Interesting discussion.JupiterJones wrote:If we define great as "historically significant, broadly critically lauded, and/or having a strong influential impact on the art form", or something more objective like that, then I agree. It would tough to argue that "Sgt Pepper's" or "Let it Bleed" were not great albums.Petrocelli wrote: I hate to disagree with the good professor, but there are great songs, albums, movies and restaurants. There just are.
But if we dial it back to a more personal, subjective level--which is likely the level at which the professor was putting it--it's not quite so cut-and-dried. I never was a big Stones fan, so while I recognize that "Let it Bleed" is an important album, I don't personally consider it "great" to me (and in fact I probably would rather listen to Barry Manilow's Greatest Hits... there are some killer tunes on there!)
Let me make the point this way.
If I like the Sistine Chapel, and you don't, that means we like different things. But if you try to argue that that work of art is not "great", you are wrong.
If I like Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and you don't, that means we like different things. But if you try to argue that that work of art is not "great", you are wrong.
Rock music is another form of art. As an art form, it has created great works of art -- like Revolver, or London Calling, or Are You Experienced. If you argue those albums are not "great", you are wrong.
As for the college professor, I have to admit, he was right on when he said Rod Stewart's Hot Legs wasn't "great." However, for him or her trying to tell a group of students not to use the word "great" when discussing art is so dopey that only a college professor could say it and get away with it.