GNR are the 23rd biggest touring act of past 40 years in the U.S.

[Rovim]

just wanted to add: better at what? there is no criteria that is truly objective. Even good taste is problematic. Can you say which genre is the best? is jazz better than pop? so if you can't compare genres, you can't really compare a classical piece to a pop piece and say that one is better than the other, can you? the question I think is: is it better at making me feel a desired feeling? and that's just me.

there are no rules to writing a good song, not really. There are certain things that are accepted but even that is just like a map or whatever to simplify the language. There seems to be something beyond the math that invokes a human response in every human when it comes to music.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Rovim

[EvanG]

That's my thinking too. Also because everyone has a different definition of what good is.
I'm a big Nirvana fan. I've always admired that Kurt could write such great (athough subjective) songs with such simple structures and often merely 4 chords.
I'm also a big Smashing Pumpkins fan. A lot of Billy's songs are a lot more complex and long. So are his songs objectively better because they're more complex and less cliché?

[Rovim]

3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

That's my thinking too. Also because everyone has a different definition of what good is.
I'm a big Nirvana fan. I've always admired that Kurt could write such great (athough subjective) songs with such simple structures and often merely 4 chords.
I'm also a big Smashing Pumpkins fan. A lot of Billy's songs are a lot more complex and long. So are his songs objectively better because they're more complex and less cliché?

yeah it's like whatever personality you have as a listener and the personality of the musician you're listening to that comes through the music creates a certain relationship maybe that is unique and whatever got you there can't be compared cause it can be any song. Any combination of different qualities that makes you react or....doesn't. jmo.

[PatrickS77]

4 hours ago, jamillos said:

Why has Elton been such a big thing? What did he bring to the table? Not dissing, just wondering. 

I know we can't apply the same to today's charts, cause those are just full of non-musical pop shit like Kanye, and certain times are forever gone. But look a the other artists from Elton's era - the Stones, Springsteen... that all makes sense. But what is it about this Elton character? Just the gayness and probably massive support in England? One or two hits? I mean, Bryan Adams is 100x better and he's nowhere near there. 

With that you really lose all credibilty.

[Rovim]

5 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

With that you really lose all credibilty.

damn. What is @jamillos going to do now, that he lost all credibility? I mean, this is a music forum and he failed. No going back now.  

I guess he can still post in the anything goes section.

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Rovim said:

 

I guess he can still post in the anything goes section.

Nah, there isn't much room to complain about GnR in that section...

 

 

 

...I'll get my coat

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

Nah, there isn't much room to complain about GnR in that section...

 

 

 

...I'll get my coat

shit can get frustrating as a Gn'R fan. We've both been there, iirc.

[jamillos]

2 hours ago, WhazUp said:

Fantastic songwriting with a unique flair for style.  I would put "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", "Honky Chateau", "Tumbleweed Connection", and "Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy" among the rest of the greatest albums from the '70s

 

2 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

Not a big fan, but if you grew up in the 70s 80s 90s Elton was on the radio with some catchy songs. If you look at his back catalogue its mental how much great stuff he and Bernie Taupin have written together. Some of it is just epic and can’t be denied as anything else. Even if you don’t like Tiny Dancer, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Rocket Man or other tunes like them they’re on another level. 

As I suspected, I don’t seem to know his catalogue very much (almost at all). I guess Made in England, Rocket Man and the likes from the radio isn’t enough.  

 

16 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

With that you really lose all credibilty.

I was talking about what I’ve heard (and liked more) so far, see above. And as has been said, taste is subjective. There are e.g. people who'd tell you CD is better than AfD. Now how do we wrap our heads around that! You'd say that's different - same band, same genre. I'd say it's neither the same band nor the same genre, so it's not that crazy of a comparison. So, it's all subjective. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by jamillos

[jamillos]

25 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Nah, there isn't much room to complain about GnR in that section...

 

 

 

...I'll get my coat

DUDE, I’ve already told you to go fuck yourself. I’ve already told you that you only focus on the negative. Numerous times. Yet I’m the one who "doesn’t understand" and who "keeps repeating the same shit over and over", even though it’s exactly the other way round. I’ve already told you to look up the expression "irony". I'm really tired of you, and you've taken away from me some small amount of joy of visiting this place. 
@janrichmondhas clearly said you should put me on ignore or just ignore my posts, as well as of any other people who are not to your liking, instead of your unsolicited police work here. Btw I’m not gonna do the same, since a) I don’t react to your posts anymore, b) I want to be aware if there is some fanatical stalker obsessed with me, following me around. 
If you keep doing this shit, you’re violating this forum’s policy. If you wanna get yourself banned, keep doing what you’re doing. 
In the meantime, I strongly recommend that you seek help, ideally a psychotherapist; if that doesn’t help, see a regular shrink. 
Good luck and please, for the last time, ignore me, and don’t react to me indirectly either. Don't mention me, don't talk about me, don't think about me, ignore me, forget that I exist and stick to something else. 
 

[EvanG]

7 minutes ago, jamillos said:

DUDE, I’ve already told you to go fuck yourself. I’ve already told you that you only focus on the negative. Numerous times. Yet I’m the one who "doesn’t understand" and who "keeps repeating the same shit over and over", even though it’s exactly the other way round. I’ve already told you to look up the expression "irony". I'm really tired of you, and you've taken away from me some small amount of joy of visiting this place. 
@janrichmondhas clearly said you should put me on ignore or just ignore my posts, as well as of any other people who are not to your liking, instead of your unsolicited police work here. Btw I’m not gonna do the same, since a) I don’t react to your posts anymore, b) I want to be aware if there is some fanatical stalker obsessed with me, following me around. 
If you keep doing this shit, you’re violating this forum’s policy. If you wanna get yourself banned, keep doing what you’re doing. 
In the meantime, I strongly recommend that you seek help, ideally a psychotherapist; if that doesn’t help, see a regular shrink. 
Good luck and please, for the last time, ignore me, and don’t react to me indirectly either. Don't mention me, don't talk about me, don't think about me, ignore me, forget that I exist and stick to something else. 
 

Oh Jesus, you can't even take a joke? It was pretty obvious it was a joke. Get over yourself!

And please, put me on ignore, instead of typing yet another essay.

Edited August 3, 2022 by EvanG

[PatrickS77]

1 hour ago, jamillos said:

 

As I suspected, I don’t seem to know his catalogue very much (almost at all). I guess Made in England, Rocket Man and the likes from the radio isn’t enough.  

 

I was talking about what I’ve heard (and liked more) so far, see above. And as has been said, taste is subjective. There are e.g. people who'd tell you CD is better than AfD. Now how do we wrap our heads around that! You'd say that's different - same band, same genre. I'd say it's neither the same band nor the same genre, so it's not that crazy of a comparison. So, it's all subjective. 

To say that Bryan Adams is 100x better than Elton John is ridiculous. No matter what criteria you use. Especially, when you don't even know his catalog it's not only ridiculous, it's also idiotic.

[jamillos]

43 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

To say that Bryan Adams is 100x better than Elton John is ridiculous. No matter what criteria you use. Especially, when you don't even know his catalog it's not only ridiculous, it's also idiotic.

I was merely expressing my opinion as to what I like more. Maybe not 100x - we tend to use figures of speech and hyperboles, don't we - but I still do, and I don't know more songs from B. A. than I do from E. J., meaning I know about the same amount from these catalogues, and simply prefer one to the other. Ergo nothing idiotic about it, as long as one doesn't assume things. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by jamillos

[PatrickS77]

14 minutes ago, jamillos said:

I was merely expressing my opinion as to what I like more. Maybe not 100x - we tend to use figures of speech and hyperboles, don't we - but I still do, and I don't know more songs from B. A. than I do from E. J., meaning I know about the same amount from these catalogues, and simply prefer one to the other. Ergo nothing idiotic about it, as long as one doesn't assume things. 

Then say you like him more. No objection to that, as that is purely subjective. To say Adams is better than John, especially based on a limited knowledge of boths catalog is idiotic.

[jamillos]

9 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Then say you like him more. No objection to that, as that is purely subjective. To say Adams is better than John, especially based on a limited knowledge of boths catalog is idiotic.

Again, I know a few songs from both and simply prefer the one to the other. Whether I say I like him more or that he’s way better in my opinion – what difference does it make? Anything we say on this forum is subjective anyway. 
When I say one artist/album/song/guitarist/line/version/drum sound +1dB/whatever is better, it always implies that’s my opinion, doesn’t it? You’re just splitting hairs. 

[kiwiguns]

7 hours ago, jamillos said:

Why has Elton been such a big thing? What did he bring to the table? Not dissing, just wondering. 

I know we can't apply the same to today's charts, cause those are just full of non-musical pop shit like Kanye, and certain times are forever gone. But look a the other artists from Elton's era - the Stones, Springsteen... that all makes sense. But what is it about this Elton character? Just the gayness and probably massive support in England? One or two hits? I mean, Bryan Adams is 100x better and he's nowhere near there. 

Not sure why gayness was brought into the conversation as it has nothing to do with gross income generated via touring or ticket sales. Why even mention Elton John in the first instance if you lack the knowledge on the man himself or his music. You do know that Elton John and Bernie Taupin are greatly admired by Axl including on the song writing front and in fact, both have a very similar writing structure that can be heard in Elton John and Bernie Taupin songs as, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and I've Seen That Movie Too with strong elements crossing over into November Rain, Breakdown and Street of Dreams via the piano playing. 

You mention that you aren't dissing Elton John, then proceed to do exactly that because of your ignorance.. 

There are a number of artists on those lists that you could question as  being "such a big thing"  but Elton John is not one of them... 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by kiwiguns

[jamillos]

Jesus Christ people are tetchy these days! I was just expressing my opinion, forget it! 

[©GnrPersia]

15 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Jesus Christ people are tetchy these days! I was just expressing my opinion, forget it! 

Post-Covid Stress Disorder.

[jamillos]

2 hours ago, kiwiguns said:

Not sure why gayness was brought into the conversation as it has nothing to do with gross income generated via touring or ticket sales. Why even mention Elton John in the first instance if you lack the knowledge on the man himself or his music. You do know that Elton John and Bernie Taupin are greatly admired by Axl including on the song writing front and in fact, both have a very similar writing structure that can be heard in Elton John and Bernie Taupin songs as, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and I've Seen That Movie Too with strong elements crossing over into November Rain, Breakdown and Street of Dreams via the piano playing. 

You mention that you aren't dissing Elton John, then proceed to do exactly that because of your ignorance.. 

There are a number of artists on those lists that you could question as  being "such a big thing"  but Elton John is not one of them... 

 

I can question whoever the hell I want, thank you very much. After all, if I look at today's charts... I'll save my breath. 

[Tyson]

Guns N Roses must be #1 over the past 6 years

[Blackstar]

On 8/3/2022 at 10:36 AM, EvanG said:

I can understand that from a technical point of view you can say that, for example when you compare two artists who draw, that one is better than the other because they have a better technique, but that doesn't mean that their art is considered better to everyone, even if the artist with the better technique is perhaps objectively better at drawing figures. I think that is what you mean?

No, I didn't mean that. I think musicianship - and the equivalent in the other arts - is not just skill, technique or virtuosity, because art is more than craftsmanship. It embodies more things like expression, sensitivity, etc. (although I admit that these fall a lot into subjectivity). There are more criteria besides the three I mentioned as an example (which, as I said myself, don't always apply to popular music and a song with a basic structure may work better than another that tries to be complex but doesn't get there) like originality and breaking new ground, as well as other parameters that, although stem from subjectivity and are not directly musical, they become objective, such as influence and cultural impact in a given society; if someone's art has inspired others or even started a new genre/movement, that's something that can be measured after a period of time. All these don't have to co-exist at once. And, of course, beyond that, there are other qualities that are subjective and appeal in different ways to different people.

*

About some other points in the discussion: Sure, there are genres in music that differ from each other in the ways a musical piece may be considered good for what it is; e.g. for a pop song (and for a rock song, for the most part) it's a virtue to be catchy within the standard verse-chorus structure, folk songs are valued for their authenticity, then there is music from other parts of the world that works differently, and so on. However, it's all music, and music is an art (it's been argued that popular music and popular culture in general is not art, but this is a whole other discussion - let's just accept here that it is art), and there are reasons why some genres or certain works of them are considered artistically superior. Polyphonic and symphonic music were an advancement in the development of music as an art, then improvisation in the form of jazz was groundbreaking...  Similarly with movies: the purpose of blockbuster and big studio films is to entertain, so they're judged based on the extent they achieve it (how entertaining the plot is and how it is served by the production, the scenes, the special effects etc.). But cinema is also art and there is a reason that, .e.g., The Seventh Seal and Citizen Kane are considered better films and regarded among the best of all time.

*

Anyway, all I've been trying to say is that, of course, there's subjectivity to a large extent regarding what is good or bad, and that's why there are different opinions among both the public and critics, and something may work for me but not for you. But it's not entirely subjective. There are some standards by which music and art is evaluated that, although they - and even the concept of "art" itself - may be a product of social construct, they are measurable. Like, personally, I'd take a Ramones song over Bohemian Rhapsody any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but I can't deny that Bohemian Rhapsody is a good song. Or I like other GN'R songs a lot more than November Rain, but I acknowledge that NR has qualities that make a great song. That's something I've developed as I grew older.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Blackstar

[Rovim]

37 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

No, I didn't mean that. I think musicianship - and the equivalent in the other arts - is not just skill, technique or virtuosity, because art is more than craftsmanship. It embodies more things like expression, sensitivity, etc. (although I admit that these fall a lot into subjectivity). There are more criteria besides the three I mentioned as an example (which, as I said myself, don't always apply to popular music and a song with a basic structure may work better than another that tries to be complex but doesn't get there) like originality and breaking new ground, as well as other parameters that, although stem from subjectivity and are not directly musical, they become objective, such as influence and cultural impact in a given society; if someone's art has inspired others or even started a new genre/movement, that's something that can be measured after a period of time. All these don't have to co-exist at one. And, of course, beyond that, there are other qualities that are subjective and appeal in different ways to different people.

*

About some other points in the discussion: Sure, there are genres in music that differ from each other in the ways a musical piece may be considered good for what it is; e.g. for a pop song (and for a rock song, for the most part) it's a virtue to be catchy within the standard verse-chorus structure, folk songs are valued for their authenticity, then there is music from other parts of the world that works differently, and so on. However, it's all music, and music is an art (it's been argued that popular music and popular culture in general is not art, but this is a whole other discussion - let's just accept here that it is art), and there are reasons why some genres or certain works of them are considered artistically superior. Polyphonic and symphonic music were an advancement in the development of music as an art, then improvisation in the form of jazz was groundbreaking...  Similarly with movies: the purpose of blockbuster and big studio films is to entertain, so they're judged based on the extent they achieve it (how entertaining the plot is and how it is served by the production, the scenes, the special effects etc.). But cinema is also art and there is a reason that, .e.g., The Seventh Seal and Citizen Kane are considered better films and regarded among the best of all time.

*

Anyway, all I've been trying to say is that, of course, there's subjectivity to a large extent regarding what is good or bad, and that's why there are different opinions among both the public and critics, and something may work for me but not for you. But there also some standards by which music and art is evaluated that, although they may be a product of social construct, they are measurable. Like, personally, I'd take a Ramones song over Bohemian Rhapsody any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but I can't deny that Bohemian Rhapsody is a good song. Or I like other GN'R songs a lot more than November Rain, but I acknowledge that NR has qualities that make a great song. That's something I've developed as I grew older.

I think I understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to argue here just for the sake of it, but why can't you deny that Bohemian Rhapsody is a good song? because... a lot of people like it and it's influential? a lot of people think it's shit. It is a fact that there is a construct to it that works and worked for a lot of people. That's pretty much it imo. It doesn't make it a good song in an objective way and we must be pedantic here if we're talking about this subject, cause I think it's very easy to fall into the trap of what's popular. Its not a numbers game imo, as I stated earlier. Music is especially subjective cause the name of the whole game is emotions and how to invoke that shit in a person mostly through sound and even a song that had an effect on you in the past can no longer have an effect on you now, so even one person's opinion doesn't really matter as I see it.

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Rovim

[Blackstar]

2 hours ago, Rovim said:

I think I understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to argue here just for the sake of it, but why can't you deny that Bohemian Rhapsody is a good song? because... a lot of people like it and it's influential? a lot of people think it's shit. It is a fact that there is a construct to it that works and worked for a lot of people. That's pretty much it imo. It doesn't make it a good song in an objective way and we must be pedantic here if we're talking about this subject, cause I think it's very easy to fall into the trap of what's popular. Its not a numbers game imo, as I stated earlier. Music is especially subjective cause the name of the whole game is emotions and how to invoke that shit in a person mostly through sound and even a song that had an effect on you in the past can no longer have an effect on you now, so even one person's opinion doesn't really matter as I see it.

No, it's really not because Bohemian Rhapsody is popular. I think it's good because it succeeds in combining three songs in one and for some other reasons. I just brought that as an example because I thought it would make my point clearer, but I could have used other examples that are not so popular and are not much of my cup of tea; say, Kraftwerk, I can't deny that they were very influential so they were good by this standard. Maybe it's because of how I approach music: not purely as music for itself and how enjoyable it is to me, but also as history (as in the evolution of it and who influenced what as well as in the context of the time it was produced).

Regardless of that, can someone say that Beethoven's 9th or Guernica or Crime And Punishment is shit just because it doesn't make them feel anything? I guess they can, because there is freedom of expression, so everyone has the right to have an opinion and voice it (and not get bullied for it). But is it just an unpopular yet equally valid opinion? I'm not sure I agree. I also don't think that music is only about emotions, there is a cerebral aspect to it or some of it, e.g. some experimental music has the purpose to make you think, not just feel.

Anyway, it's a philosophical discussion about art and that's too much, and it's off topic also, so let's agree to disagree

Edited August 4, 2022 by Blackstar

[Rovim]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

If for example, somebody thinks Crazy Frog is anywhere near the same level of quality - let alone better than - O Fortuna, they're objectively a braindead idiot.

I don't think whoever created Crazy Frog set out to achieve the same goal as O Fortuna did. I'm not saying there are no levels of quality in art, interactive art, or music. I'm saying that imo, it's about perception. Zeppelin was considered shit by critics when they first released their music for example. Abstract paintings seems like blobs of color to many people. O Fortuna sounds like noise to many people. My point is that people created this shit and people created the criteria. 

a lot of people that I know can't stand Axl's voice. To me, it is one of the greatest singing voices a human was ever born with. Depends on what it triggers inside you, personally. A thought or a feeling and shit can be good in a smaller scale with a modest goal of being amusing. I'm not sure it will be an effective comparison when you compare it to something that aimed to achieve a more profound outcome but my point stand. It's all just one man's opinion. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone here, I just enjoy discussing this shit.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Rovim

[AxlRoseCDII]

All this band does is tour nowadays, they better at least be successful at that

[MYWIFEMYLIFE]

GNR should be in top 5 or 6 if you evaluate over the averages,, too much missing years with them. If they had established themselves like stones, they could easily be on top 3. But unfo, this band is a colossal waste of talent, they could have offered way more

Btw, Elton is a fucking GOD ffs.