The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
Why are there age limits? why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old? Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws. Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth); while the worst age is after the mid 30s. And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology. Therefore it is much more natural to have a child at 16 than at 40. In countless countries of the world women have their first child at a very young age, and stop having children at a relatively young age. Nonetheless, in the USA it is illegal to have sex before 18 (but, note, only if the partner is over 18, which is like saying that it is ok to rob a bank if you are a banker), while it is perfectly legal to get pregnant at 40 or (thanks to medical progress) even at 70.
Note that all of these forms of marriage were common in ancient times before the introduction of Christian "morality" (Islam, which came after Christianity, still allows them). Therefore one could find stronger arguments in favor of these forms of marriage than in favor of homosexual marriage (which has been relatively rare throughout the centuries and is persecuted in just about every society of the world).
Today incest is illegal, but it was common in ancient times (all kings and queens of Egypt married their siblings or mothers): why is it illegal for two siblings to get married and why does incest disqualify a couple from adopting children?
>>64713988
And, if we expand the definition of marriage to all of these categories, what rights do we give them? For example, to me it looks much more natural for a group of two men and three women to raise children (as it was in most ancestral societies) than for a same-sex couple to do so (something for which i find no precedents in ancestral societies). A family without a man or without a woman goes against biology, and probably has psychological consequences for which the entire society will have to pay.
>>64713988
These are some pretty compelling arguments.
I have Satie, Mozart, Beethoven , Debussy, Stravinsky, The Beatles, Bob Marley, Joan Baez,Bob Dylan, Hugo Wolf, Mahler's Kinder toten lieder, J.S. Bach, the third movement of Scheherazade, plus the other three parts, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Porter, Berlin, Kurt Weil, Miles Davis sixties quintet, Stan Getz doing Jobim, the first Bulgarian Voices album, in short perfect taste, plus I'm trained in theory and I have a high level of technique on the piano from the Hanon book and a jazz trio(so called, but too wild harmonically and rhythmically for lounge zombies). Yet I'm a bridge personality. I have the theoretical basis to know when I'm hearing lame chord changes, but I disengage my rational faculties and therefore go directly to the core of the composition, which is transcendent of theory. I only turn to theory when the aesthetic result is tepid, as it is in Daniel's songs. Then I ask "why isn't this doing anything?" well, there's no tension in the melodies; they fall too neatly into the chords, which are very conservative. Then the grooves are typical folk strumming, so nothing there. So we're down to the literary aspect of it, and my standards for that are Yeats, Rilke, Neruda, so good luck with that. Sorry if I misjudged you thought. I don't like to personally insult anyone. I live for beauty, so sue me. I look forward to a future pop music that is truly wild, don't you? Something that will even make Debussy's or Scriabin's chords seem conservative. I'm coming from a place of hope, but I must dismiss average music.
https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/
Scaruffi debunked.
>>64714068
it's not funny to bring that up again
let it fade into history
Fucking go to bed already, you scruffy wop!
>>64713958
Most people just prefer things that are easier to understand.
>>64714502
music is not to be understood, it's to be felt. Scaruffi drones are so retarded.
>>64714027
The whole point behind not marrying 12-year olds isn't that 16 don't make biologically good mothers, but that usually a marriage such as that is rarely the choice of the wife.
Even if it is, there is the concern that adult males (or females) would psychologically manipulate young girls (or boys) since they are so much ahead at their mental development.
Young people are allowed to have sex with each other because it is less likely for them to be fucking with each other's head as much as a 25 year old would fuck with a 12 year old's head.
