06-18-2016, 09:04 PM
(06-18-2016, 03:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think gabrielle touched on the difference between someone like me and you guys. For me, a "best song" has to have some level artistry that's similar in some ways to a classical music piece. A high level of artistry such that it could compare to the work of classical composers. And remember, those composers also wrote actual songs, not just symphonies. Something by boy bands or sexy girls to groove to that has a beat you can dance to, or some interesting lyrics, is different from that. Not to mention deliberate decadence, like Rags is posting in this thread, which simply means poor quality music. To each his own; it's not a moral issue. It may be fun or funky for you guys, OK; but that's a difference.
A great song by The Who may have some different instrumentation and singing that's not the same as a majestic and rocking Beethoven symphony finale. But otherwise they are the same; the best Who songs have magnificent form and structure, power and feeling that's like what I hear in Beethoven or Bach. Many great rock songs from the 2T can compare or surpass many classical works in those qualities. Critics of the time agreed. The Beatles and other musicians sometimes brought western and eastern classical influences into their music, and thereby raised it to a higher level of artistry. In my preferences, I hold music to the same standard of artistry, regardless of genre. Not one preference for rock, another for classical, another for folk, etc. Those from the 3T, do not aspire to that kind of standard. It was perhaps just a question of what the musicians were interested in doing in those 2 different turnings.
Also, the original purpose of music should be remembered. Music and the other arts are here to help facilitate mystical experience. Art is the handmaiden of spirituality.
I thought that was the kind of music you liked. (Well, maybe not the sexy girls) Bieber, 1 Direction etc