Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
Um... because people have different tastes? Because one person will relate/engage more with one type of sound than another? Because it's all subjective at the end of the day?
There's nothing in Cynic's entire catalogue that's compositionally superior to even the Tellytubbies theme tune. More complex/arty does not equate to superior. That's a fallacy if ever there was one. Neither does it equate to "more musical". More musical? That doesn't even mean anything. "Musicality" is not scalic, for heaven's sake. Sure, you can invent your own definition of what qualifies as musical or "more musical", or you can follow somebody else's, but it all means jack. It's a moot term. You're entitled to your viewpoint, but it's no more weighty than anybody else's.
|
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.
Threaded Mode