|
\/ GOD
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
|
I honestly don't get your point entirely. Are you trying to insinuate somehow there are not varying levels of quality in music?
Fact of the matter is, some music is good, and some isn't. Pop in the 60s wasn't great but it was better.
As for Beatles vs Gaga. Beatles took risks, Gaga does not. The argument from my end boils entirely down to that. As for classical music, classical music isn't always better but has an amazing potential to be better for the fact it isn't built off the concept of taking 5-10 seconds of melody, and looping them in chambers. BOTH Beatles era AND Gaga's era did their piece in disintegrating the integrity of music. Mozart isn't even the best example. Look into what late 1800s, early 1900s composers were doing. Guys like Stravinsky, Bartok, etc. The sheer amount of craftsmanship, and effort blows EVERYTHING in these pop eras out of the water.
In terms of melodic complexity, music has definitely got significantly simpler from these eras. Jazz, and Classical which are the most complex forms of music have faded away from the mainstream, and only pop up occasionally as a supplement. As somebody who knows this music I have heavily criticized both acts(Gaga, and Beatles), and if your point is that I have the right to, then I agree.
However, if your point is that "If you criticize one you can't criticize the other" then I can't agree. Beatles, and Gaga are different things, and Beatles is significantly better. Overrated, but better. There are things you've never heard of that are significantly better than both. Take Koenji Hyakkei for example. They're somewhat well known in the prog, and Japanophile crowd but generally not really. I'd dare say there more interesting than Gaga, Mozart, and the Beatles. Beatles are more interesting than Gaga, and Mozart... etc.
There is no idiocy, or hypocrisy in assuming one is better than the other just because they are "different things" at all.
Lets say we're talking about movies, and the Beatles is The Godfather(good, yet massively overrated), Mozart is Citizen Kane(Good, outdated, yet architypical), and Lady Gaga is Airbud(Cheesy, fun, and simple. Aimed only at it's target audience.).
You can say that you like the Godfather better than Citizen Kane, you can even say you like Airbud better than the Godfather if you really hate the Godfather. However, it does not make the mass consensus hypocrites to think Citizen Kane, and Godfather are generally better movies than Airbud. Nor does it make one a hypocrite for liking something like I don't know, Sin City(Great movie, technical masterpiece, not necessarily hugely significant, or influential from a historical viewpoint, Koenji Hyakkei) better than all of them.
Just as film, it's up to you to discern, and it's not idiocy or hypocrisy for liking one thing, and saying another is better no matter what it is. It's just a matter of opinion. Just as any artform, there are varying levels of quality that must be acknowledged(reason we have movie critics), and those are up to a measure of interpretation(also why we have critics).
For that fact I still a tad offensive to hint at 'mass idiocy' when your original topic came up. Especially when your point lacked any validity or direction.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|