I'm in my right mind, but respect what you say as an opinion. Not a fact.
I don't. I'm not ashamed of anything I like, neither is AC, obviously.
Who ever said that? You think people won't admit that music is open to interpretation because it might reflect poorly on their taste? Not following.
By "semantics", you mean definition?
It doesn't make any sense to listen to music you think is garbage. Like the ****ing tunes, and change your own opinion to reflect how you HONESTLY feel, and ignore what other people think. It's so simple.
I already said I can't prove Arctic is wrong...but it doesn't mean it's not provable. Look at Plato's "Forms" and maybe you'll get my point.
I'm glad though I'm discussing this with people who are more or less intelligent. I think you AC probably have good taste in music, and I'd go as far as to say that it's a sign of your muscial intelligence, but I guarantee you like stuff that's trully crap...and it's not your fault...it's just natural to like what you like...but at the end of the day...you, AC, like crap.
It's crap compared to something else, and it's crap on it's own.
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 4th, 2007 at 03:32 AM
The worst taste on these boards? ha, you may think that, but I don't. Everyone on these boards probably hates everything I like, but I don't care. I like my taste in music. I've tried listening to some of the music the people on these boards like, but I just cant get into it. At all. But, hey, whatever.
Exactly. I like stuff that is crap to probably everyone here, but none of it is crap to me. And no one can prove to me, as a fact, that your music is better than mine. In fact, I like a lot of things that are considered "crap." It seems I'm cursed that way. Most of the music I like is considered crap by both people on these boards and critics. With the exception of maybe Audioslave. I like the Inheritance series, which is considered crap by a lot of people and critics...I like crappy things.
Last edited by Arctic on Feb 4th, 2007 at 03:35 AM
...at the end of the day, you always see the same bands in the top whatever of greatest music/band/album lists. As a collective, humans KNOW what music is great and what should be left out.
The big ones being there - Dylan, Beatles, Nirvana, Zeppellin, Hendrix - regardless of what order or frequency, show a sense of objectivity. The ones that are sure to be left out (and I think we know what those could be) just strengthen that point.
It's almost as objective as saying Brazil, Argentina, England, and France are consistently the top footballing nations of the world. It's more or less fact. In both cases, the numbers prove it.
Not necessarily know, but recognize, and that's only because of popular opinion. Personally, I think Nirvana were severly overrated, all because they were the last nail in glam rock's coffin and made the biggest splash.
Soccer rankings aren't a comparable measure to music where we're supposed to recognize, and then differentiate between "good" and "bad". What's good in music can't be measured. Athletic skill on the other hand, can be.
You should know, album sales mean jack scheisse. It's a band's impact, staying power and subsequent evolution that make all the difference.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Feb 4th, 2007 at 03:54 AM