Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Hockey skill is something that can be objectively quantified.
Iginla scores more goals than Glencross, so he's a better player. When players are young it takes a lot of information and experience to figure out what indicates who will be an objectively better hockey player later in their career. So yeah, a pro scout is going to have a much more valuable opinion than me.
As for music, there is no agreed upon objective qualithy that makes one band better than another.
|
But the thing is that hockey skill CANNOT be objectively quantified, for if it could be, why would there be arguments about who is the best player ever: Gretzky, Orr, or Lemieux? You are confusing the products of skill - goals, assists, awards - with the skills themselves. A hockey scout is going to be better than you at evaluating skill because he is an expert in his field, not because he can look at objective statistics, as otherwise any nebbish with a spreadsheet could be a scout. For that matter, "objective" statistics about hockey don't exist - does scoring 50 goals in the NHL equal 50 in the KHL, or the SEL?
You are arguing against yourself, really - you admit that you don't know as much about evaluating hockey talent as an expert, but claim that the similar statement about evaluating musical talent doesn't apply despite it being exactly analogous. Why shouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
To be quite honest, I'm not a fan of Nickelback because of their cheesy and high-schoolish lyrics. Kroeger's voice is also unique, so it gets tiring after listening to it continually. However, change the lyrics to some of their songs, and change the singer, and the tunes and melodies themselves are just fine.
|
So if their lyrics didn't suck, and Kroeger wasn't an annoying vocalist, they'd be better? The point is that their lyrics DO suck, and he IS a singer of limited range and repetitive mannerisms. Sure, there are people out there that probably think the lyrics are deep and meaningful, and there are probably people that think he's a great singer - but any English major would laugh at their lyrics, and any trained vocalist would notice his technical ineptitude.
These aren't subjective measures in any real sense anymore than the observation that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Tiger Woods could be false because just because Tiger and his cronies might disagree. Again, just because one opinion can't be "proven" correct, doesn't mean another opinion about the same issue can't be wrong.
I really don't care if people like Nickelback, or Michael Bay, or Dan Brown, or any other purveyor of popular "entertainment", so long as that liking isn't somehow hallowed by the mantra of "everyone's opinion is equally important", especially as there's a very simple way to ensure your opinion is respected: know something non-superficial about the subject.