rayc
retroreprobate
...and neither a borrower nor a lender be?The appreciation of the many different forms of rock music and the amount of technical ability required to execute each is paramount. There are many great “hit” songs that have very simple song structures and are relatively easy to learn or play; while other styles of rock music may demand greater discipline to master. In either case, neither should be diminished, discouraged or disrespected.
Neither patronizing nor condescending be.
Respect is earned.
Discouragement is sometimes necessary.
Some things diminish with time others with overexposure and still others as the fad passes.
Opinion is permitted, indeed encouraged along with the ability to support that opinion.
SOMETIMES, as in matters of taste &/or gut reaction there is no quantitative or "justifiable" evidence but that personal response.
If I prefer Slade to Yngwie Malmsteen or Arnold Schoenberg to Schubert and have been exposed to Malmsteen & Schubert enough to make an informed decision then that's my preference.
I don't need to be reminded that Slade were a pop band who were very good at what they did but were not virtuosos nor that Arnold worked in a very, very unpopular strand of music that even he abandoned in time.
An appreciation of these folk's technical ability is not required to enjoy, like or dislike their music.
Rather it may assist one appreciating the music's form, function or time frame without having to like it.
There are a great many pieces of music based on complex structures, virtuoso playing and/or/with/without impenetrable philosophy that remain rarely, if ever heard - particularly by the herd in my feed lot.