Gilly said:
The problem you have is I don't need to go deeper into that part of my opinion. If music sounds **** it just sounds ****.
There is a difference between understanding why something is great and sharing opinion that something is great. I struggle to find Rolling Stones remotely interesting. To my ear it's a bad vocalist choking out simple lyrics, to messy music performed by rather uneven bunch of musicians. Unpleasant to look at, even more unpleasant to listen to. It's just not within my taste. I do, however understand why they have their place in hall of fame and how they earned their legend status for crying out loud. Not my kind of music but at least in large excerpts good music never the less.
I don't like the way your car looks, but I like the way other cars look. There's isn't any specific reason for that I just don't like it.
Fine example. Will help. I DON'T LIKE the way Subaru Impreza looks like. I much more like the way my Almera looks (no, really). But do I doubt Subaru Impreza is a great racing car? Hell no.
It's not about liking. It's about understanding what's music or art and what's not.
Eminem could be called **** musician. Not because I don't like him, but because there isn't much music really to speak off and when there is, it's by default never his. Rapper, very outspoken indeed. Text writter, perhaps a top notch one in his genre. Musician. Not really much to speak of. But that's not
all. There were many bad musicians before him. Bob Dylan for one. Very unlikable chap with less than very basic intrument skills, known for his harsh tunes and chillingly miserable vocal. But the forms, he created, with charisma more than anything between his insightful lyrics and simple tunes were enough to insipire and thus book his place in music history.
That's a difference between someone who sells records and shelves grammy awards and someone who actually creates music and/or art. Even if, forced to choose between two, I would pick Marshall Matters over Robert Zimmerman for long journey on a train.
Another fine example - given enough financial and time backing dmpoole could record his version of Dark Side of The Moon which could, in theory sound better than original on every instrumental and vocal level. There is a distinct possibility that it could happen. Could he write an album just one like it from the scratch? With all due respect. Doubt it. It just doesn't happen. And that's why it's such a big deal when it does. Let alone make few consecutive albums like that. And that's the difference between performer and artist.
And you don't have to like something to see those simple differences. In terms of music that's why people will know in the future of Bob Dylan, but not of Martine McCatcheon and her cheerful renditions of whatever was she did at her time. They will know how Mick couldn't get satisfaction when Keith kept murdering the same two string riff over few minutes on his harshly sounding guitar but won't care to admire vinyl scratching and mixing console skills of DJ Visage and his thrilling, gas pressing hit "Schumacher". Even tho for many reasons many of us, at any given time, would rather seat through a umpaumpa to the Schumi than through Mick still not getting any luck.
When something inspires millions of people to return to for so many years, be it a symphony they heard hundreds of times before, or book they've already read in high school, or a painting on the back of which countless students made their phone book aftername additions you don't get to say it's ****. Cause it's not going to be just because you said it. Gwyneth isn't fat. Brad isn't rude black man. Floyds aren't ****. You have to do better than "because if it sounds **** it is ****" if you want to convince anyone. You sound to me like little on that side for the past two pages, and yet I'm sure you aren't one.
You have to prove your theory.
.