Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
No it is subjective... believe me. Anyhow where's the proof? Please, could you provide some proof or copy and paste some article from a music critic who has made such a claim. And don't be a hatin' on me when I say this but imho Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones are better and will always be better than the bands he mentioned.
|
LOL. I AGREE!!!
There are objective and legitimate reasons for why the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more legendary than the bands the OP mentioned.
That was my point I probably could have been more clearer lol.
I do think music is subjective as well but in a debate such as this for instance there are facts that show why those bands like Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd are more groundbreaking than bands like Nickleback etc.
Its okay for someone to like Nickleback but if someone is trying to argue that they are more iconic than the Rolling Stones for instance, someone could easily argue objective facts that show they are not. So depending on the discussion music can turn objective when necessary.
Music facts dont necessarily have to come from critics or magazines (which I think are the worse judges of music because they are driven by popularity and what sells
most of the times anyway). I usually look at the impact and influence a artist or band as made on the current generation. Also if they made a significant impact on the progression of a certain genre or medium to determine how groundbreaking they are. A band like The Rolling Stones is the ideal rock band because most of the bands today model off of them. Its laughable to insist a band like Nickleback is more iconic when you can see some of the influence the Rolling Stones had on them and their generation. They dont have the same influence,credibility, impact, groundbreaking music and classics which is why they should not be mentioned in the same sentence with the Rolling Stones.