Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword
Why is taste the way you grade music? I mean, hell, tell me who Cynic ripped off to be unoriginal because I can't find it. Since music is an art I am going to grade it in an artsy way because that is obviously how you grade art, is it not? I mean I am not against taste at all and taste is a gift because without it we would not "get into" certain genres, but you cross the line when you say music is bad because you don't like to listen to it at the time. See, what if you were to like Cynic later in your life. I mean you would love them, but because of what you said earlier in your life you cannot say they are good. See the problem with grading by taste? It changes by the mood. Now if you look at the originality of a band, then you will be able to appreciate music much more.
|
But that's the whole point. There's no objective criteria for "grading art". If no common ground can be agreed upon, it's effectively meaningless. It's all down to personal taste and interpretation at the end of the day. Take a set of lyrics. To one person, it may be profound - to another, pretentious. Or a melody: to one person exciting, to another, saccharine and sickly. Or a riff: to one person, complex and deep; to another, wooden, plastic, over-calculated, soulless. You can never say that one piece of art is better than another, except going by one's own personal criteria. Which is no more valid than anybody else's.
One of the things you mentioned was originality. To me, originality
to a degree is important, yes. In that way, my own personal criteria matches yours. A lot of people don't place any importance in that sort of thing, though.
To
riseagainstrocks: I had assumed you were ridiculing, marginalizing and scorning a number of other genres. If not, then my bad. Sorry.