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

[emtee]

Where does Sunn O))) fit into this convo?

Yowza.

[The Walrus]

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.

[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.

You would have no (developed) taste if you knew and listened ONLY to ANY one or two artists.

Yes.

[Setlist Scotty]

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. 

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.

....unless it was someone like Frank Zappa!   

[The Walrus]

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.

Yes, indeed. Although I am afraid you did not get the point of that comment. Now for the third time, waiting for you to answer whether or not I am a "real music fan" based on what I listen to. By your logic, I am an outlier.

[Stadler]

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.

What's your standard?   It depends entirely on your standard.  Better at what?  If you mean filling stadiums, Beiber blows Davis away.  If you mean influencing other instrumentalists, then Davis.   If the quality of the music is judged by "records sold", Beiber wins again. 

[Stadler]

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's an actual music fan?  How do you measure that?   I have both Harry Styles solo albums, saw him in concert, and sent his music in roulettes (and likely will again).   I appreciate Davis, and listen to him on occasion, but there are FAR more opportunities for me to put on a Styles record than a Davis record.   Where do I fall on the spectrum?   

Again; STANDARD. 

[Stadler]

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.

By your standard though - YOUR STANDARD - if you only listen to Davis (and his progeny) you ALSO don't know shit about music.   I'll give you that "breadth" of knowledge is good, but that's totally independent of the specific music, only the quantity.  (And by the way, don't pat yourself on the back too hard; the easily-purchased CDs/downloads available barely is the tip of the iceberg on the REAL breadth of music).   

[The Walrus]

I feel like Stadler is jumping in the ring and I'm tired and sweating it out after 6 rounds and I want to grab his shoulders and hold him back yelling, "It's not worth it! It's not worth it!!" 

[Stadler]

This conversation drives me to drink.  Seriously.   Nothing worse than a music snob.  If it moves you, it moves you.  Full stop. 

[WildRanger]

What's your standard? 

Artistry, talent and quality of music.

[The Walrus]

It's not even just music snobbery, it's plain stupidity and ignorance on so many fronts as well.

[WildRanger]

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. 

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.

....unless it was someone like Frank Zappa!   

He is in the "acquired taste" category!

[Adami]

Stadler vs WildRanger is like Batman Vs Joker. And I love it!

[WildRanger]

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?

[Stadler]

What's your standard? 

Artistry, talent and quality of music.

Define that.  Right now, objectively.  Give me a number on "quality of music".   

[Stadler]

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?

Of course.  "U Smile" is one of my favorite tunes of all time.  Seriously, no irony.   Beiber is not a great example, because I don't like all his music, but there are other so-called "popular" artists where I do.  I watched Harry Styles (from One Direction) rock the Madison Square Garden - all 22,000 people or however many were there (it was a sold out show) and it was a great evening. 

[emtee]

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?

Why would it matter who it is?

[Elite]

This is now my favourite thread

[The Walrus]

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?

EARTH TO WILDRANGER. OTHER PEOPLE LIKE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. THEY CAN HAVE OPINIONS TOO

[Adami]

What's your standard? 

Artistry, talent and quality of music.

Define that.  Right now, objectively.  Give me a number on "quality of music".

8675309.

[NoseofNicko]

Music elitists like WildRanger are so funny.

[Indiscipline]

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.

So, Wild Ranger, do you care answering my questions from a couple of pages ago?

[The Walrus]

Heck, we're inside a thread where he's asking for our opinions via poll.

[emtee]

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.

[Elite]

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.

[KevShmev]

Mike Stone is objectively a better guitar player than John Petrucci.

Come at me.

[Adami]

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!

[The Walrus]

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.

[WildRanger]

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.

[Adami]

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.

Yes. Yes it does.

[The Walrus]

I am reminded of this.

[Adami]

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.

Don't foil my secret attack!

[Indiscipline]

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. 

[Adami]

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.

I sure hope you're patient and accustomed to disappointment.