grindy

Literature isn't a good analogy anyway, because music is much more universal and works more on an emotional level than literature, which works on an emotional level as well, but where intellectual aspects are much more important. But once again, there was no talk about relevance, only about being good. And he was good back then and he is now.

If Ninetales said something like: Metallica is lame, because they don't rock as much as some XYZcore and Chula had rightfully pointed out, that XYZcore wasn't around back then and Metallica did rock a lot compared to the existing stuff, then your argument about a changed language might have been somewhat true.
Since that wasn't the case and the discussion was not about rocking, but about making good music and since the musical language didn't change that drastically, I'd still say that the "You had to be there" defence is pretty lame.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

The Batlord

Musical taste certainly changes over time, making even great music from decades past less "good" to modern ears. Do you think the same number of people could listen to old blues? Or polka? Or swing? Or country from the turn of the century? It's all well and good to say that music is universal, but it's not entirely true.

Same thing with Shakespeare. It's nice to say that he's still good, especially if you're the arty type who just "gets" that kind of thing, but he's no longer palatable to the people who would otherwise be his intended audience (working class schlubs). So, if he can't entertain the same audience that he used to, then by your logic, he's "not good".

__________________

grindy

I can't get into other people's heads, but I personally do like a lot of old music and I don't see any real difference between the way old music and new music sounds good to me.
The fact that people tend to listen to the music of their era might be more due to the fact, that most people aren't that interested in exploring music and just grab what they easily get. I still think that to an open-minded person music is universal.

As for Shakespeare (although I'm still not quite on board with your analogy):
Sure, simple people did enjoy his plays, but I wouldn't say they were the only intended audience. His plays had a lot of elements no peasant would get. They were mostly in it for the jokes, the violence, the sex and the general running around of people on a stage, but the beauty of his language, the psychological depth of his protagonists is more or less timeless.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Frownland

Skilled is the word you're looking for, not good. I'll be damned if I'm going to call Yngwie Malmsteen a good artist, no matter how ridiculous that may seem (can't be any more ridiculous than his music).

And Batty, accessible and palatable=good?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

The Batlord

This is all personal to you and a select few other people. I highly doubt the vast majority of people would care for a lot of music from older decades, even if they were exposed to it, because it's sound was targeted toward one particular group of people during one specific time.

The point wasn't that Shakespeare didn't target ONLY the masses, but his plays were meant to be watched by them. But without someone spoon feeding the meaning of pretty much every line, the vast majority of people on Earth wouldn't have the slightest idea what was even going on much of the time. All the depth in the world doesn't mean **** if someone doesn't even know what anyone is saying.

Likewise, if you have somebody who listens to mostly dubstep, I imagine if you played him some John Lee Hooker, they very likely wouldn't even know how to listen to it. Even something that simple may just be too alien to such a person's musical worldview. Or at the very least they probably just wouldn't give a ****.

But that doesn't make John Lee Hooker any worse of an artist.

__________________

Chula Vista

*wakes from Friday nap*

GO BATLORD, GO!

No sense in me trying to jump into the argument since he's killing it.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Wpnfire

AH! Yes, thank you for noticing that. phew, that was a close one.

__________________

Last.FM

My RYM Ratings

My Glitchwave Beta Profile

Ninetales

metallica is skilled at making not good music. is that better? wheeeee youre all welcome for these last few pages

Wpnfire

Fixed.

__________________

Last.FM

My RYM Ratings

My Glitchwave Beta Profile

grindy

Me and some select few other people? Come on. Even centuries old classical music is relatively popular and rock from the seventies and eighties much more so. Metallica is still one of the most popular rock/metal bands, among younger people as well. If someone says they don't like them, while being generally comfortable with rock/metal, then it's certainly not because of some huge shift in musical language.
And saying you had to be there does nothing to say they are musically good, but the people of today don't get it fully. It might say you were young and partied hard and had wild sex and felt like a long haired non-conformist while their music played in the background. And that's fine. But that doesn't make music better or worse. It has nothing to do with the quality of the music. Just like the genreal "being there" thing.

And once again, the fact that Shakespeare is really difficult to understand is a false analogy, because the comprehension of language is quite different to the comprehension of music. And the elements that made him enjoyable for the masses would still be enjoyable for them today.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.