Ok Grant, so you think art is the sum of parts. No one said that Moulin Rouge sucked. So everyone agrees that Moulin Rouge as art in the sum of its part, was GOOD. I don't see why you're trying to stress this point. Nobody is disagreeing with you. Karen liked Moulin Rouge and so did I. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the vocals weren't great. And nobody said that the vocals being bad made it a bad movie. It's being able to take something that we think is good and admit that flaws DO exist. But did we ever assert that that flaw ruined the entire movie the way you seem to think Bryan Adam's lyrics ruined the entire song?
Even if we look at Bryan Adam's song within the context of it being the sum of its parts, it still makes it pointless to debate on. Nothing came out of that debate. You still think it's a bad song because the lyrics were bad. Is that in any way modified from what you thought before? No. In the same instance, I still think it's a good song regardless of his bad lyrics (and you still need to explain to me why they're so bad). Is that in any way modified from what I thought before? Again, no.
Things that are a matter of purely personal tastes is something I often find pointless to debate on. You can argue the mechanics of something or you can argue interpretations of something, but arguing if a song is good or bad is almost like arguing about say whether or not tomatoes taste good or bad. Food is a prime example. If I think tomatoes taste nice and someone else thinks they taste bad, there's absolutely no point debating about whether or not tomatoes taste good or bad because it's a matter of personal taste. Something like a song is the same thing. Tomatoes appeal to our tastes, a song appeals to our ears. So if I think a song sounds good and someone else thinks a song sounds bad, it's a standpoint that depends largely on how your brain interprets what you hear. If Karen thinks the vocals are weak and Grant does not, what is the point of contention? If you break it down into mechanics, then yes, Karen is right. But if Grant's ears don't hear that weakness, that's hardly going to matter to him. That's why I think it's pointless, especially when we all agree that it was a good movie overall.
Even if we look at Bryan Adam's song within the context of it being the sum of its parts, it still makes it pointless to debate on. Nothing came out of that debate. You still think it's a bad song because the lyrics were bad. Is that in any way modified from what you thought before? No. In the same instance, I still think it's a good song regardless of his bad lyrics (and you still need to explain to me why they're so bad). Is that in any way modified from what I thought before? Again, no.
Things that are a matter of purely personal tastes is something I often find pointless to debate on. You can argue the mechanics of something or you can argue interpretations of something, but arguing if a song is good or bad is almost like arguing about say whether or not tomatoes taste good or bad. Food is a prime example. If I think tomatoes taste nice and someone else thinks they taste bad, there's absolutely no point debating about whether or not tomatoes taste good or bad because it's a matter of personal taste. Something like a song is the same thing. Tomatoes appeal to our tastes, a song appeals to our ears. So if I think a song sounds good and someone else thinks a song sounds bad, it's a standpoint that depends largely on how your brain interprets what you hear. If Karen thinks the vocals are weak and Grant does not, what is the point of contention? If you break it down into mechanics, then yes, Karen is right. But if Grant's ears don't hear that weakness, that's hardly going to matter to him. That's why I think it's pointless, especially when we all agree that it was a good movie overall.
posted by JW at 5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home