No matter where you go in this world, you will probably find somebody with a musically controversial background, and for the most part, people think that their music they listen to, is the best music to listen to, as an opinion should be. However, when somebody says "This band is the best band ever" simply because of their opinion, we all know that, it's solely opinion and not nearly enough amount of fact or supporting evidence to justify as to why that band is better then every other band. Now. my argument here is that, you can't compare musical genre with a good supporting argument, unless of course, you use statistics, in which case you're just saying one music type is statistically better then another. So, we can for the most part agree that "Rock vs Rap" is a bad debate. However, when you are judging say a band, which can also be known as a group, or furthermore a "unit", musical genre doesn't effect judgement. You could say Pink Floyd is better then soulja boi, and be correct. Now, what I constantly hear is "this band is the best" and i constantly raise the statement that "The Beatles are one of the best bands in history, and this band quite simply does not compare to The Beatles" now instrumentally, dragonforce guitarist could play better then say john lennon, which is a more then likely statement. However, Dragonforce isn't the same genre as The Beatles... but this doesn't mean that The Beatles cannot of had a larger impact on society and music then Dragonforce has or ever will. So after reading all my opinion, I want to know whether or not you could compare one of the worlds largest bands in history known as The Beatles to a modern rock band such as My Chemical Romance or Chiodos and still be right in saying that The Beatles is better...

No matter where you go in this world, you will probably find somebody with a musically controversial background, and for the most part, people think that their music they listen to, is the best music to listen to, as an opinion should be. However, when somebody says "This band is the best band ever" simply because of their opinion, we all know that, it's solely opinion and not nearly enough amount of fact or supporting evidence to justify as to why that band is better then every other band.

Now. my argument here is that, you can't compare musical genre with a good supporting argument, unless of course, you use statistics, in which case you're just saying one music type is statistically better then another. So, we can for the most part agree that "Rock vs Rap" is a bad debate. However, when you are judging say a band, which can also be known as a group, or furthermore a "unit", musical genre doesn't effect judgement. You could say Pink Floyd is better then soulja boi, and be correct.

Now, what I constantly hear is "this band is the best" and i constantly raise the statement that "The Beatles are one of the best bands in history, and this band quite simply does not compare to The Beatles" now instrumentally, dragonforce guitarist could play better then say john lennon, which is a more then likely statement. However, Dragonforce isn't the same genre as The Beatles... but this doesn't mean that The Beatles cannot of had a larger impact on society and music then Dragonforce has or ever will.

So after reading all my opinion, I want to know whether or not you could compare one of the worlds largest bands in history known as The Beatles to a modern rock band such as My Chemical Romance or Chiodos and still be right in saying that The Beatles is better...

I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them. :lol: However you do have a point in comparing bands from different genres.

I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them.

However you do have a point in comparing bands from different genres.

Nobody can say anything about a best band, unless they heard every band ever... And greatness in artistic talent is not simply how well you perform. Otherwise, in the visual art realm, nobody would even care about any painters in modern society, and would idolize the camera. Franz Liszt was definitely one of the greatest performers in history, as he could play what an entire orchestra could using only a piano. He is not however, the greatest artist, as his styles were limited to transcribing works of others, programmatic music, and songs about death. To be a great artist, you need to take a genre and transform the meaning in it, then get people to follow the new route. Beethoven did this, the Beatles did this, Picasso did this, Marcel Duchamp did this, pretty much anyone who is considered great is commemorated for changing the way a great deal of people think of something. To change the opinion of the world is to be great, the more radical the change, the greater. Because no single person has deeply impacted every person on the planet, there can be no such thing as a "best" artist.

Nobody can say anything about a best band, unless they heard every band ever...

And greatness in artistic talent is not simply how well you perform.
Otherwise, in the visual art realm, nobody would even care about any painters in modern society, and would idolize the camera.
Franz Liszt was definitely one of the greatest performers in history, as he could play what an entire orchestra could using only a piano.
He is not however, the greatest artist, as his styles were limited to transcribing works of others, programmatic music, and songs about death.

To be a great artist, you need to take a genre and transform the meaning in it, then get people to follow the new route. Beethoven did this, the Beatles did this, Picasso did this, Marcel Duchamp did this, pretty much anyone who is considered great is commemorated for changing the way a great deal of people think of something.

To change the opinion of the world is to be great, the more radical the change, the greater. Because no single person has deeply impacted every person on the planet, there can be no such thing as a "best" artist.

Let's just say that people used to use the right definition of "greatest band ever" a great band would then be identified as one that crossed the boundaries from classical music to say... electronic. What I'm saying is that a great artist is only great because of how they changed and what they mean in history. You have for example Steve Vai who's an amazing guitarrist but he wouldn't exist, or at least be what he is right now, if there hasn't been any Van Halen before him. Why? Because Van Halen is simply great because of how he changed the way people play guitar now. So did the beatles and so did Pink Floyd, they have all revolutionized music and they should be considered great, not best, but great as best is subjective. But I listen to music nowadays and there's nothing new, I hear little kids that are sometimes even my age (18) and already singing with their girly-like voice hate music, you know the "I WANNA DIE" drama and all of that. And then I hear another song and say "Oh it's probably their new song" but then the DJ proves me wrong by saying 30 seconds to mars and then I hear another song after that one and say "What is this now? It dounds the same, it's probably a band combo" and yet again the DJ proves me wrong by saying, I don't know MCR or something like it. Now where's the fun in that? Where's the great in that? That's not great, that's just stupid. Copying the same beats, using the same chords over and over again and changing only verses by basically same chorus and same rhymes, what's the fun in that? I think that people that sing the "I wanna die" music should... really go die. There's no other way for me to say it but straight ahead. The same thing happens with rap, pop, rock and metal. Rap's just dumb, I've heard 5 songs from different artist one after each other and they all had the same rythm and beat behind their forced rhymes. Pop's just me, I had enough pop with the boy bands, rock's just random distortion noise now and metal it's just people thinking they're cool because they play a 30+ minute solo which is, I accept, amazingly fast but worthless to provide anything good to music history. My point is that there won't be anything great until someone actually tries to do it and not just sell themselves as whores to get some money. I can't remember if it was on romance but we need someone to take back the "Art for Art" motto and apply it to everything in this money-corrupt world. So Ex, by saying the beatles suck remind yourself that you wouldn't have your little groups if it wasn't for them that changed the way music plays today.

Let's just say that people used to use the right definition of "greatest band ever" a great band would then be identified as one that crossed the boundaries from classical music to say... electronic. What I'm saying is that a great artist is only great because of how they changed and what they mean in history. You have for example Steve Vai who's an amazing guitarrist but he wouldn't exist, or at least be what he is right now, if there hasn't been any Van Halen before him.
Why? Because Van Halen is simply great because of how he changed the way people play guitar now. So did the beatles and so did Pink Floyd, they have all revolutionized music and they should be considered great, not best, but great as best is subjective.

But I listen to music nowadays and there's nothing new, I hear little kids that are sometimes even my age (18) and already singing with their girly-like voice hate music, you know the "I WANNA DIE" drama and all of that. And then I hear another song and say "Oh it's probably their new song" but then the DJ proves me wrong by saying 30 seconds to mars and then I hear another song after that one and say "What is this now? It dounds the same, it's probably a band combo" and yet again the DJ proves me wrong by saying, I don't know MCR or something like it.

Now where's the fun in that? Where's the great in that? That's not great, that's just stupid. Copying the same beats, using the same chords over and over again and changing only verses by basically same chorus and same rhymes, what's the fun in that?
I think that people that sing the "I wanna die" music should... really go die. There's no other way for me to say it but straight ahead.
The same thing happens with rap, pop, rock and metal. Rap's just dumb, I've heard 5 songs from different artist one after each other and they all had the same rythm and beat behind their forced rhymes. Pop's just me, I had enough pop with the boy bands, rock's just random distortion noise now and metal it's just people thinking they're cool because they play a 30+ minute solo which is, I accept, amazingly fast but worthless to provide anything good to music history.

My point is that there won't be anything great until someone actually tries to do it and not just sell themselves as whores to get some money. I can't remember if it was on romance but we need someone to take back the "Art for Art" motto and apply it to everything in this money-corrupt world.

So Ex, by saying the beatles suck remind yourself that you wouldn't have your little groups if it wasn't for them that changed the way music plays today.

[quote=name:Corbo]"Art for Art" motto[/quote] Aesthetic Movement. ________________________________________________________________________________________ There is no greatest genre of music, although I could argue that certain characteristics of certain genres are better than others, which would do the job pretty well. There is no greatest band, but I could make similar arguments as I could with music genre (regarding certain characteristics). It ultimately comes down to taste, but someone who truly appreciates music/art will probably be able to find something they like from [i]any[/i] genre of music. Good music, is for the most part, good music. [quote=Corbo]My point is that there won't be anything great until someone actually tries to do it and not just sell themselves as whores to get some money.[/quote] Why Nickelback is the worst band ever.

Quote from Corbo[MM]

"Art for Art" motto

Aesthetic Movement.
________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no greatest genre of music, although I could argue that certain characteristics of certain genres are better than others, which would do the job pretty well. There is no greatest band, but I could make similar arguments as I could with music genre (regarding certain characteristics). It ultimately comes down to taste, but someone who truly appreciates music/art will probably be able to find something they like from any genre of music. Good music, is for the most part, good music.

Quote from Corbo

My point is that there won't be anything great until someone actually tries to do it and not just sell themselves as whores to get some money.

Why Nickelback is the worst band ever.

[quote=name:Dapperdan]Aesthetic Movement.[/quote] Yeah, I checked and it's the baroque era. Neoclasisism and renaissance.

Quote from Dapperdan

Aesthetic Movement.

Yeah, I checked and it's the baroque era. Neoclasisism and renaissance.

[quote=name:Excalibur]I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them. :lol: [/quote] Cheer up, emo kid. Don't just listen to shitty MCR.

Quote from Excalibur[MM]

I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them.

Cheer up, emo kid. Don't just listen to shitty MCR.

[quote=name:Corbo][quote=name:Dapperdan]Aesthetic Movement.[/quote] Yeah, I checked and it's the baroque era. Neoclasisism and renaissance.[/quote] Well, what I was refering to was one of the movements from the Victorian Period where they did 'art for art's sake'. But maybe that wasn't as much music... yeah.

Quote from Corbo[MM]

Quote from Dapperdan

Aesthetic Movement.

Yeah, I checked and it's the baroque era. Neoclasisism and renaissance.

Well, what I was refering to was one of the movements from the Victorian Period where they did 'art for art's sake'. But maybe that wasn't as much music... yeah.

[quote=name:Anonymous][quote=name:Excalibur]I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them. :lol: [/quote] Cheer up, emo kid. Don't just listen to shitty MCR.[/quote] [color=#CE091D]This thread is not to insult others... But this thread here has a great point. You just can not compare genres... Since they are a too different thing to compare most times.[/color]

Quote from Anonymous

Quote from Excalibur[MM]

I find that since the Beatles havent affected my life at all, they still suck and i still hate them.

Cheer up, emo kid. Don't just listen to shitty MCR.

This thread is not to insult others...
But this thread here has a great point. You just can not compare genres... Since they are a too different thing to compare most times.

You can entirely compare genres. You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc. Likewise, you can compare bands in different genres, since genres are simply loose classifications of music - a little less strict a definition, and every song is in its own genre. You can compare the number of people in the band, the number of songs, number of hits, and the percentage of people in America who know it. Depending on the definition of 'best' being used, you can or cannot compare which composer/band is best of all time. If you simply compare the above attributes of the bands and see which band wins in most categories, it would be perfectly valid to say that that is the best band of all time [b]based on those attributes[/b]. Another definition is simply opinion (Actually, I'm strongly opposed to opinion/fact bullshit, but it seems to fit here nicely...), and changes per person. Well, basically, it's perfectly valid to compare bands, just like its perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges (apples can be green, which (I think) is a statistically more pleasing color then orange, but oranges further quench your thirst and make better juice.. etc), depending on [b]how you compare them[/b].

You can entirely compare genres. You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc. Likewise, you can compare bands in different genres, since genres are simply loose classifications of music - a little less strict a definition, and every song is in its own genre. You can compare the number of people in the band, the number of songs, number of hits, and the percentage of people in America who know it.

Depending on the definition of 'best' being used, you can or cannot compare which composer/band is best of all time. If you simply compare the above attributes of the bands and see which band wins in most categories, it would be perfectly valid to say that that is the best band of all time based on those attributes. Another definition is simply opinion (Actually, I'm strongly opposed to opinion/fact bullshit, but it seems to fit here nicely...), and changes per person.

Well, basically, it's perfectly valid to compare bands, just like its perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges (apples can be green, which (I think) is a statistically more pleasing color then orange, but oranges further quench your thirst and make better juice.. etc), depending on how you compare them.

[color=#CE091D]So you can compare The Used and Mozart? Comparing music is too much subjective.[/color]

So you can compare The Used and Mozart?
Comparing music is too much subjective.

[quote=name:Centreri]You can entirely compare genres. You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc. Likewise, you can compare bands in different genres, since genres are simply loose classifications of music - a little less strict a definition, and every song is in its own genre. You can compare the number of people in the band, the number of songs, number of hits, and the percentage of people in America who know it. Depending on the definition of 'best' being used, you can or cannot compare which composer/band is best of all time. If you simply compare the above attributes of the bands and see which band wins in most categories, it would be perfectly valid to say that that is the best band of all time [b]based on those attributes[/b]. Another definition is simply opinion (Actually, I'm strongly opposed to opinion/fact bullshit, but it seems to fit here nicely...), and changes per person. Well, basically, it's perfectly valid to compare bands, just like its perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges (apples can be green, which (I think) is a statistically more pleasing color then orange, but oranges further quench your thirst and make better juice.. etc), depending on [b]how you compare them[/b].[/quote] Good to see you read my post. :bleh: [quote=name:Phobos][color=#CE091D]So you can compare The Used and Mozart? Comparing music is too much subjective.[/color][/quote] Yeah. The Used probably sucks and Mozart is freaking amazing. Seriously though, the quality of the music can definitely be compared regardless of genre.

Quote from Centreri

You can entirely compare genres. You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc. Likewise, you can compare bands in different genres, since genres are simply loose classifications of music - a little less strict a definition, and every song is in its own genre. You can compare the number of people in the band, the number of songs, number of hits, and the percentage of people in America who know it.

Depending on the definition of 'best' being used, you can or cannot compare which composer/band is best of all time. If you simply compare the above attributes of the bands and see which band wins in most categories, it would be perfectly valid to say that that is the best band of all time based on those attributes. Another definition is simply opinion (Actually, I'm strongly opposed to opinion/fact bullshit, but it seems to fit here nicely...), and changes per person.

Well, basically, it's perfectly valid to compare bands, just like its perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges (apples can be green, which (I think) is a statistically more pleasing color then orange, but oranges further quench your thirst and make better juice.. etc), depending on how you compare them.

Good to see you read my post.

Quote from Phobos[MM]

So you can compare The Used and Mozart?
Comparing music is too much subjective.

Yeah. The Used probably sucks and Mozart is freaking amazing. Seriously though, the quality of the music can definitely be compared regardless of genre.

[quote=name:Phobos][color=#CE091D]So you can compare The Used and Mozart? Comparing music is too much subjective.[/color][/quote] [quote=name:Dapperdan]Yeah. The Used probably sucks and Mozart is freaking amazing. Seriously though, the quality of the music can definitely be compared regardless of genre.[/quote] [color=#CE091D]Not saying Mozart is not. even for my musical taste Mozart is good. But I still do not see how would you compare two very different things...[/color]

Quote from Phobos[MM]

So you can compare The Used and Mozart?
Comparing music is too much subjective.

Quote from Dapperdan

Yeah. The Used probably sucks and Mozart is freaking amazing. Seriously though, the quality of the music can definitely be compared regardless of genre.

Not saying Mozart is not. even for my musical taste Mozart is good. But I still do not see how would you compare two very different things...

The Used and Mozart are not genre's, you can compare them by their artistic values and Mozart is simply better, more people have heard of Mozart then most will have heard of The Used, that and he was some kind of musical prodigy, the only thing people like about The Used, is their vocals, either because they relate to the words or feel like they're expressing themselves by listening to the music, the instrumental itself is not necessarily an amazing piece of work. I will read the rest tomorrow, i wake up in 6 hours for work, expect another reply o.O

The Used and Mozart are not genre's, you can compare them by their artistic values and Mozart is simply better, more people have heard of Mozart then most will have heard of The Used, that and he was some kind of musical prodigy, the only thing people like about The Used, is their vocals, either because they relate to the words or feel like they're expressing themselves by listening to the music, the instrumental itself is not necessarily an amazing piece of work.

I will read the rest tomorrow, i wake up in 6 hours for work, expect another reply o.O

[quote=Centreri]You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc.[/quote] Rofl... So I suppose that because Mozart composed three of his most famous symphonies in two months, and that nowadays these symphonies are rarely performed in comparison to the popular styles, the genre of the classical symphony is a relatively effortless one... Artistic masterpieces may take some talent and effort, but they also require inspiration, which can make up for the effort it takes to make something great. Without an artist being inspired, art cannot form.

Quote from Centreri

You can compare them by effort required to make a 'masterpiece' in the genre, the popularity, etc.

Rofl... So I suppose that because Mozart composed three of his most famous symphonies in two months, and that nowadays these symphonies are rarely performed in comparison to the popular styles, the genre of the classical symphony is a relatively effortless one...

Artistic masterpieces may take some talent and effort, but they also require inspiration, which can make up for the effort it takes to make something great. Without an artist being inspired, art cannot form.

[quote]Good to see you read my post. :bleh: [/quote] Phine. I admit it, I didn't read it, but even then, I expanded on it. [quote]Not saying Mozart is not. even for my musical taste Mozart is good. But I still do not see how would you compare two very different things...[/quote] Mozart was a brilliant composer who inspired Beethoven and eventually led to the Romantic period. There are very few people who know pop bands who don't know Mozart. Mozart wrote music in several genres, such as symphonies and concertos. Mozart's career spanned for roughly 30 years (not sure, just giving examples). Mozart is dead. As you can see, you can compare things pretty damn easily :P.

Quote

Good to see you read my post.

Phine. I admit it, I didn't read it, but even then, I expanded on it.

Quote

Not saying Mozart is not. even for my musical taste Mozart is good. But I still do not see how would you compare two very different things...

Mozart was a brilliant composer who inspired Beethoven and eventually led to the Romantic period. There are very few people who know pop bands who don't know Mozart. Mozart wrote music in several genres, such as symphonies and concertos. Mozart's career spanned for roughly 30 years (not sure, just giving examples). Mozart is dead.

As you can see, you can compare things pretty damn easily .

[color=#b5b5ff]It makes me sick when people try to debate music by defining the "best band ever," as if they have any idea what music is. 'nuff said.[/color]

It makes me sick when people try to debate music by defining the "best band ever," as if they have any idea what music is.

'nuff said.

What about this: who's the best composer ever based on all-time popularity and complexity of music? Is [b]that[/b] an unreasonable question?

What about this: who's the best composer ever based on all-time popularity and complexity of music? Is that an unreasonable question?

[color=#b5b5ff]Of course [s]not[/s], this thread was hijacked by intellectuals a while ago :p Just saying.[/color]

Of course not, this thread was hijacked by intellectuals a while ago

Just saying.

Goody. Just checking if you were agreeing or disagreeing. What? It can be hard to tell. :><:

Goody. Just checking if you were agreeing or disagreeing.



What? It can be hard to tell.