Discussion in 'Polls' started by Foinikas, Sep 20, 2007.
name me a masterpiece that doesnt have a certain amount of age!!!
Depends on what you define as being a masterpiece.
your missing the point entirely WL
a masterpiece is usually considered one astists best piece, this is usually only judged after they stop making music fo obvious reasons.
but the fact is that time does not change the sequence of notes, the quality of the music or any other factor, the music is the same the moment its made as it is a hundred years later, thus elapsed time is IRRELEVENT in comparing old music to modern music.
So ...what about historically?
sure but WL is trying to discount modern music using this flawed methodology which is a very poor attempt at changing the debate parameters to suit his own cause.
are you saying that a masterpiece would not have to withstand time?
Really now these tangents are getting tiresome. time is irrelevant when comapring modern music, as the time has not elapsed yet you still havent countered that point and I fail to see how going in circles clarifies it any more. Ive named plenty of great musicians, why dont you start discounting them on their music instead of how long theyve been around.
ive got another argument up my sleeve... but im not saying anything yet...
all i wanted to know btw... was if you thought a masterpiece had to live on through time... thats all...
i know where your coming from... i understand that modern music hasnt had time to age, but we were never comparing modern music... but music in general... and if it goes by that, I believe that time is a huge factor in the popularity of a song...
Music in genereal, therefore no genre or time period should have any weighting over any other, as ive said TIME IS IRRELEVENT and is pointless discussing so lets simply put it like this, music in genereal the best way to compare would be to simply list popular musicians regardless of time and then the country with more wins.
wait... there is another flaw in your thingy...
think about it... were the Beatles were popular in england, Ireland, America etc... in France they weren't all that popular...
so thats 3 countries against 1 in your statement alone. so already youve shown they were popular.
and yes the beatles are popular worldwide.
yes... but since you are unfamiliar with ALL music industries... you can only say what is popular in england...
when you assume you make an ass out of u and me
you care finding evidence that they werent popular worldwide?
Well I can't stand for proof that they are popular worldwide...
they are popular worldwide... but how popular???
If you want numbers I can't give it to you, but everybody knows their name. Some will know more about them than the other...I can't think of any French (or even Belgian for that matter) singer, composer or band which has the same effect.
The Beattles suck!But Briggite Bardot has a very nice voice!Not to mention body
I love Englands' Heavy Metal bands
Just the comment I would expect from someone like you!
Um...sorry why would you expect me to hate Beattles?You know my music tastes?
Separate names with a comma.