Madonna is like my golfer elbow….really annoying and never goes away.
I think I've heard this way back ... decades ago, but don't get how it relates to me post ??
"Better" is completely subjective?
In the case of appreciating arts, yes "better" is fairly subjective, though not completely. But the degree to which it is subjective is enough for me to stay out of trying to convince people that a certain band is better than another. If someone would like to prove otherwise, I would like them to propose a quantifiable and objective measure for how good a song/band is.
http://mukto-mona.net/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/aparthib/subjectivity_arts.htm
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html
A similar debate exists in the contemporary art world, because of the same confusion about subjectivity and objectivity. Nowadays, some people say that no work of art is better than any other. The Campbell's Soup logo is art; a pile of rocks or dog poop is art; the Aurora Borealis is art. Why? Because whether or not something is art is a "subjective" matter. Philosophers cringe.
What about aesthetic judgments (like "Mozart's music is better than Copland's" or "Amadeus is a better movie than Austin Powers")? Are aesthetic judgments mere matters of opinion? Again, most philosophers would say no, though aesthetic disagreements might seem tougher to settle. But think of it this way. Suppose someone says "I think store-bought tomatoes taste better than home-grown tomatoes." Now, anyone who's eaten home-grown tomatoes would be incredulous: how could anyone with experience of both decide the store-bought tomatoes taste better? As a tomato grower, my first impulse would be to wonder if the speaker simply didn't understand which tomato was which; I would want to bring the speaker one of my home-grown tomatoes and ask again! Which is better? It's just obvious if you've experienced both. Something like that may be true for works of art as well. Maybe people who think Austin Powers is an excellent film simply have no idea what a good film is, and they'll change their minds gradually as they acquire more experience of life and art. All I'm proposing is that with aesthetic judgments, some people have relevant expertise.
i am surprised too. heycal went with the 'universal' choice by citing beatles as best band. what a joke.
In term of tennis, the Beatles are like pushers who win a lot.
But what about the fact that "Austin Powers" IS a better film than "Amadeus"? Or that brownies made from a mix (Duncan Hines, Betty Crocker, etc) ARE generally better than homemade brownies? (Same with cake mixes. Although homemade chocolate chip cookies are almost always better than any store-bought ones.)
Any idea where I can find the best pizza? Or Chinese food?
And some bands that are better than them are...?
No. In tennis terms, the Beatles are Rod Laver, Roger Federer, and Pete Sampras combined, and these are other bands are like Leyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, and David Nalbandian.
Pink Floyd and Queen are as good or better than The Beatles.
Lol, as the kids say. Pink Floyd was excellent, but when you look at their output, you've only got the great "Dark Side of the Moon" and a few fine songs here and there.
As for Queen, there's really not much beyond Bohemian Rhapsody. Freddie Mercury had what I might call an Elvis problem: Amazing singer, not so great material.
Lol, as the kids say. Pink Floyd was excellent, but when you look at their output, you've only got the great "Dark Side of the Moon" and a few fine songs here and there.
As for Queen, there's really not much beyond Bohemian Rhapsody. Freddie Mercury had what I might call an Elvis problem: Amazing singer, not so great material.
You're so clueless. The Beatles played three chord songs and called it music. Same with the Stones. Same with Nirvana. Freddy Mercury wrote the songs, composed the (very intricate) music, played the piano, AND sang at a ridiculous range. And don't even get me started on Pink Floyd. To suggest that "Dark Side of the Moon" was their only contribution is not only stupid, it's insulting!
I certainly do.
You're so clueless. The Beatles played three chord songs and called it music. Same with the Stones. Same with Nirvana. Freddy Mercury wrote the songs, composed the (very intricate) music, played the piano, AND sang at a ridiculous range.
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Amazing singer, NOT so great material???? Mercury was probably the best songwriter in popular music. Not really much beyond Bohemian Rhapsody?? Listen to March of the Black Queen, Innuendo, Millonaire Waltz, My Fairy King, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy, Killer Queen, In the Lap of the Gods Revisited, Jealousy, Great King Rat, Ogre Battle, Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, You Take My Breath Away, and I can go on for ever.....Not to mention Brian May's stuff like The Prophet's Song, 39', White Queen, Teo Torriate, All Dead All Dead, It's Late and a lot of other great tunes.
How about a nice pair of skinny jeans for a 50 year old man?
Let's talk about Brian Wilson for a moment since he comes up a lot in this thread.
Now, I like the Beach Boys as much as the next guy. They are all over my ipod. I love all the surf music, and later hits like God Only Knows and Good Vibrations are wonderful.
But what else is there? What did he do that put him anywhere near the Beatles, or the Stones, for that matter?
The vaunted Pet Sounds, which I read was suppposedly inspired by Rubber Soul, ain't no Rubber Soul. Check out the track listings if you don't believe me. A couple of excellent songs and that's it.
I mean, come on, folks. He's certainly one of the most talented American pop guys of all time, but let's not over-praise him. The surf music was great, but he was really only able to produce less than a handful of excellent songs once he moved beyond that.
Oh boy, you are clueless. The stuff he wrote from 1961-1967 is amazing work. Lyrically it's about surfing and girls mostly, but the composition and style was phenomenal.
As for the last comment, that is ridiculousness at it's most extreme. Brian Wilson had a mental breakdown, which basically incapacitated him for a good 20 years.
Try listening to his solo albums, Sweet Insanity, Imagination, also the released smile album. Musically they are fantastic.
In my opinion the Today album is their best album by far. Much better than Pet Sounds.
The reason people cite Pet Sounds as one of the greatest albums of all time (I believe it's number 2), is because the musical composition of that album was revolutionary. Every track on that album sounds fantastic.
Gap or H&M. But can't go too skinny though when this old -- let a girlfriend or a teenager be your guide here.
The skinny jeans thread... Good memories...
H&M clothes (at least the men's stuff) are crap. Just sayin'...
Taylor Swift is nice to behold but the 'music' well i feel its quite common and mediocre.
Her looks carry it.
I bet everyone following this thread was thinking the exact same thing right about now, but you beat us to it.
Gap or H&M. But can't go too skinny though when this old -- let a girlfriend or a teenager be your guide here.
I already acknowledged that the surf music is great. What I'm saying is that he couldn't really move beyond it aside from a few excellent songs. He wrote tons of great surf songs, yes, but only a handful of interesting ones after that, and I'm talking pre-mental breakdown. It's akin to the Beatles being unable to produce more than a few great songs after a "Hard Days Night" something.
As for "revolutionary", and "compositionally" and "innovative" and "conceptually" and whatever other terms we want to apply to these artists and their music only one thing really matters: the songs. How good are the songs? And "Wouldn't it be nice?" and "Sloop John B." aren't going on my ipod before "Gimme Shelter" or "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", my friend. Are they really on your "A" list?
Wouldn't it be nice? is a great song.
Say what??
I don't recognize the other songs you mention, but if "Wouldn't it be nice?" is your definition of a great song, I don't hold out much hope for those others. It's perfectly pleasant, but hardly a masterpiece.
As for the mental breakdown -- what's his excuse for not producing better non-surf music before that happened?
Don't get me wrong. I think Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys are great overall, and could be the best American band of all. It's just that the Beatles and Stones were significantly better. It's not unlike Andy Roddick being the best American tennis player in his day -- yet not in the same league as the Europeans.
H&M clothes (at least the men's stuff) are crap. Just sayin'...
The record company had a lot of say over what kind of musics bands produced in those days. The beach boys got popular because of the surf and car stuff. So Brian made a lot of it because that's what sold records.
When we made Pet Sounds the record company were seriously against it, as were a lot of the fans. You'll notice it didn't do particularly well, there's a good reason for that.
He was moving away from the surfing stuff, and it sounded totally different. Then just as Pet sounds started to pick up, the record company released a Beach Boys best of. So people stopped buying Pet Sounds and bought the best of instead.
Brian was really disappointed with the performance of Pet Sounds, and really angry with the record company for effectively sabotaging any chance it had to be a big seller.
"Wouldn't it be nice" is a fantastic song.
That's all well and good, but why isn't Pet Sounds a better album?
Fantastic? Not quite. A fine song, yes, but I don't think it's going on anyone's "100 songs I'm bringing to a desert island" list.
I know plenty of people who would disagree with both of those statements, Many are much more accomplished in the music business than yourself. One is personally responsible for over 7 platinum albums. In the music industry, Pet Sounds is considered one of the greatest records in the past 50 plus years. The fact that the label of the past did not properly market it, has no affect on that current opinion. It was essentially far ahead of it's time when released.
The only reason I bring this up is because you are making subjective statements as if they are facts. Your opinion of song quality is no better than any other average fan. At least the people I cite have made careers in music so I would carry their opinion far more over yours.
If you have ever had your job on the line where you have had to predict hit songs, song order and allocate promotional budget than you may have some set of ears that makes your opinion more respected. But I sincerely doubt this is the case.
Well, considering there's an almost infinite number of bands that are worse than REM and RHCP.....how about "neither"?
I don't think people in the music industry have any monopoly on taste. In fact, there is is ample evidence of quite the opposite.
And I really don't care about sales or popularity, so I don't know why you guys are feeling a need to defend the album on that count. Good seller or bad seller, hits or not, I'm just saying a lot of the songs on the album ain't that great.
And all I am saying is you have no ears and no real reason to make a pointless thread about your musical opinion.
It depends what you mean.
If you mean, that the materials are crap, or around that level I am inclined to agree.
If you mean, that the construction is crap, I strongly disagree.
Actually, I got a present from a friend some time ago. A Slim fit long sleeve H&M shirt. It puts my RTW Cerruti and other even more expensive shirts to shame.
In terms of style or material? If the former, I defer to women's views, who seem to like their stuff on this old man. If the latter, yes, probably so. But it's also half the price of the Gap, for one example. (Speaking of which, my thinly made Gap blue jeans already have a hole in them after one year of normal wear. That store is going downhill...)
I went through H&M for the first time in about 5 or 6 years this past Sunday with my wife when she told me they were having some sort of buy-one, get-one sale on sweaters. When I say H&M is crap, I mean I felt like I was picking through the leftovers of a Lebanese bazaar. Crap style, crap materials and yes, crap construction. My wife reminded me of a couple of dresses she had that basically fell apart after wearing them once or twice. "That's what you get when you pay $19.99 for a dress", I replied.
I'm not on the bleeding edge of fashion, but I thought it was lame that H&M was still pushing the blazer-with-the-hoodie-sweater-sewn-in. Isn't that the universal d-bag uniform, or something?
Regarding the falling quality of blue jeans, I totally agree. I used to have a couple of pairs from Old Navy that looked and fit great and lasted quite a while. When I went back to ON, I was surprised at the paper-thin denim they were selling as blue jeans. I went to the GAP and found the same thing. Bought a pair anyways - out of habit, I guess, - and my initial impression was confirmed. Garbage. Even the Levi's I tried recently seemed to be lower quality (though their price has climbed steeply). A couple of labels I found acceptable quality in are Lucky and Salt.
Pet Sounds. I'm not a big Beach Boys fan but I like some of their music well enough and have a copy of Pet Sounds somewhere in my collection. I thought, for the longest time, that "Good Vibrations" was on Pet Sounds. When I realized it wasn't, it really lowered my opinion of the album.
Regarding the falling quality of blue jeans, I totally agree. I used to have a couple of pairs from Old Navy that looked and fit great and lasted quite a while. When I went back to ON, I was surprised at the paper-thin denim they were selling as blue jeans. I went to the GAP and found the same thing. Bought a pair anyways - out of habit, I guess, - and my initial impression was confirmed. Garbage. Even the Levi's I tried recently seemed to be lower quality (though their price has climbed steeply). A couple of labels I found acceptable quality in are Lucky and Salt.
I'm just going to assume these were skinny jeans.
I stopped letting teenagers pick out my clothes on my twentieth birthday...