Two of a perfect pair

The Dark Elf wrote: Fischman wrote: Wow, So many people with such a narrow appreciation of music! Ha-ha-ha! That was a good one! No, wait...you're actually serious aren't you? Please, expound. What, praytell, has been said that would cause you to come to the inane conclusion that anyone here has a "narrow appreciation for music"?  This should be amusing.

hahah. Oh we should get a hotel room for you two...

hahahah.. I like that. 

Not what I was saying at all, but if that's the sort of extrapolation you have to apply to feel like you've made sense of what I said, go with it.

I like Genesis better than Rush and King Crimson better than Yes. So, I’m making a write in vote for Genesis and King Crimson, particularly since Genesis bought their mellotron from Crimson.

Such an opinion of Rush's supreme greatness comes across as quite narrow-minded (me, I haven't heard every band ever, and even if I had, I don't think that I could judge who is greatest, especially if they come from a wide range of styles). I did vote for the King Crimson/ Rush combo, but because of King Crimson which is easily my favourite of the four, but I won't claim best -- loved Rush as a teenager. I recognise that I have biases and my appreciation for musical forms could definitely be wider. I generally prefer classical music to metal, folk to rap, jazz to emo, Chamber Prog to country, and a huge amount of music over Rush (I still have respect for Rush). There are a lot of different types of music that I do love, and a lot that I don't. I do recognise that Rush are talented musicians, but that doesn't mean that the music must resonate with me anymore than I would automatically expect a Rush fan to enjoy Ligeti. To each his or her own tastes.

Fischman wrote: Logan wrote: Such an opinion of Rush's supreme greatness comes across as quite narrow-minded (me, I haven't heard every band ever, and even if I had, I don't think that I could judge who is greatest, especially if they come from a wide range of styles). I did vote for the King Crimson/ Rush combo, but because of King Crimson which is easily my favourite of the four, but I won't claim best -- loved Rush as a teenager. I recognise that I have biases and my appreciation for musical forms could definitely be wider. I generally prefer classical music to metal, folk to rap, jazz to emo, Chamber Prog to country, and a huge amount of music over Rush (I still have respect for Rush). There are a lot of different types of music that I do love, and a lot that I don't. I do recognise that Rush are talented musicians, but that doesn't mean that the music must resonate with me anymore than I would automatically expect a Rush fan to enjoy Ligeti. To each his or her own tastes. Well, supremeness is pretty much in the ear of the beholder.  Lots of great musicians out there and not all will resonate with everyone.  I know that, because they are my fave need not mean they be any one else's.  And I also know that, even when I say "best," that is strictly by my criteria, which may or may not match anybody else's criteria for what music they think is best. So I don't find my level of appreciation for Rush to be "narrow minded."  I do respond when people simply dismiss them out of hand because they don't resonate with them, and then try to make up objective reasons for not liking them to back up their negative visceral reaction.  And I have levied some negative criticisms of Rush.  If Rush is discovered much more on this site, I'll probably share even more.  Just because they're my fave, doesn't mean I automatically proclaim everything they do as magnificent.  I'll fess up when they drop a stinker, and they've dropped a few. And btw, I'm also a huge classical fan.  And these days, my biggest musical time commitment is with jazz.  My collection also has lots of Celtic/Native American/Other World Music, Funk, Rock in all its forms, Blues, and much more.  There are artists in most of those genres I hold in very high regard as well.  So again, I think any accusations of narrow-mindedness are misplaced.

Greatness is in the ear of the behearer, but one can engage a level of objectivity to back up one's assertions.

Fair enough, and I meant to write "can come across as narrow-minded". I had written a much longer post, but edited it down as I promised myself that I'd try to learn to be succinct (some people here manage just one word posts regularly, not that I could narrow down my thoughts that much). Saying "IMO the most amazing, intelligent, skilled, thoughtful, musically accomplished group of all time" might seem to be extraordinary claims which would then require extraordinary evidence, but I understand your intent. By the way, the best opinions are well-informed ones, and the more music you know and the more you know about music, the better informed the opinion. I'm hardly a music scholar.

I like to be open-minded through being ultimately agnostic about all things, but we all have our biases, and so none of us are totally without prejudice or totally objective in our opinions (we are all a little close-minded. As the saying goes, I like to be open-minded, just not so open-minded that my brains fall out, and the first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance.

I can give subjective reasons why I don't like them (I'm generally not into hard rock or "melodic rock"). I highly doubt that they are, say (to use my own words) the most technically proficient, versatile, or creative musicians about, and I would be very surprised if Geddy Lee was found to be the most technical and gifted singer in the world using reasonably objective frameworks and sensitive tools of measurement. I wouldn't claim supremacy of any band as I have not heard all of them, and even if I had, and I were terrific at playing various instruments and had a Doctorate in Music Studies from Juilliard and the School of Rock, I think that I would be sceptical of any such claims that I would make -- within set frameworks of analysis one can be quite objective within those parameters. I had a friend who was very big on Rush who played the drums and used to think that Peart was the best, when he went to university to study percussion, his opinion changed. Now that's just one person's opinion, and I don't hold that as strong evidence for him not being "the best" by any objective measures.

Of course if someone tries to make an objective argument for their lack of talent, or for the opposite, then one can start shooting holes in it -- such that it will satisfy or change the minds of even very sceptical people. Not an easy job logically, and evidence can be interpreted differently.

Anyway, I do get what you're saying, but such claims, even if poised as opinion, can be seen as very fanboyish indeed and comes across as close-minded in that they are seen as prejudicial (show biases) and lacking sufficient objectivity. An open-mind is, in part, one that avoids drawing conclusions when lacking sufficient evidence and good arguments for an objective appraisal. Of course when it comes to our own criteria, it helps in communication if other people understand our criteria.

I don't find Rush that great from my perspective and limited musical training, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be great for you. With various of my favourite bands in the archives, and some that I don't enjoy, I have tried to convince the detractors that the music has merit and if they listen to the right music they might enjoy it even, especially if I don't feel that their claims hold up to close scrutiny (sometimes it shows ignorance about the oeuvre -- e.g. people making hasty conclusions based on too limited knowledge of the works -- and ignorance about the style of music).

Definitely failed to make this short, sorry for any rambling and not touching on your points enough.