob house.  Who gives a f*ck.  Back in my youth, I was regularly the top/lead trumpeter in orchestra/band.  I like classical and jazz music.  But I also enjoy all kinds of musics.  Dokken, Judas Priest, Journey, anyone?  It all depends on my mood.  Taylor Swifts songs are just fun.

I don't "ban" all non-classical music, but I do not appreciate commercial pre-fabs and I do distinguish quality. I can enjoy pop music too, but if you ask me in the end which is the musically more genius, the song we played at the party last night or Mozart's Requiem, I have no problem choosing. That doesn't mean I don't have moments I rather listen to some pop song rather than a classical piece. Personal rule number one is not to listen to classical music in the car.

Lai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Define of artistic success. You are applying your personal taste to what you think should be the be all end all of quality.

I will define (vocal musical) artistic succes:

1. The ability to sing and keep tone, without aid of electronics.
2. The possesion of a unique personal sound, without aid of artificial modifications.
3. The ability to innovate and produce something noticable rather than which has been done a thousand times before.

Failure to comply to points 1. and/or 2. may be forgiven, by virtue of excellence in point 3., and the other way around.

This has nothing to do with personal taste.

HAHA.. the rules of success as defined by you have nothing to do with your taste. Excellent.

You've come to the conclusion that Talyor Swift can't keep tone unaided because you heard her once at a birthday party?

Kmarion wrote:

Lai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Define of artistic success. You are applying your personal taste to what you think should be the be all end all of quality.

I will define (vocal musical) artistic succes:

1. The ability to sing and keep tone, without aid of electronics.
2. The possesion of a unique personal sound, without aid of artificial modifications.
3. The ability to innovate and produce something noticable rather than which has been done a thousand times before.

Failure to comply to points 1. and/or 2. may be forgiven, by virtue of excellence in point 3., and the other way around.

This has nothing to do with personal taste.

HAHA.. the rules of success as defined by you have nothing to do with your taste. Excellent.

You've come to the conclusion that Talyor Swift can't keep tone unaided because you heard her once at a birthday party?

The rules of vocal musical succes as defined by the meaning of the words "musical" and "succes". Whether it is pop, classical, jazz or whatever is a matter of taste. It does not include commercial succes.

I didn't say Swift can't keep tone, I'd have to hear her perform live. However, I can say she doesn't comply to points 2. AND 3. I can also say she's marketed like a McDonalds burger and that she would have a lot less of "succes" if she wasn't.

Kmarion wrote:

What makes you think originality is a pre-requisite for talent? (This isn't to say that Swift is unoriginal)

Lai wrote:

Failure to comply to points 1. and/or 2. may be forgiven, by virtue of excellence in point 3., and the other way around.

IO agree, if she'd perform above average in a certain genre, she might display talent while being repetative.

Kmarion wrote:

"I thought if I could walk into an audition and play a song that I had written, then I'd stand out. And that has really made a difference," Swift said." She does have a degree of originality about her. You're just incapable of thinking beyond your own personal likes to see that.

Ah,.. FFS are you married to her or what? It is not personal likes, you won't even hear me say her individual songs are really "bad" (like rap from Kazakhstan), but they could all have been sung by anyone else in the genre with the same, more, or less natural vocal talent. The only reason she stands out is that in appearance (and with quite a deal of plasterwork) she is a perfect American role model, with a public image carefully plotted by some smart record bosses.

I generally don't like Christina Aguilera's music either, I still don't listen to her songs, but I do acknowledge that she has grown artistically and that with several of her later songs has displayed "talent".

i really dont think most people care about this.  its just force fed through the media for that tween group with mommy and daddy's money to spend.  at least it keeps the economy going.

Lai wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

What makes you think originality is a pre-requisite for talent? (This isn't to say that Swift is unoriginal)

Lai wrote:

Failure to comply to points 1. and/or 2. may be forgiven, by virtue of excellence in point 3., and the other way around.

IO agree, if she'd perform above average in a certain genre, she might display talent while being repetative.

Now we're getting somewhere! I assume this means musical talent. Point three is "innovation". So unless you are innovating you are fail?   Again these rules are all set down by you. The only real industry standard has been deemed pointless by you. I can agree with this to some degree because I understand that in the end it's all relative to listener/fan. However, this isn't to say that there shouldn't be any weight given to accolades and awards. She has met her goals, both musically and commercially.

Kmarion wrote:

"I thought if I could walk into an audition and play a song that I had written, then I'd stand out. And that has really made a difference," Swift said." She does have a degree of originality about her. You're just incapable of thinking beyond your own personal likes to see that.

Ah,.. FFS are you married to her or what? It is not personal likes, you won't even hear me say her individual songs are really "bad" (like rap from Kazakhstan), but they could all have been sung by anyone else in the genre with the same, more, or less natural vocal talent. The only reason she stands out is that in appearance (and with quite a deal of plasterwork) she is a perfect American role model, with a public image carefully plotted by some smart record bosses.

I generally don't like Christina Aguilera's music either, I still don't listen to her songs, but I do acknowledge that she has grown artistically and that with several of her later songs has displayed "talent".

Married to her? When it comes to her style quite the opposite in fact. You're inability to think outside of your predetermined world view is disheartening. The insta-Evil corp manufacturing opinion is about the most repetitive and unoriginal thing I hear now-a-days. It's why people like you come to these conclusions while simultaneously admitting that you haven't actually put in any real time or effort listening to her music. She has vocal talent and she has used it along with what nearly every other major recording artist uses, a good publicist.

If Kanye can snatch microphone, is Taylor really swift?

kuntye needs to die in fire.

Last edited by Red Forman (2009-09-15 17:55:36)