This doesn't necessarily contradict with what Sbell was saying, though. Everyone has talent for something. That's obviously not what Sbell meant - he was saying Winehouse has no talent as an artist/musician. This doesn't contradict with "she has a talent at appealing to some people because some people like her."
You're right. But the point was I can't be sure exactly why people like her, and while I dislike it her music isn't like literal grating of nails on a chalkboard or something where I cannot see how anyone would like it. In fact I don't think I've ever heard music that bad, where I cannot fathom why anyone would like it.
Yeah, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I don't know how many of the people who like Pollock are pretentious, but this seems to be based on speculation (or wishful thinking?) on your part rather than actual facts. My Dad hates most abstract art as much as you do, and he loves Pollock. I like Pollock. I hope you don't think I'm a pretentious art interpretation guy >_>
I'm just curious what merit his works have if you're not looking at it from the view of an art person-- unlike Winehouse I literally cannot see anything redeemable there. They seriously just look like random ass scribbling. It is speculation but I cannot fathom what casual joes could see there.
Put it this way: You play Winehouse to a large crowd unfamiliar with music at all, some might find it enjoyable. Do the same with a Pollock and people who are not familiar with art at all, and I'm just not seeing anyone like it. I could be wrong-- or I could be wrong that the ability to appeal to people not "in the know" at all is important, but I think it is. I'm not saying it's all about appealing to the masses or anything-- I'm just saying that it shouldn't be necessary to "get it" to get any enjoyment out of it. You can certainly get more enjoyment out of it if you "get it" which is cool with me, but yeah.
--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!