What are the best criteria for "rating" a musical artist?

Question

A friend and I had an argument a while back which involved defending some of our favorite musical artists, and then giving reasons for doing so. After disagreeing with me, he remarked, "They have no talent!" However, I explained to him that "talent" is really a subjective term; it could mean different things to different people. So, I would like to ask you: what are the best criteria for rating a musical artist, or is it really impossible to put an objective rating on them?

Answer 1

Can they play their own songs? Classical artists practice for years learning how to play. If the singer forgets words, the drummer screws up on the timing (hear White Stripes from annoying off timed drumming) or the guitarist never plays the same way twice, they are hacks and not musicans. Sure they may cover up their problems with excuses, but they are still hacks.

Can they read music? Sure some say they play by ear, but they will also turn around and say they messed up their hearing.

Can they play outside their style? Remember artists that could do jazz, country and rock and were good at all three? Who really thinks Greenday could be successful being country artists?

Is their music interesting? If you hate their music, they are not doing their job.

Answer 2

Great Question.
I would say talent is:
-how well the lyrics were written (meaning that they are meaningful, not talking about somebody's grillz (ugh.))
-how well the instruments blend in
-how original/creative they are
and
-if they are producing music for the music.
not for image

=)

Answer 3

well, here it goes:
1. likeability factor..smart, energetic?
2. appearance(they have to look recent and good0
3. range-how high or low can tey really go?
4. pitch..a good atrist has to be pitch perfect
5. falsetto-boys should have taht range
6. tone of voie, and energy it exerts
Well, hope this helps!