caio,
i couldn't care any less what you say about the beatles or, anyone else.
the point you seem to be making, that i disagree with, is that there is
something inherently better about some arts over others. you seem to have
bought into some elitest notion that there can be a hierarchy of tastes
(italian furniture over star trek furniture or, woody allen over buffy). if
i had to categorize it, you seem to hold that which is accepted by academia,
in higher regard than that which is shunned by academia. additionally, you
seem to be asking us to accept this as a given rather than giving us an
argument as to why we should.
if you want to look at complexity and excellence in construction as the
litmus test for the value of an art, consider the twinkie and the nuclear
weapon. if i'm hungry, i'd rather have the twinkie (maybe someone should
point this out to india and pakistan). if i want to be entertained, i'll
take the sex pistols over the st. matthew passion, anytime. the excellence
of the latter's construction is not enough to do the trick.
accepting elitist standards without reason, is no better than exhaulting
the beatles beyond reason. 'revolver' is one of the best albums ever, not
because it is, but, because i think so. show me that i don't!
mike
|
