>>3160962>>3160964Yep. The Grammy's winning albums are all musically pleasing to me. They're also musically pleasing to the Grammy's committee. They're also musically pleasing to the vast majority of serious musicians and artists out there. There's a reason why the Grammy's is a prestigious award for musicians. If you're not seeing the artistic value of those albums, what do you think is more likely: that your high school brain isn't developed enough to appreciate how compositionally good they are, or that EVERYONE ELSE in the music world is wrong?
Like, let's look at that Taylor Swift's 1989's Shake It Off you just posted. It's not just "a generic pop song". It's a generic pop song and a high musical point. It's highlighting the crusin' of a girl, the teeming throng. It's broadcasting she can't stop, won't stop moving, saying "it's going to be all right" and lots of repetition in different parts that tells us she is going to shake it off, shake it off, shake it off, shake it off. And center of the song, where the ear is drawn most, you have a girl saying players gonna play, play, play, play in a look to shake, shake, shake, shake it off pathos. That is one decisive fucking chorus right there.
You can try to make up your own way of almost any photo being a total masterpiece. How many chances and "decisive moments" do you think these people get spending months looking at a million refugees?
In the 09 photo, I bet only once did a guy look up in a frustrated manner in a stadium with that many people, rite?
But at least, you tried to justify it, and our taste differs. I'll leave you with a photo I actually liked from these faggots.
