Tako wrote:
> 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.
And also wrote:
>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.
If you mean shedding tears at Malsmsteen music, I agree, but that's not his purpose. But many of his songs ( Dreaming, I am a viking, and others ) give me a high that I can't get from Clapton or others. Therefore, he communicates ( some of ) his ideas, feeling, and values to people ( like me! ).
>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. >
What I meant was that musical ( or, as you will, technical ) quality has nothing to do with your liking it or not. It has to do with objective features in music. My mother is not half as 'superior' as Mother Teresa was, but if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd choose my mother. What my mother means to me has to do with my life story, and so does one's taste in music, and so on. Musical ( technical ) quality has to do with how far a certain civilization or group has gone in that field and how that piece of music relates with what has been achieved. Pop music is objectively inferior to classical music, but most of what I like to listen to is in the pop area ( though not SO popular, like Dream Theater, Angra, Rhapsody, Joe Satriani, etc ).
> You also seem to know a lot more about historic singers.
Ops, that's not me! I'm inferior in that area too.:-)
bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|
| |