1

[ManBearPig...]

Irrational horseshit from start to finish. Being a brutally great musician means so much more than writing one "timeless" song that gets popular for a ton of different reasons, not all related to the song itself.
Technicality, theory knowledge, sight reading, dictation, it all plays a role. Put that "Neil Young" fag in front of a jazz lead sheet and he can't to a single thing. He is effectively limited to that one or two lame songs he wrote 90 years ago that fags like yourself use as a drug to feel young again.

And we are not discussing your view of what an "artist" is here, because in your wrinkle infested goofball face an "artist" equals an old fag with an alcohol problem that knows 3 chords that you feels represent your lost youth

Oh, and Celine managed to become one of the most popular singers on earth. Certainly she made an impact on millions upon millions of people. How many people (not including alcoholics and nostalgia ridden losers your age) has she made an impact on with her music the last 15 years compared to those geezers you like? They say music is about emotions, and she has had an emotional impact on the world the last 15 years like your fags could only dream about.

So, in one corner we have: Better talent, ultra superior skill in every area of musicianship, made 1000x the impact on peoples emotions during the last 15 years. On the other corner we have old fags a-nd and an old fag that thinks real musicians must fit his criteria of an "artiste" and that this makes them superior even though they suck at everything. Oh, and who has had the most popular tune?

Chimps, you are an old funny penis. 

an artist creates art.  celine dion sings someone else's, with her voice run through 20 modulators.  come on, by your reasoning the backstreet boys are musical legends.  "ultra superior skill in every area of musicianship" - lol at you.  she's not a musician, she just sings songs written by others. 

[wavelength]

damn chimpsey and debussey, who would think you two could get so excited over celine dion

[wavelength]

[Mr Nobody]

[ManBearPig...]

If you read what Debussey wrote: Technical skill, sight reading ect, all part of musicianship. Even with no effects Celine owns them all, while the Backstreet Boys comes out as below average because they score low on all those skills. Thus, you are completely wrong.

Definition of musician: any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.
Someone who writes their own music is a composer.

Thus you are wrong again. Celine Dion is a musician, and an ultra skilled one. Backstreet Boys is by the criteria Debussey wrote not skilled, they are below average.

If you ever actually work with professional musicians, or know some of them, ask what they think of celine Dion and her musicianship.

Ps: A lot of the "art" of music is in the performance itself.

well, what in your head constitutes a professional musician?  to you, neil young's a joke and she's the goddess of all music.  
So, a composer's not a musician?

while on the topic of neil young, his music has gone on for 5 generations now, and he still packs stadiums.  let's see where celine dion is in 25 years (i'll give her 15 already).  

what i'm saying is, i can go down the street and ask a 100 people (age 15 to 60) to name 2 neil young songs, and i can ask the same of celine dion.  how many people, including "professional musicians" can name 2 celine dion songs?  did she even record 2?

[wavelength]

Oh, and Celine managed to become one of the most popular singers on earth. Certainly she made an impact on millions upon millions of people. How many people (not including alcoholics and nostalgia ridden losers your age) has she made an impact on with her music the last 15 years compared to those geezers you like?

These guys are some of the most successful recording artists of germany ever:

[ManBearPig...]

here DF, Rolling Stone asked 100 professional musicians who the 100 best singers of all time are.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/24161972/page/103

Neil Young is 37, Celine Dion is not on the list.

[dr.chimps]

Irrational horseshit from start to finish. Being a brutally great musician means so much more than writing one "timeless" song that gets popular for a ton of different reasons, not all related to the song itself.
Technicality, theory knowledge, sight reading, dictation, it all plays a role. Put that "Neil Young" fag in front of a jazz lead sheet and he can't to a single thing. He is effectively limited to that one or two lame songs he wrote 90 years ago that fags like yourself use as a drug to feel young again.

And we are not discussing your view of what an "artist" is here, because in your wrinkle infested goofball face an "artist" equals an old fag with an alcohol problem that knows 3 chords that you feels represent your lost youth

Oh, and Celine managed to become one of the most popular singers on earth. Certainly she made an impact on millions upon millions of people. How many people (not including alcoholics and nostalgia ridden losers your age) has she made an impact on with her music the last 15 years compared to those geezers you like? They say music is about emotions, and she has had an emotional impact on the world the last 15 years like your fags could only dream about. Regardless of how you define "soul" in music, it's clear that people feel that their "soul" is being moved when Celine blasts her voice into the air.

So, in one corner we have: Better talent, ultra superior skill in every area of musicianship, made 1000x the impact on peoples emotions during the last 15 years. On the other corner we have old fags a-nd and an old fag that thinks real musicians must fit his criteria of an "artiste" and that this makes them superior even though they suck at everything. Oh, and who has had the most popular tune?

Chimps, you are an old funny penis.  

I think we can safely say this is a good sized meltdown.

[dr.chimps]

If you read what Debussey wrote: Technical skill, sight reading ect, all part of musicianship. Even with no effects Celine owns them all, while the Backstreet Boys comes out as below average because they score low on all those skills. Thus, you are completely wrong.

Definition of musician: any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.
Someone who writes their own music is a composer.

Thus you are wrong again. Celine Dion is a musician, and an ultra skilled one. Backstreet Boys is by the criteria Debussey wrote not skilled, they are below average.

If you ever actually work with professional musicians, or know some of them, ask what they think of celine Dion and her musicianship.

Ps: A lot of the "art" of music is in the performance itself.

Celine Dion is a superbly skilled cipher. American Idol suggests itself as to why such nonsense is so popular these days. Pre-packaged sonic stew. Yes, she has great control, range and whatever other 'snobby' academy of music characteristics you want to throw out, but she will always be spectacle, not art. Always diva, not artist. Sorry, bro. Get over it.  

[wavelength]

She is an exceptional singer, but even when not taking into account whether you like the songs or not, you can still not like her way of interpretation.

[dr.chimps]

Is that all you've got? You mean Debussey went through all of that for THAT?   A little insult here and there is fine, attack the arguments themselves jackass You said this was gonna be fun, but you are boring

You want personal insults, your gonorrheic homunculus!? What the fuck would a lice-infested troll like yourself know about insults?

[The Master]

Celine Dion is a superbly skilled cipher. American Idol suggests itself as to why such nonsense is so popular these days. Pre-packaged sonic stew. Yes, she has great control, range and whatever other 'snobby' academy of music characteristics you want to throw out, but she will always be spectacle, not art. Always diva, not artist. Sorry, bro. Get over it.  

You could also claim that 2+2 = 5 while you're at it, because you don't seem to want to argument for your ludacris claims. Not even an insult to spare

By definition she is both an artist and a musician. What you are doing is superimposing your own personal ideas about what constitutes these terms into this discussion and thereby moving away from the commonly accepted definitions of these terms. And Debussey thought you were a word guy.

Neil Young will always be a group therapy leader for old people wanting to relive their past, not a skilled musician. That was btw what this "discussion" started with: That Celine Dion is an exceptional singer. And nobody can show that she ain't. She scores mega high on every criteria, and she beats Neil Young's singing and general musicianship into the drain with her pinky.

If yo don't think she's an artist because she uses to much botox, then you can always seek comfort in those "out of tune" singers you love so much. They smell too, but at least they are "keeping it real"!, eh?  


///////// Get over it "bro". You really don't have any basis behind your claims besides being an old geezer with misinformed opinions

[dr.chimps]

You could also claim that 2+2 = 5 while you're at it, because you don't seem to want to argument for your ludacris claims. Not even an insult to spare

By definition she is both an artist and a musician. What you are doing is superimposing your own personal ideas about what constitutes these terms into this discussion and thereby moving away from the commonly accepted definitions of these terms. And Debussey thought you were a word guy.

Neil Young will always be a group therapy leader for old people wanting to relive their past, not a skilled musician.


///////// Get over it "bro". You really don't have any basis behind your claims besides being an old geezer with misinformed opinions

Hmm. I guess all those years of critical analysis were for nothing. And I suppose going to museums, concerts, writing reviews and reading 000's of books were for nought, as well. Boy, do I feel like an idiot. Thanks to Getbig and Debussey for laying it out.   

[Mr Nobody]

 

[The Master]

Hmm. I guess all those years of critical analysis were for nothing. And I suppose going to museums, concerts, writing reviews and reading 000's of books were for nought, as well. Boy, do I feel like an idiot. Thanks to Getbig and Debussey for laying it out.  

Yet you don't manage to back up anything.

Or maybe you are trying to piss Debussey off by not backing up anything.

The points here = simple: 1: Celine Dion is amazing at musicianship. She is an excellent singer, technically gifted. 2: Neil Young and similar folks suck at the points in 1. 3: The other things discussed = difficult to define and the answers can be as many as there are arseholes. Everybody's got one, but the main thing here was to argue and start make it entertaining. It did not get entertaining because a certain someone refused to get really dirty and start with the nasty insults before it was too late

PS: TO ALL OF GETBIG: DEBUSZSEY LOVES CELINE DION; MARIAH CAREY AND WHITNEY HOUSTON! GREAT VOICES, HOT WOMEN, YES!!!!

[ManBearPig...]

Criterias for "musicianship": Technical skill on your chosen instrument(s) (including voice), theory knowledge, sight reading, dictation, ear ect.

A composer is a musician, but a musician does not have to be a composer.

If you read between the lines of this discussion, you see that the arguments are overdone and stupid because this really ain't serious genius. It's almost impossible to be "right" in this discussion, it's just arguing and being dumb for argungs sake (sorry Sperms, too tired to continue this for much longer)   Celine Dion is an extremely skilled singer, Neil Young has some very fine tunes and both are legends in the contemporary music world. Some like both, some like one of them, some does not like any of them.  

Celine Dion is completely superior to most musicians in most criterias covered by the term "musicianship" though, that is a fact that CAN be debated, just like Lang Lang or Keith Jarret = millions of times better in "musicianship" than the keyboardist to "Coldplay" or whatnot. Can Neil Young even read notes?

And everybody today knows "My heart will go on".

Calm down bozo, it's not serious.

I win.

[/youtube]

[wavelength]

so far that freak debussey is winning, sorry chimpsey whimpsey

[regmac]

Is she the one who sang that "I'll never live" song Priest posed to at the 2002 Olympia?    I cannot find that song anywhere!!!

[Palpatine Q]

Sinead rules all as far as singing  talent goes

[dr.chimps]

Chimps has chosen the "Onlysemen/Noworries" style of arguing that got him absolutely SMASHED in the discussion against SuckMyMuscle.

He has nothing, and he even fails to bring teh insults. All those years of "critical analysis" was worthless. What an arsehole

And of course Debussey is winning. Debussey has the support of John Petrucci.

I'm losing!? If championing creative people who write and express their own music, who are not made/over produced in the studio, who have achieved critical as well as popular acclaim, who are named and respected by like skilled peers, who have experimented with different styles/genres and variations on a theme is 'losing' then I guess I'm backing the wrong horse. I guess I should take my dog and pony show to Las Vegas and set up my tent with Debussey let the people come to me.  

[dr.chimps]

Sinead rules all as far as singing  talent goes

I do like her voice. It's thickened a bit, of late. 'Course Bobby Plant can't hit those high notes he used to, either.

[dyslexic]

The best song ever written by Petrucci:

(Also the by far the "best" vocalist they ever managed)

Unfortunately Petrucci is a better composer than he is an accomplished guitarist. He spends all of his time immersing himself in the perspective and techniques of Steve Vai. He could have been so much more original given the individuality of his (old) band.

Funny thing about this song; most of the comments are based a reccuring theme of "gayness"


"Pull me Under" would have been the closest second.

[dr.chimps]

The best song ever written by Petrucci:

(Also the by far the "best" vocalist they ever managed)

Unfortunately Petrucci is a better composer than he is an accomplished guitarist. He spends all of his time immersing himself in the perspective and techniques of Steve Vai. He could have been so much more original given the individuality of his (old) band.

Funny thing about this song; most of the comments are based a reccuring theme of "gayness"


"Pull me Under" would have been the closest second.

LOL. Oh Brother. Like listening to Journey-lite, with a low-rent Steve Perry up front. 

/he's rockin' the michael bolton mullet, tho.   

[dr.chimps]

* Some write and sing, some just sing. Both have to be creative in their performances, thus both have creativity present in their work. Celine is just as creative when she interprets a song as Neil Young is by writing one. Neil Young ain't "more" creative because he just writes and sing (this is not a proveable statement, nor can it be disproven, but it can be proven by examples to similar situations and the common consensus in respect to these situations). Even if that were the case, his singing is so terrible that Celines performing creativity smashes his 3 chord writing and epic singing creativity (haha, sorry ). The only thing you have shown by claiming that Neil Young is more creative than Celine Dion is that you fancy his type of creativity more while being completely ignorant towards many other areas of musical creativity. Trying to push "creativity shit" this off as a "winning argument" when it is impossible to do so is just moronic.

* Celine ain't "made" in the studio. She uses a slick pop-sound, that's what her market wants, so she uses certain studio techniques to attain that sound. She can still outperform those lovers of yours without those techniques as her technical abilities are far better. But this is really not a point to be discussed, this is a style question. Neil Young likes a "raw sound", thats his thing. Celine don't. One of them are not "more creative/better" than the other, you can neither find a suitable ciriteria to determine the best one, nor is it of importance to what this discussion started with: That Celine has a brutal voice.

* "who have achieved critical as well as popular acclaim, who are named and respected by like skilled peers, who have experimented with different styles/genres and variations on a theme is 'losing' then I guess I'm backing the wrong horse"
-> Celine Dion has done all of this and more too. You really wanna start pooling quantitative data for analysis?


All you have done is to outline your own musical taste, redefine a bunch of common terms to make it seem like your candidate is better (which is moronic, especially for a word nerd) in an area where it's impossible to determine who is "best".

Again:
1: Celine is much better at musicianship. She is technically a better singer and thus a far better performer of most types of music (despite old geezer rock). Since there is art in performing music too, she is a better "artist" in those areas where Neil Young would sound like a sick goat, which is about every style of music despite the 3 old geezer rock songs he can sing.  
2: Neil Young and his friends sucks at musicianship.
3: The other stuff in this discussion is impossible to discuss despite banter and "not getting anywhere talk". Many people like Neil Young, many people like Celine. Who is more "creative" is impossible to find out, and for fucks sake: The criteria of interpersonality can be stuffed up yur arse.

4: You have tried to use your ideas from 3 to claim that your candidate is the best by using these criteria 3 elements to justify criterias from 1 by superimposing your own horseshit opinion on top of established definitions (because the real defintion do not allow you to do so). This alone is enough to lose the discussion.

(AGain): 5: Celine is not a composer, and has never claimed to be one. So even though your friend Neil Young writes his own music, it does not make him more "creativce" than Celine because Celine expresses her creativity through her peformance. Holding Celine's "lack of song writing" against her is analogous to holding a violinists lack of piano compositions against him/her". (You could always try to make the case that someone that is creative within two fields of music is "more" creative than someone within 1 field, but then you have to justify it. Good luck with that).
The end both are musicians, but they have their respective field, and comparing their creative oputput must be done with respect to the field of music they are in.  

Haha. If you believe that shit, you're either trolling or an idiot. Or, maybe Duck's got the keyboard again.

/you argument chain is weak and you repeat yourself. oh, and, for fuck's sake, edit yourself for length. we are 'arguing' in front of an audience, after all. this isn't academia. 

[dr.chimps]

* Celine ain't "made" in the studio. She uses a slick pop-sound, that's what her market wants, so she uses certain studio techniques to attain that sound. She can still outperform those lovers of yours without those techniques as her technical abilities are far better. But this is really not a point to be discussed, this is a style question. Neil Young likes a "raw sound", thats his thing. Celine don't. One of them are not "more creative/better" than the other, you can neither find a suitable ciriteria to determine the best one, nor is it of importance to what this discussion started with: That Celine has a brutal voice.

Real 'artists,' like Neil Young, realize and express what's inside them. What other people think of it be damned. If it makes no money or does not resonate with the masses...too bad. That is real. That is art.  

Game. Set. Match.

Thanks for playing, Debussey. You were a pretty good opponent.