And I guess what I'm saying is I don't think that critics, on a large scale, really shape how music is remembered. They do for people who also approach music with a critic's mindset, perhaps, but not for the millions of other people who just approach it as listeners (many of whom, in my experience, are no less enthusiastic about it than the so-called "serious" music fans). Music elitism is a self-perpetuating fallacy--a bunch of critically-minded people agreeing that the "accurate" version of history is the one written by, surprise, other critics, and those who simply enjoy music according to different criteria are therefore caught up in some kind of errant illusion about what "good music" really is. It's nonsense.Birds in Hell wrote:I'm not suggesting anyone use that as a basis for what they like and don't like; I certainly don't. All I meant is that when critics talk about excellent rock music of the 70s, they talk about bands like Big Star or Television and not Foghat or Foreigner (who sold a great deal more records at the time.)
There are many "serious" music fans on this board, many of whom originally came here because of an uncharacteristically strong fondness for Pearl Jam. Some have moved on, which is fine, but most of us still think that Pearl Jam have done some wonderful things as musicians, as artists, even if we're not crazy about certain individual works. Likewise, many of us are not people with narrow tastes, or with our unwashed heads forever lodged up the flannel-clad asses of 1995; we're people with large record collections spanning many decades and many genres, containing much of the same music that "serious" listeners are drooling over, yet still choosing to let Pearl Jam, in whatever capacity, be a part of it. I think you can find a lot of proof that "Pearl Jam" and "serious listening" are not mutually exclusive, just by looking around.
, and cornell would pop up occasionally with audioslave and he did that bond song, so i was at least aware of him.If not soundgarden specifically.
