[quote]progwizard wrote:
Clowncore - YouTube
Speedcore What Is Speedcore?! - YouTube
[/quote]
what the fuck is that
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
A lot of people hate crunkcore - seems everyone from metalheads to hip-hop fans pick out the likes of BrokeNCYDE and Millionaires as targets of strangely intense hatred. But in case you ever wish it wasn’t despicable enough, how about a white trash version of it, with badly rapped/screamed “covers” of songs by the likes of Kenny Rogers and Garth Brooks? That seems like it couldn’t possibly get any worse, but yes it can - it could be done by European white dudes with goofy European accents.
Check it out, you WILL hate this: video at - YouTube and six tracks at http://www.myspace.com/goatbomb
(In the interest of full disclosure, this is my band and it is completely serious)[/quote]
I have only found one BrokenCyde song that I like, but damn I think it’s awesome. I have it on my iPod for workouts.
GET CRUNK! Brokencyde-Get Crunk-NEW SONG!!!! - YouTube
Now country, oh dear Lord, I hate country music.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
In general, when your talking about alot of things that appeal to the masses, the competition IS intense, your exactly right. This is another example of that.
Mcdonalds
Taco Bell
Arbys
Burger King
KFC
Chic fil a
but which one is best? Who knows! The competition is intense! Each has to be very good![/quote]
Ha. Nice try. Of course they’re very good for the price. Better restaurants do exist but it costs a hell of a lot more to eat there. So, let’s see how that analogy applies to music.
With music, the avant-garde stuff costs a hell of a lot less money than the pop stuff to produce or to buy (even though CD prices are pretty flat, look at concert ticket prices or how much the bands get paid for a gig). So, the correct parallel is that pop music is like the expensive steakhouse or fancy Corsican restaurant, and the avant-garde stuff is the cheap fast food… only it’s the cheap fast food that few people want to eat. You know, the really crappy burgers at the local biker bar.
Nothing personal, I’m just real tired of playing weird music that only weird people like, so no wonder I don’t think very highly of it. And that’s why I decided to do crunkcore!
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
In general, when your talking about alot of things that appeal to the masses, the competition IS intense, your exactly right. This is another example of that.
Mcdonalds
Taco Bell
Arbys
Burger King
KFC
Chic fil a
but which one is best? Who knows! The competition is intense! Each has to be very good!
Commercial music fucking blows, its all about catching the attention of morons quickly and repeating again and again.
[/quote]
there is no competition. I mean, the masses don’t listen to tons of stuff then point out ‘‘this one is good it’s a hit’’. It’s all about what the manager decide to push. Got a nice image? Got a familiar sound that can sell? We can make money with that. Then they push that crap and people listen to it. I fucking hate people who listen to that kind of music. You don’t even realise what you are missing.
Then there is the ‘‘artsy’’ urban scene who suck as much. Most of it is not pushed but some is pushed and labeled as artsy. Alot of the young musician from university goes into these bands Can sell to middle class people.
Then there is the third category of great music. You dont like this music at the first hearing, it doesnt fit for the radio. It is complex and most people wont bother listening to it again and again even if in the end you’ll get infinitely better thrills than with any other music. So only a few people who really love music knows about it. What is bad also is that it don’t really exist anymore.Sure there is some who are still there and have been there for a long time but there is no new serious music artist that I am aware of.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
what about powerful music, real art?[/quote]
To me Kevin Fowler, Charlie Robison, Roger Creager or Slaid Cleaves are examples of powerful music. They speak powerfully to real people with real jobs, which anything the arts-and-culture crowd would call “real art” fails completely to do. About the artsiest music I am interested in listening to would be Lyle Lovett.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
what about powerful music, real art?
To me Kevin Fowler, Charlie Robison, Roger Creager or Slaid Cleaves are examples of powerful music. They speak powerfully to real people with real jobs, which anything the arts-and-culture crowd would call “real art” fails completely to do. About the artsiest music I am interested in listening to would be Lyle Lovett.[/quote]
I didnt check what was Kevin Fowler, etc was because youtube is down.I’ll check that out later. My favorite music is from stravinski,varese,zappa,bartok,pat metheny,chick corea.
You said you never cared about ‘‘weird’’ people listening to ‘‘weird’’ stuff. Did you ever considered that you might not get it? it’s okay. Most people dont get it and will never get it. But don’t put down something you can’t understand. We are not talking about hipster and ‘‘artsy’’ here. I have yet to met some hipster who listen to serious music.
I am gonna post some example when ytube is gonna come back
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Pop simply embodies a lot of what I don’t like about music. I don’t hate all of it - the likes of Timberlake have actually grown on me, and there are some very talented PRODUCERS. Millions of people can sing. All they have to do is look good, mime their concerts and viola! Sex sells pop music.
[/quote]
Above average singers are a dime a dozen, but great singers are as rare as another kind of great musician. There is more to talented singing than vocal acrobatics and a good voice (although a good voice is usually a requirement).
And if there are talented producers behind the music, should they deserve some respect for making good songs? There’s an attitude that people who don’t write their songs should not be considered artistically, but someone had to write the song.
And it’s up to the singer to interpret the song and make sure it doesn’t fail. It’s also up to the artist to pick the right producers and songwriters to work with. It really isn’t as easy as it seems.
There’s a reason a lot of American Idol contestants don’t do well afterwords despite the marketing of a show that reaches 30+ million people twice a week. There’s a reason Paris Hilton is not considered a good pop musician despite being able to afford top tier producers and songwriters.
The successful people who are in the game for longer than a couple of hits, like, Beyonce, Rihanna, Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, and even Britney Spears to an extent, all take their craft very seriously.
And some pop musicians do write their own stuff.
I’m not going to argue with your not liking the way a song sounds and not listening to it. But the part about them being in it only for the money I disagree with. Why can’t you be in it for the money AND craft? The people who seem to get in make money and leave aren’t doing it because their only about the money. It’s because they screwed up somehwere, or they were only good enough for one or two hits. The really successful ones, like Madonna or Beyonce have been in the biz for a while and haven’t left. If you’re a successful pop musician that means your songs got popular and you made money, but that doesn’t mean all rich pop stars were in it for the money.
And a lot of music from the 60s, 70s, and 80s were covers or interpretations of written songs from before. Recycling has been a part of popular culture and popular music for as far back as both have been documented.
Damn, I’d thought you were maybe a few years older than me (I’m 19), based on the avy.
Anyway, all I’m saying is good art and commerce can mix, and it does all the time. Sure from the industry’s perspective pop is expensive music intended to make more money than other music, but that doesn’t mean dedicated people are behind that music including the performers. And if talented people work very hard to make this music, what’s wrong with people liking it?
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
what about powerful music, real art?[/quote]
Why can’t “powerful music, real art” be commercial too? Just because some music has widespread appeal doesn’t mean it lack’s artistic credibility.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
what about powerful music, real art?
Why can’t “powerful music, real art” be commercial too? Just because some music has widespread appeal doesn’t mean it lack’s artistic credibility.[/quote]
Most people fucking hate it. Name me a widespread artist that does powerful stuff.
There used to be one guy named Frank Zappa who was pretty widespread. Most people didnt like him for no reason at all.You assume he is a ‘‘weeeiirrdd’’ guy like the other poster says.
His music never gets played on the radio, you know the guy and his moustache but you don’t know any of his songs. Name me one of his song?..you don’t know any. This guy was a fucking genius. He wrote the most sophisticated and powerful music I ever heard.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
The thing about it is, when almost any genre begins to appeal to a very large audience, it begins to turn into commercial pop music. Look at almost any genre. Often its lowest form quality-wise, is that which appeals to the masses. Some genres have a very large percentage of music in this crappy, commercial form. Country fits into this.[/quote]
I agree that as a genre get’s more popular you are more likely to have less talented musicians.
But why is pop music not credible again? Do you hate the Beatles, and any popular rock band that arrived after them? So since anything that appeals to a lot of people is dumb, does that apply in movies, and television too? Just curious. And feel free to list your favourite musicians, shows, and movies. I just want to experience this high art that my dumb ass didn’t before.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
In general, when your talking about alot of things that appeal to the masses, the competition IS intense, your exactly right. This is another example of that.
Mcdonalds
Taco Bell
Arbys
Burger King
KFC
Chic fil a
but which one is best? Who knows! The competition is intense! Each has to be very good!
Commercial music fucking blows, its all about catching the attention of morons quickly and repeating again and again.
[/quote]
Forgot about price, stupid. Music prices don’t vary nearly that much, and hell most people know how to get music for free.
You sound dumb, maybe you should listen to that “commercial pop music” that you hate so much.
not down with the country music, but DAMN if southern girls aren’t smokin hot
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
what about powerful music, real art?
Why can’t “powerful music, real art” be commercial too? Just because some music has widespread appeal doesn’t mean it lack’s artistic credibility.
Most people fucking hate it. Name me a widespread artist that does powerful stuff.
There used to be one guy named Frank Zappa who was pretty widespread. Most people didnt like him for no reason at all.You assume he is a ‘‘weeeiirrdd’’ guy like the other poster says.
His music never gets played on the radio, you know the guy and his moustache but you don’t know any of his songs. Name me one of his song?..you don’t know any. This guy was a fucking genius. He wrote the most sophisticated and powerful music I ever heard.
[/quote]
See, your problem is that you equate your taste with what art is. And on the side, you equate something that is hated by most people as art. You’re going to have to actually talk about the music before you can justify his being art. Or is that hard?
There are too many popular artists to name but for starters: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem, and slew of others. you don’t have to be dangerous, edgy, or wildly different to make powerful music. But you’re to close minded to get that. Frank Zappa would be ashamed of your close-mindedness.
Maybe I don’t like Frank Zappa. I know what Muffin Man sounds like, and despite a nice guitar solo that song is pretty annoying. I’ve also heard “Hot Rats” in it’s entirety and was pretty bored. And even if I didn’t know of him, that wouldn’t disqualify my opinion on music anyway. I wouldn’t disqualify you for not knowing a song by ‘The Velvet Underground’ or ‘Television’. And no I don’t assume he’s weird, I know he bores me, get the difference?
Since you brought up Frank Zappa, why don’t you tell us about his MUSIC instead of talking down to people who don’t like his stuff? What exactly do you like. I have a feeling you’ll have trouble doing this without getting flustered and calling everyone else stupid…
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
[…] I have a feeling you’ll have trouble doing this without getting flustered and calling everyone else stupid…[/quote]
No. there is many thing that I dont like but that I respect. For example I dont like Stockhausen and webern but I respect their music. It is powerful but I dont like their art.
''you don’t have to be dangerous, edgy, or wildly different to make powerful music. But you’re to close minded to get that. Frank Zappa would be ashamed of your close-mindedness. ‘’
Do you think people like stravinski, FZ or varese are edgy, dangerous or widly different? FZ was viewed as such but he wasnt. It is something intellectual that does not equate dressing with clothes with diagonal zippers. You compose with your head. It doesnt have anything to do with being wild.
You just know if something is weak or not.
‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem, and slew of others’’ have definitely some good moments but it is in no mean powerful music. I enjoy snoopdog but it is not powerful music or serious music. I like his new album ‘‘ego trippin’’ I dont like the whole album but some songs are good. But it’s not great art. More like musical entertainment
For zappa…muffin man is the song I like the least. My favorite album are ‘‘boulez conducts zappa: the perfect stranger’’ ‘‘london symphony orchestra 1 and 2’’ ‘‘lumpy gravy (capitol version)’’ ‘‘civilisation phase 3’’ only to name a few. I love a lot of his other stuff too. But I dont like: ‘‘muffin man’’, ‘‘bobby brown’’ ‘‘I dont wanna get drafter’’ or any of his songs that you could find on limewire.
What is special about is music is the complexity of the rythmic. He can design melody out of rythmics. Also his guitar solos are like air sculpture. He always take chances in concert. You never know what he is gonna do and he don’t know before. He got a crazy focus on his sculpture, it got consistency and in the ends it’s always a brillant visceral composition. He is not like other guys who do something that is pre-planned. He doesnt have great guitar skills but he has enough to pass his ideas and he got plenty of great ideas. But of course if you don’t get it is just weird noise for weird people
The fact that you don’t know about him doesnt disqualify your opinion. The fact that you consider ‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem’’ to be the cream of what there is pretty much disqualify it. Go listen to other stuff.Get out of your comfort zone. Even if it bores you (more like you don’t get it, it flies above you)…it’s better in the looonng term. the loonng term. got it? I dont want to be rude but if you start being rude with your post I can be too
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
Above average singers are a dime a dozen, but great singers are as rare as another kind of great musician. There is more to talented singing than vocal acrobatics and a good voice (although a good voice is usually a requirement).
[/quote]
How many successful, obese pop stars can you name?
I mean, ones with more than one record, who still make hits today. And I’m not referring to classic musicians such as Elton John, etc. You have to look the part - it’s not just based on talent - it’s image too. That too, what bothers me.
Producers are smart about how they handle the music, but the ones that do make their own music, are good at it - regardless of genre.
[quote]
Anyway, all I’m saying is good art and commerce can mix, and it does all the time. Sure from the industry’s perspective pop is expensive music intended to make more money than other music, but that doesn’t mean dedicated people are behind that music including the performers. And if talented people work very hard to make this music, what’s wrong with people liking it?[/quote]
They can, yes. If I work hard at something, it doesn’t mean that result is going to be good - at least not in everyones eyes.
We can discuss all the points till the cows come home, what it comes down to is I choose not to like pop music. It’s the same way I feel about pop culture in general.
Pop music is just one facet of it. Reality tv, gossip magazines - all that related crap. It’s rubbish - and the entertainment value is incredibly low to me even though millions of people love it. I like to think their taste just plain old sucks.
The more I think about it, the more I realize it’s just down to my personal opinions drawn from other peoples perspectives which have influenced my judgement, lol.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
[…] I have a feeling you’ll have trouble doing this without getting flustered and calling everyone else stupid…
No. there is many thing that I dont like but that I respect. For example I dont like Stockhausen and webern but I respect their music. It is powerful but I dont like their art.
''you don’t have to be dangerous, edgy, or wildly different to make powerful music. But you’re to close minded to get that. Frank Zappa would be ashamed of your close-mindedness. ‘’
Do you think people like stravinski, FZ or varese are edgy, dangerous or widly different? FZ was viewed as such but he wasnt. It is something intellectual that does not equate dressing with clothes with diagonal zippers. You compose with your head. It doesnt have anything to do with being wild.
You just know if something is weak or not.
‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem, and slew of others’’ have definitely some good moments but it is in no mean powerful music. I enjoy snoopdog but it is not powerful music or serious music. I like his new album ‘‘ego trippin’’ I dont like the whole album but some songs are good. But it’s not great art. More like musical entertainment
For zappa…muffin man is the song I like the least. My favorite album are ‘‘boulez conducts zappa: the perfect stranger’’ ‘‘london symphony orchestra 1 and 2’’ ‘‘lumpy gravy (capitol version)’’ ‘‘civilisation phase 3’’ only to name a few. I love a lot of his other stuff too. But I dont like: ‘‘muffin man’’, ‘‘bobby brown’’ ‘‘I dont wanna get drafter’’ or any of his songs that you could find on limewire.
What is special about is music is the complexity of the rythmic. He can design melody out of rythmics. Also his guitar solos are like air sculpture. He always take chances in concert. You never know what he is gonna do and he don’t know before. He got a crazy focus on his sculpture, it got consistency and in the ends it’s always a brillant visceral composition. He is not like other guys who do something that is pre-planned. He doesnt have great guitar skills but he has enough to pass his ideas and he got plenty of great ideas. But of course if you don’t get it is just weird noise for weird people
The fact that you don’t know about him doesnt disqualify your opinion. The fact that you consider ‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem’’ to be the cream of what there is pretty much disqualify it. Go listen to other stuff.Get out of your comfort zone. Even if it bores you (more like you don’t get it, it flies above you)…it’s better in the looonng term. the loonng term. got it? I dont want to be rude but if you start being rude with your post I can be too
[/quote]
Let me start off by saying I think it’s hilarious that you quoted me saying you wouldn’t be able to explain your interest in Zappa without calling someone stupid and proceeded to post this:
“(more like you don’t get it, it flies above you)”
See? I read you like a book.
And as for the comment “You just know if something is weak or not”, no you just know when you find something is weak. How is it that hard to get that your opinion is not the law of what is art and what isn’t?
So your idea of powerful music is something that is respected on an “intellectual” level. Fine, then you should know that a hell of a lot of music critics who work with popular music seem to like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Eminem, and Kanye West. I don’t like to use critics as a scale of what is good music, but since you mentioned “intellectual”, why not. Here’s the wikipedia page for the Pazz & Jop End of the year list for best albums:
Look at who won two straight years in 04 and 05. Seems like intellectuals who have no doubt listened to far more music than you and continue to listen to far more music every week than you do appreciate this stuff. Maybe since their music just “flies above you”.
Your description of why you like Frank Zappa is fine by me. I don’t look for complex structure or anything else you mentioned in my music, and improvisational abilities don’t matter that much to me. Maybe that’s why I don’t like Frank Zappa? You have a different criteria for what makes good music, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But using that criteria to call other music not art, just because you don’t appreciate that art, is incredibly shortsighted. I haven’t complained about anyone liking certain artists, just defended a few.
I prefer music that has immediate AND long term appeal. So do “the masses”. If they don’t want to sit and listen to something that is so complex they have to get out of their comfort zone that’s fine. That’s their right. See unlike you, I don’t assume the masses are stupid. And music that touches the masses and moves them is indeed powerful. Any artist that can get by this barrier to make a point or message, or express themselves or make clever music makes POWERFUL MUSIC. That’s how I choose to define it, that seems to be how the “intellectuals” in the link I provided seem to define it. It’s HARD to make music that is both immediately appealing and worth repeated listening.
When an artist gets popular I don’t assume he/she got there by capitalizing on dumb people, I try to figure out what the work has that appeals to other people. Just try to figure out what the successful people are doing and why they’re good, it’s a good attitude to have in life. This isn’t me not leaving my comfort zone, I do that whenever there is an artist I find that is really popular that I haven’t heard much of. Staying in one’s comfort zone is bristling at the world when they don’t appreciate the same music as oneself. I didn’t like the Beatles or Kanye West initially. They seemed too simple at first, but then I thought harder. Maybe you should get out of your comfort zone and listen to those guys again, it’ll be better in the long term. The long term. Got it?
And just a couple more things…
Are you like this with film and TV? What kind of movies do you like? I ask this for a reason.
And you mentioned Frank Zappa and described his musical abilities but failed to get into his lyrics or the conceptual side of his work. I’m not a fan, but a lot of his admirers seems to mentione this stuff with equal fervor, and yet you didn’t mention it all. If I were like you and didn’t respect that different people like different music for different reasons, I’d be tempted to say you didn’t get him yourself and had no right to appreciate him, and that you didn’t know enough about him to speak on his work.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
Above average singers are a dime a dozen, but great singers are as rare as another kind of great musician. There is more to talented singing than vocal acrobatics and a good voice (although a good voice is usually a requirement).
How many successful, obese pop stars can you name?
I mean, ones with more than one record, who still make hits today. And I’m not referring to classic musicians such as Elton John, etc. You have to look the part - it’s not just based on talent - it’s image too. That too, what bothers me.
Producers are smart about how they handle the music, but the ones that do make their own music, are good at it - regardless of genre.
Anyway, all I’m saying is good art and commerce can mix, and it does all the time. Sure from the industry’s perspective pop is expensive music intended to make more money than other music, but that doesn’t mean dedicated people are behind that music including the performers. And if talented people work very hard to make this music, what’s wrong with people liking it?
They can, yes. If I work hard at something, it doesn’t mean that result is going to be good - at least not in everyones eyes.
We can discuss all the points till the cows come home, what it comes down to is I choose not to like pop music. It’s the same way I feel about pop culture in general.
Pop music is just one facet of it. Reality tv, gossip magazines - all that related crap. It’s rubbish - and the entertainment value is incredibly low to me even though millions of people love it. I like to think their taste just plain old sucks.
The more I think about it, the more I realize it’s just down to my personal opinions drawn from other peoples perspectives which have influenced my judgement, lol.
[/quote]
No problem with the second part of the post.
As for the first part about obese pop artists… I agree it’s not fair that obese artists don’t get big (no pun intended) as often as their sexier counterparts, but it doesn’t really take away from my point that the singers who last in pop music have more than just good voices and overdone vocal theatrics. Yes, looks play a part, but even after cutting out the uglies, there are still smart talented singers who do end up being the ones who last. The talent pool is pretty large in pop, it’s very competitive. The biz can still find talented and attractive singers, it’s not like they have to start sacrificing talent for looks.
Anyway I’m glad we agree for the most part.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
[…] I have a feeling you’ll have trouble doing this without getting flustered and calling everyone else stupid…
No. there is many thing that I dont like but that I respect. For example I dont like Stockhausen and webern but I respect their music. It is powerful but I dont like their art.
''you don’t have to be dangerous, edgy, or wildly different to make powerful music. But you’re to close minded to get that. Frank Zappa would be ashamed of your close-mindedness. ‘’
Do you think people like stravinski, FZ or varese are edgy, dangerous or widly different? FZ was viewed as such but he wasnt. It is something intellectual that does not equate dressing with clothes with diagonal zippers. You compose with your head. It doesnt have anything to do with being wild.
You just know if something is weak or not.
‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem, and slew of others’’ have definitely some good moments but it is in no mean powerful music. I enjoy snoopdog but it is not powerful music or serious music. I like his new album ‘‘ego trippin’’ I dont like the whole album but some songs are good. But it’s not great art. More like musical entertainment
For zappa…muffin man is the song I like the least. My favorite album are ‘‘boulez conducts zappa: the perfect stranger’’ ‘‘london symphony orchestra 1 and 2’’ ‘‘lumpy gravy (capitol version)’’ ‘‘civilisation phase 3’’ only to name a few. I love a lot of his other stuff too. But I dont like: ‘‘muffin man’’, ‘‘bobby brown’’ ‘‘I dont wanna get drafter’’ or any of his songs that you could find on limewire.
What is special about is music is the complexity of the rythmic. He can design melody out of rythmics. Also his guitar solos are like air sculpture. He always take chances in concert. You never know what he is gonna do and he don’t know before. He got a crazy focus on his sculpture, it got consistency and in the ends it’s always a brillant visceral composition. He is not like other guys who do something that is pre-planned. He doesnt have great guitar skills but he has enough to pass his ideas and he got plenty of great ideas. But of course if you don’t get it is just weird noise for weird people
The fact that you don’t know about him doesnt disqualify your opinion. The fact that you consider ‘’ The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Kanye West, eminem’’ to be the cream of what there is pretty much disqualify it. Go listen to other stuff.Get out of your comfort zone. Even if it bores you (more like you don’t get it, it flies above you)…it’s better in the looonng term. the loonng term. got it? I dont want to be rude but if you start being rude with your post I can be too
Let me start off by saying I think it’s hilarious that you quoted me saying you wouldn’t be able to explain your interest in Zappa without calling someone stupid and proceeded to post this:
“(more like you don’t get it, it flies above you)”
See? I read you like a book.
And as for the comment “You just know if something is weak or not”, no you just know when you find something is weak. How is it that hard to get that your opinion is not the law of what is art and what isn’t?
So your idea of powerful music is something that is respected on an “intellectual” level. Fine, then you should know that a hell of a lot of music critics who work with popular music seem to like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Eminem, and Kanye West. I don’t like to use critics as a scale of what is good music, but since you mentioned “intellectual”, why not. Here’s the wikipedia page for the Pazz & Jop End of the year list for best albums:
Look at who won two straight years in 04 and 05. Seems like intellectuals who have no doubt listened to far more music than you and continue to listen to far more music every week than you do appreciate this stuff. Maybe since their music just “flies above you”.
Your description of why you like Frank Zappa is fine by me. I don’t look for complex structure or anything else you mentioned in my music, and improvisational abilities don’t matter that much to me. Maybe that’s why I don’t like Frank Zappa? You have a different criteria for what makes good music, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But using that criteria to call other music not art, just because you don’t appreciate that art, is incredibly shortsighted. I haven’t complained about anyone liking certain artists, just defended a few.
I prefer music that has immediate AND long term appeal. So do “the masses”. If they don’t want to sit and listen to something that is so complex they have to get out of their comfort zone that’s fine. That’s their right. See unlike you, I don’t assume the masses are stupid. And music that touches the masses and moves them is indeed powerful. Any artist that can get by this barrier to make a point or message, or express themselves or make clever music makes POWERFUL MUSIC. That’s how I choose to define it, that seems to be how the “intellectuals” in the link I provided seem to define it. It’s HARD to make music that is both immediately appealing and worth repeated listening.
When an artist gets popular I don’t assume he/she got there by capitalizing on dumb people, I try to figure out what the work has that appeals to other people. Just try to figure out what the successful people are doing and why they’re good, it’s a good attitude to have in life. This isn’t me not leaving my comfort zone, I do that whenever there is an artist I find that is really popular that I haven’t heard much of. Staying in one’s comfort zone is bristling at the world when they don’t appreciate the same music as oneself. I didn’t like the Beatles or Kanye West initially. They seemed too simple at first, but then I thought harder. Maybe you should get out of your comfort zone and listen to those guys again, it’ll be better in the long term. The long term. Got it?
And just a couple more things…
Are you like this with film and TV? What kind of movies do you like? I ask this for a reason.
And you mentioned Frank Zappa and described his musical abilities but failed to get into his lyrics or the conceptual side of his work. I’m not a fan, but a lot of his admirers seems to mentione this stuff with equal fervor, and yet you didn’t mention it all. If I were like you and didn’t respect that different people like different music for different reasons, I’d be tempted to say you didn’t get him yourself and had no right to appreciate him, and that you didn’t know enough about him to speak on his work. [/quote]
Well said.
[quote]nik133 wrote:
I almost feel bad for posting this, but I defy anyone to find a song worse then this:
- YouTube [/quote]
LMAO! How did they manage to persuade Taz to do backing vocals? That nasally shit at around 1:10 is annoying as hell, though.
[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
The thing about it is, when almost any genre begins to appeal to a very large audience, it begins to turn into commercial pop music. Look at almost any genre. Often its lowest form quality-wise, is that which appeals to the masses. Some genres have a very large percentage of music in this crappy, commercial form. Country fits into this.
I agree that as a genre get’s more popular you are more likely to have less talented musicians.
But why is pop music not credible again? Do you hate the Beatles, and any popular rock band that arrived after them? So since anything that appeals to a lot of people is dumb, does that apply in movies, and television too? Just curious. And feel free to list your favourite musicians, shows, and movies. I just want to experience this high art that my dumb ass didn’t before.
Shadowzz4 wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
I like commercial forms of music far more than artsy ones because the competition is brutally intense and you have to be good. The less commercial you get, the more weaknesses you can get away with. I do play in one “quirky” avant-pop band which except for me is all university-educated middle class people, and my parts in that band are much simpler than in the children’s choir I play for. I played my first few gigs with that band without even knowing any of the songs and no one noticed.
In general, when your talking about alot of things that appeal to the masses, the competition IS intense, your exactly right. This is another example of that.
Mcdonalds
Taco Bell
Arbys
Burger King
KFC
Chic fil a
but which one is best? Who knows! The competition is intense! Each has to be very good!
Commercial music fucking blows, its all about catching the attention of morons quickly and repeating again and again.
Forgot about price, stupid. Music prices don’t vary nearly that much, and hell most people know how to get music for free.
You sound dumb, maybe you should listen to that “commercial pop music” that you hate so much.
[/quote]
Hey LarryDavid you dumb piece of shit where did I mention price? I didnt say pop music ALWAYS sucked, like Beatles and this and that. Its kindof like back in the day they didn’t know how to make houses and cars with shit ass quality like they do now. I dont think back in the 50-60’s they figured they could make money off a shit product like they do now.
Of course there are exceptions, I didnt say everything commercial or popular sucks, but a disproportionate amount of it does. I listen to electronica almost exclusively, but have listened to hip hop when the genre had more to offer.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Hey LarryDavid you dumb piece of shit where did I mention price?
[/quote]
You’re an idiot and I’m glad I found this post before you could edit it. You didn’t mention price, that’s why I said you forgot to factor in price. You’re example of fast food vs better food forgot to take into account price variances. Not to mention fast food being…faster. Nice post dipshit.
See, this is why I don’t judge people’s intelligence based on musical preferences. Why do that when you can wait for them to speak?