|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 27, 2018 2:35:50 GMT
So if what's good is subjective (which I'm pretty sure you believe; as do I), then why isn't influence as valid a standard for judging goodness as any other? Obviously, I'm giving my opinion that whether something is good has nothing to do with influence. Fair enough. Because of the stature that Cobain has, which was most strongly impacted by his suicide, where he's basically seen as a martyr. I'm not sure I agree Cobain's stature is any greater than Bowie's or Radiohead's or Bono's. They're all legends. In a recent thread about the Russian involvement with the U.S. election, suzi said (to another poster, not me), "So you don't believe that people buy into the things they hear on the news, or on the internet?" I responded, "Whenever one suggests that there's anyone who doesn't just think for themselves, as if they existed in a vacuum, everyone has a cow and seems to suggest that social influence is just a myth. I've had that happen a ton of times on various boards." I'm not suggesting social influence is a myth, but affect is different from effect. Look at Cobain's list of his top 50 albums. Right below Pixies is The Breeders. They're respected to an extent, but nowhere near the level Pixies are. So why didn't Cobain's praise of them have the same affect? Clearly there's more to it than that. I'd have to listen to them again to detail it. I know I detailed it on the old music board when we were going through the Rolling Stone magazine top 500 albums . . . but I didn't save that, and it was a couple years ago now. If it's too much trouble you don't have to bother. The only "formula" I really hear with them is the soft verse/loud chorus dynamic, but they have plenty of songs that don't do that. |
|
