Originally Posted by
Arty50
Frankly, I'm with iceman on this one. Why must we compare? Each had their own flavor. Another similarly silly debate is John Bonham vs. Keith Moon. They're both amazing drummers, and very different. It's funny how rock lovers get into these debates. I blame Rolling Stone; their top 10/100/500 lists are silly. I mean, Eddie Van Halen was once ranked #1. Come on, get real.
People get all silly over music. I'm guilty of this myself. But think about it. Almost every musician is influenced by other musicians. It's art, that's how art works. You hear or see something and then it gives you an idea. Your idea may actually be quite original in the end, but that key piece of prior art still influenced your thought process. That's why there's really no true definition for Blues, Rock, Jazz, Classical, etc. People have their own takes on music and thus can pave their own course. The only reason we should label it is to make it easy to find in a record store or to dig up in iTunes.
I agree whole-heartedly with your second point. I have a problem with your first because it's completely natural to have strong opinions about something that you are passionate about. Someone else may be equally passionate but have a different view and arguements are inevitable. It has nothing to do with Rolling Stone. I agree that RS fits in somewhere between wall and toilet on the paper spectrum (if that's what you're saying), but it doesn't provoke opinions (and therefore arguments) in music lovers, loving music does.
Everybody likes 1 thing more than another. Throw in 2 stubborn dudes both passionate about music and a bunch of Coors Light and you've got yourself a debate.
You know, there's like a butt-load of gangs at this school. This one gang kept wanting me to join because I'm pretty good with a bowstaff.
Bookmarks