OK? But what you're saying is something that can be demonstrated
false. You said it's hard to get emotional songs "that way" ... the fact is is that it's hard to get emotional songs, period -- but to say it's more or less hard one way or the other is spacious.
|I mean you can send me examples all you want but its an opinion formulated from one's perspective.|
And shouldn't one's perspective be open to change when proved incorrect?
|I never said its not possible at all but rather I feel a hear a deeper connection PREDOMINANTLY when the artist is also the performer. Surprised this is even an argument. |
And I would argue that you should expose yourself to music outside of the past 15 or whatever years, and especially
that of other genres where the composer is usually not the performer.
|Not upset about this at all but just find this weird. Arguing over what is emotional and what is not is just weird. Performances can be emotional. I get that. Thats great. I am talking in general. if you disagree thats up to yall but if you don't see where I am coming at than thats really not my problem. I actually get your points and respect it. I also still find it following into "nothing is absolute' rule I was talking about. Opinions are opinions. |
case and point: Yall are right. I am right. We also have different general overview perspectives and find nothing to be absolute because anything can be great.
Ok, but your (and AJ's whole "fake") premise
remains categorically incorrect. Music written by someone other than the performer is not devoid of emotion or
any more or less capable of being a great song (see: classical music). To claim otherwise is ignorant of musical history, regardless of one's "perspective."
If Sally Q is emotionally moved by a song AJ and/or you declare "fake" -- is it any less of an emotional experience?