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

[WildRanger]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

So you like Appetite for Destruction? 

[WildRanger]

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.

So it means you can't stand Axl's voice?

[Elite]

I have a degree in classical piano education

Cool, I did not know that!

[Indiscipline]

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?

[WildRanger]

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.

[Indiscipline]

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.

(Sorry for cutting the quote tree, it was becoming unreadable)

I think I've understood the literature comparison, but the question still stands. Who selects the classics and by which criteria?

Plus, what happens to this system when, after a lifetime of perusing the classics, the grown kid still likes Bieber and Sheeran?

[Adami]

Is it just Bieber and and Sheeran?

What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?

[Elite]

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?

[bosk1]

What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?

Well...yes.  But for different reasons.

[Adami]

What about Billie Eilish and Lady Gaga? I love both of them. Am I objectively wrong?

Well...yes.  But for different reasons.

Oh shush. You know they're both awesome.

I actually think a collaboration between Billie and JR would be pretty cool.

[pg1067]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

[MirrorMask]

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. Nobody is required to have a list of favorite artists and a deep musical knowledge about Elvis, the Beatles and all jazz's prominent players, some people are just happy to have a hummable or danceable music to listen to.

I mean, most of us if put inside the Louvre would mainly go to see Leonardo's Gioconda. That painting is the Nothing Else Matters or More than Words of art, everyone and their mother knows it, but there's so much more in the Louvre. It's not a crime to not know at least 10 paintings or statues situated in the Louvre just like it's not a crime to just enjoy have some background "noise" while doing other stuff, and being content with going with the flow and "passively" enjoying whatever the radio broadcasts.

[pg1067]

I'm still waiting for WR to address whether or not I'm a real music fan.

LOL...that reminds me of when I was in high school, and my friends and I would get on each other with comments like, "if you like the Go-Go's, then you're not a REAL metal fan."

[Adami]

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.

I'm also going to blow this up and say that Miles isn't an objectively better trumpet player than Justin. We subjectively decided what makes a good trumpet player. If I decide that making awful awful noise counts as better, then Justin is likely better.

[WildRanger]

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.

[Elite]

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.

5 hours? Pffft, that's nothing. Play at least 8 hours a day and then come back to me, you fake music fan.

[WildRanger]

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.

Nope. Miles Davis or Beethoven's music is not entertainment, but Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez music is. Two totally different purposes.

[Adami]

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.

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[The Walrus]

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.

I am the clown. This is what I get for trying to appeal to better angels. Now I'm going motherfuckin' psychosane.

[Adami]

Dammit, you quoted me before I could alter my post.

Rats.

[The Walrus]

Dammit, you quoted me before I could alter my post.

Rats.

[Indiscipline]

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.

Ok, I think I get it. I try and draw some logical consequences, but please stop me any time you feel I'm mirepresenting your reasoning:

A) GOAT lists = fans', musicians', critics' personal tastes

B) Top 20's = majority buyers' tastes.

I follow A, I develop my personal taste, I am an actual music fan

I follow B, I don't develop my personal taste, I am just a music fan

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?

[WildRanger]

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.

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.

Nah. They couldn't dance to it. 

[Elite]

It's like Devin Townsend said: "and music? Well, it's just entertainment folks!"

[WildRanger]

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 they could overlap  somewhere
4) Then there is nothing wrong with that if he dig/get those classics and Gaga/Eilish would probably be in his "guilty pleasure" category

[Adami]

I think Lady Gaga and Billie Eilish (and her brother) are brilliant and don't consider them, at all, guilty pleasures.

[Indiscipline]

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?

[The Walrus]

Nah. They couldn't dance to it. 

... yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

[WildRanger]

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.

[Setlist Scotty]

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?!?!? 

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. 

[Adami]

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?!?!? 

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. 

First off, my good man, it's doctor, not mister. 

Second, Bad Guy is great, but she has a lot more than two songs. Her first album has 1 or 2 songs i don't care for (not counting the opening talking track) but songs like I Love You, Goodbye, You Should See Me With a Crown, and almost all of the rest are incredible.

And you can sit and really listen to the production of it and what went into it and it's pretty outstanding.