[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by thelitguy

According to you, musical talent. I did state that no single one of these ideas makes greatness. A combination of them certainly does.

NO THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I'M SAYING. Musical talent is hard to focus on and not all that important. "Talented" musicians can write ☺☺☺☺ lines and talented composers can miss the spot. (earlier in this thread i slagged people who bring "talent" into the equation) In my mind it's aesthetics that matter not talent, although they may be inevitably linked. My whole point was that you can't judge any of this without it being an opinion and therefore objective words like "best" and "greatest" should be left behind and replaced with "favorite". (this may look like stupid semantics but I'm attacking more the attitude then the diction)

Originally Posted by thelitguy

A timely example would be Michael Jackson. If only his music would have made him great, I doubt that every national TV station would interrupt their prime-time lineups on the most important night on TV to show hour long documentaries on his life. The entire time I was watching this, I was thinking about this thread and how that was a perfect example of how cultural significance is just as important as musical talent.

Was MJ not talented? Talent is such a crappy word to use in these discussions. It's like when people are like "you may not like Protest the Hero but you can't deny that they're talented." So what? If you don't enjoy listening to them then why should you consider them "great" or applaud them for practicing their instruments a lot? If you don't enjoy listening to the Beatles why should you consider them one of the "greatest bands ever?" Successful entertainers, important artists, but great implies superiority to other artists and some people prefer other artists.

Originally Posted by thelitguy

Do I really have to go into a music appreciation class discussion about this? I think we both know what makes music good, at least aesthetically speaking.

No we don't!!! Some chord progressions are known to be pleasing but there's no formula for good music. Good songs and pieces come from all different directions. Again, I don't see art objective in any way. At it's very foundation I suppose it is made up of notes or lines or brush strokes but in combination it's something else that analysis doesn't expose.

[thelitguy]

Again, I don't see art objective in any way.

Then I am ceasing to have any further discussion about music in this thread due to the fact that it is idiotic to try and argue with you about subjective taste.

I also don't know what you're trying to get at if there is not objectivity in art to begin with.

I think they are great!
You do not think they are great!

But that means absolutely nothing if we are talking about subjectivity.

[thesteve]

Just to back the bus up a bit...

what is it that we all agree makes music good from an aesthetic viewpoint?

[penguinofwar]

(This is penguinofwar's brother)

I used to agree with you, mostly because everyone considered them to be the greatest band of all time.

Then I heard Strawberry Fields Forever. Not to play of the lyrics, but John took me to places I'd never been before, and there was consolation in that place. What he sang made sense for the first time in my life.

I can't explain it to you.

But I feel myself in John's lyrics to "I'm Only Sleeping." And Paul's bass fills in that song changed the way I approach a lot of my writing.

I feel the feedback that rises and devours the band in "I Want You (She's So Heavy).

Paul's solo on Taxman is incredible. I'm play guitar differently now.

I want a drummer who plays like Ringo. And the way he sings Octupus' Garden warms my heart. I don't find that song quirky, I find it beautiful.

I feel George's story, being told by John and Paul that he wasn't a good writer but they would let him put a couple of his songs on the albums just to be nice. They were some of the best. And his sitar playing transformed the way I think about music. And India. And life in general, actually. It completely opened me up to a whole new culture that changed my life (I won't get into that, though.)

"Across the Universe" is my favorite song of all time. That song is the way I look at life and art in general.

Sorry for being slightly incoherent, but my love for the Beatles is personal is basically what I'm trying to say. It's hard to see past my own biases, so I'm tempted to say "HOW CAN YOU NOT OBSESS OVER THEM?" But my reasons aren't reasons, they're more akin to intuitions.

It's fine if you don't enjoy the Beatles, but maybe give them a second chance. You might see something you didn't before.

[penguinofwar]

Originally Posted by meatfinger

And I like Radiohead, but I would never put them on the same level as The Beatles. They haven't achieved the stylistic variety, the skill in songwriting, or the universal appeal that The Beatles did.

Maybe it's a generational difference and the fact that they're my favorite band, but I'd consider Radiohead the rung under the Beatles, albeit two rungs far removed. But everyone I know a lot of people from different stereotypes, demographics, social groups ect.of people who love Radiohead. I have a black friend who grew up in Detroit and listens to mostly rap a la Tupac and Notorious who loves Radiohead, along with my friend who drives a Jeep Liberty her parents bought her. "OK Computer" changed the way my uncle writes music when it came out, and he plays country music. "Kid A" changed my piano teacher's music and he's Detroit's most celebrated jazz pianist. My voice teacher made a conscious desicion to write music when he first heard "Airbag" and he teaches kids how to sing like they're on Broadway.

That's all anecdotal, I guess.