re: poetry and lyrics

[QUIET1905@aol.com]

Hey all-

I'm responding to a couple of posts here; if you don't care about my opinion,
delete it:

How can anyone try to say one artist is better than another?  Of course you
can compare and contrast Pete and Dickenson and Whitman to your heart's
content, but quite frankly, not one was better than the other.  The chills I
get when I hear a Who song may be the same ones a poet gets when hearing Emily
Dickenson complain about snow in Concord, Mass.  Each of these artists has
demonstrated growth and progress in their medium, Whitman and Dickenson most
predominately because of their transition from romantacism to realism, but
Townshend, well,  if you're here you should know.  

Whitman, Dickenson and Townshend are all very similar because they are human
beings with problems and with a great talent that they decided to share.  My
point is art is due to interpretation, and your interpretation detirmines how
good it is.  So, no one will ever agree on this... trust me. 

I assure you, Dickenson, Townshend and Whitman all use metaphores, symbolism
and other literary techniques.  I won't bore you.

How can anyone say Ozzy's music is just that of an average joe?  His love
songs are much more, uh, lovely than Pete's- not to say Ozzy's is better, and
have you ever listened to the lyrics of his songs, 'Revelation (Mother Earth)'
for instance.

Art is art, and can only be judged by what it makes you feel.  If Emily
Dickenson's prose is able to reach you before Pete's, that means you can
relate more to what she is saying.  

~Samantha