Why "version"? didn't GNR write the song?
The live version from the live record is 5 stars
The studio version gets 3 stars because the phone call bit is stupid but otherwise it's still far better than the original
What live album did GnR have?
I think the song blows, honestly. Musically, GnR does a great job on it, but Axl is awful on it.
Thanks for playing! :lol
1 star out of 5, because it contains Axl Rose
Definitely better than the original, but then again, it wouldn't take much, considering we're talking about Bob Dylan (just do NOT get the appeal of that guy). That said, Axl's whiny vocals repeatedly saying "Na-na-na-knockin' on heaven's doe-woar oh-whoa-oh-whoa-oh-whoa-oh-whoa yeah!" gets tiring quickly. I gave it 3 stars, but I think even that's being generous.
I find it funny seeing all the complaints about the frontman/singer doing his job... singing. I think it adds to the song with the 'whoa-ohs'! But I get it, tastes. :lol
That's right, but you said you found it funny that people complain about the way he sings :)
It's OK i guess? Never really got into Guns n Roses when I was deep into that type of music and I think Axl was a big part of that. I mean sure the guy can sing but to me he's kinda the stereotypical 'full of himself egomaniac rock star singer' which is a bit of a turn off. Can definitely see how that would sway people either way.
Well no, some are people saying '1/0 stars because Axl Rose' which is funny
Well no, some are people saying '1/0 stars because Axl Rose' which is funny
Maybe you're using "funny" in a way that I'm not understanding. Axl Rose sucks (although he does have degrees). What's "funny" about giving GnR's version of this song a low ranking because of that?
Why "version"? didn't GNR write the song?
Nope. It's a cover of Bob Dylan's song.
It seems Axl is one of the most polarizing rock vocalists.
His voice is a main reason why so many people dislike GnR.
Why "version"? didn't GNR write the song?
Nope. It's a cover of Bob Dylan's song.
:lol
That's right, but you said you found it funny that people complain about the way he sings :)
Well no, some are people saying '1/0 stars because Axl Rose' which is funny, but also that 'whoa-ohs' bug people more than I was aware of :lol
What, you didn't shell out a grand for the ultra turbo locked'n'loaded set in a safe? :biggrin:
There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing
There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.
There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.
Freddie Mercury is objectively a great vocalist. Bob Dylan is objectively a bad vocalist. Who can argue with that?
There's no objective measurement for this kind of thing, you like what you like and don't like what you don't like.
Freddie Mercury is objectively a great vocalist. Bob Dylan is objectively a bad vocalist. Who can argue with that?
Stop that!
Noooooo, we've unleashed objective quality hell again
Well that's also part of it, WR threads always go off the rails, so why not have the conversation? We could say a lot of discussions around these parts have already been had, too. But if people still want to talk about how great Number of the Beast is, or what a phenomenal frontman Freddie Mercury is, they still do. I dunno who 'decided' the conversation, 'cause there are still people who don't agree with the (apparent) consensus here that no art is objectively good or bad. I just wanna talk music with people, Dr. A :getoffmylawn: :lol
Noooooo, we've unleashed objective quality hell again
Well, don't peek in the thread if you don't want to see it, then. I think it's an interesting discussion and something I think about all the time.
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.
Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
What are we talking about when we say "Miles Davis is better than Justin Bieber"? These two musicians are not remotely similar. What are we comparing? Their worth? Their legacy? Who plays the trumpet better? Who sings better? Just tossing out "Miles Davis is objectively better than Justin Bieber" is nonsensical. What does better mean? Now we are getting into silly unconstructive debate territory, with no parameters or control this is useless, so hilariously, I might be done now myself :rollin
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Development of personal taste in music.
You know, I take back what I said.
This is pretty entertaining.
Actual music fans are people who like objectively good music. BOOM!
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Development of personal taste in music.
Got it. What do you mean by development though?
I can see both the music fan and the "actual" music fan listening to music and having personal taste. How does the development - the deal breaker, as it were - part work?
As far as the thread, I don't own a single GnR album and it's because I would prefer to hear a Skil saw cut through corrugated metal while a cat is getting declawed.
As far as the thread, I don't own a single GnR album and it's because I would prefer to hear a Skil saw cut through corrugated metal while a cat is getting declawed.
I have a degree in classical piano education
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Development of personal taste in music.
Got it. What do you mean by development though?
I can see both the music fan and the "actual" music fan listening to music and having personal taste. How does the development - the deal breaker, as it were - part work?
If someone is a youngster who listens only current Top 20 hits he is definitely not gonna DEVELOP a taste in music. If someone is a youngster who saw some list of "greatest albums of all time" and then he decided to take a listen to e.g. "Kind of Blue" or "Abbey Road" or "Ziggy Stardust" he is gonna DEVELOP a taste in music and he will become an actual music fan.
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Development of personal taste in music.
Got it. What do you mean by development though?
I can see both the music fan and the "actual" music fan listening to music and having personal taste. How does the development - the deal breaker, as it were - part work?
If someone is a youngster who listens only current Top 20 hits he is definitely not gonna DEVELOP a taste in music. If someone is a youngster who saw some list of "greatest albums of all time" and then he decided to take a listen to e.g. "Kind of Blue" or "Abbey Road" or "Ziggy Stardust" he is gonna DEVELOP a taste in music and he will become an actual music fan.
Ok, I get it. Current Top 20 = no development, some GOAT list = development.
What are the criteria for those lists though? Where is the guarantee they're going to suggest development-worthy material?
Ok, I get it. Current Top 20 = no development, some GOAT list = development.
What are the criteria for those lists though? Where is the guarantee they're going to suggest development-worthy material?
Music is very similar as literature. If someone read over 200 classics he knows much more about literature than someone who didn't read more than 2 or 3 books in his life. Man who read only 2 or 3 books actually doesn't know s*it about literature.
So if some kid is only listening to current Bieber and Sheeran hits and nothing besides that, then he doesn't know s*it about music.
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
Well...yes. But for different reasons.
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.
Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.
I'm still waiting for WR to address whether or not I'm a real music fan.
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.
Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.
Objectively better at what? Miles Davis is/was probably "objectively better" at playing the trumpet because, AFAIK, Justin Bieber doesn't play the trumpet. But maybe he does, and maybe he's really good. On the other hand, Justin Bieber is unquestionably better at making young girls swoon, and he's probably better at selling product. Who's the "better" artist? That's a question that cannot be answered objectively. Ask 100 jazz aficionados, and you'll probably get a unanimous vote in favor of Davis. On the other hand, if you ask 100 girls between the ages of 12-18 and you'll probably get exactly the opposite result.
Is Pride and Prejudice "better than" Jurassic Park? I sure as hell don't think so, but literature snobs would probably universally say otherwise.
But getting back to Axl Rose and Brian Johnson, they have similarities, but they're not at all the same.
Who selects the classics and by which criteria?
I'm still waiting for WR to address whether or not I'm a real music fan. There's a pop record that's one of my favorite records of the year and Em's is my #1 so far, but I worked on Mozart for 5 hours last night. Bring yourself online, WildRanger. Engage analysis mode.
Well, speaking more generally, I think we can say that music in the end is entertainment, and for some is a legit passion, for others is just background entertainment.
:rollin :rollinWell, speaking more generally, I think we can say that music in the end is entertainment, and for some is a legit passion, for others is just background entertainment.
Nope. Miles Davis or Beethoven's music is not entertainment, but Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez music is. Two totally different purposes.
Debate is fun when it's actually meaningful or about substantive issues but I can only believe you're taking the piss out of this whole thing. WR, you exhibit such poor knowledge about music and the history of music and its purpose (see Adami's rofling about commissioning Beethoven, for example) that this is beyond laughable. You are either trolling or really adamant about things you don't know much about.
And as someone who's played Beethoven for audiences who, as far as I can tell enjoyed it, screw you. :) :)
Debate is fun when it's actually meaningful or about substantive issues but I can only believe you're taking the piss out of this whole thing. WR, you exhibit such poor knowledge about music and the history of music and its purpose (see Adami's rofling about commissioning Beethoven, for example) that this is beyond laughable. You are either trolling or really adamant about things you don't know much about.
And as someone who's played Beethoven for audiences who, as far as I can tell enjoyed it, screw you. :) :)
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Dammit, you quoted me before I could alter my post.
Rats.
Who selects the classics and by which criteria?
Music fans, musicians (who are influenced by some previous musicians) and critics from different age groups.
Why is "Kind of Blue" a timeless classic? Because there is so wide consensus that it has the musical and artistic merit. Plus it transcends the jazz genre and generations of listeners.
:rollin :rollinWell, speaking more generally, I think we can say that music in the end is entertainment, and for some is a legit passion, for others is just background entertainment.
Nope. Miles Davis or Beethoven's music is not entertainment, but Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez music is. Two totally different purposes.
Do you have any idea why people comissioned Beethoven to write music?
Do you have any idea why most people went to see Miles Davis in concert?
Here's a hint, to be entertained.
Questions:
Am I not letting my personal taste be dictated (which negates development) by someone else's personal taste in both instances?
Are we sure I am not limiting my taste's development if I'm neglecting B?
Are we sure the fans/musicians/critics group and the majority buyers group don't overlap somewhere?
What happens to the system when the kid has grown listening to all the right classics and still likes Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga?
Questions:
Am I not letting my personal taste be dictated (which negates development) by someone else's personal taste in both instances?
Are we sure I am not limiting my taste's development if I'm neglecting B?
Are we sure the fans/musicians/critics group and the majority buyers group don't overlap somewhere?
What happens to the system when the kid has grown listening to all the right classics and still likes Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga?
Short answers:
1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Probably somewhere they could overlap
4) Then there is nothing wrong with that if he dig/get those classics
Nah. They couldn't dance to it. ;D
Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
If I decide that making awful awful noise counts as better, then Justin is likely better.Excuse me - who says that it's awful awful noise, mister?!?!? :omg:
I think Lady Gaga and Billie Eilish (and her brother) are brilliant and don't consider them, at all, guilty pleasures.Except that Bad Guy is absolutely awful. Ocean Eyes is pretty decent. :-*
If I decide that making awful awful noise counts as better, then Justin is likely better.Excuse me - who says that it's awful awful noise, mister?!?!? :omg:
I think Lady Gaga and Billie Eilish (and her brother) are brilliant and don't consider them, at all, guilty pleasures.Except that Bad Guy is absolutely awful. Ocean Eyes is pretty decent. :-*
Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY them.
Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY them.
You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY to ANY one or two artists.
And you can sit and really listen to the production of it and what went into it and it's pretty outstanding.Great production doesn't mean jack squat when it comes to Bad Guy. That song is just horrible. :P
....unless it was someone like Frank Zappa! :biggrin:You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY to ANY one or two artists.Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY them.
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY them.
You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY to ANY one or two artists.
Yes.
My issue is that the conversation has already been decided. No art is objectively good or bad, no artists are objectively good or bad. You can create certain criteria to judge them by, but then it's 100% subjective. So I don't see where the convo can go other than in circles.
Man, how can you say that Miles Davis is not objectively better than Justin Bieber, when there are so many objective arguments for that???
I could accept that music is mostly subjective, but not 100% subjective. If music is 100% subjective then that gives some idiots the right to claim that Bieber is better than Miles Davis.
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Justin Bieber is definitely better at selling out arenas than Miles Davis was.
Yep. Because he is a very commercial singer/performer today, which music is aimed at kids, mostly girls. But when it comes to actual music fans, he will never get 5% of appreciation that Miles Davis generally has.
Il bite like a dumbfish, because this could go fantastic places.
WR, what makes a music fan an "actual" music fan then?
Development of personal taste in music.
Got it. What do you mean by development though?
I can see both the music fan and the "actual" music fan listening to music and having personal taste. How does the development - the deal breaker, as it were - part work?
If someone is a youngster who listens only current Top 20 hits he is definitely not gonna DEVELOP a taste in music. If someone is a youngster who saw some list of "greatest albums of all time" and then he decided to take a listen to e.g. "Kind of Blue" or "Abbey Road" or "Ziggy Stardust" he is gonna DEVELOP a taste in music and he will become an actual music fan.
Ok, I get it. Current Top 20 = no development, some GOAT list = development.
What are the criteria for those lists though? Where is the guarantee they're going to suggest development-worthy material?
Music is very similar as literature. If someone read over 200 classics he knows much more about literature than someone who didn't read more than 2 or 3 books in his life. Man who read only 2 or 3 books actually doesn't know s*it about literature.
So if some kid is only listening to current Bieber and Sheeran hits and nothing besides that, then he doesn't know s*it about music.
What's your standard?
And you can sit and really listen to the production of it and what went into it and it's pretty outstanding.Great production doesn't mean jack squat when it comes to Bad Guy. That song is just horrible. :P
....unless it was someone like Frank Zappa! :biggrin:You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY to ANY one or two artists.Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY them.
What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?
This conversation drives me to drink. Seriously. Nothing worse than a music snob. If it moves you, it moves you. Full stop.
What's your standard?
Artistry, talent and quality of music.
This conversation drives me to drink. Seriously. Nothing worse than a music snob. If it moves you, it moves you. Full stop.
Even if it's Justin Bieber? Really?
This conversation drives me to drink. Seriously. Nothing worse than a music snob. If it moves you, it moves you. Full stop.
Even if it's Justin Bieber? Really?
This conversation drives me to drink. Seriously. Nothing worse than a music snob. If it moves you, it moves you. Full stop.
Even if it's Justin Bieber? Really?
What's your standard?
Artistry, talent and quality of music.
Define that. Right now, objectively. Give me a number on "quality of music".
Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.
What's your standard?
Artistry, talent and quality of music.
Define that. Right now, objectively. Give me a number on "quality of music".
8675309.
Honestly, I haven't read WR putting other people's opinions down. Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.
Although I don't agree with the portion of his views transpiring in this discussion, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what his reasoning is and where it comes from.
Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.
Come at me.
Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.
Come at me.
I will come at you!
But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!
Music elitists like WildRanger are so funny.
Music elitists like WildRanger are so funny.
Wait, if I say Justin Bieber's music is worthless and with no quality and any artistic merit(very common and popular opinion) then it makes me an elitist? Interesting.
Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.
Come at me.
I will come at you!
But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!
I'm calling the cops. That's not social distancing.
Honestly, I haven't read WR putting other people's opinions down. Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.
Although I don't agree with the portion of his views transpiring in this discussion, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what his reasoning is and where it comes from.
I'm kind of in the same boat, but the thing is, this is thread #100 where the exact same thing is happening and part of what makes it so frustrating to 'engage' in discussion with WildRanger is that he just drops some opinion or made up 'fact' without any backup, usually something that's bound to receive the same sort of reactions they get here and then when he's called upon to explain what he means, he just disappears never to answer again. It's kind of fascinating in that sense, but we're also going down the same 'some music is objectively better than other music' bullshit rabbithole that somehow each and every one of his thread turns into, just because of the way he asks his questions.
Honestly, I haven't read WR putting other people's opinions down. Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.
Although I don't agree with the portion of his views transpiring in this discussion, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what his reasoning is and where it comes from.
I'm kind of in the same boat, but the thing is, this is thread #100 where the exact same thing is happening and part of what makes it so frustrating to 'engage' in discussion with WildRanger is that he just drops some opinion or made up 'fact' without any backup, usually something that's bound to receive the same sort of reactions they get here and then when he's called upon to explain what he means, he just disappears never to answer again. It's kind of fascinating in that sense, but we're also going down the same 'some music is objectively better than other music' bullshit rabbithole that somehow each and every one of his thread turns into, just because of the way he asks his questions.
The discussion I am trying to have with WR isn't frustrating at all (for me, at least) so far. I am not interested in changing his mind about the objective / subjective axis. I want to understand the way he comes to his conclusions because it's fascinating.
Honestly, I haven't read WR putting other people's opinions down. Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.
Although I don't agree with the portion of his views transpiring in this discussion, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what his reasoning is and where it comes from.
I'm kind of in the same boat, but the thing is, this is thread #100 where the exact same thing is happening and part of what makes it so frustrating to 'engage' in discussion with WildRanger is that he just drops some opinion or made up 'fact' without any backup, usually something that's bound to receive the same sort of reactions they get here and then when he's called upon to explain what he means, he just disappears never to answer again. It's kind of fascinating in that sense, but we're also going down the same 'some music is objectively better than other music' bullshit rabbithole that somehow each and every one of his thread turns into, just because of the way he asks his questions.
The discussion I am trying to have with WR isn't frustrating at all (for me, at least) so far. I am not interested in changing his mind about the objective / subjective axis. I want to understand the way he comes to his conclusions because it's fascinating.
And of course Adami ninja'ed my thoughts exactly but in shorter terminology.
I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.
Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.
Come at me.
I will come at you!
But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!
I'm calling the cops. That's not social distancing.
I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.
I have been married two times :D
Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.
Come at me.
I will come at you!
But only to embrace you in a brotherly hug of acceptance and respect!
I'm calling the cops. That's not social distancing.
It is if we do the Seinfeld "ass out" hug.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/seinfeld/images/9/9f/The_Pilot_00014.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20111216191710)
Wasn't she a garden tool?
What's your standard?
Artistry, talent and quality of music.
Define that. Right now, objectively. Give me a number on "quality of music".
8675309.
Nicely played Jenny.
Music elitists like WildRanger are so funny.
Wait, if I say Justin Bieber's music is worthless and with no quality and any artistic merit(very common and popular opinion) then it makes me an elitist? Interesting.
I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.
I have been married two times :D
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
Questions:
Am I not letting my personal taste be dictated (which negates development) by someone else's personal taste in both instances?
Are we sure I am not limiting my taste's development if I'm neglecting B?
Are we sure the fans/musicians/critics group and the majority buyers group don't overlap somewhere?
What happens to the system when the kid has grown listening to all the right classics and still likes Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga?
Short answers:
1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Probably somewhere they could overlap
4) Then there is nothing wrong with that if he dig/get those classics
Thank you! I really want to fully understand your system.
I'm really interested in the reasoning behind the two nopes, if you have time.
The fourth answer is damn intriguing and spawns other questions:
Is there something wrong if, once I got those classics, I still don't dig them?
What if Bieber and J-Lo become classics one day? After all, once upon a time, The Beatles were mainly a hugely commercial product for "youngsters and girls" and Beethoven was arguably the first "pop star musician". Should we question developments then?
Have you ever loved or disliked a piece of music while oblivious to its ranking in the critics' opinion?
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
And what does 'knowing shit about music' even mean? Do I need to understand the musical qualities of the music, the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, dynamic and timbral subtleties in the music, or the cultural references in the music, why the music is structured the way it is, or its placement within history and/or society etc. etc. in order to enjoy it?
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
Well, I didn't use the word "elitist". I used the word "snob" and it fits. It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).
By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper. It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight. We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts. Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis. You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
What's your standard? Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.? Probably Maiden. Global? Maiden. Number of guitar players? Maiden. Debut album sales? Godsmack. Lip rings on album covers? Godsmack.
Well, I didn't use the word "elitist". I used the word "snob" and it fits. It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).
By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper. It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight. We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts. Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis. You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.
Can't agree with you at all.
Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on.
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.
And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth. "Truth" is a much more appropriate word than "fact".
And now give me an answer: Why are guys as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis so widely appreciated and Justin Bieber doesn't get 1% of their appreciation? Are there REASONS for that? Tell me.
I'm really interested in the reasoning behind the two nopes, if you have time.
The fourth answer is damn intriguing and spawns other questions:
Is there something wrong if, once I got those classics, I still don't dig them?
What if Bieber and J-Lo become classics one day? After all, once upon a time, The Beatles were mainly a hugely commercial product for "youngsters and girls" and Beethoven was arguably the first "pop star musician". Should we question developments then?
Have you ever loved or disliked a piece of music while oblivious to its ranking in the critics' opinion?
Dude's also sold over 7 million albums in 10 years. A one year tour of his had almost 3 million people attend.
Dude seems pretty popular.
Well, I didn't use the word "elitist". I used the word "snob" and it fits. It's elevating your personal opinion over someone else's, and that's the definition of "snobbery" (well, one of them).
By the way, "common and popular opinion" is about as worthless as a cinder block for toilet paper. It's "opinion", so carries zero factual weight. We can start an entire thread on "popular opinions" that were ultimately shown to be inconsistent with facts. Here, we only need find a handful of people for whom that music IS of worth, and HAS artistic merit, and you're provably wrong on a factual basis. You would have to qualify it by reinforcing that it's only your "opinion" and therefore separating it from any objective analysis.
Can't agree with you at all.
Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on.
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.
And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth. "Truth" is a much more appropriate word than "fact".
And now give me an answer: Why are guys as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis so widely appreciated and Justin Bieber doesn't get 1% of their appreciation? Are there REASONS for that? Tell me.
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
What's your standard? Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.? Probably Maiden. Global? Maiden. Number of guitar players? Maiden. Debut album sales? Godsmack. Lip rings on album covers? Godsmack.
And none of those make any band better. So you can do objective measures, but none of it translates to overall better.
Dude's also sold over 7 million albums in 10 years. A one year tour of his had almost 3 million people attend.
Dude seems pretty popular.
Also McDonald's food is pretty popular and sold in large amounts. But it can't refute the truth it's unhealthy.
It's not gonna happen. No way. Those famous music stars will never get recognition and appreciation that The Beatles and Beethoven have. The Beatles and Beethoven will always be relevant and remembered, their impact in music history is timeless.
But I can tell you about painting. Pablo Picasso is one of the most acclaimed painters of all time and I don't like his paintings at all, they look "ugly" to me. But I can't deny their artistic merit. I just can't say his paintings are trash because I don't like them.
He’s not a troll. A lot of people actually think like he does. They’re young and immature.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on.
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.
And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth.
Yes this discussion has been had several times. My input is again, why do people refuse to accept that you can make 2 lists of movies, 1 list of your favorites, the other of the best/well-made movies? I could list Avengers, Terminator 2, Aliens, Jurassic Park etc as my favorite movies to watch but also list 12 Angry Men, Casablanca, etc etc as the best ones I've seen. That's subjective vs objective and not based on someone else's opinion. No one else will acknowledge this?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
What's your standard? Number of studio records released? MAIDEN. Number of records sold in the U.S.? Probably Maiden. Global? Maiden. Number of guitar players? Maiden. Debut album sales? Godsmack. Lip rings on album covers? Godsmack.
And none of those make any band better. So you can do objective measures, but none of it translates to overall better.
Of course it does; "overall better" is just an amalgamation of those individual lists. If you don't have a repeatable, provable standard, it's all opinion. Not "truth" or "fact".
And yet, you'll do exactly that with Justin Beiber. Interesting.
On the other hand, Godsmack appears to have 4 Grammy nominations to zero for Maiden.
And yet, you'll do exactly that with Justin Beiber. Interesting.
But, man, JB is not as acclaimed as Picasso. And he will never be.
On the other hand, Godsmack appears to have 4 Grammy nominations to zero for Maiden.
Because those people who have given them Grammy awards are idiots. They don't care for music as art form, they only care for commerce and making money.
This leaves me with one final question: if you deal in absolute truths, why are you polling our opinions on songs and artists?
This leaves me with one final question: if you deal in absolute truths, why are you polling our opinions on songs and artists?
Because people on this board are actual music fans who developed taste in music and not casual listeners who are following current fashion trends and listening to only current commercial hits.
This leaves me with one final question: if you deal in absolute truths, why are you polling our opinions on songs and artists?
Because people on this board are actual music fans who developed taste in music and not casual listeners who are following current fashion trends and listening to only current commercial hits.
Can you seriously claim that Stadler isn't an objectively better contributor to DTF than WildRanger?
....
Wait for it...
...
NO, YOU CANNOT!!!
This leaves me with one final question: if you deal in absolute truths, why are you polling our opinions on songs and artists?
Because people on this board are actual music fans who developed taste in music and not casual listeners who are following current fashion trends and listening to only current commercial hits.
And I will quote the correct statement that one member from DTF said in one of "subjective vs. objective" discussions. It could be useful.
Do you know what car I personally LOVE? I wish I had one, but I don't. But I want one someday.
A Chrysler PT Cruiser. I think that car is SOOO cool looking.
My car expert friends roll their eyes, and tell me I'm nuts, and that it's a crappy car. But I actually think THEY are right. Because I don't place my opinion on the same level as theirs. I like the PT Cruiser better than better cars, but I'm open about the fact that I'm a dumbass when it comes to cars. And that's all OK. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I like Nickelback, even though I know that they actually suck. I know there are people out there who know more about music than I do, and their opinions on music are more valid than mine BECAUSE they care more about it than I do. I care more about GOLF (or insert whatever field of study you want) than they do, so if they ever want golf advice, I'll be there for them, and if I ever want to know more about music, they will be there for me."
After all, Miles Davis is a fucking hack. Has he ever had a #1 record? Toured stadia? Sold a million copies of any of his singles? He doesn't belong in the same conversation as Justin Beiber.
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
After all, Miles Davis is a fucking hack. Has he ever had a #1 record? Toured stadia? Sold a million copies of any of his singles? He doesn't belong in the same conversation as Justin Beiber.
Do you realize that Miles Davis has created his music in different time when the music industry was not ruled by some greedy, idiotic powerful motherfuckers as its case today? Miles Davis hasn't given a fuck about fucking commercial success. That's one of reasons why he is so respected as an ARTIST! Do you get that?
Yeah, no, that's still subjective. There are a lot of films most people would agree are the best films ever made from a technical perspective, but there is still a great deal of subjectivity even in those. Literally the only thing you can go on is gathering opinions and ranking them that way, but there is no objective measurement even for films. Films are art just like music is. Casablanca might be a legendary film but I think it's a boring slog. Aliens and Jurassic Park aren't entertaining to me although Jurassic Park is an extraordinary technical achievement. Terminator sucks all around. Avengers was awesome for its time but I don't think it has aged well compared with what came after. etc.
You said it yourself: 12 Angry Men, etc. might be the best films YOU'VE seen. But nowhere close for me.
Is "The Godfather" objectively great?
It stinks. Dylan version is the best version, the idea that people can't stand Dylan's vocals but like Axl's is pretty funny to me. Different strokes I guess!
It stinks. Dylan version is the best version, the idea that people can't stand Dylan's vocals but like Axl's is pretty funny to me. Different strokes I guess!
Whoa, stay on topic, please.
After all, Miles Davis is a fucking hack. Has he ever had a #1 record? Toured stadia? Sold a million copies of any of his singles? He doesn't belong in the same conversation as Justin Beiber.
Do you realize that Miles Davis has created his music in different time when the music industry was not ruled by some greedy, idiotic powerful motherfuckers as its case today? Miles Davis hasn't given a fuck about fucking commercial success. That's one of reasons why he is so respected as an ARTIST! Do you get that?
He doesn't "see things differently," he's a blatant troll, more obvious now than ever
Justin Bieber gets tons of appreciation. I can’t stand his music, but a lot of people love it.
Justin Bieber gets tons of appreciation. I can’t stand his music, but a lot of people love it.
He is nowhere near as appreciated and acclaimed as i.e. Kanye West. Justin Bieber doesn't have something like "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" in his catalog.
It stinks. Dylan version is the best version, the idea that people can't stand Dylan's vocals but like Axl's is pretty funny to me. Different strokes I guess!
Whoa, stay on topic, please.
Justin Bieber gets tons of appreciation. I can’t stand his music, but a lot of people love it.
He is nowhere near as appreciated and acclaimed as i.e. Kanye West. Justin Bieber doesn't have something like "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" in his catalog.
Whatever the hell that is.
Justin Bieber gets tons of appreciation. I can’t stand his music, but a lot of people love it.
He is nowhere near as appreciated and acclaimed as i.e. Kanye West. Justin Bieber doesn't have something like "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" in his catalog.
Whatever the hell that is.
Just one of the most critically and publicly acclaimed albums of the last decade.
Just one of the most critically and publicly acclaimed albums of the last decade.
Just one of the most critically and publicly acclaimed albums of the last decade.
Not to jump in the middle of this pillow fight, but being critically acclaimed means jack squat.
Carry on... :P
I picked the wrong month to stop smoking weed.
Yeah, pretty much every word of that is demonstrably false. :rollin You really have earned yourself zero credibility when it comes to discussing music here.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
Objectively better AT WHAT?
I don't know a damn thing about Godsmack beyond what I'm reading on Wikipedia. I imagine Maiden has sold more albums, but that shouldn't be surprising given that Maiden has been around a lot longer and has way more albums.
On the other hand, Godsmack appears to have 4 Grammy nominations to zero for Maiden.
Once again, asking whether something is "objectively better than" something else, you have to be clear about the relevant criteria. As you phrased the question, it is utterly meaningless.Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on.
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.
And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth.
Oh, for fuck's sake!
Justin Bieber has sole more than 150 million records. He made a movie that was seen by millions and made millions of dollars in profit. He is a MASSIVELY popular. He is a hugely successful business person who has made millions on multiple business ventures. If he's "talentless" and "objectively . . . one of the most hated singers on this planet," how has that happened? While he might very well be hated by a lot of folks, it also seems to be an objective fact that he is also one of the most LOVED singers on the planet" (after all, one can be both "most hated" and "most loved").
He's "just a singer/performer, not an artist"? Well...ok, if you define "artist" not to include "singers," but I think you'd be on that island alone. Also, (1) Justin Bieber plays multiple instruments, and (2) wasn't Marvin Gaye also "just a singer/performer"? Do you have to be primarily a player of a musical instrument to be considered an "artist"? What about Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holliday? Were then "just singers/performers, not artists"?
Give me your opinion on this.
In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one guy responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.
Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush. That was a big insult to Rush.
His statement was absurd and wrong. Who in their right mind could claim something like that. LMAO
How would you react if someone tells you that Blink 182 and Green Day are better than Rush? Would you get into argument with that guy?
Give me your opinion on this.
In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one guy responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.
Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush. That was a big insult to Rush.
His statement was absurd and wrong. Who in their right mind could claim something like that. LMAO
How would you react if someone tells you that Blink 182 and Green Day are better than Rush? Would you get into argument with that guy?
No, I would not get into an argument with someone, because it's pointless and leads nowhere. Yes, we can probably all instinctively agree that the three Rush-guys are more proficient on their instruments than those in the bands you mentioned, but does it fucking matter? The question asked, as written by you, asked for a 'better band'. What's 'better' to this guy responding with 'Blink 182' and 'Green Day' (probably because this persons enjoys these bands' music more!) is apparently different from your idea of 'better'. Get over it, it doesn't matter one bit.
---
And here's what I think is the most important part that you got wrong:
You claim the statement is 'absurd' and 'wrong', but I'd like to counter that with the following: The question asked is absurd and wrong, which is EXACTLY why it leads to these kind of answers, as has been said time and time again in this thread and in other threads of yours.
Calm down man, not everyone thinks Rush is as great as you do :lol
I'm not a smart man, but I know what trolling is.
Rush make music that is on a much higher musical level than Green Day and Blink 182, so there is more quality to their music. Who can deny it and how?
Compare Basket Case and Xanadu? What's musically superior? Which song takes much more personal talent and creative effort to be written and performed?
If someone prefers Basket Case to Xanadu, it doesn't matter, it won't change the truth that Xanadu is a musically superior song by a wide margin.
Xanadu is a more complex song than Basket Case; is it your opinion a more complex song is inherently a musically superior song?
ok zoomerCalm down man, not everyone thinks Rush is as great as you do :lol
It-
Xanadu is a more complex song than Basket Case; is it your opinion a more complex song is inherently a musically superior song?
In most cases, yep. Because more complex songs take much more talent and creative effort, as I said.
The hurdle here, which we can't get past, is that WR doesn't grasp the concept of subjectivity and therefore he continues to make the exact same argument using different bands/artists. At this juncture the conversation can't move forward.
Xanadu is a more complex song than Basket Case; is it your opinion a more complex song is inherently a musically superior song?
In most cases, yep. Because more complex songs take much more talent and creative effort, as I said.
The hurdle here, which we can't get past, is that WR doesn't grasp the concept of subjectivity and therefore he continues to make the exact same argument using different bands/artists. At this juncture the conversation can't move forward.
OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it. They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.
Case closed.
The hurdle here, which we can't get past, is that WR doesn't grasp the concept of subjectivity and therefore he continues to make the exact same argument using different bands/artists. At this juncture the conversation can't move forward.
OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it. They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.
Case closed.
The original tune is awful. The remake didn't help it out at all , just a slightly better version of a horrible song. Talent - wise , tonal quality , man it's just bad from any angle. Why so much discussion of this pos ?
OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and
I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it.
They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.
The original tune is awful. The remake didn't help it out at all , just a slightly better version of a horrible song. Talent - wise , tonal quality , man it's just bad from any angle. Why so much discussion of this pos ?
I think you'll find very little discussion of the song in this thread. Please stay on topic. :neverusethis:
The original tune is awful. The remake didn't help it out at all , just a slightly better version of a horrible song. Talent - wise , tonal quality , man it's just bad from any angle. Why so much discussion of this pos ?
I think you'll find very little discussion of the song in this thread. Please stay on topic. :neverusethis:
lol. You are right , I just saw the number of pages and the title .
WR is always poking to find some sore spots so I guess he is getting poked back. But music is just not subjective , there has to be a level to say that someone is a professional musician or not. The real world doesn't play by that rule , but I and some others do. GNR never met my credentials , and Dylan too for that matter. There are some great players out there and my / our effort is best to support them. F the rest of them.
But music is just not subjective...
The original tune is awful. The remake didn't help it out at all , just a slightly better version of a horrible song. Talent - wise , tonal quality , man it's just bad from any angle. Why so much discussion of this pos ?
I think you'll find very little discussion of the song in this thread. Please stay on topic. :neverusethis:
damn I had a heck of a reply typed . ?
That is the PC version. Back in the day it was " feel " , and " shredders " had no " feel ". The level of musicianship at a period of time should determine if someone is " FIT " to be offered public airplay. How many Black Crows and Nicklebacks do we have to endure and sort through to find a decent guitar solo ? It's one of those " there ought to be a law " arguments I know , but I speak out against bullshit music when I can. And GNR was a slap in the face from the record industry at the time . The hair / glam was one thing and GNR took it up a few notches.
lol. You are right , I just saw the number of pages and the title .
WR is always poking to find some sore spots so I guess he is getting poked back. But music is just not subjective , there has to be a level to say that someone is a professional musician or not. The real world doesn't play by that rule , but I and some others do. GNR never met my credentials , and Dylan too for that matter. There are some great players out there and my / our effort is best to support them. F the rest of them.
"Professional" musician is just a title that means it is more than a hobby, it is something they get paid to do or made a career out of. That's it. Take away societal constructs of jobs and currency and it is meaningless. In that regard, a "professional" can be objectively measured, but the quality of music, or that one group is "better" than another because one person thinks one group is trash and the other is great, is not. Guns N' Roses, whether you like them or not, are professional musicians. Me playing classical piano in my bedroom is not professional, regardless of whether or not Mozart's piano sonatas are considered a higher art form than singing about where the grass is green and the girls are pretty.
Thanks for replying, max. But right there you illustrate the same problem we're having with WildRanger. What if someone thinks Black Crows and Nickelback have decent solos? What if someone likes the guitar solo in Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit even though a lot of metalheads shit on it? It's all subjective. Black Crows and Nickelback are still professional musicians, and, dare I say, make a better living than a lot of technically-obsessed progressive metal artists who can shred. Shredding is cool, but it doesn't matter much if it doesn't connect with people. And, as sad as it make people, technicality isn't at the front of most music fans' minds. They want music that makes them feel, and as much as metalheads don't like hearing it, shredding doesn't invoke much emotion for most people.
Also, not really sure what is 'PC' about what I wrote. That's confusing. Nothing here is being sugarcoated with political correctness.
Thanks for replying, max. But right there you illustrate the same problem we're having with WildRanger. What if someone thinks Black Crows and Nickelback have decent solos? What if someone likes the guitar solo in Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit even though a lot of metalheads shit on it? It's all subjective. Black Crows and Nickelback are still professional musicians, and, dare I say, make a better living than a lot of technically-obsessed progressive metal artists who can shred. Shredding is cool, but it doesn't matter much if it doesn't connect with people. And, as sad as it make people, technicality isn't at the front of most music fans' minds. They want music that makes them feel, and as much as metalheads don't like hearing it, shredding doesn't invoke much emotion for most people.
Also, not really sure what is 'PC' about what I wrote. That's confusing. Nothing here is being sugarcoated with political correctness.
Understood. , the problem is ( was ) the outlet ( record industry ). The cool thing about today is that 1 asshole doesn't determine what we listen to anymore. I sincerely hope that this helps the ass - buster players out there .
Thanks for replying, max. But right there you illustrate the same problem we're having with WildRanger. What if someone thinks Black Crows and Nickelback have decent solos? What if someone likes the guitar solo in Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit even though a lot of metalheads shit on it? It's all subjective. Black Crows and Nickelback are still professional musicians, and, dare I say, make a better living than a lot of technically-obsessed progressive metal artists who can shred. Shredding is cool, but it doesn't matter much if it doesn't connect with people. And, as sad as it makes some people, technicality isn't at the front of most music fans' minds. They want music that makes them feel, and as much as metalheads don't like hearing it, shredding doesn't invoke much emotion for most people.
Also, not really sure what is 'PC' about what I wrote. That's confusing. Nothing here is being sugarcoated with political correctness.
What is a 'decent guitar solo'? :corn
What is a 'decent guitar solo'? :corn
What is a 'decent guitar solo'? :corn
For example: Boston - More Than a Feeling
This thread is just glorious. :heart
I didn't ask for an example.
This thread is just glorious. :heart
I know, it's fantastic.
I didn't ask for an example.
Or maybe I did. It's kind of funny that the one question I asked that isn't specific gets answered, while all the other ones get ignored.
I love some shred and all but - just my opinion - Jason Becker and Cacophony get old soooo quickly. You hear one song, you've more or less heard it all. Insane chops on those guys, I will never ever ever belittle the talent of Jason Becker, but like... I dunno, man, it gets tiresome very fast for me
The Anti GNR . This way was so much better , just not enough meat for the machine I guess. Some suit in NYC decided this for you back in 86 or something. Knocking On Heaven's Door , give me a Fing break man , we were way past this shit back then.
https://youtu.be/T1Va1F1dQWo
The Anti GNR . This way was so much better , just not enough meat for the machine I guess. Some suit in NYC decided this for you back in 86 or something. Knocking On Heaven's Door , give me a Fing break man , we were way past this shit back then.
https://youtu.be/T1Va1F1dQWo
while we are on the subject , is there ANYTHING out now equal to this ( link in message ) ? I'm doubting it , really.
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
What the fuck. Here we go again!
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
What the fuck. Here we go again!
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
What the fuck. Here we go again!
Dude , you work for Capitol Records ?
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
What the fuck. Here we go again!
Dude , you work for Capitol Records ?
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
What the fuck. Here we go again!
Dude , you work for Capitol Records ?
I'm just wondering why you are mad that everyone is not drinking the GNR Kool -Aide bro. Not everyone liked it.
After all, Miles Davis is a fucking hack. Has he ever had a #1 record? Toured stadia? Sold a million copies of any of his singles? He doesn't belong in the same conversation as Justin Beiber.
Do you realize that Miles Davis has created his music in different time when the music industry was not ruled by some greedy, idiotic powerful motherfuckers as its case today? Miles Davis hasn't given a fuck about fucking commercial success. That's one of reasons why he is so respected as an ARTIST! Do you get that?
I and one my friend had a conversation about taste in music. And we agreed there is no good or bad taste, but someone either has a taste or not.
He said his wife shares only 20% musical interests with him, but she HAS A TASTE, she is good when it comes to recognizing what is quality music and what is garbage music.
The best guitar had been played by 1989. Period.
I'm just going to reply to this one, because why not? First off, we have the 'best' again, which I'm not even going to address at this point, since time has proven that it's pointless. Then the next word, 'guitar'. What kind of guitar? You're obviously looking for a very specific style of guitar playing that was happening at the end of the 80's, but playing the guitar is so much more than just those examples (and the liked) which you gave. Absolutely, Jason Becker, Marty Friedman and Yngwie Malmsteen are people who can play the guitar very fast, but to me - someone who wasn't alive back then and who can't place the music in the time-frame - those records (and I've heard them) sound dated and boring.
I missed this or something.
Intelligent composition ... everyone is worried or concerned about ' FAST " . It was never about playing fast , it was about playing with " talent ". The " remedial players won fellers "
I missed this or something.
Intelligent composition ... everyone is worried or concerned about ' FAST " . It was never about playing fast , it was about playing with " talent ". The " remedial players won fellers " .
Why the focus on guitar solos specifically? There's such a huge variety of music out there to explore that there's bound to be something you'll enjoy, even if you haven't found it yet. And I hear lots of guitar music still, not on the radio probably, but elsewhere. There's stuff happening within the guitar community that would not have been possible in 1989, people are still doing mind-blowing stuff every day and finding new, creative ways of using the instrument. To say it ended with some guys noodling over a few chords, playing stupidly fast lines back in 1989 is, quite frankly, kind of absurd.
Tell me this: Is Iron Maiden objectively better than Godsmack?
Objectively better AT WHAT?
I don't know a damn thing about Godsmack beyond what I'm reading on Wikipedia. I imagine Maiden has sold more albums, but that shouldn't be surprising given that Maiden has been around a lot longer and has way more albums.
On the other hand, Godsmack appears to have 4 Grammy nominations to zero for Maiden.
Once again, asking whether something is "objectively better than" something else, you have to be clear about the relevant criteria. As you phrased the question, it is utterly meaningless.Justin Bieber is talentless.
He is just a singer/performer, not an artist. He hasn't one single characteristic of an artist. Compare him to widely appreciated artists as Bowie, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, etc. What is he compared to them? Artist? Come on.
His hits could be written by nearly everyone (including you or me).
Objectively he is one of the most hated singers on this planet, because the masses of people easily recognized his music is garbage.
And I don't think it's just an opinion, it's the truth.
Oh, for fuck's sake!
Justin Bieber has sole more than 150 million records. He made a movie that was seen by millions and made millions of dollars in profit. He is a MASSIVELY popular. He is a hugely successful business person who has made millions on multiple business ventures. If he's "talentless" and "objectively . . . one of the most hated singers on this planet," how has that happened? While he might very well be hated by a lot of folks, it also seems to be an objective fact that he is also one of the most LOVED singers on the planet" (after all, one can be both "most hated" and "most loved").
He's "just a singer/performer, not an artist"? Well...ok, if you define "artist" not to include "singers," but I think you'd be on that island alone. Also, (1) Justin Bieber plays multiple instruments, and (2) wasn't Marvin Gaye also "just a singer/performer"? Do you have to be primarily a player of a musical instrument to be considered an "artist"? What about Ella Fitzgerald or Billie Holliday? Were then "just singers/performers, not artists"?
Give me your opinion on this.
In one facebook rock fans group someone posted this question: "Name a better 3 musician band than Rush, if you can" and one guy responded with a big list of trio bands including Blink 182 and Green Day.
Even if someone is a big Rush hater I don't get how he can have an opinion that Blink 182 and Green Day are a 'better 3 musician bands' than Rush. That was a big insult to Rush.
His statement was absurd and wrong. Who in their right mind could claim something like that. LMAO
How would you react if someone tells you that Blink 182 and Green Day are better than Rush? Would you get into argument with that guy?
How would you react if someone tells you that Blink 182 and Green Day are better than Rush? Would you get into argument with that guy?
OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it. They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.
Case closed.
The hurdle here, which we can't get past, is that WR doesn't grasp the concept of subjectivity and therefore he continues to make the exact same argument using different bands/artists. At this juncture the conversation can't move forward.
OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it. They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.
Case closed.
sorry I was way off base.
I was there , the time has passed , and I am too. If you get you get it , if not keep on keeping on. - Peace to all.
I don't get how so many people can't stand Axl Rose's singing but they don't mind Brian Johnson's vocals at all. Masses of people bought "Back in Black" and masses of people think it's an enjoyable record. Johnson's voice is a definition of "fingernails on a chalkboard" and people don't mind him, but they always want to bash Axl's voice. DOUBLE STANDARDS!
The problem, of course, is that we (the subjective) can PROVE, objectively, our case, and you can't. You "saying" it doesn't make it so.
If I ask 100 people, "who is better, Rush or Green Day", and I get even a handful of responses "Green Day", you are PROVABLY wrong. It's scientifically untenable to reject data that doesn't agree with your premise just because it doesn't agree with your premise. You're arguing a tautology here in some ways.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me, I don't care what YOU think, in the sense that if you think Rush the superior band, for whatever reason, it's completely your right. No question; I'm not telling you you are wrong, I'm just saying that you don't speak for anyone other than you yourself.
OK. You wrote this, but I still genuinely believe it's the truth that Rush music has far more musical quality than Green Day
The problem, of course, is that we (the subjective) can PROVE, objectively, our case, and you can't. You "saying" it doesn't make it so.
If I ask 100 people, "who is better, Rush or Green Day", and I get even a handful of responses "Green Day", you are PROVABLY wrong. It's scientifically untenable to reject data that doesn't agree with your premise just because it doesn't agree with your premise. You're arguing a tautology here in some ways.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me, I don't care what YOU think, in the sense that if you think Rush the superior band, for whatever reason, it's completely your right. No question; I'm not telling you you are wrong, I'm just saying that you don't speak for anyone other than you yourself.
OK. You wrote this, but I still genuinely believe it's the truth that Rush music has far more musical quality than Green Day, regardless of who prefer which band.
If you and I were each given a set of numbers - unknown to each other - and told to add them, if you were given "4" and "6" and "1" and "8", you would arrive at "19". So would I. And so would any of 1,000 or more people given the same numbers.
Not that it is really on topic, but since it came up:
As far as guitar solos, my top 2 would be:
1. Paul Gilbert's solo on Neal Morse's The Door (from Sola Scriptura)
2. Alex Skolnick's solo on Return To Serenity (Testament)
It's really hard for me to make a definitive list after that because there are just TONS of great ones. I would instantly toss in a bunch by John Petrucci and Dave Meniketti. For melodic shred, a bunch of Marty Friedman's solos in Megadeth are up there. And then there are a lot that I love that, maybe while not technically great, are super melodic or are just what the song called for, like Ritchie Sambora's solo on Wanted Dead or Alive, Jake E. Lee's solo in Bark at the Moon, Zakk Wylde's solo on No More Tears, a lot of Chris DeGarmo's solos in Queensryche, a lot of Phil Collen's solos in Def Leppard's golden years, a lot of John Sykes stuff, a few Vivian Campbell solos with Dio... Just SO MANY awesome ones to choose from.
If you and I were each given a set of numbers - unknown to each other - and told to add them, if you were given "4" and "6" and "1" and "8", you would arrive at "19". So would I. And so would any of 1,000 or more people given the same numbers.
I'd wager a large sum of money that, if you told 1,000 random people to add the numbers 4, 6, 1 and 8, that at least 5-10 would not answer 19. :lol
- I do prefer Green Day and Blink 182 over Rush. I prefer the energy of their music and have more fun singing along to their lyrics than I do to Rush.
- I do prefer Green Day and Blink 182 over Rush. I prefer the energy of their music and have more fun singing along to their lyrics than I do to Rush.
OK. But even if you prefer their music you can't deny that Rush music has more musical quality.
- I do prefer Green Day and Blink 182 over Rush. I prefer the energy of their music and have more fun singing along to their lyrics than I do to Rush.
OK. But even if you prefer their music you can't deny that Rush music has more musical quality.
I like the American Idiot record more than several Rush records. Shock and awe.Weirdo.
I like most things better than Rush. But "most" is still not quite broad enough to encompass Green Day.:lol
I like most things better than Rush. But "most" is still not quite broad enough to encompass Green Day.:lol
What is it that you don't like about Rush? Their sound? Geddy's vocals? Neil's lyrics? Or something else?
I like most things better than Rush. But "most" is still not quite broad enough to encompass Green Day.:lol
What is it that you don't like about Rush? Their sound? Geddy's vocals? Neil's lyrics? Or something else?
I like most things better than Rush. But "most" is still not quite broad enough to encompass Green Day.:lol
What is it that you don't like about Rush? Their sound? Geddy's vocals? Neil's lyrics? Or something else?
Hard to put my finger on. I can appreciate a lot of things about them. But in terms of connecting with their music, I just don't, save the odd song here or there.
Gotcha. Which songs do you like?I like most things better than Rush. But "most" is still not quite broad enough to encompass Green Day.:lol
What is it that you don't like about Rush? Their sound? Geddy's vocals? Neil's lyrics? Or something else?
Hard to put my finger on. I can appreciate a lot of things about them. But in terms of connecting with their music, I just don't, save the odd song here or there.
- I do prefer Green Day and Blink 182 over Rush. I prefer the energy of their music and have more fun singing along to their lyrics than I do to Rush.
OK. But even if you prefer their music you can't deny that Rush music has more musical quality.
Whatever the hell that means.