@Oomph!
http://lolcat.com/images/lolcats/174.jpg

Too bad being measurable doesn't make something objective. Furthermore, "good" in the sense that its being used is an abstract. You list things like time signatures and bpm which are indeed objectively measurable but don't necessarily define "good" as you'd need to somehow prove one speed is somehow better (not faster) than another in a way that is both falsifiable and factual. Since there is no way to determine what speed is the correct speed for music objectively (that is in a falsifiable and factual manner) speed is not an objective criteria for good. In fact, since good is an abstract in the given context it can't be objective. Good in the context being used means something like "pleasing" and what pleases one person might not please another. That'd be like having an objective emotion.

Edit: Lemmy was better in Hawkwind than he was in Motorhead.

He's wrong any way you slice it.

This guy clearly dosen't know anything about The Beatles, they've had several songs in odd time and have experimented with a variety of sounds unheard of in rock music at the time.

Also, there is no "objective" way to measure how much passion someone puts into their music, in fact theres no f*cking way of measuring it at all. You can't get inside a musicians head.

This is true. Songs like Helter Skelter and Eleanor Rigby were pretty out there for the time and still probably among some of the more unique tracks in pop and rock music to this day.

That's probably the most stupid thing I've ever read in my life. How can "guitar distortion, bass, time signature, beats per minute, and layers of sound" be measurable values? All of those things could be inserted into music mechanically. They have nothing to do with "motivation or passion" at all.

What you don't seem to understand is that any criteria you bring up in this regard is, when all's said and done, completely subjective, and NOT a "tangible fact" in any way, shape or form. As long as a criteria itself is left open to dispute, any judgments resulting from it are opinions...not facts.

If you want to talk The Beatles specifically, then even by your own criteria you falter. There's more experimentation with "layering of orchestral sound" on Sgt Pepper than on anything in the useless Godsmack catalogue, and as for general layering of sound, counterpoint and interplay between multiple parts, there's more sophistication even as early as their 1966 album Revolver than on anything in Numetal. If you want to talk experimentation with guitar distortion, there's The Beatles (1968), complex bass lines, then Abbey Road, and there's loads of playing around with rhythm and time signature on their last two albums. They were generally quite overtly ARTY in fact during their final years. Go listen to the schizophrenic nightmare of I Am The Walrus, for example.

The Beatles didn't even invent most of the ideas they played around with and yet they were WAY more wildly adventurous and eclectic than pretty much any metal band I've ever heard. You've clearly either NOT listened to their four albums that matter, or you have but just know very, shamefully little about rock history and music theory. Probably both. Either way, go learn about the origins of rock and what bands were actually trying to DO, and you'll benefit for sure.

At any rate, since when was "lame" defined as lacking in motivation or passion? Far as I'm concerned, a piece of pop trash like "Unbrake My Heart" sung by Toni Braxton has more tangible "motivation and passion" in it than any garbage by insipid, cliched, generic numetal bands like Godsmack.

Haha, I knew you'd love the new direction of this thread... especially that quote. :D

lol, and how could I not? :p:

Got to give credit to him, it certainly was an unpopular opinion...

The sad thing is, a lot of very silly people do actually think about music like that.