Rate the Guns N' Roses version of "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

[Zantera]

JLB retires from singing and Bieber joins DT as new lead singer cause apparently he's a huge fan and has 20 vinyl copies of Systematic Chaos at home that shaped his music career.

[WildRanger]

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.

Along with Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp a Butterfly".
And David Bowie's "Blackstar"is not far behind.

[KevShmev]

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...

[NoseofNicko]

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...

My point was just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not well known, acclaimed or significant.

[pg1067]

I picked the wrong month to stop smoking weed.

Yeah, pretty much every word of that is demonstrably false.    You really have earned yourself zero credibility when it comes to discussing music here.

[WildRanger]

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.

[WildRanger]

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?

[Train of Naught]

Calm down man, not everyone thinks Rush is as great as you do

[Elite]

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.

[The Walrus]

Green Day has a couple albums I like way more than several Rush albums.

[Adami]

I'd like to commend WildRanger for actually engaging in this thread more, I think, than any other he has ever made.

Even if he's not answering most people's posts to him and just keeps putting a variation of the same post over and over.

"Wait, so if someone says X is better than Y, you'd be okay with that?!?!"

[WildRanger]

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.

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.

[WildRanger]

Calm down man, not everyone thinks Rush is as great as you do

It's not the point whether someone thinks Rush is as great as I do. The point is that if you say Blink 182 is better than Rush it shows that you have zero appreciation for Rush.
Someone doesn't have to like Rush music and it's OK, but every normal music fan should APPRECIATE or RESPECT them. If you say Rush is crap, it means you don't respect them at all.

I'm not a fan of Bob Dylan's music apart from a few tunes, but respect the hell out of him as a music artist.

[The Walrus]

I'm not a smart man, but I know what trolling is.

we know

[Adami]

Blink 182 is definitely better than Rush.


I feel confident saying that since we can define better however we want.

[Indiscipline]

Xanadu is a more complex song than Basket Case; is it your opinion a more complex song is inherently a musically superior song?

Not arguing. Still trying to understand your reasoning while the thread is still peaceful.

[Elite]

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?

What is a 'higher musical level'?
More notes played? More instruments used in a song? More use of the word 'Xanadu'? Longer composition? Usage of odd-time signatures?
Define 'higher musical level', please, or I won't take that question seriously at all.

Following 'higher musical level' -> 'more quality'. Again, this does not follow up.

I can deny it, because it's a fucking stupid question to ask.

Compare Basket Case and Xanadu? What's musically superior? Which song takes much more personal talent and creative effort to be written and performed?

Why the arbitrary choice of these two songs?
Ask yourself the same questions two define 'musically superior' next.

What is 'personal talent'? What is 'creative effort'? Can that be defined or quantised?

I'm quite confident that if Green Day would play 'Xanadu' it wouldn't sound well, but I'm also pretty sure that if Rush were to play 'Basket Case' it wouldn't be convincing at all either.

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.

What 'truth'?
What 'wide margin'? How are you even defining the 'margin', when you've only compared them in bullshit terms stemming from your own subjective opinion?

[WildRanger]

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.

[Train of Naught]

Calm down man, not everyone thinks Rush is as great as you do

It-

ok zoomer

[emtee]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

Wild, wild Rangers
Couldn't troll me all day

[WildRanger]

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.

[Indiscipline]

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.

Thank you! As long as you realise that's your opinion - not the Truth - I'm going to respect the hell out of it, even if I vehemently disagree; I won't even question your competence or education in the matter. Give us the same respect - i.e. keep polling and asking questions, but give up the "you're no true music fan" nonsense - and we're definitely cool.

[emtee]

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.

Yes indeed. You're entitled to your opinion. However, since you have posted many similar threads and covered your stance and beliefs about music, there isn't any point in doing it again...right? We know where you stand and you know where most of us stand. Jury dismissed.

[The Walrus]

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.

That's not how it works. You don't get to create your own reality, troll

[max_security]

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 ?

[The Walrus]

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.

[Elite]

OK. Many people on this board think (good and bad) music is 100% subjective and

Why the need to add the 'good and bad'?

Me excluded, by the way.

I disagree with them. I'm entitled to it.

Ok.

They can't convince me that music is 100% subjective nor I can't convince them that music is not 100% subjective either.

That was, for me personally, not the point, but since I'm not getting any responses from you whatsoever for all the questions I asked, I doubt it matters. It appears as if you're not open for discussion, especially if you say you can't be 'convinced' either way.

[max_security]

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.

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 requirements , 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.

[The Walrus]

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.

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. Profession = paid occupation. 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.

[Podaar]

But music is just not subjective...

Yes, but the level to which a person (or persons) appreciate/dislike it is (subjective). Of course you can build criteria for level of skill to perform certain musical tasks. The ability to meet those skills can be measured and called facts (objectivity), but that in no way automatically means it is good or bad. Likewise, it doesn't follow that a person who likes less complicated (less skillfully executed) music isn't a "real music fan." That's what folks are pushing back on.

[max_security]

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.

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.

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

[max_security]

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 . 

[The Walrus]

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 .

I'm still waiting for the follow-up to Chinese Democracy...