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

[Adami]

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".

Overall better only means those things if you decide that. By itself, it doesn't mean anything specific.

[Stadler]

No talent at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY3tzNUjoHc

[WildRanger]

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.

[WildRanger]

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.

[Indiscipline]

WR, thanks for responding to my questions, even though I feel you haven't provided substantial answers.

I gather you articulate your musical system of beliefs in "Truths", in the same vein a pious individual does with religion, so to speak.

This leaves me with one final question: if you deal in absolute truths, why are you polling our opinions on songs and artists?

I see two options here: either

A) You are secretly questioning your Religion of Objectiveness and - akin to a tired serial killer who unconsciously drops self-incriminating hints because he wants to get caught - a part of you is begging us pagans to liberate you and allow you to enjoy music without guilt

Or

B) You want to convert us.



A) is focking electrifying and I'm all for it, B) is no, thanks.

[pg1067]

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.

Come back in 50 years and we can discuss this intelligently.

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.

Are you ignorant that a Grammy nomination and a Grammy award are not the same thing?

The same "idiots" who nominated Godsmack in 2002 for best rock instrumental gave the actual award to Jeff Beck.  Are they still idiots?

The same "idiots" who nominated Godsmack in 2003 for best rock song gave the actual award to Bruce Springsteen.  Are they still idiots?

Etc., etc.


Also, you continue to miss the point -- a point which is so obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence that I can only assume you're being intentionally obtuse:  If the criteria for "objectively better" is "who had more Grammy nominations," IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER that you or anyone else SUBJECTIVELY thinks that the artist wasn't "deserving" of the nomination.

[The Walrus]

Trolls? In your forum? It's more likely than you think!

[pg1067]

Can you seriously claim that Stadler isn't an objectively better contributor to DTF than WildRanger?



....



Wait for it...



...


NO, YOU CANNOT!!!

[WildRanger]

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.

[Indiscipline]

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.

But we are all so obscenely subjective! How do you concile that with the Truth? Aren't we True people?

[The Walrus]

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.

Back, elitist troll! The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You shall not pass!

[WildRanger]

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."

[Stadler]

Can you seriously claim that Stadler isn't an objectively better contributor to DTF than WildRanger?



....



Wait for it...



...


NO, YOU CANNOT!!!

Yeah!   You said it!   Wait...


Wut?

[Stadler]

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.

Are you sure?  The last song I listened to all the way through was... wait for it... "Watermelon Sugar" by Harry Styles. 

[Stadler]

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."

You REALLY don't understand the point, my friend. Sorry. 

[WildRanger]

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?

[Adami]

I love you all so much.

[The Walrus]

I picked the wrong month to stop smoking weed.

[WildRanger]

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?

[Indiscipline]

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?

Miles Davis - Bitches Brew, Columbia Records (1970)
Tony Bennett - Tony Sings the Great Hits of Today!, Columbia Records (1970)

[Adami]

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?

[Skeever]

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!

[The Walrus]

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.

[Elite]

Don't go and bullshit about Miles Davis, who explicitly dropped the bebop, modal jazz etc. etc. to cocreate the first wave of fusion and drawing in lots of contemporary pop music into jazz, essentially trying to bring jazz to a wider audience. He was a great innovator, absolutely, but don't let that distract you from the fact that he indeed wanted to be heard. And he succeeded, for the 70s and 80s were his most commercially succesful period.

But what does it matter that I'm typing this.

[Elite]

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.

[bosk1]

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

[emtee]

I'm really uncomfortable ganging up on the poor dude. He just sees things differently than most of us.

Reminds me of a chap we used to have at mp.com. Seventh. Sometimes I wonder if WR is related. Maybe the 7th son of Seventh's sons.

Anyhoo--continuing the discussion is pointless. This is objectively true.

[The Walrus]

He doesn't "see things differently," he's a blatant troll, more obvious now than ever

[emtee]

He doesn't "see things differently," he's a blatant troll, more obvious now than ever

In a way, but I think he truly believes his arguments and reasoning are logical.

[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.

[Skeever]

I'd rather listen to Beiber than Axl. Just don't get the appeal of GnR at all.

[TAC]

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.

[Lonk]

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.

That actually made me laugh

[NoseofNicko]

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.

[The Walrus]

Perhaps when Bieber matures into a gay fish himself, he, too, will enter the WildRanger Pantheon of Artistic Greatness