Originally posted by Stealth MooseI do. And while some things might be subjective, others are not. Guns N Roses being more talented than Miley Cyrus isn't subjective. Lita Ford being more talented than Britney Spears isn't subjective.
This assertion begs to be supported.Unless you want to put the onus on everyone else.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I wouldn't put Lita Ford's voice above Adele's or Lady Gaga's. Or Ozzy Osbourne above Josh Groban. The Killers are also above Def Leppard. Dragonforce above Dio. Mika above Corey Hart. Picking one and putting them above or below another is easy.
I didn't say her voice was better than Gaga. For all her bullshit, Gaga is one of the most talented musicians I've seen in a long time. But Lita Ford was phenomenal on the guitar and piano as well as writing her own songs, which made her infinitely better than Britney Spears. I think Josh Groban has one of the greatest voices ever and he's in my opinion, the most talented musician alive. The killers being above Def Leppard? Gotta disagree with that. My point is, not everything in music is subjective.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I didn't say her voice was better than Gaga. For all her bullshit, Gaga is one of the most talented musicians I've seen in a long time. But Lita Ford was phenomenal on the guitar and piano as well as writing her own songs, which made her infinitely better than Britney Spears. I think Josh Groban has one of the greatest voices ever and he's in my opinion, the most talented musician alive. The killers being above Def Leppard? Gotta disagree with that. My point is, not everything in music is subjective.
Measuring established talent/expertise isn't as subjective, sure. But basically saying "there's been no good music in 15 years" is a pretty hefty assumption. Perhaps there's been no bands which meet your subjective criteria for "good", okay fine. That's an opinion. But have there been talented musicians and bands in the last 15 years? Oh **** yes.
I submit that the only element of music that isn't really subjective is the measurement of an artist's technical ability with respect to their given instrument. As an example, Mariah Carey is recognized as having a vocal range of roughly 5 octaves whereas Britney Spears is said to have a range of 2-3 octaves. There is no dispute that Carey is the more technically gifted singer in terms of her ability to reach, project, and sustain a substantially greater variety of notes. What is subjective is which artist is musically superior-- some artists I believe are technically gifted and yet release deplorable music. Other artists aren't as technically skilled and release music that appeal to the masses.
Yes, it's undeniable that popular music {of any genre, not just Britney Spears-esque bubblegum pop} is the product of Machiavellian scheming. The music industry seeks out and employs singer-songwriters who construct the components of their songs-- musically and lyrically-- in a manner that is commensurate with a time-tried and successful formula.
The problem I've found is that many of us {including myself at times} are quick to dismiss the talents of the commercially successful.
I enjoy Queen, but I feel that their efforts to be absurd were so bizarre as to be comical-- and not intentionally. Brian May is a highly respected guitarist, but his fretwork does nothing for me. In my opinion, he's a much better rhythm player than soloist. Queen's less eccentric songs are my favorites. "Headlong", "Hammer To Fall", "One Vision" and the like are great rock anthems. But their finest moment is "The Show Must Go On."
Originally posted by 8675309/JennyI'm not sure you could leave Queen out of the "top 5 ever" list and be considered sane. Also, in terms of non opera/classical related music, I'd have to say Freddie Mercury was the greatest musician of the 20th century.
I enjoy Queen, but I feel that their efforts to be absurd were so bizarre as to be comical-- and not intentionally. Brian May is a highly respected guitarist, but his fretwork does nothing for me. In my opinion, he's a much better rhythm player than soloist. Queen's less eccentric songs are my favorites. "Headlong", "Hammer To Fall", "One Vision" and the like are great rock anthems. But their finest moment is "The Show Must Go On."
I didn't comment on Queen's approximate placement in my book, I simply said that I believe that they were guilty of overdramatizing their music. When they reined in their absurdity, they were a truly formidable band with a great catalog of songs. I'd hesitate to say that Mercury was the twentieth century's greatest musician simply because there are plenty of artists whose command of their instrument was superior in either technical competence or influence or, in some cases, both. As a vocalist, though, there are few who compare.
Originally posted by 8675309/JennyWe're talking vocalist, # of instruments as well as the level of their mastery, and song writing.
I didn't comment on Queen's approximate placement in my book, I simply said that I believe that they were guilty of overdramatizing their music. When they reined in their absurdity, they were a truly formidable band with a great catalog of songs. I'd hesitate to say that Mercury was the twentieth century's greatest musician simply because there are plenty of artists whose command of their instrument was superior in either technical competence or influence or, in some cases, both. As a vocalist, though, there are few who compare.
I like their absurdity. There are plenty of bands out there who just stick to... regular, I guess you could say... rock. One more rock anthem is just one more. I like hearing something different infused with great vocals/instrumentals. 'Killer Queen' and 'Fat Bottomed Girls' are a refreshing change of pace. The 'Love of My Life' duet is their greatest IMO.