On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Caio Rossi wrote:
> Malmsteen, for instance, is musically better than Clapton for
> objective reasons: what he does with the guitar is far more complex than
> what Clapton does. Popularity, that is, social recognition, has nothing to
> do with that.
I think you mean technically better... To me musically better means
serving the purpose of music better - i.e. communicating ideas, feeling,
values to people. You may not care for Clapton's songs, but some people
(including me) were very moved by his "Tears in Heaven" regardless of its
supposed technical shortcomings. It did its job well. I doubt anyone has
every been brought to an emotional crossroads by a Malmsteen song. He has
no sincerity or originality. Musicality is not about showing off.
> I think you know much more than I do about
> singing and music in general, therefore you're 'musically superior', but
> you've never used that to shove anyone off a discussion here. The same is
> true about Lloyd, Mike and many others here on the list. Superiority is
> determined by facts, not by ovation.
First off, please don't think I am musically superior to you, cuz I'm not
(it is very generous of you to say it, though ;-) There has been no actual
music on this list - so there is no way to judge musical superiority. More
knowlege means just means more study in a specific subject. You know way
more than I do on a variety of subjects, including the music of your
culture. You also seem to know a lot more about historic singers. Even if
I were hypothetically to "know" more than you, it wouldn't make me a
better musician. For all you know, I may be an egghead with great
chops but with no musical instincts at all! (none of these are true,
btw ;-)
-Tako
|
|  |
