Agree? I have all the music I want for the rest of my life. No need to hear anything new.

Four or five or ten opinions does not make an objective statement. It's just a bunch of people that happen to agree on something. And if you agree with them as well, that's great but it still doesn't make it a fact, it's still just opinions.

My own decisions on purchases, you ask? I use my ears. Reviews are a good starting point as well, as are Best Of lists and forum member suggestions. But ultimately the decision to either purchase an album (or not) falls on my opinion of the work. How I generally get to that point is by actually sampling the artist or album, that's the best criteria I have.

None of this is objective, however. I would actually argue that to try and objectively critique a musical work in some ways removes the most important portion of that work, which is the emotional response it invokes. I could critique the composition and the melody and the recording techniques, for example, where I would assign it a rating based against some baseline that is generally accepted by music scholars. Maybe you could move towards some kind of objective statement that way. Perhaps. But that's not how I listen to music.

 

Punk snobs (yes, they exist, sadly) have been claiming this for ages.

Do I have to wheel out the whole 'The Sex Pistols' *were* the punk Monkees because just like the real Monkees, they fought back against their own (attempted)manufacturing, & took over/ subverted the project' arguement again?

eta: re not giving new music a chance: still kicking myself for not realising that Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros were any good until after Joe died & Streetcore came out.

The one time I got exposed to them (Johnny Appleseed on Top Of The Pops 2) I was too busy taking the piss about it not being like The Clash enough & not what I thought he should be singing about, to actually listen. /fail

 

Just thinking about that, do you know how wrong you actually are? The band played tiny pubs, colleges and halls without any marketing whatsoever and their reputation grew and grew. Once they got a record deal with EMI, they were promptly thrown out for swearing on TV. They had no idea that they would be thrown out. No calculation, the interviewer was in idiot and deserved what he got. So no marketing exercise at all there and they were already considered as being the most important band since the 60s. They were then signed by A&M and were quickly thrown out again - with no planning on their part. they wanted to get records out and make money. No marketing again. Finally, Richard Branson welcomed them and they made it big.
I recommend that you read a little before posting ill-informed statements.

 

Oh and the ultimate responce to 'new' music/genres suck / must be ultra shallow/meaningless /non cultrually worthy because I don't get them type posts;
(as some guy called Bob once put it) "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

 

Special? I thought that wasn't allowed.

 

This is certainly true. Sometimes people like to point to critical consensus as a way to validate their personal tastes, but this seems misguided to me. In some cases, I don't personally care for artists that I recognize to be important and influential, so after a certain point, it's useless trying to force it down if you're not feeling it. At the same time, I dearly love a lot of obscurities or artists who are unfashionable among the rock critics elite. In the end, it really doesn't matter much when it comes to our own enjoyment of the music, so while it might (or might not!) be fun to spitball about these topics on message boards, it doesn't impact my listening much.

 

I like them fine.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" is doubtless an interesting and influential production feat; as a song, it seems so-so to me, repetitive with boilerplate hippy-dippy sentiments. We could just as easily say it has a lot to answer for as call it influential. Take your pick.

"Eleanor Rigby" is fine too, though the lyrics are platitudinous ("all the lonely people, where do they all come from?"). Has its orchestration been that influential on other pop songs? What exactly has it influenced? I'm not doubting you--I hadn't thought about it. I'm not sure I hear its influence in many songs I like. I suppose it influenced the sappy "story-in-a-song" type things we got in the 1970s.

 

I think it's a pretty good indication that their on to something. That that particular album or artist might be the one to invest in. One of the best. However I never buy blind anymore. I'll always sample before forking out cash. It's good because I'm never disappointed with what I buy.

 

That movie never fails to make me laugh out loud!!

 

I missed the memo that it was a competition. What a strangely joyless way to listen to music.

 

Thanks for the list Ralph! I know some but I'll check the others.

 

Music is purely subjective and in the ears of the beholder. There is no good or bad to it, only likes and dislikes. I detest those classifications " Punk Rock" or "Classic Rock" or "Whatever Rock". Music trends are a continuum. One builds on the back of what has preceded it. It's what keeps things exciting.

I prefer not to discuss music or songs that I am just not into. That does not make them good or bad, just something I have no business talking about. We tend to get a little over passionate about those things we think have merit. sometimes it can lead to the encroachment of other opinions and not very enlightening overall.

 

Good point about the overall impact. I've been bouncing around in this thread a lot as it's entertaining and, at times, informative as well. But it's not going to fundamentally change how I listen to music.

It may change the direction I'm pointing as far as sampling new music, however - happens all the time in fact.

Again, very true and I agree with a lot of this. It's just not an objective assessment.

 

The list was simply in response to those who said that present artists have achieved as much as the past "greats" (or are they?).

 

It's easy to forget sometimes that labels have their limitations, but it does give us a basic vernacular for talking about music. So if I'm into what could loosely be described as "progressive rock", I can go on a message board and solicit opinions and suggestions from other music fans. Of course, I recognize that "progressive" means very different things to different people, so I take it all with several grains of salt. Like you, I try to avoid discussing music that I dislike as well because I think it's really difficult to form intelligent, well rounded opinions about music that you're not interested in and it only rubs fans the wrong way.

 

I know, right? I look forward to future threads on "how big is your prostate?", "Bose hearing aids overpriced?" and "do Depends undergarments make my ass look bigger?"

Carry on.....

 

The reason I ask is that with 1955 as the benchmark we're looking at a 60 year history. That makes for a natural cut-off of 1985.

It used to be so easy. The late 50s/early 60s were oldies, while the late 60s/early 70s (man!) was "classic rock". But classic rock radio keeps moving the goalposts on what years constitute classic rock.

 

Such is the case when you're forming an argument against contemporary music.

We've gone way past musical taste. This isn't even about liking music anymore, which was what the OP was getting at

 

Yes they do.

 

Do the "greats" only exist in commercially viable music?

 

Two things come to mind seeing that list, which is made with a lens in 2016 looking back:

1. You can't compare modern artists with the former greats any more than you can compare Stephen Curry to the Michael Jordan or Mike Trout to Mickey Mantle in sports. That is something done at the end of one's career and things can be put into perspective.

2. I respect all the artist in your list, but I actually don't like some of them. Without a single moment of hesitation I would put Radiohead on there in place of those, but by point #1 it isn't appropriate to do that yet, and far more importantly, music taste is subjective. Many people don't like or even hate Radiohead.

 

As soon as someone starts using the word "artist", everything becomes problematic IMO. What is there to achieve? There's no such thing as being the second one to do something first. The only truly tangible achievement is commercial success. Everything else is subjective.

 

I can't stand Radiohead but I realise that they are a very good group, one of the best today. They are great artists. Some here would say though that they are not necessarily more worthy than One Direction or Justin Beaber (or whatever his name his). Would you agree with that?

 

I wouldn't, but you just named the two favorite artists of my 15 year old daughter. But you better spell Bieber right. And your feelings about RH are exactly what I was getting at in #2.

But a group like Chrvches (or whomever) that is just starting out and getting some critical/commercial success may develop and produce the Blonde on Blonde or The Joshua Tree or Nevermind of their generation. We just don't know yet, and won't be able to really place their legacy into context until much further down the line.

 

I would love to see that as a Sticky from Our Host here.