Troy Loney wrote:
skullman80 wrote:Pearl Jam sucks. I can admit they are talented, but to my ears musically they suck.
Nirvana Sucks... like worst band ever sucks. Kurt Cobain had zero talent.. zilch... .nada. Grohl went on to much bigger and better things. The bassist wasn't half bad either. Cobain was just awful though.
I feel like you need to substantiate this claim. That's a really vague statement to make about a guy who was making power chord rock songs. Cobain was probably no master at the guitar, but they made some great songs. You just seem to be making a subjective statement and masking it as an objective claim
Not to get all zen, but isn't this true for any assessment of whether music is 'good' or 'bad'? Is it related to how many people share the same assessment? Is it related to how melodic/complex an arrangement is in relation to technical difficulty? Is it related to the tempo and lyrical content? Is it related to how influential/groundbreaking it is? My view is it could or could not be related to any of these, and so many other factors.
I love this thread and when I see things like 'X music sucks/is bad/is a joke' or 'Y music is awesome/so much better than Z/' my eyes kind of gloss over and I view it as a singular statement/viewpoint coming from one person. It is not correct, it is not incorrect, because there is no correct or incorrect in such statements, IMHO. It's art. I've long since realized for myself that trying to make arguments for or against those assessments can make for interesting discussions but there is no winner or right/wrong outcome of that debate.
Except for Metallica/Slayer, etc and all the screaming death metal crap, cuz I mean, c'mon, that 'music' is crap.