[MarchHare]

You're referring to technical skills, not art:

Ah, but the two are very much intertwined. Michaelangelo would never have been able to sculpt David or paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if he lacked the technical skills to do so. Even the filmmakers of Deuce Bigelow wouldn't have been able to create their movie if they didn't know how to frame a shot or perform non-linear editing. Likewise, songwriting is also very much a technical skill. John K. Sampson is capable of composing far more creative and intelligent lyrics than Chad Kroeger, which is one of the reasons The Weakerthans are a better band than Nickelback. Based purely on technical skills, I'm sure both bands could do faithful covers of each other's work, but artistically one is clearly (objectively) better.

Jimi Hendrix could do things with a guitar that you can only dream of. To put it objectively, I would say that Jimi Hendrix had the skills to do anything that you could with a guitar...on the other hand, you probably don't have the skills to do all that he did. Objectively, he was a better guitarist. These things are technical skills though.

Agreed completely. Of course, I bet I could find someone who likes my songs better than his. That's subjective and has nothing to do with either of our technical capabilities, but does that mean I'm a better musician than him? Or even in the same league? Certainly not! This is precisely my contention with Nickelback; technically, they are proficient musicians, but artistically they are decidedly lacking. You would never know this, though, if you only listened to top 40 radio. If all you heard was Nickelback and Jessica Simpson and the like, you might think Nickelback is pretty good, but if you expanded your music library to include The Weakerthans or Wilco (or whoever else) you might realize that Nickelback isn't so great afterall.

Music involves not just "what Nickelback can do with a guitar," but what they have chosen to do--that's what makes it an art, and completely subjective. There are people who like those choices, and they are not wrong, as hard as it might be for you to believe.

I think this just further proves my point. That Nickelback voluntarily chooses to record derivative songs that all sound the same should be ample demonstration of their relative merit as songwriters. Then again, I would also contend that Nickelback isn't capable of doing anything more than they do; I certainly don't think they could craft a song like The Weakerthans' Pamphleteer or Our Retired Explorer (Dines With Michel Foucault in Paris, 1961).

The same can be said about the people who made Deuce Bigelow. If this is how they choose to express their artistic talents, God help them. But again, I think it's obvious that they do not possess the capabilities, both technical and artistic, to make a film the likes of Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Also, even confined within the genre of gross-out comedies Deuce Bigelow is a poor film. There's Something About Mary and the American Pie movies are examples of movies in this genre done right; Deuce Bigelow is not.

I also must stress the point that I don't think it's wrong for someone to enjoy Nickelback (or Deuce Bigelow). I think people should watch and listen to whatever they (subjectively) find appealing. The point I'm trying to make is that art can be objectively poor or of a lesser quality than the works of other artists.

Keep going, this is one of the better debates I've watched lately. Well reasoned, passionate without resorting to personal attacks. I wish more threads were like this. (even if it is OT)

Thanks.

And cheers to Cube Inmate; we may not ultimately agree, but at least we've remained civil and (hopefully) caused the other to rethink and refine their position. Far too often internet debates devolve to petty name-calling, obscenities, and (worst of all) pointing out spelling or grammar mistakes in your opponent's posts. I've always thought that once any of that becomes part of the discussion, it's pretty much an admission by the opposing side that their position has become untenable. Kudos for rising above that and providing a highly stimulating conversation.

As an aside MarchHare, you seem to be a film buff. In university English we watched Citzen Kane and Days of Heaven. While I like Citizen Kane I despised Days of Heaven. Have you seen it? What were your thoughts.

I certainly am a film buff. In fact, I'm taking a film course at SAIT currently. We shot my student short film last week and are editing it tonight; I'm quite anxious to see how it all turns out. Actually, this just reinforces a previous point I mentioned about artists being in a better position to critique their peers. I know that since I've started taking this course I notice subtle techniques in movies that went entirely unappreciated before. I suspect the average movie-viewer wouldn't recognize the skill required of the filmmakers either.

Sorry, I haven't seen Days of Heaven, but I will check it out.