I just saw the thread titled "My Rant on Pop Music" and it got me thinking. I absolutely can't stand country and rap, along with some pop, such as Britney Spears, N Sync, etc.
But I was in Creative Writing class a few months ago, and one of my classmates said something extremely inciteful. It was something along the lines of "It may be that some bands are completely unoriginal, or don't follow your taste, or whatnot. But if it brings the people who listen to it happiness, then what is the problem?"
It makes an enormous amount of sense to me.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
But is it true happiness or a shallow imitation thereof?
I don't mean to be overly-serious about the subject, but as a music reviewer it's my job to say this is good music or this is bad music. There's always certainly a difference in personal taste and there's plenty of styles of music. But there's good and bad music in all those styles. I typically don't like rap/hip-hop but there are some groups I like (such as the Roots or Jurassic 5 or Outkast). But back to my point, just because something might give someone "happiness" doesn't mean it's anything of substance or quality or uplifting in any way.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Yeah. Lutefisk makes some people happy.
Ooh.. Godric.. how do you get a job as a music reviewer?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
You go apply for one.
Ok, so since im a dj, an artist, a reviewer, a producer, and above all, a lover of music, I concur with what godric said, there is definately a distinction between what is good and what is not, regardless of whether or not people like it. Someone is going to like everything, so the fact that people enjoy it doesnt make it good music.
Annie,go apply for a job at a newspaper, magazine, website, or radio station.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: But back to my point, just because something might give someone "happiness" doesn't mean it's anything of substance or quality or uplifting in any way.
If that were the sole requirement of music for me to listen to it, then you just eliminated more than half of my collection.
How does Kiss uplift you? Can the Beastie Boys be described as quality? And how can Beck write anything of substance?
Who knows? But someone, somewhere listens to the lyrics and says, "Dude, I totally get what you are saying", even if it is by Bjork.
Ever been in love? Ever been dumped? Did the love songs start to make A LOT more sense?
Being a music critic is a hard job indeed, but most listeners need something to jam to in which they lose themselves in the music to forget about something else in reality. More often than not, this is music not of substance or quality.
To each their own. I do not try to understand Conway Twitty, but there are ladies out there that would eat his snot with a rusty spoon. You just simply cannot explain people, especially when it comes to tastes in music.
Sorry to rant at you, just hoping you'll see my side!
[ July 12, 2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Annie's resume:
Objective: Get a really cool job like Godrics where I get paid to give my opinion
Skills: I have been playing the stereo since I was 4 years old. I am an excellent disc-switcher and I always read the liner notes.
Experience: I liked U2 during the 90's, and I kept telling people they weren't out of the picture. I also discovered the link between the Police and the rise in popularity of ska. At the age of 17, I threw away my Garth Brooks concert t-shirt, presciently presaging the subsequent screeching halt of quality country music. I bought the White Stripes before any of my friends.
References: Sully, clerk at Cactus Records. Joey, clerk at CD Warehouse, to whom I sold all my crappy CDs right before everyone else figured out they were crappy. Amazon.com.
Why should we hire you? Because I am always right.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Alucard, that rusty spoon metaphor was so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is the exact question I wanted to ask! I love music, I'm passionate about it, but I despise rap. I can love any song from any genre, even country songs and stuff by Celine Dion but rap annoys me. The music I like best is the music that moves me from within and engages my every single sense... Stuff like Yoko Kanno, Dir en grey, and Tori Amos.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I wrote music reviews.
Seriously, that's all I did. I sent one off to the Phantom Tollbooth and they said I could write for them. Since they're just web-based I don't get paid. But I do get free music and I get to go to some concerts and festivals for free or reduced prices. They're not in print but they are considered the best and most comprehensive source of news and reviews in Christian music. Of course, they cover secular stuff as well.
The next step is to actually get published in print. I'm probably going to send some reviews to Paste Magazine. I met the fellow who's in charge of the mag at Cornerstone and told him how wonderful he was... Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
I wasn't so much talking about whether the music was considered "good" or "bad." I agree, some songs can definetely be considered "better" than others, just as one of shakespeare's poems would be considered unbelievably better than an average five-year-olds. But what if that five-year-old's poem gives him/her and his/her parent's a huge amount of happiness, much more than any poem of Shakespeare's could give?
Is there any reason to knock that five-year-old's poem, just because it isn't to your liking, or you don't think it is "good" enough?
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Alucard:
quote:How does Kiss uplift you?
Um...
quote:Can the Beastie Boys be described as quality?
Actually, yes.
quote:And how can Beck write anything of substance?
I don't know how he does it, but he does.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
What if Eminem makes your five year old happy? Are you still going to let him listen to it?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
CalvinMaker, inciteful isn't really a word. Incite means to provoke or urge on. As in "inciting a riot." I think you meant insightful.
[rant][aimed at no one in this thread]I hate music snobs. Like what you want, but don't demean someone else because they like something different. Bubblegum pop, Country, Rap, Hard Rock, Classical, it's all music. Unless you are making a living making music, be quiet and live and let live. While I'm happy that there is a certain kind of music that you enjoy, let others like what they enjoy. Unless of course, you want me to come to your house and make fun of your decorating taste, food choices, book shelf, or TV viewing habits. There is no accounting for taste, so don't throw stones from that glass house.[/rant]
[ July 12, 2003, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Then again, there's a difference between cute little five year olds writing poems about fish and corporations hand picking men who are supposed to be handsome but aren't and making them sing dull, insipid, boring songs and making millions of dollars so that there are dozens of people imatating them and the musical excellence dips a lot as the market is flooded with such clowns and people in other countries who had such cool music get flooded with this tripe and no longer want to play cool traditional music which just sucks because cool traditional music is so much better!
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
So since I make my living off of music, I can continue not liking the stuff I think is bad. AWESOME!!!
(please dont take this sarcastically, i really mean it) I always love having my viewpoint validated, thank you kayla. (/end serious moment)
WOOHOO, back to being a music snob for me, except for the fact that when i play music on the radio, i have to play what people want to hear, not neccessarily what i want to hear. and when i review a cd, i give consideration to whether it will be appealing to the average music fan, not just my own view of it.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
I tend to like just about every type of music there is, although I'm definitely more passionate about some types than others.
I don't get why what other people like/don't like should matter to me, though. Maybe because I can usually find *something* in common with people musically, whatever their tastes are.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:people in other countries who had such cool music get flooded with this tripe and no longer want to play cool traditional music which just sucks because cool traditional music is so much better!
This is kind of sad, but not as big of a problem as I once thought. It's really bad in Europe (songs in any language other than English are few & far between on MTV Germany), but they are still basically doing their own think with techno, which is, at the moment, their most significant contribution to world culture. And other places in the world, though they do swallow a bit more American music than is healthy, are really doing quite a good job at developing their own styles and cultural adaptations. Mexico is fabulous. Everyone loves their native music - or at least all the bus drivers and market vendors, who blast it all day, everyday - and the most popular rock groups (like, for instance, Mana) are succeeding in blending American and European sounds with traditional music to make something quite distinct and beautiful. And no where is native music thriving so beautifully as in the Middle East, where most western music is illegal anyway. The majority of popular music there sounds kitschy to Americans, but is quite the source of national pride.
Don't give up hope. Britney has not conquered the world, and U2 is far more popular globally than the Backstreet Boys will ever be. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
AR, yeah, well, since you make your living at it, I'll take what you say with a grain of salt. The music industry is known for payola and other payoff schemes (after they got caught.) So, it's not like I'd trust anyone in the business with an opinion in the first place. However, if you make your living at it, feel free to look down on whomever you like.
[ July 12, 2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Kayla:
quote:While I'm happy that there is a certain kind of music that you enjoy, let others like what they enjoy. Unless of course, you want me to come to your house and make fun of your decorating taste, food choices, book shelf, or TV viewing habits. There is no accounting for taste, so don't throw stones from that glass house.
Hmmm... Yes and no.
Music, like all art I consider being in one of three categories: Art, entertainment and propoganda. To quote a friend from another board I'm on in which we discussed this topic at length, "'entertainment' is about catering to the selfish needs of the audience and 'propaganda' is about catering to the selfish needs of the artist but 'art' is about drawing both the artist and the audience into something other than themselves."
If a certain piece of music is entertainment it is not inncorrect to label it as nothing more than playing to the audience. Basically, it's "pop" as in popular because it doesn't make any attempt to say anything meaningful. Propoganda is somewhat the opposite as it tries to say something that persuades the consumer to the artist's viewpoint. Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with either of these categories, per say, but neither is art in it's strictest sense. As a music reviewer, or in a more general sense, as an art critic I try to define works as being art or something else. So when I label something as "good" or "bad" it's based on whether I feel it's artistic or not and how "good" it is as a piece of art. I'm not particularly concerned about entertainment or propoganda and I don't have any problem with people who enjoy them other than how so many people mistake those things for art.
[edit] There is, of course, plenty of overlapping between the three categories... That's what makes my job so fun!
I also try to make it clear that I am speaking from a biased perspective (my own) and that my opinions are shaded by my own personal taste. I don't believe that we can be objective nor even that we should try to be when judging art.
[ July 12, 2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Godric ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Godric,
What about Bjork, the other white meat?
I gathered those groups not to imply anything. I am making a point that headbanging to Kiss or the Beastie Boys learning to play instruments as they went through publishing albums were not necessarily BAD things, just not quality or meaningful things.
I actually love Kiss, the BB, and Beck, I just can't listen to serious and influential music ALL the time.
I have a CD in my car changer with:
Bonnie Tyler (Total Eclipse of the Heart) Ray Charles (I Can't Stop Loving You) Queen (Another One Bites the Dust) Rob Zombie (Never Gonna Stop) Joe Satriani (Surfing with the Alien) Toby Keith (I Wanna Talk About Me) The Police (Don't Stand So Close To Me) Young MC (Bust A Move) Tears For Fears (Head Over Heels)
and a bunch of other stuff that doesn't belong together.
Some is meaningful and some is not, but it all makes me very happy!
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
As long as it can make you sing along when your by yourself then it's a good song no matter who might be the singer.
Singers are just adding music and words to emotions. What's wrong with that? Can you do what they're doing or seem to be doing? If you can that's awesome but if you can't..why are you complaining for someone elses feelings or whatever anyone calls it?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Come on dude, the beastie boys are deep. I'm talking about classic tunes here: Egg raid on mojo, hey ladies, so what'cha want, skills to pay the bills.
Seriously, I love the Beastie Boys, they're awesome. Did anyone else buy The Sounds of Science? It's a great compilation.
Music snobs are amusing. Most of them just come off as complete jackasses. Can't we all just get along? Can't we just hold hands and listen to All you need is love ?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Music snobs can like pop music too - they just have to like it for the right reasons.
That last post was VERY well said. Your other posts make much more sense now. And for the last time, I actually LIKE the Beastie Boys!!!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wrote an essay on music. I said in it that to me good music means that: The musicians can play their instruments well and sing well, though there are a few that do not have that perfect, ideal voice I like. Kyo of Dir en grey when you first hear him does not have the best voice, but when you REALLY listen to that guy... you see that he sings with his whole heart and his voice has changed, it's gotten deeper and he croons in places... The musician must play or sing with passion, they must put their whole self into the music so that I may open my whole self to them, adding experiences, memories, and my own odd senses. And texture. Texture in music is sometimes overlooked and it's hard to explain, it's like how that music box in this Bjork song called Pagan Poetry feels like ice on the tip of my tongue and how harps can be as cold as snow if they are played high or how some part in a Yoko Kanno song can be like water moving or sunlight on water... It's odd, but it's how I think of things. If it moves me like this Morissey song called Angel, Angel, down we go together does, which I listened to dozens of times, then it's good.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
oh man, i stepped out for a few hours and i became a propaganda tool for the music industry, i hate when that happens.
kayla, ill forgive you, its cool, you dont know what i do so ill help you out.
i work as a producer for a local music studio, recording and mixing music for local bands.
i sing and play guitar in a semi unsuccessful local band which will never go anywhere and i dont care, i just have fun with it.
i dj for a local non commercial radio station, we arent clearchannel or any of the other moguls, we play what we want and we do a fairly good job of it, being the number 2 radio station in the city, my show is number one btw. (chance to gloat)
so whilw i agree with you that many people are just the voice of the industry cramming the usual down your throats, im the opposite, im like a hyped up tower records employee or something.
I like many mainstream stuff, and play some of them on the air, but im more into the stuff you havent heard of and doesnt get enough airplay for the value that it has.
and on that note, im out.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I like many mainstream stuff, and play some of them on the air, but im more into the stuff you havent heard of and doesnt get enough airplay for the value that it has."
Since my husband became addicted to downloading live music, my musical life has changed drastically. There are so many really great musicians out there, who may not ever make it big, for whatever reason. I still buy studio cds, and the music my hub downloads is not illegally downloaded. The musicians agree to their shows being taped, and are fine with people trading their live shows. There is a very strong ethic among the traders that the music may only be traded, never sold. For me, it started a midlife anti-crisis. I see more live music now than I ever have in my life. Some of our discoveries:
Leftover Salmon(kind of wild bluegrass)
Jennie Stearns(lyrics to knock you off your feet, and a beautiful voice)
Railroad Earth(a bit Waterboys-ish)
Donna the Buffalo(pure heaven, roots rock, hard to categorize)
John Mayer(before he ever hit the charts, we were listening to him)
Nickel Creek(before they got big)
Sim Redmond Band(sort of soft reggae, very melodic)
John Brown's Body(reggae)
String Cheese Incident
The Campbell Brothers(Sacred pedal Steel-gospel-probably the most wonderful musical experience of my life)
Bla bla bla.
As Kayla said, music is music. People like it, or they don't. I have given people cds, and have even taken them to shows of musicians I love. There is never any rhyme or reason to who likes what, so I have stopped trying to get others to get on my bandwagon(bad pun, sorry). (except for qsysue, that is, because I really think she would like Jennie Stearns)
Liz
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Here's why I don't like pop music:
1. It just doesn't sound good to me.
2. The lyrics, and I use the term loosely, are shallow at best.
3. I don't believe that the fans are all that moved by the music. I don't know anyone who still has a New Kids on the Block cd. Does anyone really think that this generation will be listening to the Backstreet Boys when they're grandparents? They already threw out their Spice Girls cds.
4. Appearance is much more important than music. How popular would Brittany Spears or Christina Aguilera be if they looked like the women from The View? How popular would they be if they kept their clothes on, for that matter?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Pop does have good nostalgic value, though. How many of us will ever really throw this away?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I don't consider the Bangles pop - I think of them as rock. And I will never, ever throw out any of their cds. In fact, I think I'll put one in now.
My gramma loves the Bangles. She would go around whistling Walk Like an Egyptian all the time and she used to play it on the organ, which was very disconcerting.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
That's hilarious.
I dressed up like Cleopatra and danced to Walk Like an Egyptian for the school talent show...
...in the first grade. Yow, I'm a youngin'.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Annie, you so forgot the Cardigans.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Alucard:
quote:That last post was VERY well said. Your other posts make much more sense now.
Thanks.
I like a lot of pop music, myself (including some Beastie Boys). But I don't consider much of it very artistic. I am interested, however, in how much popular music is a part of society. I just got back from a club with my friend. It's the sort of place where 30-40 somethings hang out on a Saturday night. I'm not sure why he likes it so much -- I think we were the youngest people there (he's 25 and I'm 22). In any case, it's a peculiar sight to see all these middle-age-ish business types singing and dancing to Ricky Martin and Shakira. I wonder if, a few hundred years from now, people will look back at our times and only remember the musical "artists" and not pay much attention to the music that made such a large impact on popular culture (where one-hit wonders and pop-icons rule).
Elizabeth:
quote:Railroad Earth(a bit Waterboys-ish)...Nickel Creek(before they got big)
Ooh! Waterboys-ish, you say? I'll have to check them out. And Nickel Creek! They're personal favorites!
Mrs. M & Annie:
On the subject of the Bangles -- I love them. Of course, I have a soft spot for most 80s music, both artistic and pop. And I have a soft spot for chick singers/bands. Oh my, did I just admit that...? Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Beck is FULL of substance! What do you mean Beck has no substance? He's incredibly poetic and he's expressive and inspiring, very artistic, has that consummate artist's touch of being able to just throw out stuff effortlessly and have it be so exactly right! How can anyone say Beck has no substance? He's crammed full to the brim with substance of all different sorts! I beg to disagree!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Godric,
Railroad Earth is a fairly new "jam band." The violinist-fiddler was in another band, but I forget the name. I don't know if you do any live music downloads, but I am pretty sure my husband uses Etree. They have a couple of samples on their website, too.
Liz
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:I do not try to understand Conway Twitty, but there are ladies out there that would eat his snot with a rusty spoon.
For that line alone, Alucard owns me.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
This is a quote I keep coming back to when I try to figure out why I like some bands and singers, and why I could care less about others.
"It's not as though we're a business trying to be a loose business; what we really are is like artists trying to survive in that half world of entertainment, which is more conscious of its entertainment self than it is of its artist self." --Jerry Garcia
My favorite musicians let the music come through them. They almost lose themselves in it, or they put themselves aside and just let it happen from the heart. I think many of the MTV musicians have to be conscious of what they look like and what they say, because so much of their selling power is visual. I think the music stations changed modern, mainstream music that way.
On another thread, I was trying to figure out why unattractive men can make it and unattractive women can't. Through the discussion, it came clear to me that my theory was off. I don't think it is the physical attributes that make musicians successful now(in a big way), but how much they are willing to give up their artist self to their entertainer self.
Liz
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Just talk to me some time about the second-best Swedish band in the world! Second only, of course, to ...
Move everyone on your list down a notch, it has a glaring omission.
I remember reading an essay by OSC once in which he stated that the people who say, "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like" tend to know more about art than the supposed professionals. I'm not saying that this is always true, but it was profound enough to stick with me. I have three Beastie Boys albums, and I think that their music has more artistic merit, measured by original, interesting and accessable ideas, than much of the music that is written as self-consciously "groundbreaking" high-art. There's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome out there that has just as much power to change the minds of "experts" as MTV has power to change the minds of the proles. Truth be told, I bet you could find a few CDs in anyone's collections that they own because they've been told by someone that they should like it. I'm as guilty as anyone else.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
One more thought:
I had a friend in high school who was as arrogant about his music tastes as anyone I've ever met, including myself. After high school, he moved to Boston and formed one of those bands of self-proclaimed "groundbreaking innovators", which happens to be named after a character that some people here may recognize. To this day, every time I've seen him, he's insisted that I purchase at least ten albums immediately (some of which I have, and about half of them have been good and the rest have been a temporarily hip blip on the screen). Of course, if I ever suggested an album to him, he would dismiss it immediately as unworthy of his attention, since he was the Guru and I was but his humble pupil. In fact, one year I loaned him several truly great albums, including Laurie Anderson's "Big Science", which he claimed to listen to and returned to me with the statement that they weren't very good. He went back to Boston and came back a year later. When he saw me, the first thing that came out of his mouth was an order to go out immediately and buy some Laurie Anderson. I've never let him live it down.
Now that the bombastic character study is out of the way, here's the point of the story:
One day we were driving around talking about music. I made an observation, more to be an argumentative jackass than to actually say something of substance. I mentioned to him that when one listens to a CD, the object of the activity is to make oneself happy. We each owned around a hundred albums or so, most of which made us happy when we listened to them. This being the case, our goal has been accomplished. So why should we ever buy or listen to another CD again for the rest of our lives? He muttered some response about the difference between enjoying oneself and enjoying a CD, but it didn't make much sense, and he's never been able to find a better argument. I didn't really mean what I said, but to this day every time I buy a new album I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.
[ July 13, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I love old pop standards like by Irving Berlin (Which makes me sound like such an old lady, how cool! ) They wrote EXCELLENT songs back then. The lyrics were clever, you got to love the lyrics to "Let's Do it." They crack me up every time. You had singers who kept their clothes on and swayed the audience just by the power of their voices alone! Now that was a good age for music. And I love 50-60s pop music. It's great! I love the girl bands of the 60s and how a lot of their music, songs like "Jimmy Mack" were just fun enjoyable songs and they sang a few with messages in it besides "If you want me come and get me." People will be listening to stuff like that centuries from now where hopefully most of the modern stuff now will be obscure. I don't know how we went from Alternative to the Backstreet boys back in 1999. I was there watching it happen. (Now, really feels like an old lady) Though, it's not like I mind watching these people wiggle. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Laurie Anderson's "Big Science","
I LOVE Laurie Anderson. We saw her in Boston an embarrassing number of years ago.
Liz
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
Liz, drop me an email and we can do a mix cd-r trade. Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
It's interesting that the idea that induces people to say "I liked so-and-so before they were popular" is the same idea that makes others go and out and buy an album because they've been told by someone that they should like it. We all are very careful about how others view our taste in music (or clothes, or books, or insert-your-medium-here).
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"It's interesting that the idea that induces people to say "I liked so-and-so before they were popular" is the same idea that makes others go and out and buy an album because they've been told by someone that they should like it."
Actually, that was not my point in mentioning that at all. I mentioned it because we downloaded their live shows, before they really started making money on studio albums(Nickel Creek, John Mayer) I think Nickel Creek is still OK with trading their live shows.
I was not trying to say that I knew them first, aren't I cool, just that we were introduced to the bands because of the live music trading network. Sorry if it came off that way.
Liz
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
that's cool, Liz. You have to admit, though, most of the times you've heard people say that, they do mean, "ain't I cool, I knew them when, I am above being swayed by popularity."
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Rohan,
I really wish many of my favorite bands would make it big, for their sake. Donna the Buffalo is starting to get bigger. They do mainly festivals, but they have hooked up with Jim Lauderdale on a recent album, so they may get more mainstream air time.
Some of the original members of that band, like Richie and Jennie Stearns, are so talented that my mouth drops open hearing and watching them. They made a conscious choice not to do too much touring, but to stay home with their kids as much as possible. I think there are many musicians who have really hard choices to make.
Liz
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Also, Rohan, I don't really disagree with your point, it just isn't really what I was saying. I remember the Deadhead snobbery. I loved going to see the Dead, and considered myself a Deadhead simply because I liked the music. There was definitely an elite, though, of folks who had gone to umpteen hundred shows, and knew them way back in the days of Haight-Ashbury, or who followed them all over the country.
Sometimes, it is not so much snobbery as amazement. Ben Harper used to play in Northampton fairly regulary. So did Blues Traveller. I never saw either of them, and kick myself for it, but it is just really neat to see a band in your neighborhood who eventually makes it big.
Liz
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Ralphie,
You crack me up.
ak,
I am sorry about Beck. As I eluded to earlier, I was just grasping for names to fill in the blanks not intending to make a case against a particular artist.
I do however, have a question for my beloved Jatraqueros:
How many of you LOVE Static-X (Especially Wisconsin Death Trip)?
Please raise your fist in the air and shake it at the sky for me. Somehow, I do not know why, I am thinking it will make me feel better.
*Thanks you in advance*
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Alucard,
Who is Satic-X? Do you have a link to a sample?
Liz
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:"It may be that some bands are completely unoriginal, or don't follow your taste, or whatnot. But if it brings the people who listen to it happiness, then what is the problem?"
Okay, sure. But if it's okay for them to like the music I hate, why can't I hate the music they like?
That's the biggest problem I have with the leading brand of tolerance. Instead of hiding our differences or pretending they don't matter, why can't we just learn to say, "I think you're completely wrong, but I like you, anyway"?
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
The way I see it, If I like a certain pop band who doesn;t write their music, well, I like the song. And I can respect the talent of those who did write it and the talent of the artist for pulling it off.
The people who wrote that song obviously know how to write songs because they can write what people like.
When i like an artist, i'm really liking the whole team that helps that artist be who they are.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: We each owned around a hundred albums or so, most of which made us happy when we listened to them. This being the case, our goal has been accomplished. So why should we ever buy or listen to another CD again for the rest of our lives?
Because the more you listen to an album, the less happiness it brings you each time. Part of the happiness was rooted in the qualities of the music, and part of it in the newness of it. The quality stays, but the newness wears thin, and you need something new to move you that way again, to give you back the sense of discovery you had when you first heard the music you now own.
^ Icarus's Theory of Diminishing Musical Returns™
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Speed & Matt -
Totally agree with you on the Cardigans. But my real favorite Swedish band (oh - there are just so many! ) is Garmarna. They do techno-rockish stuff, but the lyrics are medieval poetry. They have one album that's the poetry of Hildegard von Bingen (my favorite medieval female art patron/poet/visionary nun) all rocked out. I highly recommend them. I had a student in the class I TA'ed last semester who had spent a year in Sweden but never heard of them - I let her listen to my Vengeance album, and she is now a true convert.
You can also get compilation albums that feature all kinds of contemporary Scandinavian groups. It's good for restoring your faith that the Northlands are not just American pop producing machines, though heaven knows they can crank out the bubblegum.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Ic:
quote:Because the more you listen to an album, the less happiness it brings you each time. Part of the happiness was rooted in the qualities of the music, and part of it in the newness of it. The quality stays, but the newness wears thin, and you need something new to move you that way again, to give you back the sense of discovery you had when you first heard the music you now own.
^ Icarus's Theory of Diminishing Musical Returns™
And here, Icarus has explained why the divorce rate is so high... Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
Well, I've always said that music, like all art, is communication. The object isn't to make you feel happy, but to make you feel what the artist wants to make you feel.
That having been said, when we're talking about HATING music, what we have is obviously more than a failure to communicate.
Let's look at a personal "everybody thinks these guys are great but I don't" pet peeve of mine, Coldplay. Their first single was a whiny, meandering bit of tripe called "Yellow". The capper for me was the way the guy sang the word yellow. The line was "and it was all yellow", but he's got this incredibly fake-sounding British accent, so the line comes out like "'n' it wz awwwl yellahowugh". As bland and lame as I found the song to be, that one line made me want to scream and cry and break things.
Why? Why do I hate that song so much? Well, first, it fails to resonate with me emotionally. But not only do I not feel whatever they intended me to feel, I completely reject the song. Somewhere on some fundamental level, the song misses so badly with me that I can't even listen to it. Maybe I don't want to feel what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I don't like what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I CAN'T feel what the song is trying to make me feel.
On the other hand, maybe Coldplay just sucks.
Peace policy
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
or maybe you need to listen to more than one song from a band to be able to judge the band as a whole...
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
policy:
quote:Well, I've always said that music, like all art, is communication. The object isn't to make you feel happy, but to make you feel what the artist wants to make you feel.
As I said before, I'd call that propoganda, not art. Art is communication, but if an individual work's point is to make you feel the way the artist wants you to feel, that is not communication, that's an attempt at control.
quote:...but he's got this incredibly fake-sounding British accent...
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but he is British, isn't he?
quote:Maybe I don't want to feel what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I don't like what the song is trying to make me feel, maybe I CAN'T feel what the song is trying to make me feel.
Maybe you think it's trying to make you feel something when it's really just "painting a musical picture." I'm not saying that music can't or won't influence the way people feel. But as communication, only half of the work was completed by the artist. The other half depends on you the listener to interpret, imagine, etc.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
More thoughts on music:
Most of it is just plan chemical. For example, I hear Dir en grey and something inside of me just lights up. Other people hear them and they look puzzled. Pop music is also sometimes distasteful to me because they are thinking in terms of what an ideal audience would like instead of just playing for themselves. At least in most cases. That is such a turn off.
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
Strider: I've heard the other singles, and while they don't drive me crazy with how bad they are (like Yellow), I haven't heard anything from them that would indicate they're capable of producing music I actually like.
Godric: Without delving too deeply into semantics, IMHO, "painting a picture" is exactly the same thing as playing a song or publishing a novel. In all cases, you're presenting art to an audience--and in both cases, the audience can like it or not, empathize with it or not, take it or leave it. But the good stuff moves you, and artists who know what they're doing move you in specific directions. Just like a writer of fiction, a musician anticipates the audience's reaction.
As an example: Joe Satriani's "Summer Song" captures summer very, very well. When I hear that song, it's the middle of July and I'm doing 90 down the highway with the top down, even if it's December and I don't own a convertible. I'm feeling what the artist is hoping I feel when I hear the song, and presumably what the artist himself was feeling when he wrote the song. That's good songwriting, and good music, not propaganda.
Peace policy
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
policy:
quote:Without delving too deeply into semantics, IMHO, "painting a picture" is exactly the same thing as playing a song or publishing a novel. In all cases, you're presenting art to an audience--and in both cases, the audience can like it or not, empathize with it or not, take it or leave it. But the good stuff moves you, and artists who know what they're doing move you in specific directions. Just like a writer of fiction, a musician anticipates the audience's reaction.
Once again, I have to quibble with what you're defining as art. If the "artist" knows what he's doing and moves you to go on a killing spree, is that "good?"
Although the late Mr. McLuhan is famous for having proposed that "the message is the medium," I believe he was wrong, or at least not completely accurate. While the medium by which we communicate (in this case we are speaking of art and music, specifically) may indeed have some affect on how we perceive the message, it is not in and of itself the message. What does this have to do with our subject, you ask? Let me give an example. If a composer writes a sonata that he intends to make his listeners sad, he will employ his medium (minor keys) as his message (sadness). But this is not the whole story for the art critic, whose job, as I see it is to not only define art from entertainment or propoganda, but to interact with the art -- communicate, if you prefer. As a listener you should become a critic. Unless, of course you are only participating so as to be entertained, in which case you are free not to think and enjoy the experience (I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except that entertainment should not be anyone's sole purpose in his/her exposure to art. If one chooses only to be entertained, one becomes much more likely to mistake propoganda for entertainment and thus be affected by it.).
As a critic then, and as someone who is actively communicating with art, the message seperates itself from the medium and grows into something more than mere entertainment and more than mere propoganda, but art in it's truest sense. Now before you suppose that I'm jumping all the guns and delving into the theoretical, I point to your own example of Santana's "Summer Song."
You are interacting with the music when "it's the middle of July and I'm doing 90 down the highway with the top down, even if it's December and I don't own a convertible." The question is, how are you interacting? Are you being "controlled" or are you developing those feelings and images with the song?
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
Godric: If an artist was in a blind rage, and that rage inspired the artist to write a song/paint a picture/dance a dance/write a story, and upon taking in that piece I became so enraged that I went on a killing spree, then certianly the artist was effective in getting their message across. Imposing moral judgments on the reaction of the audience has nothing to do with whether or not the piece was well done. In fact, it would take some amazingly well-crafted and inspired art to move someone to immediate physical action.
As regards to my example--well, first of all, it's Joe Satriani, not Carlos Santana. Secondly, being a "critic" of at has nothing to do with "interacting" with it. The very definition of the word "interact" require that you have the ability to change the art--you, as the audience, do not have that ability. All you can do is take it in and process it. Now, the first time I heard Summer Song, I felt the way I still feel when I hear that song--I didn't know it was called Summer Song, but it sure felt summery. Heck, go download it and hear for yourself; get the cut from his "Live in San Francisco" disc if you can.
Basically, what I'm saying is that art that makes you feel the way the artist intended is good art, and propganda is art that tries to change how you THINK about something. Those are two totally different things, dude.
Peace policy
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
policy:
quote:. Imposing moral judgments on the reaction of the audience has nothing to do with whether or not the piece was well done.
I didn't say it did. My question was an introduction to my argument. You seemed to be saying that if an artist can make you feel what he is feeling when he creates his piece that constitutes "good" art. A piece of propoganda or entertainment can be well done and not be goood art. Nobody can say that the Backstreet Boys albums aren't well produced. But would you call them good art?
quote:As regards to my example--well, first of all, it's Joe Satriani, not Carlos Santana.
Oops!
I must admit that I am not very familiar with either Carlos Santana or Joe Satriani.
quote:Secondly, being a "critic" of at has nothing to do with "interacting" with it. The very definition of the word "interact" require that you have the ability to change the art--you, as the audience, do not have that ability. All you can do is take it in and process it.
I disagree. Many musicians and other artists have gained insights from listeners and critics. Others will not discuss their inspirations or the "meaning" of their art because they want the audience to decide for themselves. That's an invitation to interact with the art. The artist provides us with a subject or subjects, but we must respond.
quote:Basically, what I'm saying is that art that makes you feel the way the artist intended is good art, and propganda is art that tries to change how you THINK about something. Those are two totally different things, dude.
Propoganda is not limited to realm of thought. In fact, I would venture to guess that it works better by discouraging thought and encouraging reactions. Once again, if an artist's sole purpose is to make you feel a certain way, I do not classify his work as art, but as propoganda. Not all propoganda is bad (in a moral or physical sense) and not all art is without propoganda, but I don't think what you're saying here are two different things.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Policy and Godric,
I have been following your discussion, and it is very interesting. If you look back to the post I made with the Jerry Garcia quote, where he mentions the thin line between entertainment and art, I think he makes a lot of sense.
I wonder if we took a look at our favorite musicians, successful-in-the-mainstream ones, if we could follow a history of their work and see how it changed over time. How much did they change since they started playing? Did their music start to change because of pressure from thr recording industry? Did they keep doing their thing anyway?
One example, for me, would be Billy Joel. For a while there, he did not play the piano. He is a master! His lyrics and music were, to me, beautiful. Then, there was a period where he married Christy Brinkley, was in the public eye, and his music changed. It was not necessarily worse, it just changed, and I no longer cared for it. Other people loved it.
I just really wonder what it is that makes musicians change. One thing might just be simple: their life. Maybe they were poor, and had seen some tough things, had lived through pain. Then, they became rich, and they were happy. Their music seemed fluffier, but it was just that they were no longer deep and dark.
Just a thought, Liz
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Then, they became rich, and they were happy."
I am not implying that being rich means being happy, it was just an example.
Liz
Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
Sorry to bring this topic back up from the dead, but I wanted to respond to Godric:
quote:You seemed to be saying that if an artist can make you feel what he is feeling when he creates his piece that constitutes "good" art. A piece of propoganda or entertainment can be well done and not be goood art. Nobody can say that the Backstreet Boys albums aren't well produced. But would you call them good art?
No, because the Backstreet Boys don't HAVE a message, or a purpose, or any reason to make music other than money. That's why, when you listen to their music, it's all sort of bland, pleasant, noncommittal music that's sort of generically about relationships (but nothing too specific or personal). They don't succeed at moving people (other than 13-year-old girls). Good art stirs something inside you, inspires you. If an artist is good at what they do, they can capture a feeling or emotion and convey it to the audience. Of course everyone has their own feelings, reactions, and associations--but ultimately an artist is trying to express themselves, to share some emotion or feeling with an audience.
quote:I must admit that I am not very familiar with either Carlos Santana or Joe Satriani.
I won't hold that against you for the purpose of this discussion, but you should check Satriani out. You should check out "the Extremist", or "Crystal Planet".
quote:I disagree. Many musicians and other artists have gained insights from listeners and critics.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether their first album was any good or not. Just putting in a CD and listening to it, or attending an art exhibition, involves no "interaction". You can't judge the quality of art, or the ability of an artist, based on how the later art is produced (based on popular and critical response). A finished piece of art should be judged alone, by itself, on its merits.
quote:Propoganda is not limited to realm of thought.
Yes, it is. Propaganda is political art, meant to change or reinforce the political thoughts of the audience. If everyone who hears a certain song starts tapping their toes, because it's just that catchy--that's not "pro-toe-tapping propaganda", that's just good music.
quote:Once again, if an artist's sole purpose is to make you feel a certain way, I do not classify his work as art, but as propoganda.
Well, you can go ahead and classify whatever you want as whatever you want, but propaganda is a word that already has a definition. Art that effectively captures, conveys, or evokes an emotion, feeling, time or place is not propaganda--it's good art.
Peace policy
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
<<useless "I agree!" to policyvote>>
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
policy:
quote:Sorry to bring this topic back up from the dead, but I wanted to respond to Godric:
I'm glad you did! I've been enjoying this discussion quite a bit, although it is blantantly obvious you're arguing off key.
quote:No, because the Backstreet Boys don't HAVE a message, or a purpose, or any reason to make music other than money. That's why, when you listen to their music, it's all sort of bland, pleasant, noncommittal music that's sort of generically about relationships (but nothing too specific or personal). They don't succeed at moving people (other than 13-year-old girls).
::nods::
quote:Good art stirs something inside you, inspires you.
Yes! Good art is more than the sum of its parts (the artist and the audience). Hopefully you're not only inspired in an emotional sense -- hopefully you're inspired in a way that is true, or that reveals truth or beauty, etc.
quote:If an artist is good at what they do, they can capture a feeling or emotion and convey it to the audience. Of course everyone has their own feelings, reactions, and associations--but ultimately an artist is trying to express themselves, to share some emotion or feeling with an audience.
This is where, I think, our differences lie. If what you describe is the sole purpose of a piece, it is propagandistic (as a side note, I've been idiotically mispelling propaganda all this time... ). I'll discuss this more later.
quote:I won't hold that against you for the purpose of this discussion, but you should check Satriani out. You should check out "the Extremist", or "Crystal Planet".
I will. One of the things I like best about meeting and talking to new people is discovering new and exciting music, books, movies, etc. Thanks!
quote:Okay, but that has nothing to do with whether their first album was any good or not. Just putting in a CD and listening to it, or attending an art exhibition, involves no "interaction". You can't judge the quality of art, or the ability of an artist, based on how the later art is produced (based on popular and critical response). A finished piece of art should be judged alone, by itself, on its merits.
I'm not sure that I follow your train of thought. I wasn't comparing an artist's early works to his latter works. I completely agree that a finished work should be judged on its own merits. What I'm trying to say is that the audience and their response is a part of any piece of art. I think we, as a culture, and as consumers, have become lazy regarding how we engage art. We seem to think that all the responsibility lies on the artist alone and we swallow their often incomplete ideas whole.
quote:Yes, it is. Propaganda is political art, meant to change or reinforce the political thoughts of the audience. If everyone who hears a certain song starts tapping their toes, because it's just that catchy--that's not "pro-toe-tapping propaganda", that's just good music.
To quote the wonderful Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
From Merriam-Webster OnLine:
quote:Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO- Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 Date: 1718 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Obviously, definition number one does not apply. However, please point out to me where in definitions two and three it says that propganda is limited to trying to change the way people think.
As I said before, it works better, most certainly politically, by discouraging thought and encouraging reactions. Why are smear campaigns so popular? A TV add smearing the incumbent is in a broad definition, visual art. I would classify it as propaganda. But it works by evoking an emotional response, not a thoughtful one.
And again, I'm not saying emotion is bad. I'm saying that good art culminates with good emotional and thoughtful interaction.
quote:Well, you can go ahead and classify whatever you want as whatever you want, but propaganda is a word that already has a definition.
As referenced above...
quote:Art that effectively captures, conveys, or evokes an emotion, feeling, time or place is not propaganda--it's good art.
I think that your definition of good art is too broad and lacks the element of personal responsibility. When I say that, I don't mean to imply that you have to write a thesis or create a movement based on every piece of art you come into contact with. I mean that as an audience of a piece of art your engagement of it is the last piece of it's completed puzzle. If you listen to a piece of music that effectively captures joy and you become joyful and then a piece of music that is depressing and you become depressed, you are only reacting to stimuli and might well be a "victim" of propoganda.
[ July 17, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Godric ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Reviving this post to tell Alucard (wherever he is) that I LOVE Static-X and thank the Lord that I found someone else on this forum that does. I've started two threads at least talking about them and all I've gotten are a couple of shrugs and shaking heads. PEOPLE! They ROCK!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
) They wrote EXCELLENT songs back then. The lyrics were clever, you got to love the lyrics to "Let's Do it." They crack me up every time. You had singers who kept their clothes on and swayed the audience just by the power of their voices alone! Now that was a good age for music.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)