Quote:
|
The only artist here I'm familiar enough with to comment on is the Beatles. The beatles are OK, back in the 60's and 70's when it took very little to be considered 'edgy', yeah the beatles were kinda cool. But we live in a much more liberal, open society now and it takes allot more more than being psychodelic to effect people. The Beatles now days, are 'lame', in the literal sense of the word. They don't really have allot of songs that invoke allot of meaningful emotion. That's always been and always will be the problem with pop music, it's designed to be catchy, it's designed to be played in the background while your playing solitiare, it's designed to be a ringtone. I preffer music that demands my full attention.
|
What a load of blatant tosh. What does "invoking a lot of meaningful emotion" have to do with music? Music isn't inherently supposed to be evocative of emotion - though some music may be geared towards that. Music can be many things. It can be humorous, fun, witty, intelligent, psychedelic, philosophical, narrative, political, satirical,
or emotional - whatever the artist decides that it
should be. That's the great thing about music - there is an endless scope of possibilities. That it needs to be narrowed down to a small subset of things in your view shows just how very limited your understanding and appreciation of art is.
You also made the whole "more than just psychedelic" argument. This tells me, as it does in the case of anybody else who talks of the Bealtes in such terms, that you have hardly even listened to the band or else are totally unfamiliar with their material. Psychedelia was a tiny tiny part of the Beatles discography. They were much MUCH more experimental, both musically and lyrically, that either you know or given them credit for.
But alas. You have no notion to take any notice. Go listen to Godsmack.