As always exhaustive and convincing, Tones. Suppose such nature makes it easier to appreciate classical music.tones said:Well, I will confess to liking some, Erik - I have a very small collection of pop/rock, mainly for one track, perhaps two, on a CD, the rest of which never gets listened to. However, with my overwhelmingly classical tastes, I could never vote for a rock song as being really great.
In fact, if I had to choose quality popular music, it would have to be back in the 1920s-1940s, when the likes of Rogers, Gershwin, Kern, Lerner & Loewe, Porter, produced music and lyrics the quality and sophistication of which have never been surpassed, with only the Beatles at their most creative coming anywhere near. Somebody elsewhere in this thread mentioned Sinatra. Before he became an institution, with people obliged to applaud every groan, the young Frank was brilliant in his delivery of songs, with phrasing and style rarely equalled. Old Sinatra collections are a bargain. It's like classical - once you get a taste for it, you can never go back.

As a member of the 'lower sentiments' generation and getting a little older meanwhile, I find myself more and more looking for the craftsmanship of those who in the first place choosed for their abilities instead (if tolerated by the industry) of the wish for popularity.
Everything was better in the past and this will never change. Which explains why, despite that modern times allow of recognizing and stimulating talents and have them flourishing in areas of science or sports, more and better then ever before in history, when it comes down to art, any modern output is not as appealing as the legacy of the Beatles, Gershwin, Bach, Van Gogh or Rembrandt. The sheer lapse of time and the coincidence of being discovered discerns qaulity from chaff at least as much as the presence of talent itself.
Will add Sinatra's early Columbia years to the shortlist.