So, if I'm understanding this correctly now, what you are really saying is that there are various levels of musicianship and the higher level of musicianship a band is/has achieved, the better the band. Nickleback are apprentices compared to The Beatles mastery whereas possibly both The Beatles and The Stones may have reached the same level of Mastery (or at least negligible differences in their mastery) making them "better" than the "average" band. And by extension their music and the appeal of that music is better. If thats the case, then I understand what you are saying, but don't agree. I still think that the term "better" is subjective when it comes to music and it basically boils down to "what moves you." I think The Beatles are better than The Stones and no expert would ever be able to convince me otherwise even if they could prove through music theory etc., that The Stones were head and shoulders beyond The Beatles. I'd also say Depeche Mode were better than The Stones and all they did was play a bunch of synthesizers... Their music still moves me more than The Stones so they are better to me. It's a close call between The Beatles and DM.
Edit: oops, too late. Have a good night SSSS, this debate could probably go on forever with neither of us convinced of the others take. Fun to discuss anyway.


Reply With Quote











