Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
ftfy
I honestly think that The Shaggs are a pretty good counter argument to the tech=talent argument because their music shows that a primitive approach to music can be pretty awesome if you don't get caught up on the technical aspects of it.
To elaborate I'll use Lou Reed as an example. The dude can sing four notes, but he's talented in that he can take that limited (and not all that appealing from a conventional standpoint not counting his own music) and make it into something great.
|
I mean I see your point but the lines are blurred between something being unconventional or simply not very good. I mean the fact I enjoy The Shaggs music shows their must be some qualities that work well, and I buy the primitive point you made actually. Lou Reed had very strong lyricism and song-writing to make up for his range, and he used his lack of 'conventional' singing ability to his advantage by presenting his lyricism and world views in a gritty and humorous way that no one had really done before. I guess Dylan's similar in that respect. I guess my point is that I can break down the elements that make someone like Lou Reed talented and innovative, whereas The Shaggs are somehow more than the sum of their parts, for no individual areas strikes me as being skilful or novel or dynamic. It's just that the layers of amateurishness sort of mesh together into something quite hypnotic, but it's basically down to the charm and lack of ability.