Florence Foster Jenkins was a singer in the early 1900's who "became famous for her complete lack of rhythm, pitch, tone, and overall singing ability."
What's interesting about Florence, is that she seemed to have no clue that she had no talent.
Florence makes me wonder.
It's easy to listen to her and know she can't sing. But why didn't she hear that herself? Was she physically unable (tone deaf, perhaps)? Was she psychologically unable?
Or, did she know she was "different" and consider herself innovative or ground breaking?
Another case in point, The Shaggs.
"There's an innocence to these songs and their performances that's both
charming and unsettling. Hacked-at drumbeats, whacked-around chords,
songs that seem to have little or no meter to them … being played on out-of-tune, pawn-shop-quality
guitars all converge, creating dissonance and beauty, chaos and
tranquility, causing any listener coming to this music to rearrange any
pre-existing notions about the relationships between talent,
originality, and ability. There is no album you might own that sounds remotely like this one." (Review of Philosophy of Life written by Cub Koda on allmusic.com)
Who ultimately decides what's innovative and what's just plain bad?
(Full disclosure, I kind of like The Shaggs.)