Did Axl miss a great chance by not getting John Frusciante?

[Turn_It_Up]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

LOL, so Frusciante isn't technically proficient? From Flea in 2011 AFTER JF left the band: "John was a virtuoso guitar hero type of player and probably the best guitarist in the world". But Flea's not a serious musician either, right--what does he know?

Was assuming you know little about Frusciante, in or outside of RHCP, and your last reply confirms it.

Nobody ever said he was an innovator, so Bruno's comparison to Jimi and EVH irrelevant. But from a pure playing standpoint, he's one of the best out there and when you put together the full package he brings with writing and collaboration, he's almost the perfect modern rock guitarist even though that's no longer his focus. Finally getting back on topic, his catalog of work is staggering compared to anyone in Nu-Guns. A pointless comparison because there(obviously) is no comparison.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Turn_It_Up

[SoulMonster]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

LOL, so Frusciante isn't technically proficient? From Flea in 2011 AFTER JF left the band: "John was a virtuoso guitar hero type of player and probably the best guitarist in the world". But Flea's not a serious musician either, right--what does he know?

Was assuming you know little about Frusciante, in or outside of RHCP, and your last reply confirms it.

Nobody ever said he was an innovator, so Bruno's comparison to Jimi and EVH irrelevant. But from a pure playing standpoint, he's one of the best out there and when you put together the full package he brings with writing and collaboration, he's almost the perfect modern rock guitarist even though that's no longer his focus. Finally getting back on topic, his catalog of work is staggering compared to anyone in Nu-Guns. A pointless comparison because there(obviously) is no comparison.

He is also a fantastic singer and makes great background singing (Otherside is a good example).

[Turn_It_Up]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

LOL, so Frusciante isn't technically proficient? From Flea in 2011 AFTER JF left the band: "John was a virtuoso guitar hero type of player and probably the best guitarist in the world". But Flea's not a serious musician either, right--what does he know?

Was assuming you know little about Frusciante, in or outside of RHCP, and your last reply confirms it.

Nobody ever said he was an innovator, so Bruno's comparison to Jimi and EVH irrelevant. But from a pure playing standpoint, he's one of the best out there and when you put together the full package he brings with writing and collaboration, he's almost the perfect modern rock guitarist even though that's no longer his focus. Finally getting back on topic, his catalog of work is staggering compared to anyone in Nu-Guns. A pointless comparison because there(obviously) is no comparison.

He is also a fantastic singer and makes great background singing (Otherside is a good example).

Very true.

[Guest NGOG]

lolmozart

[Turn_It_Up]

Can't figure out which version I prefer. Always thought Slane Castle was tops, but that outro solo on bottom a tasty diversion:

Edited November 2, 2013 by Turn_It_Up

[Damn_Smooth]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

LOL, so Frusciante isn't technically proficient? From Flea in 2011 AFTER JF left the band: "John was a virtuoso guitar hero type of player and probably the best guitarist in the world". But Flea's not a serious musician either, right--what does he know?

Was assuming you know little about Frusciante, in or outside of RHCP, and your last reply confirms it.

Nobody ever said he was an innovator, so Bruno's comparison to Jimi and EVH irrelevant. But from a pure playing standpoint, he's one of the best out there and when you put together the full package he brings with writing and collaboration, he's almost the perfect modern rock guitarist even though that's no longer his focus. Finally getting back on topic, his catalog of work is staggering compared to anyone in Nu-Guns. A pointless comparison because there(obviously) is no comparison.

You mean to tell me that a bassist talked highly of his former guitarist??? Shocking!!! You sure have proven me wrong, coming at me with a credible source like that. Good job.

Wait.... nope. Shit actually is still shit. The whole of Red Hot Chilli Peppers sucks major ass. From Tony to Flea to whoever has ever spent any time in the band.

[eye2eye]

Actually John Frusciante would at least consider such offer as he was huge Gn'R

[Crash Diet]

yeah, but without him RHCP miss their last chance to put out another great record ever, lol

[Crash Diet]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

you are too obvious to cupcake, man...

you should learn from that fat fuck MSL how to cupcake

who is your favourite guitarist btw?

Edited November 2, 2013 by Crash Diet

[Damn_Smooth]

Technical proficiency is the only thing that isn't subject to opinion.

Frusciante is responsible for some of the greatest guitar parts in modern rock history.

Songwriting > wankery

Lol, he's responsible for some of the biggest piles of shit in modern rock history, I'll give him that. Shit guitarist in a shit band produces wonderfully boring piles of shit. Who would've thought?

you are too obvious to cupcake, man...

you should learn from that fat fuck MSL how to cupcake

who is your favourite guitarist btw?

Why would I ask MSL how to cupcake when I have you right here and you're a much bigger cupcake than either of us. So tell me, oh wise bright competent slightly below average master of trolling, how is it done?

[ManetsBR]

Hahahahahaha do you guys really believe that Frusciane is up there with Jimmy, Jimi and Eddie? Frusciane can't hold a candle to Shawn Lane but most people out there have not heard one note played by him, yet millions think that the generic Californication riff is the real deal. Fuck commercial success, people that use that as argument belong to Justin Bieber forums where they take commercial success and pop appeal seriously. I am glad that serious musicians and music listeners listen to Shawn Lane, Steve Vai, Satch and other "souless shredders" and rank them and their work way above Frusciane. Meanwhile, Beyonce is more relevant these days and "sold more" than Mozart. If you play them a Mozart piece they will not recognize, but if you play them Beyonce's last hit they will sing along. Really, I will say again: FUCK POPULARITY. Some people are happy making music to those who matter instead of making music that can sell. Music that will inspire musicians and music listeners that dont listen to MTV. That's why even though Jimi Hendrix sold way less than Slash, Richie Sambora and Frusciane he is the one that inspired pretty much everyone that came after him.

Yeah... There are no wrong opinions, you know? I do think Frusciante's work is better than Eddie's, for example. It's not because something is popular that it's automatically bad - or good. It's a matter of taste.

[bacardimayne]

Why in the fuck are you grouping John with regular rock guitarists like Slash and Richie Sambora? He's miles above them in terms of artistry and creativity. RHCP held him back hard, and they're nothing without him.

Edited November 3, 2013 by bacardimayne

[ManetsBR]

I'm With You is good, actually... Nothing like Stadium Arcadium, but still good.

And yeah, as much as I'm a big Sambora fan, this is an useless discussion.

[Damn_Smooth]

Why in the fuck are you grouping John with regular rock guitarists like Slash and Richie Sambora? He's miles above them in terms of artistry and creativity. RHCP held him back hard, and they're nothing without him.

LOL, Slash is in a whole 'nother dimension compared to your pussy rock buttboy. Even today at Slash's absolute most pathetic, fruitard could only dream of suckling the sweat from his leotard.

[bacardimayne]

Why are you wrong about so many things? It's disturbing.

[Damn_Smooth]

Why are you wrong about so many things? It's disturbing.

It actually hurts to have to correct you so often. I'd wish that you could feel the pain, if only you were worse than my worst enemy.

[Turn_It_Up]

Why in the fuck are you grouping John with regular rock guitarists like Slash and Richie Sambora? He's miles above them in terms of artistry and creativity. RHCP held him back hard, and they're nothing without him.

Why? Because he's not the late, unheralded Shawn Lane...and he IS The Biebs and Beyonce. Oh, and because Mozart isn't getting enough love in 2013.

C'mon, man, follow along!!!!!

[Damn_Smooth]

Why in the fuck are you grouping John with regular rock guitarists like Slash and Richie Sambora? He's miles above them in terms of artistry and creativity. RHCP held him back hard, and they're nothing without him.

Why? Because he's not the late, unheralded Shawn Lane...and he IS The Biebs and Beyonce. Oh, and because Mozart isn't getting enough love in 2013.

C'mon, man, follow along!!!!!

This post contains way too much common sense for the pansy-rock lovers in this thread to ever comprehend. It might just be the most brilliant wasted effort I have ever seen.

[Bruno P.]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

[SoulMonster]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

[Thierry-Henry]

Here's an interesting interview with John, where he compares himself to guitarists like Steve Vai:

In a preview excerpt from Feeding Back, MusicRadar presents an interview Todd conducted with John Frusciante in June of 2009, six months before the guitarist announced his departure from the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

In the past, you've talked about guitar "antiheroes." What do you mean by that?

"Well, I grew up dedicated to the guitar, so I studied all the flashy players when I was kid. And I think I grew up with a misconception – which is pretty normal for a person who plays any instrument, but especially the guitar – where the physical action that's taking place on the instrument seems to count for something more than it should.

"It's such a complex thing, making music, and I feel like when flashy guitar players get really good, a lot of the time they lose sight of the fact that really slow notes and really simple notes, just because they fall in strange places, can create various types of space with the other instruments.

"People have the tricks that they do – they have their little techniques and riffs – and they forget about trying to shape music into something that depicts an energetic picture, a picture in sound that arouses all these feelings inside you. With the flashy guitar players, it becomes more about demonstrating something.

"So, you know, I lost interest in that as a teenager, and I became fascinated by people like the guitarist from the B-52's [Ricky Wilson]. I started to find more meaning in people who played simpler, because these people seemed to have a better grasp on the complexities of that, you know. A lot of people who are really good technically don't give that same kind of care to each note."

"People fall into patterns at fast speeds, when really to have a clear musical thought – the kind of musical thought that makes a melody work – our brains just can't think that fast. At a certain point, you're going on automatic. When it comes down to it, when I hear somebody playing really fast, to my mind it doesn't sound complicated at all, and what somebody like Matthew Ashman in Bow Wow Wow or Bernard Sumner in Joy Division is doing sounds complex, because each note pulls you in a different direction.

"I like all kinds of guitar players, but it's people like the ones I just mentioned whose playing really amazes me, and it's because of their ideas, it's because of what they thought. It's because they approached the instrument differently than anybody else. It's people like Keith Levene from Public Image and Daniel Ash in Bauhaus who are exploring the possibilities of what you can do with the guitar, whereas other people seem like they're just exploring what you can physically do, and that serves no interest to me anymore. It did when I was 15 [laughs], but not anymore. Not since I was 21 years old."

What happened when you were 21?

"That was when I first started to really find myself as a guitar player, because a lot of things happened to me on the same day, and a lot of them had to do with me as a human being and my philosophy switching poles. I went through this change as a person, and I went through a musical change, too. Obviously, I'd been moving towards it, but I remember clearly the main part happened in like one day, you know?"

What were you listening to then?

"Tom Verlaine. I remember listening to [Television's] Marquee Moon and being dazzled by it. What he did with a sort of jaggedy guitar sound, the amount of beauty and expressiveness that came out of it, was really exciting for me.

"It made me remember that none of those things that are happening in the physical dimension mean anything, whether it's what kind of guitar you play or how your amp's set up. It's just ideas, you know, emotion. I'd grown up thinking, 'Well, a guitar player should be a good balance between technique and emotion,' and I just realized, that's ridiculous. It's only emotion, it's only color.

"And it took me like eight years of being really devoted to the guitar to realize that. [laughs] I kind of knew it when I started and then I gradually forgot it, and then when I realized it again, it hit me like a ton of bricks."

In general, the antihero types may be more instinct driven, with less theory than someone like you. Do you think that period when you were 21 was when your instinct and theory came together?

"Yeah. At the time, I thought it was because I wasn't thinking too much in terms of theory anymore - but I was. It was just that it was so… like the point of my first solo record, in my mind I was just throwing everything out the window. I was throwing all theory and technique out. But then after that, when I hadn't played guitar much for about four years, my playing felt quite different. Without that technique, I didn't know how to twist it as well.

"I don't have an extensive background in theory, but the amount of it that I've learned, I've applied, so I have a vocabulary of melodic and rhythmic relationships. And that's all theory is – it's symbols to help you identify those relationships. To some degree, somebody can perceive them just by playing the guitar a lot and seeing them in terms of shapes on the neck. But I notice that with those people, a lot of the time they have to fiddle around for a while to find a part.

"If guitar players don't know the modes, for instance, it takes them a while to figure out which notes they can play, whereas somebody who's practiced those scales knows immediately what notes apply. So for me, theory has always opened things up to where I can walk into a room and just by hearing something I know exactly where to go on the guitar. I have a better time playing because I have a variety of colors to bring to the table.

"To me, it kind of makes sense that so many people end up resorting to the physical part of guitar playing. People want to do something that they can conceive of, you know? Like, 'Oh, I'll practice scales all day and I'll be able to play really fast and impress people.' It's a real cut-and-dried, straight-ahead way to learn something.

"But when you start really boggling your mind with what can make something that's as simple as a Beatles song - when you actually examine it lyrically, rhythmically, and melodically, and chordally – something very complex, in some way an understanding of that is less intimidating, you know? To me, the only thing that makes music not intimidating is the ability to take it apart."

You say that you haven't studied theory extensively, but compared to most rock musicians, you break things down easily. Although it's obvious how much of your playing comes from an internal place, does this theoretical knowledge ever lead you toward more of a formalist approach?

"No, for me to enjoy making music, it has to generate an excitement in me, and form in itself doesn't generate any excitement to me. For instance, I don't feel that the way to make the most free music is through music that has no limitations, like if you don't establish a tempo and you don't establish a key.

"I feel like a lot of the time the music that can be the freest is the music that has a lot of limitations put upon it. All kinds of music – from sonatas to acid house to drum and bass – have real strict parameters, and for some reason that encourages originality rather than stifles it. So for me, working in a pop group like the Chili Peppers, working basically with the pop song format, I did everything I could to try to infiltrate that with musical ideas that were exciting to me, you know?

"But that's lost its interest for me at this point. It's been a couple years now that I just don't have any interest in writing those kinds of songs. I feel like I did some interesting things within those parameters, but I have more interest in exploring different things."

Just to clarify, when you infiltrate that pop song format, as you put it, does that create any meaning—say, by having the music hit the audience differently?

"No, no, no. There are certain chord progressions I like that modulate in a certain way, or there are beats I like where certain drums fall in certain hits, but it's not as if they have any value on their own. The beat itself could be played really badly, that modulation could be terrible sounding – it's all about the person who's doing it. My knowledge of these things comes from the fact that I'm a person who likes to understand things, and because I'm obsessive, you know? [laughs] But my knowledge of those things doesn't have any musical value; my music is what it is because I'm who I am and I've lived life the way I've lived it. My sense of melody is my sense of melody."

"Even when I realized those things when I was 21, it's not as if I was thinking about them while I was playing. But I came up with drastically different types of musical ideas because of them.

"I mean, it's not luck that I make up a good guitar part, because I've got enough combinations of symbols and musical ideas swimming around in my head to where parts can be generated by referring to those things. And those coordinates where a word meets a musical moment, and the word meets the note, and those two things meet the rhythm that the word falls on, that's where the real meaning comes from."

You've covered a lot of songs, but is there one that's especially significant for you?

"My dad had Fragile on the shelf when I was a kid, so I was listening to Yes when I was like seven years old, so I heard Steve Howe and I liked him. And yeah, I love his playing on the first Lou Reed solo album. But for some reason, the chord progression that Ride Into The Sun is based on is very meaningful to me. There's something about the tonality of that song that I identify with a great deal.

"I have no idea why, but there are certain basic chord progressions that have been used thousands of times, and it's completely your interpretation of them that counts—it never sounds like the same song, you know? I feel like at various times in my life, especially when I haven't been making music, I see clearly that it's my job as a musician to explore the possibilities inherent in certain chord progressions or harmonic climates, and that's a really limited way to be thinking, which is probably why I've thought that way more when I wasn't making music than when I was." [laughs]

Not to categorize yourself, but if there are these two main schools of guitar players as we've been talking about them – the virtuoso approach and the post-punk approach, to use reductive terms – do you think of yourself as fitting into one more than the other?

"I definitely don't have any interest in aligning myself with a certain type of guitar player. But it is something I think about, and basically, I think of myself as somebody who put the same amount of time into guitar playing as a guy like Steve Vai would, but I used that time completely differently, in order to have a good grasp of a wide variety of musical colors, many of which I perceived through the study of people who played with very little technique but whose brains were nimble, whose brains in terms of creativity were exactly where you'd want to be."

"I studied those players and I applied them, so that while I was capable of doing something more based in the basic tradition – you know, I had that finger strength where I can play like a 'guitar hero' or something – but instead of using my ability that way, I tried to do something that was more based in the approaches of people who had less technique.

"And I tried to make mine a cohesive style, because like I say, a lot of these people just sort of stumbled on what they did without knowing what they were doing, and they had no control over it, which is what I like about it, but then I was able to come upon that and say, 'Well, what if I crossed Bernard Sumner's approach with Jimmy Page's?' You know? 'What if Jimmy Page tried to play like Bernard Sumner?' [laughs] 'How could I play in a rhythmic style but with no blues?'

"So yeah, I think that I'm kind of a learned guitar player who didn't have any interest in learning along the same lines as a lot of other people do. I was more interested in studying people like Fugazi and Bow Wow Wow."

Edited November 3, 2013 by Thierry-Henry

[DR DOOM]

Interesting indeed.

I like Bernard Sumner and Marco Pirroni.

[Bono]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

It's clear you're basing your opinion solely on RHCP material and it's obvious you've never heard much of, if any of John's solo material. Your posts are making you look silly. John Frusciante as a solo artist hasn't sold anywhere near what Jimi Hendrix has sold. So I guess fuck popularity and John > Jimi. You said it not me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EBj23i2Ey8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm5aaK5shb0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp22cKUhiY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9iyA2Fd1k

Just the tiniest tip of the iceberg ^

Edited November 3, 2013 by RussTCB

[ManetsBR]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

This. This post is perfect. Stop trying to rationalize something as music and taste.

[SoulMonster]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

This. This post is perfect. Stop trying to rationalize something as music and taste.

Yeah, it so weird to find oneself in a discussion about our subjective preferences in regards to music, basically what we like, and then be met with people trying to argue that what they like is better because of some objective criteria, like legacy, sales numbers, technical abilities and all that stuff that has little to do with what most people like. I'd say that people who like music because of objective things doesn't really like music at all. Because it is not that what music is about. They are soulless nerds who listen with their brains and not their hearts.