antimo_d

Well, more than being extreme, it seems to me a monumental bullshit: saying 'without great technique, you can't create great art' is an extreme statement (in the sense that it is provocative and, for me, disagreeable), saying 'What’s the point in painting if you can’t use a brush to create plays of light and shadow? Answer: it serves to create more decent paintings than the thousands of bullshit modern-abstract art pieces that you see around, which are considered masterpieces just because some pompous and self-satisfied critic (who doesn’t understand a thing about art) deems them so' is just nonsense, period... no offense, I throw out heaps of nonsense myself, for heaven's sake.

Yes, well: I'll chime in on your sentence about modern-abstract art, as you call it (which is practically all figurative art from the late nineteenth century to today...), to reiterate that you just said something really foolish... don't take offense (or if you want, go ahead...), but that's a sentence from someone dull.

or rather: I'm fine with enduring the treatise on aesthetics, since I'm interested, but we need someone who understands and can guide a discussion that might end up being quite messy. aloha

So agree with me: 1) on the fact that the equation good music = music that sooner or later becomes mainstream is (at least partially) wrong; 2) that the previous statement is meaningless unless we entertain the remote hypothesis of agreeing on the definition of 'beautiful'... in short, what the hell am I trying to say: don’t make grand statements (like talking about music in general, in a high-minded way) because either you’ll be spouting nonsense or we’ll have to engage in a nice treatise on philosophy...

Leaving aside extreme cases, the value of a work of art can be recognized even a long time later; examples of this type abound in every artistic field (whether it be Baudelaire or Poe, Van Gogh or Satie) and, moreover, it also happens that critics deem something stunning that the masses struggle to appreciate (e.g. Picasso): how to settle the matter? Are the critics right or the majority of people in those cases? If one can agree on a definition of 'beautiful', a conclusion can be reached; otherwise, everyone will hold on to their own 'truth', I believe...

First of all, silverblasco, I present to you an extreme hypothesis to demonstrate the limitations of your thesis: let’s imagine that a magnificent, beautiful album has been released in Congo, but it has only been heard by 3 lucky individuals who, like the record label, lack the means to properly promote the album either in Congo or, even less so, worldwide... in the end, this album (magnificent by initial hypothesis) will almost certainly never achieve mass success; moral of the fable: without adequate promotion, even the most beautiful album in history will not become a mass phenomenon...

mmm... this thesis that good music eventually becomes mainstream has already come up in another review: at that time, it was deemed invalid since everyone participating in the discussion agreed on the value of the work of the Residents, whom the masses have never paid attention to... however, it's an interesting topic... continue

Well, to be precise... mass music = good music, means saying that, for example, the Backstreet Boys make good music... provided that the concept of good music is not something mathematical, I believe, however, that most people who have music as their main passion would disagree...

Well, a poem isn't just written in a certain way, like in rhymed couplets or eleven-syllable lines, etc., when it comes to meter... Then, even assuming (absurdly) that Pain Of Salvation's work is a poem and 'fegato spappolato' is prose (or however you want to call it), it doesn't mean that a bad poem is better than a beautiful improvised speech...

better... as I mentioned elsewhere, objectivity is a concept where one can have clearer ideas when referring to the scientific world, perhaps to mathematics... it can be considered a privileged domain of objectivity: every claim must be proven, otherwise it is deemed invalid; however, at the logical foundation of mathematics, there are axioms, statements considered true even if unproven, essentially dogmas that constitute the foundations of the entire mathematical structure... fundamentally, to talk about objectivity in the artistic realm, we must also establish some basic premises that we agree upon (e.g., an original solution, never practiced, should be considered more 'beautiful' than one that has already been tried - to simplify a bit... - and here one could already argue fiercely about verifying and quantifying the originality of a song, an album, etc.)