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

Understood / the issue are those who say that we don't *know* that Charlie Parker was a brilliant saxophonist

The issue becomes more complicated when the musicians play abstract or non-commercial music as then those who are either not interested in that sub-genre or off-shoot of the previous music now are ambivalent or if they are averse towards the music, they have known to believe that musician or any practitioners of such music are not practiced and accomplished as those who played a more structured or composed music. Gets real interesting.

 

I recently saw for the first time, a performance of Maracatu, a traditional form of music-performance from Brazil's northern provinces. It consisted of a large group of musicians playing a variety of traditional percussion instruments and call-and-response vocals. It was absolutely thrilling.

I'm not sure if that performance was objectively "better" than the Doors on Sullivan or Charlie Parker in Paris or whatever. But, the day you decide you have heard all the music you need to hear is a day you decide to deny yourself one of the most enriching, exciting and life affirming art forms created by man. Don't do it.

 

Could you be sued for stating he was a great guitar player? Of course not, unless he was held to the impossible standards that some have set on this thread for the use of that word. My argument isn't that greatness isn't in the eyes or ears of the beholder, but that we are supposed to deny it's very existence when discussing artists or albums on this forum. That position leaves us in a pretty bland place here, always expected to preface our positions with a "Well this is only my opinion," or "I'm sure others feel the opposite, but I think...etc, etc." Anyway, strictly you're right, though I still defend my position that universal agreement is not a prerequisite for greatness.

 

More food for thought -- whenever there are those "Most Beautiful" magazine rankings, it's always someone the public generally knows, for example an actor. But, in reality, it's much more statistically likely that the person in question would be someone very few people know. But that's not how those rankings work because no one would buy said magazine. People, as a general whole, like to know the person being listed as "Best".

Musical "Best Ofs" aren't all that different - who's to say that saxophonist I may have heard in the subway the other day isn't more technically proficient than a Coltrane or Bird. Perhaps he is. But for whatever reason he will never be as well known as those other two. Or what about Mendelssohn? (Fanny, not Felix, the former generally lesser well-known likely due to her gender...until not all that long ago). Dylan or Hendrix? Who knows how history will treat them in a century or two. Or Kanye or Kendrick for that matter.

Does this even matter to you or I, then? Should it matter? Classic rock icons like The Beatles are well known, well regarded and may survive the test of time. But what do they or Hendrix or The Who have to do with enjoying other music made today, be it rock or electronic or hip-hop? Whatever I like is what I like, and more importantly (and getting back to the OP) I look forward to future discoveries in my own musical journey. In my collection, The Beatles, Kendrick Lamar, DJ Shadow and Coltrane all have their place.

Even my own "Best Of" lists are fluid. That's why I love music - because of that unknown, that next discovery right around the corner.

 

You said everyone, not billions. His answer was nope, because if one person doesn't believe, it's not everyone. I'm a second non-believer.

 

This last Friday, I stopped at our local used CD shop, and found a copy of Elvis: That's The Way It Is in the DVD rack. I'd loaned out my copy to someone a few years ago and never got it back, so I was thrilled to have replaced it. When I arrived home, the Aurora and Perfume albums I'd ordered were here for me, and I was thrilled about that, too. I won't argue that one artist was greater than the others, because that would ruin my enjoyment of these releases. I will say however, that all three releases were equally relevant to my having a great weekend.

 

I liked your post because its a good one. But I am deeply satisfied with what I already have and don't feel myself poorer for missing out on some new music. To those people with that never-ending hunger for something new and great, I hope you find it every day.

 

One normally doesn't have to say things like "In my opinion" because that's implied when opinions are stated. The problem we're having is that some are saying that certain opinions, specifically the one saying certain musicians are great, is no longer an opinion but a fact.

 

I appreciate the respectful back and forth with you, but I think maybe we've strayed from the thread-starter's original question so I'm going to bow out. I'm sure we'll meet again on a different thread.

 

Semantics - the thread. I've gone back 4 pages and still can't figure out where the 'greatness' is subjective argument came from.

 

Insistence that there has been hardly any great music made for the last 30 years or so. Go back a few more pages.

 

Ah, ok. And thank you for bringing me up to speed.

But wow what a narrow view. (I don't mean yours ) As linear as I thought my musical tastes were, that's head in the sand territory.

 

Well, you know... everybody's got a right, as they say. Besides, it doesn't hurt to re examine our value systems every so often. Keeps us on our toes.

 

Judging from your references to Charlie Parker and Anthony Braxton, I'm not really directing this comment at you. But I think some people put too much effort into arguing that everything is a matter of personal taste and no objective or defensible standards exist.

I mean, sure, I have music geek friends whose tastes overlap extensively with my own, but we have blind spots with certain groups (I don't like Steely Dan f'rinstance). I've also known people whose limited, scattershot music collections blow chunks from top to bottom. Is their taste equally valid to that of a dedicated and knowledgeable music fan? No, I don't think so. And no apologies offered for that judgment.

I would never claim that my tastes in literature are as valid as those of an avid reader. If I was well-read and could pitch a good debate about the merits of certain authors or periods of fiction, then the "disagreement" would be on an even keel, arguably. But I'm not well-read.

 

I debated whether responding to this or watching my toenails grow would be a more productive use of my time-- as usual, productivity lost out

If everyone believed the music of the past was better than today's music, then it would be true-- an opinion, held by everyone, becomes objective fact. There is no other side to argue, a fact being defined as a thing that is indisputable. But as you point out, universal consensus of opinion is virtually impossible, because there will always be people who will gainsay simply for the sake of doing so. Unless you believe in relativism of opinion (which, apparently, many here do), we have to now consider whether an opinion is informed. Consensus of informed opinion can be considered to be fact at any given moment in time-- eg "Beethoven was a great composer" (great being defined as "eminent, distinguished, celebrated"). Those who perhaps were once great or never were but should have been or whatever-- they're not great by definition at this moment in time. There is a great deal of informed opinion which holds that music was better in the day, so it's not required that the poster be completely up to speed on every new development in music to make the claim, any more than he would have to be a climatologist in order to claim that climate change is real. Climate change is an opinion based on fact, but so is the relative quality of music when you factor in quantifiable things like sales, concert attendance, influence, impact, etc. One isn't doing oneself any favors by holding to an uninformed opinion, but that's another story

 

If everyone believed, at one time, that the world was flat, it still wouldn't be true.

Your utterly unearned condescension towards people who disagree with you is laughable. Chervokas already dismantled your argument, handily.

 

I don't quite understand the need to have what I enjoy listed in the realm of objective greatness. Now I know something of your tastes in music Guy and, for me, I would take a recommendation for a band or record from you and go and give it a listen. It's because I value your knowledge and taste. I do know the same recommendation wouldn't work for everyone (and for folks who may very well be well educated music fans). Likewise if someone is well versed in the works of One Direction, Taylor Swift or Kayne West (or anyone else one would care to list here) I'm sure there are folks who would value their opinions and hold them as personally valid.

It seems to me that some folks want to have their favorites acclaimed just to show theirs is a superior breed of fandom.

I tend to think it terms of personal tastes when it comes to music and don't care about universal approval. I dig the Kinks and I dig the Scissor Sisters. I enjoy Charles Mingus but have been known to get down the baffoonery that is Jon Spencer. I'll run to the Ramones but will get bored by the Bealtes (for the most part). Give me Lily Allen over Joni Mitchell. I could partake in conversations about how these artists might stack up in the great pantheon of musical acts of all time but what's the point? The Beatles may very well be the most acclaimed act in the history of man but I'll always put a Luna record on before them. I don't think that makes my taste any better or worse - it's just what it is.

 

Exactly.

 

Tha

That sounds like a reasonable assessment.

 

Yours is an incontestable post, no doubt. But at some point in this thread the words 'greatest' and 'greater' (which are always subjective when measuring art) became synonymous with 'great,' also subjective but with much less restrictive standards. The simple act of calling a record, an artist or, yes, even a music era 'great' was challenged as personal opinion. I'm only aware of one post on this thread that made a declarative "old music was better" statement, though many others have stated it as their own opinion. I'm comfortable in saying that the music of the Sixties was great, and don't mind anyone disagreeing with me. I'm happy to defend that position, except against the parochial view that "everything is subjective."

Also, the people that believed the world was flat also believed that fire could burn if you touched it. One belief was the result of ignorance, the other of knowledge. I think that we have accumulated a fair amount of knowledge about the arts to come to some general conclusions.

 

Not exactly.

Based on all the evidence available at the time, the conclusion that the earth was flat, as well as the center of the universe was a logical one. Everyone believed it was true, there was nothing in evidence at the time to disprove it. Advancements in tecnhnology changed that, just as they have changed millions of "facts" in the hundreds of years since. My post stated pretty clearly that "consensus of informed opinion can be considered to be fact at any given moment in time". Facts are fluid, subject to revision, and are only as good as the evidence that currently exists to support them. This will (hopefully) never change-- unless you believe we've figured out pretty much everything. You know, like the flat earthers did

 

See above. And get your finger out of your mouth, you look like a toddler

Sure, Princess. Tell you what: if you're going to follow me around responding to posts I make that weren't directed at you, maybe take a moment and read them. Might give you some idea of why you seem to earn so much condescension

 

And get some glasses, that's not what the emoticon portrays.

I'm "following you around" by replying to the same thread?

Calling me "toddler" and "princess" (cute, lol) isn't making your "above" arguments any more cogent; if anything, it discredits you, and makes you look weak. If you can't distinguish between fact and opinion, you're never going to make any headway here.

 

I can't believe this sad pathetic thread
has go on for 52 pages!
I wonder if Steve is getting a laugh over it?

 

These type of threads really do have legs.