Why do some classic movie fans bash newer films? in General Discussions Posted April 14, 2019 Quote Sarge, I gotta admit I'm a bit surprised, too, that someone who seems to have such low regard for the intelligence of the general public would have such faith in it's ability to unanimously recognize absolute perfection when it comes along. Or do I have this backwards? These two 'high-handed' verdicts of mine (taken from two different thread discussions) are not incompatible. First: any obvious, practical truth can be 'recognized' by a public no matter what level of intellect they otherwise possess. When millions of people tap their feet and whistle and snap their fingers to a song on the radio, what intellect is needed to recognize this? Quote Are you saying that the legendary greatness of the Beatles is due largely to the fact that they are so very influential, No! I'm not saying that their greatness is 'due to' their huge influence on all subsequent music. It does not STEM FROM this. This is not the relationship. You have it the wrong way around. I'm saying rather, that their enormous influence is evidence of their deep impact on music. There are many such tell-tale signs, 'influence on other musicians' is BUT ONE clue. It indicates that they were not just a popular fad taken up by audience-morons. Audiences are USUALLY morons. But in this case, intelligent and gifted musicians changed the course of their careers based on what this foursome did. That doesn't just happen. To affect your PEERS, (not just the goofy PUBLIC) you gotta have serious clout. Credibility. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I admire the energy of your reply. But as far as an argument, I pored through the rest of your remarks and do not see a single thing which is stated plainly enough for me to respond to. Now, when it comes to Woody Guthrie--the chief example of my previous reply--you seem to want to defray the point I made, by questioning just what Guthrie achieved. I am not sure why you think 'dissecting' Guthrie's appeal has any bearing on what we can all agree on: namely, what he accomplished. It is so huge as to be beyond question, I would have thought? It seems to be a thing beyond subjective interpretation. His legend is universally accepted and agreed upon. It is one thing to describe why Woody became popular but this has nothing to do with the upshot of his career which stands very clearly and plainly in its results. Remember why Woody Guthrie was cited by me in the first place. I mentioned some major bands which are above 'taste' and you suggested that the MONEY they made was the reason why they were so renowned. So I naturally HAD to cite Woody Guthrie. Demonstrating that 'money' has nothing to do with this. My original point was that down through music history there are artists which transcend passing tastes of any era. You raised the idea that commercialism might be responsible for this, so I then cited Guthrie as an example of a colossal talent which had no commercialism. I could have cited others. Now, you are quibbling with me as to why there might be 'some other reasons' why Woody (specifically) became so widely known. It doesn't matter! Stick to the original point and counterpoint! You asserted something ('money' being the reason for fame) and the example of Woody Guthrie definitively deflected the objection you raised. Don't move the goalposts. I'm not brushing aside your questions. Here's your next query: Quote I would not suggest that musical astuteness directly means someone hasn't any taste, but I raise an eyebrow to anyone who would listen to any artist just because he thinks it would be musically astute of him to do so, (unless he's in the process of educating himself,) even tho he doesn't really like it. No one is asserting this at all. You are inserting a motive into a hypothetical person in order to discount it. Its completely unrelated. No one need have an intrinsic motive such as you describe. Who exactly is 'listening to any artist just because he thinks it grants him the position to discern quality'? Where does this idea come from? You? Its just not the way it works. No one listens to music they don't like, in order to make pronouncements on music. Many people are just naturally interested in music and a few of these individuals develop the scrutiny to discern what is behind their taste and the taste of others. This is not due to an ulterior or 'personal' motive. Quote Makes me think of that line in Born Yesterday, "But I wanna like what it's better to like!" Those teens on the bus were looking for something they liked, and didn't necessarily reveal anything about themselves when they flipped by the Beatles, a band we've all heard enough to hurl by now. It would be pretty pretentious of them to leave it on, pretend to like it, and sit there trying to look astute. The teens on the bus DID display something VERY revealing about their musical intellect, and I have no idea why this riles you so much. The points in the story itself reveal why this is the only conclusion one can draw. Remember they are TEENS. They are too young to have developed depthful taste. Their situation is therefore dissimilar to the fact that older people have been exposed to the Beatles (in an over-saturated way). So your whole chain of assumption --stemming from this point -- collapses, and it is exactly the kind of argument which is maddening to someone like me in that it strays from the established points which should not be questioned. Rebutt fairly!