Taste the diffidence
So I ask, what is more impressive. Being the Beatles and captivating a huge audience and changing peoples life in music at a time where there was still much to be explored, or be a band, for example Radiohead. Who have captivated a massive audience for themselves (although obviously not on the scale as The Beatles) and changed the lives of some, at a time where pretty much (In my opinion) 90% of music has been tried, tested and done to death.
I personally think the latter.
Thanks for jumping in, your thoughts are appreciated.
I had sort of framed the matter as you did, here, only I didn't consider the idea that Radiohead are to be commended for having won a small audience out of a populace of disparate listeners. It's an interesting point.
It's all subjective anyway. We can all scream and argue until were blue in the face but you can't and won't change someones mind. If you enjoy music being created today you enjoy it, no amount of people arguing can make you change your mind.
I think everyone agrees with this. I know I do. Having a spirited discussion doesn't mean we're proving anything, and I don't imagine for a moment anyone is convinced of what I'm saying. Conversations don't have to be useful to be useful.
As I've said from the start, we're attempting to talk objectively about a subject that probably doesn't allow for it. The idea behind doing that, at least on my side, is that perhaps more objectivity is possible than we think. Saying Joy Division sucks is just taste. But if an argument can be made that other factors contribute to Joy Division sucking, it's at least worth shooting the breeze about.