Originally posted by psmith81992You're right, having a different opinion doesn't make something objective... it's having an opinion at all that is subjective.
Josh Groban is a better singer than me. There you go, I proved one instance of a universal fact. Simply having a different opinion doesn't make something subjective, it just makes the opinion seem uninformed.
Originally posted by Lord Lucienread what I wrote. Having a difference of opinion means nothing if said opinion is uninformed. If you said I was a better singer than Josh Groban, that wouldn't render the topic subjective. It would just mean you're an idiot.
You're right, having a different opinion doesn't make something objective... it's having an opinion at all that is subjective.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm playing Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance and holy **** the last boss is ridiculously hard. From Software could learn a thing or two about difficult bosses from this mother****er.
Konami was hard before Nintendo Hard was a phrase, bro.
Beating Castlevania III without any allies is like pushing water uphill with a stick.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Because while you complain about people saying older=better, you have the other side where people say newer=better. It's the same logic, flawed as hell, different side of the coin.
The difference being that in at least some musical genres the boundaries of musical virtuosity (It's a word ****er) are constantly being pushed and being built from where old****s started, as I implied with the subject of guitarists alone, so there's at least some data to back the statement that on a purely technical level newer = better, if only in certain genres.
Originally posted by psmith81992But can you claim to have the objective knowledge of all music in both eras to claim that "real music died years ago"?
read what I wrote. Having a difference of opinion means nothing if said opinion is uninformed. If you said I was a better singer than Josh Groban, that wouldn't render the topic subjective. It would just mean you're an idiot.
If we go by objective facts, Warrel Dane of Nevermore for example is a better singer than probably just about any musician you like, with a vocal range between five and six octaves. In fact, the "objectively best" vocalists would probably all be trained opera singers like Warrel.
Originally posted by psmith81992Their music itself my son.
Where is this data?
Dream Theater sheet music makes actual musicians shit themselves with terror at it. The Dance of Eternity has literally over a hundred time signature changes in it, all while possessing some of the most advanced guitar work known to man. Certainly more-so than Jimi Hendrix.
But that doesn't strictly make Dream Theater "better" than The Jimi Hendrix Experience, despite being composed of objectively far more competent musicians. Lame things like "soul" or whatever you want to call it are hard to quantify, and some find Dream Theater lacking in it. Which I understand somewhat, even I find some Dream Theater songs boring as **** because they go on too long and seem to exist solely so the musicians can show off how much they compensated for micropenis.
But can you claim to have the objective knowledge of all music in both eras to claim that "real music died years ago"?
f we go by objective facts, Warrel Dane of Nevermore for example is a better singer than probably just about any musician you like, with a vocal range between five and six octaves. In fact, the "objectively best" vocalists would probably all be trained opera singers like Warrel.
Dream Theater sheet music makes actual musicians shit themselves with terror at it. The Dance of Eternity has literally over a hundred time signature changes in it, all while possessing some of the most advanced guitar work known to man. Certainly more-so than Jimi Hendrix.
This proves newer=better? Hendrix is arguably better than any guitarist today.
Originally posted by psmith81992
NopeQuite debatable. You had plenty of those guys in the 50/60s. It is actually easier to gauge their talent because they sang without the use of technological crap of today.
Or you could just use concert recordings, lol. That the audio is clearer changes nothing.
This proves newer=better? Hendrix is arguably better than any guitarist today.
Yes, a progressive metal song having an at the time virtually unheard amount of time signature changes during its duration (Six minutes) with said time signatures all being very complex and obscure, while featuring a musical complexity Hendrix and his contemporaries largely never came close to matching proves that on a purely technical level there's new music that's superior to older music. That's why it's called "progressive" rock.
Arguably better? From a technical standpoint he sure as **** isn't. I don't give a **** if someone likes Hendrix's music better because it appeals to them, that's fine. But Buckethead makes Hendrix look like a stooge when it comes to technical skill. And he's not the only one.
Yes, a progressive metal song having an at the time virtually unheard amount of time signature changes during its duration (Six minutes) with said time signatures all being very complex and obscure, while featuring a musical complexity Hendrix and his contemporaries largely never came close to matching proves that on a purely technical level there's new music that's superior to older music. That's why it's called "progressive" rock.
Arguably better? From a technical standpoint he sure as **** isn't. I don't give a **** if someone likes Hendrix's music better because it appeals to them, that's fine. But Buckethead makes Hendrix look like a stooge when it comes to technical skill. And he's not the only one.