LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It is the only period where his natural ability hasn't been affected by vocal training, yes. Ok. And this leads us where? I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a lot more subjective when the subject is music rather than, say, mathematics. A mathematical genius is a lot easier to define. But what has really been said? Matt is a genius because: 1. His creativity. Which has been proven not that special. We are not talking about what you personally think about it, but it isn't that special. Though it is a lot better than the average person. 2. His performing skills. Which has been proven not that special. Better than the average person, not better than the average musician. 3. His voice, which has been proven not that great technically, and not that great naturally(Showbiz being the only period not affected by a great amount of training) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ok. And this leads us where? I think we've gone off on a bit of a tangent here This leaves us at: His range isn't special, his natural talent isn't special, his technique isn't special. You enjoy his voice. That's about all we can state as true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's a lot more subjective when the subject is music rather than, say, mathematics. A mathematical genius is a lot easier to define. I don't see what the flaw is with someone who has changed music in a major way, either in how it's made, heard or what people make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 But what has really been said? Matt is a genius because: 1. His creativity. Which has been proven not that special. We are not talking about what you personally think about it, but it isn't that special. Though it is a lot better than the average person. 2. His performing skills. Which has been proven not that special. Better than the average person, not better than the average musician. 3. His voice, which has been proven not that great technically, and not that great naturally(Showbiz being the only period not affected by a great amount of training) It's the combination of all those factors. That, to me, is what makes Matt special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 This leaves us at: His range isn't special, his natural talent isn't special, his technique isn't special. You enjoy his voice. That's about all we can state as true. And so do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It's the combination of all those factors. That, to me, is what makes Matt special. Yes, they are all better than the average PERSON, but aside from the creativity, nothing is better than the average MUSICIAN. So really, he is an average performer with the creative talent of a good musician. is this your definition of genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Chizzlebrox Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Well it's what I enjoy listening to, so there you go. I haven't heard anything that I enjoy listening to as much, produced by a musician who contributes so much to the band. And I remain of the opinion that Matt is pretty special. I personally don't think it is something you can break down and discuss in a logical argument. It's more than that. It's what happens to capture you and move you (and obviously a lot of other people in Muse's case) rather than comparing this person's technical ability with that person's etc. Actually, it probably is easy to discuss in a logical manner as long as there's no bias. I love Pink Floyd, get moved by quite a lot of their music, but they're not geniuses. Well, maybe Roger Waters could be considered a genius but not for his musical ability, more for his exceptional emotive writing (the guy could really tell a story in a song)...and Syd Barrett had that spark about him, a tortured prodigy. Manic Street Preachers is another example really, great musicians but it was Richey that gave them the spark. Geniuses tend to be tortured souls, it's not easy being so different to just about everyone else in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And so do you. Your point? I do enjoy his voice, but I don't claim that this would in any way increase his musical talent or geniusness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes, they are all better than the average PERSON, but aside from the creativity, nothing is better than the average MUSICIAN. So really, he is an average performer with the creative talent of a good musician. is this your definition of genius? well I wouldn't say he's an average performer, or simply a good musician. So, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 It is the only period where his natural ability hasn't been affected by vocal training, yes. How can you say that with any authority Sippe,when there is no information that he has had vocal training? Not that there would be anything wrong with that. All singers will improve their technique with vocal training, but his voice is his voice, and only his. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 well I wouldn't say he's an average performer, or simply a good musician. So, no Average compared to other musicians. Which he is Any person can learn to play what Matt plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Average compared to other musicians. Which he is Any person can learn to play what Matt plays. No they can't. Some people could practice their whole lives and never play like he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 How can you say that with any authority Sippe,when there is no information that he has had vocal training? Not that there would be anything wrong with that. All singers will improve their technique with vocal training, but his voice is his voice, and only his. Hmmm. Because he sang in like...200+ concerts before the OoS period? And tbh I don't really get this whole "natural talent" thing. What IS natural talent? Wouldn't that be what you are born with? If Matt would never have been in a band and sung every day I doubt his voice would have been as good today. It's all due to practice. Ofc he has a natural talent for singing, but there is nothing in it that couldn't be changed or created by training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Chizzlebrox Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No they can't. Some people could practice their whole lives and never play like he does. And I'm sure he could never fillet a fish in the manner of a top chef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No they can't. Some people could practice their whole lives and never play like he does. Okay, some people. Your point? You seem very determined to prove me wrong at the slightest point, but the fact remains, Most musicians can learn to do what Matt does, and his playing talents are far beyond special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Average compared to other musicians. Which he is Any person can learn to play what Matt plays. This is just getting silly. Well I hope you are enjoying your life Sippe spending all of it on a forum for average musicians, who you don't rate in the slightest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Because he sang in like...200+ concerts before the OoS period? And tbh I don't really get this whole "natural talent" thing. What IS natural talent? Wouldn't that be what you are born with? If Matt would never have been in a band and sung every day I doubt his voice would have been as good today. It's all due to practice. Ofc he has a natural talent for singing, but there is nothing in it that couldn't be changed or created by training. A natural talent can be enhanced by training. Someone with no natural ability at all can never be trained to sound good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 A natural talent can be enhanced by training. Someone with no natural ability at all can never be trained to sound good. Bullshit. Total bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Because he sang in like...200+ concerts before the OoS period? And tbh I don't really get this whole "natural talent" thing. What IS natural talent? Wouldn't that be what you are born with? If Matt would never have been in a band and sung every day I doubt his voice would have been as good today. It's all due to practice. Ofc he has a natural talent for singing, but there is nothing in it that couldn't be changed or created by training. This most definitely. There is no such thing as natural talent. It's not possible to pick up a guitar and play like Hendrix, even Hendrix didn't play like Hendrix when he started, year after year of putting the work in, listening to music constantly and actively learning about it. That's what gets you there. A lot of musicians are capable of playing more than one instrument, interested in all sorts of areas of music. There are too many myths about music. And I can play any Muse song on guitar, they aren't hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Okay, some people. Your point? You seem very determined to prove me wrong at the slightest point, but the fact remains, Most musicians can learn to do what Matt does, and his playing talents are far beyond special. Some people, most people, I don't know, I have no statistics to hand. And you're not determined to prove me wrong on the slightest point? That would be very unlike you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 This is just getting silly. Well I hope you are enjoying your life Sippe spending all of it on a forum for average musicians, who you don't rate in the slightest! I'm saying what he does is well within the reach for every musician. It doesn't change my opinion about their music, which I love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Bullshit. Total bullshit No, it's the truth. This most definitely. There is no such thing as natural talent. It's not possible to pick up a guitar and play like Hendrix, even Hendrix didn't play like Hendrix when he started, year after year of putting the work in, listening to music constantly and actively learning about it. That's what gets you there. A lot of musicians are capable of playing more than one instrument, interested in all sorts of areas of music. There are too many myths about music. And I can play any Muse song on guitar, they aren't hard. Maybe aptitude would be a better word. some people will be able to play well with little training, others will never play well no matter how hard they try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Because he sang in like...200+ concerts before the OoS period? And tbh I don't really get this whole "natural talent" thing. What IS natural talent? Wouldn't that be what you are born with? If Matt would never have been in a band and sung every day I doubt his voice would have been as good today. It's all due to practice. Ofc he has a natural talent for singing, but there is nothing in it that couldn't be changed or created by training. That's not the same as training. He has a very nice tone to his voice, and he can sing in tune. He's also got an unusual aspect to his voice which allows him to sing very high. That's all accidental, therefore natural. But yeah I'm sure it has improved because he has used it a lot though apparently with some people that amount of singing, if they don't use it properly, ruins the voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Maybe aptitude would be a better word. some people will be able to play well with little training, others will never play well no matter how hard they try. Well yeah, not everyone is the same, but the idea that someone is born to make music is absolute bollocks. That's not the same as training. He has a very nice tone to his voice, and he can sing in tune. He's also got an unusual aspect to his voice which allows him to sing very high. That's all accidental, therefore natural. But yeah I'm sure it has improved because he has used it a lot. "A gig is worth like 10 practises." You learn so much quicker when you have 200 people staring at you. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.