Of course, they could be accessible to some and inaccessible to others. It seems fairly subjective to me.

I mean yeah I'd say they're less accessible than Michael Jackson but easier to get into than Mike Patton.

According to [b]my personal feelings towards their music[/b], it's hard to see WHY people like it, but it's quite apparent that they do. So no. "Accessibility" is just one more subjective part of musical tastes.

Accessibility is different from a simple liking or disliking. It is hard (or impossible) to gauge, but is an objective measure. Britney Spears is accessible because her appeal is easily recognized by [i]anyone[/i], regardless if they like her or not (and regardless of [b]their personal feelings toward her music[/b]). The benefits of her music are easily [i]accessed[/i] by people. A guitar instrumentalist (let's say Yngwie Malmsteen) is inaccessible because its primary appeal is not immediately obvious, or requires a certain (perhaps even esoteric) skill, education, etc. This is obvious when the vast majority of Yngwie Malmsteen fans also play the guitar, whereas Britney Spears fans are...everybody (i.e. indiscernible).

Jazz isn't necessarily less popular than pop music because it is inferior, but rather because in order to [i]access its benefits[/i], one must obtain a more rare (than pop music) appreciation of it (through musical education, exposure, etc.). It's not simply a matter of tastes, and proportions of tastes (i.e. a fondness of rock and roll is simply more innate than a fondness of blues). A lot of it has to do with discrepancies in accessibility. Likewise, you can't say, "Look, a lot of people like it, so it must be accessible."

If we can agree on anything, we must agree that Pink Floyd is nowhere near as accessible as Michael Jackson, and therefore my original point. If one of you can't agree with that, then you must be on drugs, and therefore any further discussion is pointless.

Nobody has argued that they are "nearly as accessible as Michael Jackson."

I guess we're going to have to just disagree about how to use the term "accessible," as I prefer to think of it in terms of how accessible something is to ME, since generally how accessible it is to others doesn't matter.

[quote="Marekenshin"]Nobody has argued that they are "nearly as accessible as Michael Jackson."

I guess we're going to have to just disagree about how to use the term "accessible," as I prefer to think of it in terms of how accessible something is to ME, since generally how accessible it is to others doesn't matter.[/quote]

Nobody has argued that somebody has argued that they are "nearly as accessible as Michael Jackson."

Anywho, let's not argue, but clarify: Accessibility pertains to the quantity of experiences, knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. (as well as how difficult it is to obtain them) that are required to enjoy the benefits of something. What you term as "how accessible something is to ME" is actually your tastes, preferences, etc. [i]that are a result of[/i] your current experiences, knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. For example, if you are a shredder, Paul Gilbert is more "accessible to YOU," but that is because you already possess the requirements of such tastes - Paul Gilbert is still inaccessible because liking him is facilitated by those tastes.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]Nobody has argued that somebody has argued that they are "nearly as accessible as Michael Jackson."[/quote]

[quote="sheerheartattack"]If we can agree on anything, we must agree that Pink Floyd is nowhere near as accessible as Michael Jackson, and therefore my original point. If one of you can't agree with that, then you must be on drugs, and therefore any further discussion is pointless.[/quote]

You may not have directly argued that, but you imply it. This is generally what a lot of discussions here tend to revolve around with you: an indirect accusation followed by a "well technically I never said that," and then you moving on to a different aspect of the topic at hand. Frankly, it's not that interesting to debate or discuss in this fashion.

Did I miss when "agreeing" was changed to "arguing" in the dictionary? I was merely trying to get back on topic (i.e. when I stated the significance of Pink Floyd vs. Michael Jackson), rather than [i]uselessly[/i] ascertaining exactly what level of accessibility Pink Floyd stands at (unless you prefer to do that all day). All that matters relevant to the discussion is that Pink Floyd is far less accessible than Michael Jackson.

Then again, you can [i]fabricate[/i] implications if you wish. I just don't think it's very conducive to conversation to even continue to discuss that, when I have provided a salient working definition of accessibility, as opposed to tastes, to guide the discussion (and ultimately return it to the original point: why Pink Floyd's record sales are far more impressive than MJ's).

Additionally, if you wish to determine what a lot of my discussions tend to revolve around, it would be others (mostly SYP) misrepresenting and misunderstanding my [i]explicit[/i] thoughts, thus requiring me to discuss semantics. If you have a question about a potential implication, ask if it was implied - don't imply it and argue it (those are called straw man attacks).

Anyway, to avoid any and all confusion: Pink Floyd's record sales cannot be indiscriminately compared to Michael Jackson's record sales in terms of sheer quantity. Accessibility is an important factor to consider, as Pink Floyd's music is far less accessible than Michael Jackson's. Any detractors?

Sorry, I guess you're right. I just see so many discussions of the semantics of your posts that you write up at Skool that I'm kind of tired of them, lol.

Still not liking Pink Floyd though. I just can't get into the vocalist's singing style at all, and I listen to some stuff where I don't even think the vocalist is very good.

It's not even the vocalist that bothers me most, although I would not classify any of them as particularly good vocalists. I mean, the vocals on "Comfortably Numb" bothered me for the longest time, as they sound ridiculous and stupid, but it's still one of my favorite songs. I am simply not a Floyd fan because many of the songs seem drawn out far longer than I'm willing to pay attention.

And maybe...just a little...or a lot...I say things just to rile SYP up...but that wasn't my intention in this scenario. Make no mistake, I like you both, and in a completely heterosexual way.

Before I ever read any of those posts, I'm just going to say:

Haven't we had this argument...[u][i][b]46 times before?[/b][/i][/u]

[quote="sheerheartattack"] I mean, the vocals on "Comfortably Numb" bothered me for the longest time, as they sound ridiculous and stupid, but it's still one of my favorite songs.[/quote]

I dunno which part of the song you're referencing, but if you're talking about the terribly-sung verses, remember that Roger Waters is an awful singer and David Gilmour is pretty alright.

I mean, if you guys can force yourself to sit through all 17 minutes of Dogs (or just skip the synth solo) it's easy to see the man's got quite a voice, and a penchant for moving lyrics.

But yeah, Roger Waters is easily the worst part of Pink Floyd and has dragged them down like the stone since the mid-70s.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]And maybe...just a little...or a lot...I say things just to rile SYP up...but that wasn't my intention in this scenario. Make no mistake, I like you both, and in a completely heterosexual way.[/quote]

awwwwwwwwww

Well I didn't read the thread all the way through but people are talking about accessibility apparently... to me accessibility doesn't mean diddly crap because pretty much all of the music I listen to is VERY inaccessible.

I LOVE Pink Floyd, and a lot of prog bands like them. Yes, Genesis, Floyd, King Crimson, Mahavishnu, etc etc etc.... and modern prog bands that follow in their footsteps like The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, etc. That's the type of stuff I love.

I thought the few songs I have heard by King Crimson were really cool.

King Crimson is great.

Close to the Edge by Yes is an amazing album, the rest of their stuff except for that one 80's album is pretty average to me.

Not... not a huge fan of the rest of those bands.