[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I did say disguise the contestants, to remove the marketability factor.

Regarding Urban, this sentence below from a USA Today story . . . I'm not talking about letting him use his voice or his looks in our theoretical contest.

Doesn't matter. More people in America listen to music with guitar as the predominant instrument than violin or trumpet put together. Further, jangly country (I'm assuming that's what Urban would play if he were going solo guitar) is more appealing than solo jazz trumpet or solo classical violin on the same populist grounds.

See . . . . . here's the problem, the same problem with the writers at the Washington Post setting up this experiment. You have a pre-disposition, because of your background, to appreciate Bell more than the others. I don't have a problem with that but we must acknowledge it exists.

I listen to Marsalis more than I do Bell. I like jazz more. My argument is not that I appreciate Bell more. I'm arguing that having had enough training to know how much training it would actually take to be as good as Bell (or Marsalis, see below) is, I can say confidently that it is a rarer and more developed talent to get where Bell is than where Urban is objectively.

Urban's talents, which I am not saying don't exist, are not on the same lines as Bell's. Songwriting, entertaining, being a pop personality, whatever. Those are certainly talents. No doubt he is a much better songwriter than Bell is. But on the grounds of sheer musical ability, it's not a contest. It just isn't. Call me a snob if you want.

It would be like arguing that a sweet $15 bottle of Martini Asti brut is better than a $350 bottle of Dom because more people drink it, or that it makes the company more money. The language is confusing the issue.

I would wonder if a trained Jazz musician would agree with you that Bell has more musical talent than Marsalis . . . . . or would that person, in claiming that fact, simply be doing what you're doing, expressing an appreciation for a talent they have some training/appreciation in.

You have me wrong in one respect; I said that Bell has more musical talent than Jay-Z and Keith Urban put together, not Urban and Marsalis. Marsalis is incredibly talented and plays classical as well. He's criticized occasionally of not being "creative" with his own sound, but most people agree (snobs, I'm sure) that he has one of the foremost talents on the trumpet. I don't think I'd attempt to argue that Bell or Marsalis is more talented than the other, both are supreme masters of their instrument.

I would probably have no problem finding all sorts of trained professionals thinking Urban is a guitar impressario . . . . . just as they have for, using another obscure example in country music, Vince Gill, long known well beyond country music as something of a "dazzling guitarist" as well.

Disguises.

Nothing but instruments.

Give them half an hour in a train station.

Who raises the most money? Who gets the most people to stop?

Does it prove anything about talent? Or does it merely make a statement about popular trends, the pre-conditioning we all have? Bell, as an example, might do better in Eastern Europe than New York.



Snob!!!

Cowperson

I won't argue this point because we both know who it would be. I'm arguing that Urban drawing greater crowds, even totally incognito, doesn't say anything about the kind of talent that I had an objection to you equating between Bell and Urban.