I like The Shaggs, but they're not talented.

That's only if you limit your scope to technical proficiency.

By most people's standards they are seen as having no talent. I would say they have very little talent. They could do things that a person with zero knowledge of a musical instrument couldn't do. Imho. With hardly any talent at all, they had somehow got through writing and performing songs and making an album. I think it was their father who gave then the chance to make the record. It wasn't a talent scout obviously - that goes without say. :/ And as bad they were they somehow got a cult following for those who like outsider art. Probably cause of Zappa.

I don't think they're talented in song-writing terms, production-wise, or melodically either really. It just works despite all that, I guess the appeal is the lack of actual musical talent that is so compelling.

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.

Was about to totally agree with you but then this;

Totally agree.

idk much about the shaggs but from what ive heard from them idk if i would call them talented. they have a naive sound that can be a little endearing but you also gotta fix their songs on your head whenever you listen to them. they have a good sense of melody but they don't have the skill to pull it off and you kinda focus on the potential they have not their execution.

It may not be a fair comparison but i kinda view Daniel Johnston in a similar way except that i like how Daniel pulls it off because despite of his technical talents he bares his soul in his songs. that's something i still haven't perceived in the shaggs. (but again idk much about them)

I think that one important thing is often forgotten, especially in, errh... geekier circles (the metal community, the prog community, this community), namely the importance of playing with feel.

Go to a really good, respected, cello teacher for instance. Then learn to play super difficult pieces fast, precise and without flaw. Most likely, the teacher will tell you that you are terrible and need more practice. This is because playing with feel is just as important as technical skill. It's 50%/50%, but most prog/metal supposed "virtuosos" have very little skill in the expressive part of that equation.

Basically, I'm saying that in my mind, most highly regarded prog/metal "gods" are of neglible talent in my eyes.

This goes for singers as well. Hell, just to be a bastard and push the issue a bit more, I'll divulge that I think Opeth is a mediocre band because they play like sleepy robots. At least pre- Heritage.

Robots don't sleep.