puntiniCAZpuntini

Well, to me it seems like a nonsensical discussion. I just can't see any serious classification metrics in art. One can talk about seminalness, but even if I can consider Beethoven seminal, it doesn’t change the fact that I prefer listening to the 35007. Absolutely not comparable in terms of seminalness and historical importance to Beethoven, but… so what? As long as we ramble and throw around mental gymnastics on a site with the header of a cow, it seems really impossible, not to mention pointless since it always ends up in "de gustibus," and it’s pretty boring. I vote for a collection of group jams, and I double vote for a return to unseriousness as the cow teaches us. More cow and less Paganini, in my opinion.

Come on... I make rankings on a website that has always waved the flag of unseriousness. Enea wanted to start a serious discussion, and my response is: a serious discussion just doesn’t exist. Then you can try to rank something of the same genre while keeping in mind the unseriousness of the place where you’re writing, but to say that rap is better than classical, I just can’t wrap my head around it.

<<<And this is the difference: a digital artificial sound also comes through the home stereo from a CD; a classical orchestra doesn't! >>> Indeed, there is a difference, and there is no objective point of evaluation. The fact is that I hear music on the stereo and I don't have a classical orchestra in the office, so it's hard for me to appreciate the sudden implosions in the payroll office, especially when the violinist is in the warehouse. :D

Ossian, Adrian Maben didn't recycle an old work; he gifted us a masterpiece. But come on, how does the old VHS with its terrible sound compare to the DVD in Dolby Surround that implodes in your living room, reviving the suppressed echoes of the conservatory of g__à? Anyway, they would have released the DVD regardless, and since they were at it, for a mere 12¤ they even remixed the audio and improved the visuals. And if you want, you can also watch the original version. Of course, he did it for money; it's his job... do you go to work just for the glory of hearing your boss say, "Well done, kid!"?

However, I have to mention one thing: I believe that in 50 or more years, modern music will also be studied. Sooner or later, the day will come when your little grandson at the conservatory will ask you, "Grandpa, can you help me study Toni Iommi?" And of course, Beethoven will still be studied; that goes without saying. But in the end, it all comes down to personal tastes, there are no objective facts to hold onto; it’s all nonsense.

Useless mental gymnastics. The one shooting down is you, who classify, I have done anything but shoot down, quite the opposite: I couldn't care less about classifying seriously. If it gets messy and we end up in a full-blown mental gymnastics discussion knowing that it is, then so be it, and we can share a laugh. But a serious discussion about music, for me, does not exist. Anyway, all the thousands of C notes you produce with a classical instrument, when inserted into a technological sound processor, multiply until you reach tens of millions of C notes. Of course, classical music has a variety of timbres (given that I now also know what it’s called :D) but with technological instruments, you can do more. With a technological instrument, you can redo classical things and expand on them; with a classical one, you can only do classical things—there may be billions of them, but there are fewer than what you can produce with technology. And all this, I re-emphasize, is worth jack shit. There is no better or worse, just "I like it, I don't like it." The argument you make of "this is better than that," to me, is bullshit. There is no better or worse; the effect a sound has cannot be valued objectively since everyone hears it with different ears, different brains, different cultures, and different tastes. We are not all the same, and everything cannot be planned out. It’s just useless mental gymnastics. Classical music stimulates me little. Is it their fault? No. Is it my fault? Not at all. Who cares? Not me, that's for sure. :D Then you can certainly say who has been more influential than whom... but those are other mental gymnastics that have little to do with listening to a CD. I don't listen to good music, I listen to what I like; you know how much I care about objectively classifying it into an absolute value.

Electronics I say, modulations of the same note extended and modified. Knobs, buttons, etc. the classic piano you press a key and it goes "pin". Then you press it again and keep it held down, it will always say "pin". The electric piano you press a key and it goes "pin," you hold it down and it goes "piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin ," then you start to play around and it will make "piiiooooùùùnnweeeooonnnwwiooonnn". :D

Come on Enea, the absolute scale of values is one of the most useless mental gymnastics of humankind: a single accordion chord that may seem beautiful to you can repulse me while I might enjoy another chord that you find awful. There are sounds that give chills to some and others that don't; it’s impossible to assign a serious value. We can debate and bicker, but to speak seriously about the actual value of two different contexts is impossible. It’s like trying to determine whether Michael Jordan or Pelé is better; they played two different sports, each a champion in their own right, and there are even those who despise both soccer and basketball and consider Chichunlai, the champion of Ping Pong, the greatest athlete on the planet. Absolute values are just mental gymnastics; for instance, I prefer the sounds of notes. A classical pianist will never appeal to me like Herbie Hancock will, simply because the classical pianist doesn’t have modulations; it’s not their fault, just as it’s not Herbie’s merit.

Now tell me, if you give a 4 to this, what Psychedelic Film would you give a 5? Because a 5 has to be taken for granted, at least the most beautiful 5 must have it; if it's the most beautiful, it deserves the maximum without question. In my opinion, this is the most beautiful.

One cannot seriously talk about music; it would just lead to a heap of bullshit. There is no good music; you can't say that soul is better than metal, nor that rap is better than classical... it's all nonsense. Value scales? Nonsense. You can compare albums created with the same purpose, and that's it. You can say that one Hard Rock album seems better than another Hard Rock album because they have comparable terms and other similar examples; the rest is all bullshit. Art has no value scales; you can only do mental gymnastics about it, which is exactly what they are and will always remain. Classical music lacks sound variety; there are rivers of notes flowing but no variety in sound. The double bass C always sounds like a double bass C. A double bass C affected in one way sounds different from a double bass C affected in another way. Anyway, there’s no such thing as better or worse; it's all bullshit. The idea that Beethoven is better than Metallica is nonsense; they are not comparable. One may prefer one or the other or both, but they cannot be compared. Mandatory references are other nonsense; it's not Metallica's fault they were born 200 years after Beethoven. Maybe Kirk Hammett was born in the 1600s and would have become the best composer in history. Mental gymnastics, endless bullshit. This is the best psychedelic live performance available on the market; it has no rivals. Did Mozart ever do a psychedelic live show? No. So, on what basis do you calculate "true musical quality"? There is no "true" musical quality; it's all bullshit. Mozart composed orchestral pieces better than Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd created sound compositions better than Mozart. One here and one there, none better than the other... it's all nonsense.