Aviators is NOT a Bad Artist!

I would first like to reference the definitions that I posted. "Artist" constitutes "a person who works in one of the performing arts as a musician." This is simple enough and able to be thrown out, as he fits this definition by design. "Bad" constitutes that Aviators would be: "not good in any manner or degree," "of poor or inferior quality," or "inadequate or below standard." This is the definition that I will be pursuing for "bad." Therefore, if Aviators can be argued to be not good, then he can immediately be considered bad. Likewise, if Aviators is below a standard of what would be good music, then his music can be considered bad. Now, based on the several videos that you posted in Round 1, I must say that I am unimpressed with this selection of songs. They sound heavily synthesized, most of them follow the same uninteresting format, with very minuscule difference in the instrumental and vocal styles. If you were to break down this music in terms of musical theory, most of the songs that you posted begin with tonal introduction, which fades into a moderately slowed tempo, with 4:4 phrasing, and then the vocals come in. Granted, this is only a small selection of music from Aviators, but it still lacks diversity. Furthermore, as a lifelong musician, this format is repetitive and, frankly, boring to me; if Aviators has such a wealth of talent, then I would think that he would be more ambitious in trying to create different pieces. If I performed for a living, then I would dread performing the same intro structure, with the same rough tempo, and a 4:4 phrase. It just gets old too quickly, which is why artists have drastically different musical formats over the years. According to the website, Musicianwages.com, an average independent musician's yearly income is around 14,400 dollars. http://www.musicianwages.com... I would argue that this is not sufficient for living expenses, and that Aviators would be motivated to pursue a record label to increase his financial value. That being said, I once again suggest that if Aviators is as talented as you argue he is, why would he not pursue a record deal? While musical taste is subjective, I would like to point out that Kelly Rowland, a US singer from the show X-Factor makes approximately one million dollars annually. She has barely reached relative success, and makes exponentially more than an average indy artist, so I question again, why wouldn't Aviators capitalize on his talent? My only conclusion is that he is, unfortunately, not that good. http://www.mywage.org... Now that I have made my point in some small way, I would also like to address your arguments. First, I have a few clarification errors: You mention how much experience he has gained over time, but I thought you said he had only been making music for 3 years? "He's played the violin for eight years since age four;" Do you mean he studied violin for eight years, or since he was four? "And I see absolutely NO bad or flaws in this technique whatsoever;" What musical experience gives you the authority to evaluate his technique? Why are you asking for minimal sourcing if you are so confident you will win? If you are that sure of his talent, I would say to post every shred of evidence you can find to substantiate your arguments. "Oh, revenge just feels SO good." Except that I have literally never spoken to you before this debate... You say Aviators has released 16 albums and six singles in three years. This is a remarkable pace, I will admit, but it makes me wonder how he is able to produce music so quickly, when, by comparison, most full time musicians hone their craft, perform on tour, and only release a couple albums a year at best. Dave Grohl for example, plays with multiple bands, and still only puts out about one album a year. Now, if Aviators can pop out five albums and two singles a year, then why wouldn't a record label drop massive amounts of money to sign him? He either is miles above every other musician in terms of his musical pace, and is allowing his own musical ego to prevent him from making the right business decision, or his music requires less crafting, and therefore less skill and time to create. I would argue that the second is more accurate. You suggest that he learned from trial and error, which is a process that all musicians go through to some extent. You admit he didn't know what he was doing, which shows a severe fault in his judgement regarding music. Also, if you haven't heard his debut album, then how do you have any authority to say it was good? You are logically supporting the notion that you don't have experience, but take your information blindly, which admittedly hurts your argument altogether. Two to five songs, in most cases is not really a full album, more like an EP, but never mind. I must admit that I am impressed to hear that he created a musical score for a video game, but also must admit that if I were in his shoes, I would have sold the rights to it. The acoustic pieces were decent, I must admit, but in all fairness, I would argue that smaller, live gigs are always going to sound better, because of the lack of synthetic filler. That being said, I still heard nothing that would make me want to buy his records. However, you also say that he takes his previous songs and "turns them into pieces that are heartfelt, emotional, and all the while melancholy." I was under the impression that his songs already were heartfelt, emotional, and melancholy, and now you seem to suggest that they only fit these descriptions in his acoustic performance. Can you clarify? The next paragraph, you put twice. But never mind. You say that the reason his music sounds melancholy is to surprise his audience at the end of the album with a happy piece. In this case, it isn't the sad piece that inspires you, but the happy piece. Psychologically and philosophically speaking, the more negative we have, the brighter the positive appears. The reason that he has this setup is because he really is trying to subconsciously make you want to hear that happy exit piece. He's trying to manipulate his audience into making that particular song a hit, which seems logically sound. So likewise, if Aviators put out an album with 9 cheerful songs, and one melancholy exit piece, then you would be building and building, only to hate that final piece for bringing you down. That last song would by design be your least favorite on the album. You suggest that "popularity has nothing to do with being a good or bad artist (well, maybe a little, but nothing too significant) as Aviators has actually made some REALLY good pieces, and yet, well, isn't really half the most popular artist in the world." You then suggest that the ratio of positive popularity to negative recognition is 11:1. This is a very stout ratio, and makes a very big contradiction in your logic. You are saying that Aviators isn't even half popular, and then you suggest that his popularity is 11:1. You then propose that "There may be more people that don't like his music, but how many of them dare to even breathe a word about it?" Tell me if I'm over the line, but you sound mighty arrogant here. And then you suggest that "even so, the amount of lovers would still be higher." If this is the case, then why is popularity an issue? Based on your logic, if everyone listened to Aviators, practically everyone would love his music, and those who didn't would be afraid to say so. In this case, popularity would be Aviators' biggest attribute. However, since you know this is far from the case, you try to downplay popularity. You are attempting to shift the focus away from one of the biggest issues that musicians must face. If someone is truly a talented or "good" musician, then they will profit from their musicianship. Unpopular musicians don't sell albums or tickets, don't get record deals, and generally aren't that successful. This last paragraph is where you do yourself in. "There's nothing BAD about him or what he does that can't be good with a little work." I noticed here, that instead of trying to avoid the notion that he is bad, you have suddenly shifted it to the argument that he can be good with some work. At the beginning of this debate, you were proposing that he was good. Now he is bad, but will get better. If you feel the need to include this clause, then you are acknowledging the idea that Aviators is bad, and now trying to propose that he can improve. Therefore, by your own admission, Aviators can be considered "bad," with the hope that he becomes "good." You may have just conceded the debate right there. I anxiously await your response in the final round.