Printable View
People always say everything's a matter of taste, and that's true for what people should listen to/read, etc....as far as actual quality, though, you can't really say it doesn't matter if you prefer Shakespeare or Danielle Steele. Same as music, I think...can everyone's tastes really be respected if some prefer MTV trash to the works of, say, Hendrix or Bob Dylan? Just a thought.
The way I see it, the songwriting process is what determines respectable music. Most of the trash you see on MTV was written in 5 minutes by a 45 year old balding man behind a desk to be pushed by a 21 year old sex symbol. I see that as wrong on so many levels, and deserve 0 respect as far as music goes.
Now true musicians on the other hand, ones that don't get nearly as much recogition as MTV and radio crap, are the most respectable form of music, because they put blood sweat and tears into writing their songs.
Whether or not a certain band or song suits your tastes, there's no denying that the true songwriters deserve much more respect than MTV and radio bands.
Same goes with rap vs. hip hop. Rap has no substance, where hip hop is nothing but that.
Media seems ass backwards these days in my opinion. But whatever, at least we have options.
I agree, except for this...Quote:
Originally Posted by timothylearyisdead
The bulk of Janis Joplin's material consisted of covers, but her music is by no means empty or devoid of truth or passion.
Also, even if they do write it, there's a definite distinction between the songwriting quality of Bruce Springsteen and that of some pretentious scene kid who's just formed a band, even though some prefer that shit. Just something to consider.
Totally agree on both parts.
All music is written by someone, whether or not they actually put their heart into it is where the difference is. And to be honest most of the music today does not have much heart or thought put into it at all, people just write what they think will get airplay.
Janis put a lot of heart into what she did, she did it for the love of music and drugs and having a good time. Even though she didn't write any of her songs, she did what she did from the heart, and that's where respect should be given, doing it for the soul not for what people will buy.
Respect is due where it is earned, and that is not from a catchy pop song written in 5 minutes just to sell records. That is just dishonest in my opinion but it is what it is. Luckily the record industry is getting it's ass handed to them and we are seeing a revival of real musicians popping up on the internet.
Agreed, man. It's also sad how musicianship standards have dropped so low. If you wanted to be a star in the late '60s, you had to be able to play one mean guitar...nowadays, if you can barely play, no problem, we'll write you a nice single and have the whole thing consist of a 2-chord riff, so you'll be fine.
I think originality of the lyrics and music plays a part, but it is hard to attach objective qualities to music when some people enjoy music that I cannot bare or find any appeal for.
Then again a lot of commercial hip hop is very similar from my point of view (self affirmative 'gangster' rap) but that doesn't stop it from being the widest selling musical genre. Not to say that there is not other good hip hop but I'm sure this makes up a good portion of the sales. I think that because some people aren't that genuinely interested in music or have very open opinions they don't mind being told what to listen to. Also, some people just seem to want something with a beat to dance to and don't want much more from their music.
I don't think simplicity is always a bad thing though. Punk often consists of basic riffs, but at least they replaced some of the complicity with attitude, a unique style and some amount of ideology.
On another note I have found very few people who dislike Bob Marley... :rastasmoke:
Yeah, I think that's it, pretty much--a lot of people never have thoughts of artistic integrity go into their listening or anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Born To Stone
It is a tricky thing, isn't it--as you said, rap/hip-hop is the most popular genre out there, and I loathe it with every fibre of my being. By that I mean that of the several thousand songs I've been forced to listen to when with friends (and yes, that includes the acclaimed underground stuff), I have not been able to stand, let alone enjoy, a single one.
I think musicians have a greater appreciation for all types of music. Not to take away from the majority of people, but they really don't know much about the music they listen to.
I totally agree with everything that has been stated so far. Now, music doesn't even really matter. Now, its all about looks. I saw a video the other day of that band "the Jonas Brothers". It was live but they weren't even playing their instruments. You could tell the guitar player was completely out of sync, he was basically lip syncing with his guitar. Its all about image these days, it really makes me sick. I consider myself to be a true musician. I'm proficient on several instruments and I write my own material. There's no freaking way I would sell out like all these lame teen bands out there now. What makes me even more angry is the fact that the general public buys into this trash. When will they wake up and realize that the media is controlling us and force us to like whatever it says we will like. Think for yourselves folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
How can opinion be anything but subjective? Different strokes for different folks, same applies to music.
I must reiterate the Shakespeare v.s. Danielle Steele comparison. Opinion's subjective, yeah, but if someone prefers Soulja Boy to Hendrix they're operating on a lower field of consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywierdtoker
Music is music , wether it's a concerto or some guy banging on a lid and singing off key , if someone gets pleasure from it then it's good.
People judge on thier own tastes and thier own assumed superiority , music can be so many things and the criteria for measuring it must be just as diverse.
I like a lot of ridiculous little ditties that as far as the purists are concerned are shit songs , they fail to understand that the songs weren't written to show off intellectually but simply to entertain , in this they more than succeed.
Assuming that your own taste in music is somehow superior to anothers is simply a sign of arrogance.
Psychocats money on this... Im a Musician and I find myself getting on a pretty high horse about music..... Which when I come around I know is wrong. In fact I listen to some Music that I just think is the most brilliant and magical stuff and other, very intelligent peoples response is, Can we listen to something that we can hear ourselves think??? To each his own.. We cant help but have opinions and biases, but nice to keep perspective. Psychocat has reminded me of that... Good thread OTG.... cheers d.:rastasmoke:
If someone reads Dante and Ralph Waldo Emerson, then of course his taste is superior to someone who reads kitsch. Call it arrogance if you like, but the same thing applies to all fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I do call it arrogance.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
It's simply a question of supposed superiority , it's one of the worst forms of snobbery.
Do you know how to repair a washing machine ?
If you don't then by that can we assume that anyone that can is more intelligent than you are ?
Is punk with it's simplistic lyrics and easy to play tunes without merit ?
I think not , punk is a social and political library of how society viewed many of the issues of thier day.
Satire manifests itself in cartoon form ,, does that mean that because cartoons are viewed as mainly for children that adults have nothing to gain from them ?
It's human to need to believe that one is in some way superior , yet when all is weighed and measured it is often found that it is not others who fall short but ourselves.. :D
While this may be true, there are way too many people out there that AREN'T doing it to entertain. They are just doing it to make a big bucks. They could care less what it sounds like or what the lyrics are, as long as it makes them a "baller". Someone may not be able to sing very well or even play very well, but as long as they put there heart and soul into their music, they are much more talented then some of these main stream "musicians".Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I just simply can not listen to empty songs. Someone who TRUELY appreciates music, would know that music isn't just music.
That would be like saying a car is just a car. You can't say you appreciate cars and then go buy a V6 mustang with an automatic. If you truely appreciated cars, you would have bought something of similar in value yet with much more integrity and performance. Like a Pontiac Solstice for example, it's built to perform, not just look pretty.
The music that gets played on MTV is like a beautiful girl with no brains. It may be easy to get caught up in the beat (or beauty of the girl), yet when you actually start listening to what they are saying, it makes your head hurt with the nonsense that you're hearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySin
I really dislike having to quote myself as it means either someone has not bothered reading my post or they are deliberately ignoring select parts of it.. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
If nobody was being entertained then the music would simply never get played.
I love cars and all of them have something , even if it is just it's value as the absolute worst car ever.
I have owned a Porsche and they are a little overpriced. :D
If you don't like a style of music then simply don't listen to it.
If you wish to believe you are superior because you listen to Giacomo Puccini instead of Elvis Presley then go right ahead and scoff whilst others enjoy what they like whilst ignoring the pomposity of it all.
You didn't have to quote yourself, because I read through your post several times. Most of those times were while I was replying to it.
It's easy to be entertained when you don't care about substance. Maybe I should quote my entire post, because it seems that you didn't read it.
I've actually thought bad about myself before for thinking the music I listen to is better then some of the crap I hear on the radio. Yet then I listen to it more and realize how it is nothing but a catchy beat with some lyrics that are only there as a filler. Then most of the people that listen to that stuff listen to a wide array of crappy meaningless music. Then when a good song with some substance is played, they just cast it aside as garbage just because it isn't the hottest thing on the top 40 this week.
I used to cast aside a lot of bands and singers just because they weren't really what I listened to or what was the thing to listen to. Yet now that I have grown such an appreciation for music, I have discovered just how great artists like Bob Marly and 2 Pac are. Then their are the talentless pricks that come in and just take a good sound with crappy lyrics and put it out there to make money. All the while, taking the fame from the people that truely deserve the attention for their blood, sweat and tears.
And yet you chose to name some of the most succesful artists of thier time ??
How did they get lost in the crowd ?
If you're good enough then you will shine through just as those that you named did.
Yet !
I will repeat that if someone get's pleasure from something then it is validated and because you dislike it just means it's not to your taste it doesn't mean it's worthless.
If it sells then someone likes it.
I have owned many motorcycles and used to look down on anyone who rode mopeds , I lived in Holland where mopeds are everywhere .
One day I borrowed one to accompany some friends as the road we would be using was restricted to cycles and bromfietsen (the Dutch name for mopeds) , I couldn't believe how much fun I had been missing.
(A moped is any motorcycle with a less than 50cc engine)
Yeah, to say that a guitar master who pours his heart and soul into his lyrics and playing is the equal of someone who makes a couple of empty MTV hits is highly disrespectful to the artistry involved in the former's auterism.
I agree with whoever said it's really all about feeling. I'd throw technical ability in there too because, while it doesn't make or break someone, it does matter. I mean, some play like Clapton and some only know 10 chords, and it's a lot harder to make truly great music using that.
I think a big problem in the era we live in is we're losing common sense as far as artistic quality. I mean, in the Renaissance you had to actually be able to PAINT a beautiful or thought-provoking piece...now you can throw some black paint on a canvas and call it "Panther in a Coal Mine" or something like that. Hence my emphasis of the importance of technical ability.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
No, I don't know how how to repair a washer, and anyone who can isn't necessarily smarter than me, but they are superior IN THAT AREA. You can see it's arrogance all you like, but I'd love to read your thesis on how the guys who write for Archie are the equals of Goethe, or how the Jonas Brothers have every bit as much merit as Bruce Springsteen. People may disagree, but there is a definite hierarchy of quality that is more or less agreed upon by people with actual knowledge and appreciation of the field...i.e. people who are deeply immersed in literature may argue over whether Keats or Shelley is better, but nobody with an informed opinion will ever argue for kitsch--a love of kitsch does not make a person inferior, but it does mean their taste is lower. No disrespect to them as human beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
Yes, and some eyes are more discerning, or more aesthetically tuned, than others. Some twisted fucks probably find real beauty in the old Hiroshima footage, doesn't make it beautiful.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
To some there is beauty in everything ,, even death.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Some are arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to define what others should appreciate without ever bothering to wonder why.
Oh, I see your point there. On that we can agree--just the beauty of existence, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
However, I don't know, the whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" just never sat with me; I've sort of been a believer in objective beauty--the Socratic idea of the Forms, if you will. It's not beautiful in someone's eyes, but as part of the Form of Beauty, I think. That's just me, though.
Yes, I did mention some very successful artists. It is very few and far between now a days where artists with actual talent become so successful. People have become very easy to entertain. Take Paris Hilton for example. She didn't do a damn thing to deserve her fame, yet would you consider her just as talented as anyone else? Shit, I can't even compare her to anyone, because getting fame out of nothing can never be because of talent. Unless you consider being a snobby brat talent?Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I don't really see where you are going with the moped comment. It mostly shows how you didn't really understand them because you were so stuck on your "superior" motorcycle. I have two motorcycles, yet I've never looked down on someone that owns a moped. It's a very practical form of transportation. Who am I to judge them just because they don't feel that they should spend the extra money for more power and performance? It's not like they bought it as a status symbol like a lot of kids do when they buy sport bikes or harleys or whatever is the in thing at the time.
So at christmas time or your birthday, would you open a present to find cheesy sweater from K-mart and say it's just as good as any other present you received just because someone wrapped it in fancy paper? Or would you say that you enjoyed a present that someone spent the time on figuring you out, so they could pick the exact thing that would bring a smile to your face when you found what was inside?
I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking the music that you like. Just don't go on saying how all music is equal just because it entertains people. It's what is behind the music that differentiates whether it is actually good or not. I simply prefer music that educates the mind instead of wastes my time.
Education is admirable but is in no way a replacement for fun.
A lot of music is simply an expression of how people are feeling.
Mass appeal may not be to your taste but you refuse to allow for the idea that maybe you're missing the whole point of it.
BTW
You have very little idea of my musical tastes and just how wide and varied a selection I have collected
The motorcycle reference is in regard to how even I have been guilty of looking down on others for thier choices.
I am always grateful for gifts. :D
This was my last one , given to me by a very good friend
But doesn't mass appeal reflect the tastes of people whose tastes are not as cultivated, who are largely indifferent to music and just want something their friends think is cool?
I suppose you're right in that if millions of people like something there's SOME value to it, but in a different sense---I'm honestly convinced you can't possibly believe your own argument, that the lyrics of Bob Dylan and the lyrics of Soulja Boy are tied.
To compare the lyrics of Bob Dylan and Soulja Boy is absurd. However what you can compare is the emotion each songwriter produces for it's listeners. Bob maybe critically great, some of his songs very enjoyable, but to some, perhaps they want less complexity, just want something chill, to dance to, to move to. In that sense, I don't think of any less of Soulja Boy than Bob Dylan. It's all has to do with taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Music is for enjoyment regardless of your purpose and whos better is all subjective. There are so many variables when it comes to music, whether it's technical skills, song-writing skills, the production, the context, how conventional, the emotions. Music is not different than enjoying a painting. Some images may not appeal to all of us. Different people, different strokes. But if you take the time to really listen to it, you can find appreciation in everything.
Well... best selling bands of all timeQuote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
There's a lot of bands there that gained mass appeal that I like: The Beatles, Michael Jackson('s music lol), ACDC, Bob Marley, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones etc. I'm sure you'll find music you like that gained mass appeal. Maybe you are just frustrated at the bands who gain mass appeal in the present, although a lot of old bands still tour and make albums, though infrequently.
The idea of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is important, it obviously plays a part in music choice because it is subjective opinion. However, if this was the only factor then would there be the same consensus for certain bands? I can't help but think that advertisement plays a large role. Obviously for some people it is more influential than others but exposure to the music causes familiarity and liking for many. Whilst others either dislike the music in the first place or get sick of it through over exposure. Also this is reinforced because friends and family influence you and they are exposed to the same advertisement. Is it still beauty if you are persuaded something is beautiful? I guess it is a question of how much each persons' own opinion guided their choice, but there is no doubt I have met people who like music just because their friends like it.
Yes music is subjective, its art. Most modern pop music is made at 72 BPM. the earths resonance, stars, and the universal magnetic pulse is also at 72 BPM. its no wonder why people like pop music so much.
Yeah, I was talking more about the stuff around nowadays....50 Cent and the Jonas Brothers and all that. If something's widely liked, it could be due to bad taste or media manipulation, as with those, or it could be because of a band's genuine talent and power, i.e. Led Zeppelin. I think peoples' taste is fading because of this very attitude of nonjudgmental subjectivity, which I find problematic....I read an essay once about how high art is dying because in our modern society we're indoctrinated to respect all forms of expression, no matter how soulless or cheap they may be. So to hell with that attitude, I say a resounding "fuck you" to the modern phenomenon of low art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Born To Stone
Technical proficiency with an instrument is much less based on opinion than whether music is "good" or not.
But that's just an aspect of a musician.
Yeah, I think the criteria for quality is as follows:
1. Feeling
Is this music an expression of the auteur's soul? Or was it created in an assembly line fashion for a quick buck?
2. Technical proficiency
In a band, are the musicians virtuosos or two-chord hacks?
3. Versatility/innovation
Do they cover new ground or are they just a concrete imitation? If you listen to one of their albums, is there a range of song types or do they all sound the same?
If ALL someone's looking for is a beat to dance to, their musical opinions are worth nothing, just as a gourmet's opinion on food is worth a lot more than someone who just wants something, ANYTHING, to fill their stomach.
And yet they both get satisfaction from thier own fulfilled requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Wow, the value of high art in the public consciousness really is all but dead. I don't think either of us will ever be able to alter the other's perspective--we just have different aesthetic philosophies. Nice debating with you, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
His stomach may be full, but did he have to resist vomiting because of the horrid taste? Is it even going to satisfy his nutritional needs?Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
Likewise my friend. :thumbsup: :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
there is a line. i call it is timeless music v forgettable, just like literature, really anything else. from there it is a matter of preference. there is a world of timeless music, i don't like a lot of it, but i respect it. there is a world of forgettable music, i don't like or respect it and don't like it being compared to real music. and yes, timeless and forgettable are just other words for shakespeare and danielle steele. i don't like shakespeare, i know he is a great writer. i don't like danielle steele, i know she knows how to write easily digestible garbage that will make a quick buck.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
But what about the stuff nowadays? They're amazing stuff being produced nowaday although you have to realize the model in music is changing. Everyone has more access to cheaper equipment, so more people are able to produce music. The pool of talent is diluted and wider. It's not like the 60s where in order to have a band, you gotta be really good technically so someone can front you a PA and sign you to a record deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
But let's address a musician that could fit your criteria. What about someone like Eminem? Jay-Z? Nas? Korn? Blink 182? They all fit the criteria of something that could be in bad taste, media manipulation. However, even though I don't like any of them at all, I have listened to most of their albums and they are quite good in different ways. Like that, I'm sure their music will be heard years later. You could far back as Dire Straits (and they milked the hell out of MTV) to find MTV-influenced bands that seem to have this label as being shit music, but in reality, their music is timeless.
In reality, preference and taste are huge factors in how one determines what music they like. They are bands who are innovative groundbreakers that never get recognized until much later, like The Velvet Underground and Brian Eno and they are many a band that fail to live to the hype they generate and are long forgotten. It doesn't mean that low art is the phenomenon of the day. It's simply evolving with artists being more free from the rein of record companies.