This came up for me on another form where people are obsessively "ranking" King Crimson albums.
Art is not a sport where one wins at the expense of another; it is not a zero-sum game. Why does Gentle Giant have to be "better" than King Crimson (or vice versa)? Is ITCOTKC objectively "better" or "worse" than , say, Islands or Discipline or LTIA? Can't I just say, it's all good, and enjoy it without having to rank-and-rate like they were employees and I had to decide on their bonuses/raises?
I've been seeing rashes of this on PE over the years. One seems to be going on right now.
Admittedly: One woman's mead is another woman's poisson. For example: I don't happen to like The Eagles - indeed, they are to me the distilled essence of everything bad in music. But millions of people take joy in their, uh, songs, so more power to them. Perhaps some of you take joy in applying silly arbitrary numeric values and treating art like a contest. I don't know.
I just don't get it.
Bookmarks