Slight correction to my part, Bennet was her father's given name, but yeah, here's the links for you:
The way you use them? No.
I really am not looking forward to trying to respond to a bunch of 'oks' and splits.
I'll give you a month to comb through housing deeds, high school and college charters, allocation of Federal money for education, welfare, and medical expenses, the policing measures of any place in the united states, the Constitution and Bill of Rights., and anything I've might have missed.
I think one of us has misunderstood something. I'm not talking about Actors from Actorland, I'm talking about African-Americans. Are you trying to say that systemic racism doesn't exist for black actors? Are you saying that this systemic racism isn't keeping black actors for reaching their full potential? That an aspiring teenage actor's disruptive home life and crippling poverty has no impact on whether or not he can show up to the audition and nail the part?
Nothing here indicates that she was not being hired because of her name, nothing indicates the opposite either though. The statement is vague, what does "In a matter of days" actually mean specifically? So I can't make a conclusion either way. Could be she was being judged based on her name, could also be that she wasn't and was trying to score points in today's climate.
And what way do you think I use them?
When did I say what they had was experience? I said that there was more to being a major singer than just singing. Stage presence, ability to work day after day after day, ability handle going around the country or the world all the time, managing the politics of interviews, handling absolutely massive audience sizes. Those are just a few examples, but I didn't say anything about experience.
I would say that it's entirely possible for a major singer to also be a talented one. X and Y can be independently true or false.
If you think that she only became successful for completely arbitrary reasons then I'm going to need you to give me more than just your subjective opinion on her music as proof. For my part I only know of her from the song 'Someone Like You' which I find to be a very beautiful and moving song. Other than that though I don't know anything of her other work.
Thinking like that is going to lead you to never being successful in life.
Acting is typically done by audition, meaning the actors go to the places where they can get a job, so I'm not sure how good this phrase works.
If you want to be willfully ignorant, then we have nothing else to talk about.
As a blunt instrument to stymie discussion. The whole point of the scientific method is to try to prove your hypothesis wrong. You on the other hand have a conclusion and you are trying to find evidence that conforms to that conclusion.
The difference with a lot of these people is perseverence, nous, attitude, and yes there's a certain amount of dumb luck. Some people with great voices don't have much stage presence or image. Some decide a nice, safe career as an accountant is better. Some just don't happen to meet the right manager / talent scount / songrwriter / producer etc.
I like Lady Gaga myself and you're right, a lot of dumb luck goes into it. To the credit of her, Katy Perry and many others who made it, they seized the opportunities that they had and made the most of them. There's also another big variable in that it's really impossible to predict what things are going to catch on and how. The iconic drum line from Wipeout by the Surfaris? Their drummer just took his high school marching band rhythm and increased the tempo. Queen's label absolutely hated Bohemian Rhapsody. Label execs told Rod Stewart he'd never get a hit single with a song using mandolin. Beatlemania kicked off Stateside because of one call-in request to a radio station asking to play the new song from this English boy band. People were initially skeptical that the idiosyncratic wastoid singer for Black Sabbath could have a successful solo career. Led Zeppelin got their name from Keith Moon talking shit on Jimmy Page's idea of a supergroup. Last year, I spent my birthday at a concert headlined by a Mongolian folk metal band who had gotten big enough online from their debut album that they could have a full-fledged North America tour with supporting bands, which in metal is a pretty big deal. Like I said, there's no way to predict what's going to resonate with the right group of people.
Well, first, it's Charlie Murphy and Samuel L. Jackson. Nobody worth listening to is going to complain about Charlie Murphy or Samuel L. Jackson in anything. Second, that's the whole-ass joke about Ed and Gin Rummy, beyond the surface-level satirizing the Bush administration.
I would not call it surface level. Most people laughed at Sam Jackson and Charlie Murphy voicing wannabe gangsta white guys that joke and execution works on multiple levels on its own. The Bush Administration satire was pretty subtle in when compared to that and parallels between when they robbed the gas station and Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq war can easily missed or find other layers that I never noticed until I did more research.
You assume I went looking for my conclusion when my conclusion came about by the information I found. I'm also not the person trying to force a single all encompassing narrative, you say I'm trying to stymie discussion despite the fact that me not agreeing is what is causing discussion as apposed to just nodding my head and going along with the popular narrative.
Kind of proving my point, guy. Your participation in this thread is asserting your opinion to be the correct one, demanding evidence from any contrary claim and then dismissing that evidence as not good enough to persuade you, as if your ego is the deciding factor in what is real. I get it, you don't want to believe that the system still has implicit racial biases. Nobody wants that any more than they want their house to be on fire. But when the smoke detector's going off, telling yourself that you followed all the correct safety guidelines, so a fire is impossible is not the sharpest conclusion to make.
Golly, and Obsidion isn't when he talks about how the only reason so many singers are major singers is because of chance because he thinks they aren't as good as other people he's heard? I don't see you talking to him about that, maybe because it's inconvenient for you to.
When the climate of today enoucrages people to get a boost to their fame by talking about how oppressed they are, I become less and less trusting of their claims, especially when all they give is hearsay.
Yeah and I get it. You like the idea that everything and everyone is out to get you specifically because it makes you feel better when you fail. I've been living life like that for a long time and it hasn't helped any. Of course there's racism in people in our society, it's foolish to think there isn't, doesn't mean system is racist. J.K. Rowling sent the story of Harry Potter in to many many different publishers before it finally got accepted, does that mean all of those publishers were just too dumb to see the goldmine she was proposing? No. Because we don't know how much of the story she changed between each attempt or what kind of story each publisher was looking for or what kind of stories each publisher sold. Someone explaining to me all that about Rowling is why I take Chloe's account with a grain of salt, I'm not writing it off but it also has very little to go on for myself.
Socrates was known as a gadfly. The term came about because gadflies are really obnoxious. And as John Scalzi put it, the failure state of clever is asshole. So if you want to make it like this, I'm signing off, but I leave you with some advice that you may take or leave: don't label yourself a gadfly, using a reductive version of the Socratic method as your only logical tool and then get indignant when people start to wonder if your prickly affect isn't just an excuse for treating other people poorly. Later, dude.
To that I'd say that analyzing yourself and your beliefs, particularly when seeing if there's something wrong with yourself or them, is always unpleasant, a lifetime of me doing that to myself has shown me that personally. But ultimately doing so is better than not doing it because it allows you to try and fix yourself and help others. A little emotional pain now can prevent a host of all other sorts of pain later.
I'm talking about the comment you made about the Katy Perry Experience. What I've been saying for a few messages now is that experiences are subjective. They only make a singer major if enough people buy into the experience. I do not buy into the Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, or Adele experience. That isn't to take from those who do, but it's again a point that opinions and what's "It" now is a subjective experience that is a portion hard work, a portion dumb luck, and a portion manufactured bs that people eat up.
You partially answered here.
No one is saying that a Major Singer can not be talented. I mentioned that a Major singer isn't better than a Talented one. This is true. There are plenty of great singers, actors, writers who do not get their break. Just because the Major Singers were selected by Consumer Media doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who could do just as good of a job. That is my point. Pointing out the fact that does not remove the Major Singers' abilities. They still have to perform. And people still have to like it.
Nothing about this even comes close to what I'm saying.
Just because they do nothing for me doesn't mean I think they are bad singers. I think they are talented singers as well. Just like every beautiful woman I see isn't someone I'm interested in sexually, they do nothing for me. But that doesn't take away their appeal.
Yes. That you at no point admitted to being a one-trick rhetorical pony comparing yourself to dead philosophers certainly helped.
Because it doesn't come close to Adele. Objectively. To her credit she doesn't try to mimic Adele's performance, because -- just like almost every person on Earth -- she couldn't hope to match it. You can go and listen to the handful of original songs on her channel; they have 20-50k hits on YT. She wrote the songs for herself, so no riding on someone else's composition there and you can hear her voice being more natural in those songs. In the end, how much fame can a woman and guitar duo get? For her to become a pop star she'd have to try to pursue fame in the first place...
I'm late to this part of the conversation, but I'd argue Katy Perry and Lady Gaga perhaps may not be the best contrast one could use to make the point. Ergo, I submit two photos, not of two celebrities contemporary of one another, but of the same age and at the same points in their careers, who appeal to the same age and gender demographics and are actually of comparable singing talent:
And a portion is opportunity, other talents, what people are craving at the moment, or any number of different factors.
And I did explain it. It's a matter of more than just talent. As Agema said, there are lots of talented people, but not all of them will go down the same roads in life or have the qualities to end up in the same places.
That depends on what you mean by better. And your words are again implying that a Major singer isn't Talented. What are you actually trying to say when you use the word, Talented?
You're making it out to be that the only thing needed to be a Major Singer is to be selected by the media and that it's unfair that they got their position while there are other people out there that could, "Do just as good a job". How are you evaluating that? How can you possibly know enough about all these people and their lives to know that?
Why wouldn't they? What reason is there to seek out theoretically "better" talent for a higher cost when they can currently work with the talent they have? That's how businesses work, you estimate the cost vs the benefit. Are you suggesting they should be scouting out small time theaters for potential voice actors all across the country?
No it's not. There's no such thing as real randomness, randomness is just the word we assign to things that we are incapable of seeing all the information of. You have no basis for your claim that the reason someone makes it or not is all arbitrary.
So you agree that they are talented then? And do you understand what I've said about there being many many factors for why someone "makes it" and another doesn't? Then what point were you trying to make with this?
I would sooner assume it's because you're both on the same side of this argument.
