Poll

Influential = good/great?

Yes
3 (15%)
No
15 (75%)
Unsure
2 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Author Topic: Influential = good/great?  (Read 4696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14146
  • Gender: Male
  • Take My Hand
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2018, 10:14:17 AM »
I'm really surprised that the most people on this board are into Rush very much and I wonder whether it has something to do with their huge influence on Dream Theater.
DT is a huge influence on Haken and not everyone here likes them.  ::)

Yeah, but Haken are terrible

They have one good song, subjectively.

Offline Zantera

  • Wolfman's brother
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13430
  • Gender: Male
  • Bouncing around the room
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2018, 11:41:01 AM »
Don't mean to offend anyone but I don't get the mentality of having to justify something as "objectively good". It's all opinions, it's subjective. Just seems like a bit of a schoolyard mentality to me, "oh you say this band sucks but guess what, i got proof they are objectively good".

Offline Ninjabait

  • XBOX is a God to Me
  • PR permission
  • *
  • Posts: 696
  • Gender: Male
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2018, 11:41:47 AM »
Yes and no.

There's a difference in definition with good and great when talking about art, which can get lost because "great" is often used to mean "good".

I think that influential is one of the defining characteristics for being "great", alongside timelessness. It's really hard to determine if a contemporary artist or album is great, because you can't see much of the impact they've had on other artists and the general public. Stuff like Adele, Dream Theater, Alice in Chains, Eminem, Meshuggah, Lorde, Skrillex, and Taylor Swift seem like the obvious greats to us now, but when they first came out it would've been hard to gauge their impact and lasting power.

Being influential has no impact on whether it's good or not. Whether something is good or not is totally subjective, and everyone's definition of what's good is different.

You can also acknowledge that something is great without necessarily thinking it's good. Take me for example, I absolutely hated having to sit through Slayer's Reign in Blood and Miles Davis's Bitches Brew, but I have no qualms with admitting that those two albums are great. A lot of critics thought that rock and jazz in general wouldn't last because they didn't like it, but boy were they wrong.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15289
  • Gender: Male
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2018, 02:15:05 PM »
Yes and no.

There's a difference in definition with good and great when talking about art, which can get lost because "great" is often used to mean "good".

I think that influential is one of the defining characteristics for being "great", alongside timelessness. It's really hard to determine if a contemporary artist or album is great, because you can't see much of the impact they've had on other artists and the general public. Stuff like Adele, Dream Theater, Alice in Chains, Eminem, Meshuggah, Lorde, Skrillex, and Taylor Swift seem like the obvious greats to us now, but when they first came out it would've been hard to gauge their impact and lasting power.

Being influential has no impact on whether it's good or not. Whether something is good or not is totally subjective, and everyone's definition of what's good is different.

You can also acknowledge that something is great without necessarily thinking it's good. Take me for example, I absolutely hated having to sit through Slayer's Reign in Blood and Miles Davis's Bitches Brew, but I have no qualms with admitting that those two albums are great. A lot of critics thought that rock and jazz in general wouldn't last because they didn't like it, but boy were they wrong.

Love this post! Big +1!!

I like that idea. Something can be great without being good.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Crow

  • Holy Guide of the 4/10
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26754
  • Gender: Female
  • tdjghjjkhliòujoàupougjyufkuyrkuyt
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2018, 02:16:36 PM »
Is St. Anger obectively good or bad?

Correct answer is bad.
WOOSH

THERE IT GOES

THE POINT FLEW SO FAR ABOVE YOUR HEAD THEY NAMED IT A COMET

Offline ChuckSteak

  • Posts: 1688
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2018, 06:14:01 PM »
As silly and pointless and childish as these topics are... I think they are fun.  ;D

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43349
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: Influential = good/great?
« Reply #76 on: October 15, 2018, 07:10:52 AM »
I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.

But no one said anything about LIKING.  I could care less about LIKING something, it's just acknowledging it.  I happen to love Kiss, but there are plenty of bands that I really like that are influenced by bands I do not listen to and don't care for (I'm not a huge thrash fan, for example, so while DT is one of my favorite bands as well, as they progressed and incorporated more of the thrash metal influences. 

I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.

I wasn't trying to dig or make it personal, but to explain myself better.  I'm a massive music fan. I have a wall of CDs, I play, etc.   So when my daughter started to get involved in music, I was as thrilled as anyone could be.  She liked (and likes) to sing and wants to play an instrument (she's playing ukulele at school).   But imagine my chagrin when she gravitated to Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and One Direction.  And at first I tried to make sure she understood where that was coming from; when Swift played a Train song in concert then a Fleetwood Mac song, I made sure she heard the originals.   Same with One D.  When they did that song that sounds exactly like David Bowie's Changes, I made sure she heard that. too.   But she would come home from a hard day or done with her studying, she gets the same relief and emotional lift from that music that I do from DT or Genesis or whoever.   And it dawned on me, who am I to say that "sucks"?   I can - and do - tell her which songs don't work for me, and why, and there are some that DO work ("Once In A Lifetime" by One D and "Wildest Dreams" are two of my favorite songs ever). 

All I know, is when I hear the "In The Cage Medley" from 3SL, the hairs on my arms stand up; if that Swift song does the same thing to her, how can that "suck"?   It's music, it causes the same reaction over time and space, so how does "Genesis" rule and Swift drool?   It makes no logical sense.   So I look at the one variable that is different, and it's ME. 

This is very different than "like".  I don't like those bands per se.   I love the Dead (well, parts of it; the Godcheaux years, basically) and their biggest influence is probably Dylan.  I still don't like Dylan, but I love how the Dead took his whatever and filtered it through their whatever and came up with something new. 

Again, it's not personal, I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just saying I disagree strongly and giving tangible reasons why.

My daughter loves Taylor Swift and every other female pop singer ever, and anything her mom listens to. I make it perfectly clear what I like and don't like. Yes, I need to work on that, but they listen to the same shit OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It drives me mad. I am surprised when something enjoyable comes on, but more often than not, it's "change this shit. I'm fucking sick of this song." Certain songs are banned from my car. Lately my daughter has been describing what I listen to as just screaming into a microphone, and she's referring to any singing with a harsher tone, not ever Death Metal which I don't actively listen to anyway. She has requested Dream Theater, but it seems to be always when I want to listen to something else. Both my daughter and my fiancée like Dream Theater, which is cool. But yeah, I'm very vocal when it comes to stuff I don't like.

As I said before, saying something sucks is an exaggeration of an opinion. It's basically slang for "I don't like this." Can it be mean? Yes. I don't like it when someone says something sucks or is boring that I like, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, but such is life. When my fiancée and daughter are listening to shit I really don't like, I just leave the room now. I can't take it. I'd like to be more of an influence on my daughter when it comes to music, and I think by just showing her how much I love the music I listen to would help, I'm not one to sing in front of people. They love to sing, but I know my limitations, and I know I can't. I drown myself out in the car when I'm by myself. Maybe one day I'll build up the courage.

Music can "suck" because it's all personal opinion. One person's trash is another's treasure. Once again, saying something sucks is not a truth claim, or stating an objective fact. It's all opinion. Genesis can both rule and drool as well as Taylor Swift. Example: Swift's new album is a dumpster fire, but 1989 is a 9 out of 10. Reputation fucking blows... But my fiancée and daughter love it. Your point of view is seeing it as objective. Objectively it wouldn't make logical sense, but there's nothing objective about an opinion. We all like 1989. The only song which is complete trash is Bad Blood, but they like it. What if my daughter and I liked it, but my fiancée didn't. Or only my daughter hated it? Or they both hated it, but I liked it. Maybe in another universe because I fucking hate that song. Sorry if this was a mess or if I missed something. Basically, you know, it's all like, our opinions, man. People can be mean, I can be mean or blunt. It's something to work on, but god damn, some of the shit they listen to is so bad...

If you just say "suck" as "I don't like this", then we really don't have any disagreement, since I don't for a second think you should "like" everything.  I know I don't.  By your definition, Radiohead and Slayer suck, and suck hard.   And certainly how you handle that in your circle is your call.  I'm not here to try and tell you how to live your life.   

(Though, I'll be blunt and say that kind of makes me a little sad; nothing is banned in my car, and we play a little game, depending on the ride.  Short rides, she gets one way, anything goes, no rules, and I get the return, anything goes no rules.  Longer drives we take half hour shifts.   It's not about music for me, but it's my sort of personality that I feel the same saying "wow, your music BLOWS!" as I do saying "wow, honey, you look skank today."  I feel like I'm being disrespectful.)