MUSIC ARGUMENT I CANT THINK OF A GOOD TITLE i cant i dunno
This is another thread based on an argument in the IRC, so yeah most of you should just ignore this. This is mainly going to be a hate Snooths thread (once again!), but I feel VERY strongly about this and I want to see what people can come up with against me.
First off, Pop music is mostly bullshit and any band or artist that goes into making music/ art for the sole purpose of making money and becoming famous, is in my eyes, a failure. I think that the fact that an artist is willing to sacrifice their artistic integrity in order to create something to appeal to a larger audience means that, regardless of the quality of the music itself, it is fake. There is no passion, no love and no creativity, and these people create only as a tool to make money.
Also, because they only create to be liked and enjoyed, and aren't willing to try anything new. They are afraid that if they were to make art that experimented at all and pushed boundaries and was actually (gasp!) CREATIVE, they might lose their audience, and therefore lose money. This means that the majority of it is going to be the same thing over and over, from every artist. This also means that the music has no lasting value and is essentially meaningless and will be considered out of date and irrelevant within a couple months.
This isn't a hipster attempt to seem cool either, I'm not saying mainstream music is bad just because it's mainstream. There have been many mainstream artists (Nirvana, Green Day, The Clash, The Strokes, The White Stripes, etc (I could go on but I imagine a lot of you probably already don't know who 4/5ths of those people, and think the other 1/5th's first album was American Idiot)) who started off simply because they loved music, and the mainstream was forced to accept them as they were without changing their sound directly to make cash.
There's more reasoning why but i am too fuckin tired and i cant remember aces and commies points anyway and holy shit i fell asleep twice whil typing this ps taeshi is drunk in irc right now isnt that funh ok byre
- 19 December 2010 - 07:04 AM
so yeah theyre ok
- 19 December 2010 - 07:12 AM
you can't say rubber soul was a bad album, but yeah, i love abbey road the most
- 19 December 2010 - 07:13 AM
- 19 December 2010 - 07:19 AM
- 19 December 2010 - 07:23 AM
The nitty-gritty of it is that you probably shouldn't do something for a living you don't like, but you shouldn't accept being demonized for making money doing what you enjoy as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. You shouldn't be forced to be looked down upon because what you do has translated into economic success, regardless of whether it doesn't change or not.
Oh, and as to things not lasting for more than a few months if they are like other things, that's really just how people move with their tastes, but some people still listen only to mainstream garbage from the 50's or 80's that is no different from the other garbage that spawned it.
- 19 December 2010 - 07:25 AM
This post has been edited by CaptainBaconMan: 19 December 2010 - 07:41 AM
- 19 December 2010 - 07:40 AM
Whf I would seriously argue that Gwen Stefani's two albums or at least Love Angel Music Baby is worth owning yet it is very bubblegum pop what do you make of that. I feel like vapid pop can be actually substantial if it's so catchy and so well done to be exemplary within that genre
- 19 December 2010 - 11:08 AM
- 19 December 2010 - 02:50 PM
i also think i'm too lazy to explain why.
- 19 December 2010 - 03:00 PM
I'm not saying that there hasn't been some good pop music produced for the sake of cash, I'm just saying that I don't like the idea and it is usually boring because people are scared of change.
I've never heard Gwen Stefani but I like Cee-Lo a lot, I think Kanyes new album is pretty much the best thing ever, and I think Lady Gaga is actually quite talented, even though you wouldn't be able to tell it from what you hear on the radio.
- 19 December 2010 - 03:58 PM
Well, they will certainly not be failures in terms of economic gain. But yes, I somewhat agree - one should put effort and emotion (and possibly statement, although I view that as less important) into music as with any other form of art. Ace makes some good points in his reply, but overall I would agree that fame, and the title of "artist", should only pass to people who work with their music rather than surfing on a wave.
I would also like to argue that it is possible to objectively measure the quality of music, but I will not unless people want me to explain. ^_^
- 19 December 2010 - 10:31 PM
HEY she wears WACKY clothing (david bowie/ madonna) and does edgy things on stage (iggy pop/ gg allin) she is ORIGINAL you dont GET IT wearing a telephone = making good music
no actually i hated her etc until i came across this
- 20 December 2010 - 02:38 AM
- 20 December 2010 - 03:03 AM
but in the record version of that song, it sounds like she has a computerized voice/ there is electronic backing/ etc
most pop artists have people write their songs, but with this video, its obvious she composed it herself/ has a fantastic voice/ can actually play an instrument, none of which can be inferred by listening to the original, which is why i respect her somewhat now
despite the fact that her normal music is garbage
- 20 December 2010 - 03:25 AM
- 20 December 2010 - 05:00 AM
2. even if she does write her own stuff it still sucks !¡!
- 20 December 2010 - 06:11 AM
- 20 December 2010 - 07:31 AM
Eh, I thought Resistance was quite lackluster compared to their earlier albums. That or I haven't had much time with it. Either way, all of their previous albums had songs that were outstanding, Resistance didn't have any IMO.
- 20 December 2010 - 11:59 AM
I guess it's natural for musicians to create albums that can be profitable. After all, an album is like a huge thesis: takes a least a month or two to get a working draft and the rest of the year to finalize it. You don't want to create songs that completely break out of established rules (imagine a song with no rhythm), you put that in your daily playing, not in your albums.
I favor the process over the results, but that doesn't mean I don't like to have good music coming out of my computer when I listen to my past improvisations. whf, maybe these artists actually think they sound better that way, have you thought about that? Sure, I think there could be more that can be put in, but I don't think something is bad simply because it isn't done to my liking.
And funny thing, too. I learned improvisation initially because I thought the 'mainstream' artists are create too simple a melody, and I could create better songs off the top of my head. I wanted to make my own kind of songs. But in the end, this taught me to appreciate all sorts of music. Unless the song gets on my nerves (as in, makes you cringe literally every time you hear it), I usually give songs enough listens to discern what techniques were employed. Gives me a direction to work toward.
- 20 December 2010 - 01:13 PM
Well, let me start of by saying that I do not want to disregard people's likes or dislikes, that may or may not transcend the borders of musical quality. I also look away from the requirement that the music must be generally liked. The measurement only takes into account how the music has been composed.
Basically, it follows the same line of thought that you mention - one will have to put effort into the music, and it will have to be beyond what any normal person in the street will be able to put forth. The first requirement is that one should do something more than write down three chords, a random string of words, and then call it a day. A piece of music that can be called objectively good may be written in a short time, but only if inspiration is present. Conversely, a song that took years to write may not necessarily be good, if all one did was to write a note into the melody every week. A good tune therefore requires planned inspiration.
Secondly, the music needs to have a specific intention. This ties with the previous point - if you just write randomly, then there is no agenda in it. Putting thought into what you write, (almost) regardless of what you write about, will improve it in terms of objective quality. But of course, there are exceptions, too.
Thirdly, it will either have to follow a certain set of rules, or bend them without breaking them. These rules do not have to be the compositional rules of jazz music, or Indian classical music, but they have to be founded on experience with that particular form. The rules may be bent (this is for the sake of progress), but if you outright go against them the result will not be of objectively good quality.
Last of all, it will have to be somewhat advanced. If anybody on the street can pick up an instrument and play the song flawlessly, then that is a problem. It does not have to be too technically difficult for even experienced musicians to play, but it does have to require some skill and training. Also, those that perform the music need to put some emotion into what they do, rather than being indifferent to it. Since this requirement partly puts weight on recordings or performances, the composition itself needs not be subjected to it.
Therefore, the four things that define an objectively good song are:
3. Adherence to rules
4. Technical difficulty/Feeling in performance
Any song, tune, composition or piece that fulfils all of these requirements, can be objectively defined as having high quality, but one that has low scores in all of them is, objectively, bad. Naturally, when I give this definition I am aware that it is arbitrary. I do not want to dictate how people should feel about music, nor to say whether people should like certain songs or not. Therefore the requirements are set aside as a sideshow to public opinion, or to personal preference.
The reason I mention this at all, is because the science of music is generally unknown. Perhaps five per cent of humans alive today truly know music (I would not define myself as one of these, but I know people I would put among them), while the remaining 95% are just in for the ride. In fact, many great songwriters have complained that the public did not like those compositions they had worked most and hardest on, but rather took a liking to those they merely wrote on a whim. Thus I would claim that the idea of an objective measurement of quality would hold merit, although mine may be a bit too coloured by what I feel myself.
- 20 December 2010 - 04:10 PM
3. Adherence to rules
4. Technical difficulty/Feeling in performance
Any song, tune, composition or piece that fulfils [sic] all of these requirements, can be objectively defined as having high quality, but one that has low scores in all of them is, objectively, bad. Naturally, when I give this definition I am aware that it is arbitrary. I do not want to dictate how people should feel about music, nor to say whether people should like certain songs or not. Therefore the requirements are set aside as a sideshow to public opinion, or to personal preference.
I don't get why you need a set of parameters to define the objective quality of a song, if it gets swept away by personal preferences in the end. I feel like you're just trying to find a reason to call some specific song bad.
I think your definition of the word 'music' is narrowed down to pop/rock songs, the ones with lyrics, three chords, and titles like "Perfect Time of Day". I mean, using only three chords, random string of words, and an entire day, I can create a nice solid instrumental song. I mean, decent one chord songs were made (American Woman by The Guess Who for one), scat singing is essentially using nonsense syllables in improvisational singing, and the entire scene of jamming/musical improvisation is based upon one's ability to make up songs on the spot. Funny thing is, if a person does piano improvisation using (strictly) C blue scales while singing scat, he'd be using less than three chords, using random strings of words, and calling it a performance.
And inspiration doesn't need to be present. I'm encouraged to record every single one of my daily improv on the piano because we often do not know whether what we played is good or not at the time. Something that may sound awesome at the time may sound terrible, and vice versa. I find that even on days when I'm not feeling particularly inspirational, I can still churn out some nice melodies.
Sometimes people will ask me where I get my inspiration from, or what I was trying to aim for when I create certain songs. Sometimes my honest answer is "I don't know". For me, the daily improv on the piano is just a fun activity to do. I'm having fun, I'm getting a kick out of it, why must I think about symbolic elements in my music when I'm doing what I like to do?
Oh hoh, your definition of 'somewhat advanced' is quite peculiar. I mean, anyone who wants to play any song on any instrument would have to first learn to play that instrument first, wouldn't you agree? Any one who can play guitar, no matter the skill level, would have had 'some' training in guitar, wouldn't they? How about purely vocal songs? Anyone who have an average sense of melody recognition should be able to hit the notes.
And emotion is a strange thing. Sometimes you put in emotions into your playing, and instead sounds overdone, yet other times, when you're just mindlessly just jamming around: my god, you not only hit the right notes, but the feeling also seem perfect for whatever you're playing. With enough practice, even the most indifferent guitarist can pull off heart-wrenching solos. Hell, that intro in Sweet Child 'O Mine? Yeah, that was a cross-string alternate picking practice lick Slash developed. It's a freaking practice song.
I don't see the merit in developing an objective set of rules for determining the value of a song. Songs are essentially stimulus for the audience to react to (just like any art), and the 'value' of a song derives mainly off of what the audience thinks about it. Think about it. If the song is created merely for the enjoyment of the composer, should public opinion of the song matter to the composer? Similarly, if the song is created to cater to a certain audience (and let's assume it does), would the song's complexity or difficulty matter to its 'value'?
I thank you, ILB, for bringing the system up at all. It was very brave of you to putting it forward against my rage and rant. (I feel obligated to say this because the post seems to descend into a flame after a few sentences).
- 21 December 2010 - 12:47 PM
- 21 December 2010 - 02:49 PM
More like trying to justify calling some songs good. No, as I said, I did not want to call any songs bad, or to say that people cannot like some forms of music.
That said, some bias may have entered the system as a result of my polemic attitude towards Arnold Schönberg.
Far from it. ^_^
Actually, I wanted to include all forms of music, including classical music, improvisational jazz, African music, Irish folk, and so on, and so on. I tried to make that clear, but if another impression came across, I apologise for that.
Yes, I agree that the list I set up is lacking, particularly when it comes to improvisational music. But I tried to allow that form there - I would like to argue that good improvisational music contains both planned inspiration and intention. Planned inspiration because those who know the style have been taught how to improvise, and, in a way, have learned how to call forth inspiration. Oh, and otherwise, I think you partly missed my point - I did not mean to say that all songs with three chords or less are objectively awful. Merely to say that if you write down "Cm-Dm-G/B" without having any reason to do so, the result is not as good as it would be if you actually wanted to write that down.
Yes, I realise this, and this is the greatest deficiency of the system I suggested.
Ah, I can see how that would be confusing. ^_^
No, what I mean is that people should have more than just basic training in their instrument to play it. Or, perhaps training is a bit of a silly word - experience is far more fitting to what I wanted to say, otherwise it could exclude songs that are powerful because of their simplicity.
Vocal songs? Yes, that is a bit of a grey area. Normally, however, one needs to have more than just a natural talent to perform it well. So I would say "experience" here, too, although it is a bit harder to put that as a requirement for it.
True. However, perhaps we have slightly different definitions of "emotion" - if you have to try so much to improvise that you lose your sense of the music itself, then the result is not optimal. Jamming, of course, can bring forth wonderful results if you let it flow.
These are very timely, and very good, questions. Yes, as I said, a system such as this one would be arbitrary either way, because it tries to define something we perhaps should not define. If I may say so, however, it gives more merit to the composers (or performers, in the case of improvisational music) than just going by personal taste.
I hope this clears some things up, but if you still disagree, then I will not blame you for that. Rest assured, though, that I think we agree more than what it initially appears. ^_^
- 21 December 2010 - 06:16 PM
Yes, music which is specifically manufactured to make money is a load of crap and generally bad, I agree with that.
Often however, people are not exposed to anything better, and so can enjoy it anyway. To them, it is not bad music, and they may well think other types are bad.
Music is a very opinionated area, just like art. You can extract a deeper meaning, and look at the technical side of whether it's well composed etc, just like art critics do, but equally this does not mean people -should- like or dislike it.
Anyway, the "manufactured" music becomes mainstream simply because of lots of advertising and word of mouth. Other music which is independent, gets popular, then gets published, becomes more popular, and idiot hipsters decide "ooh you sold out" or some bollocks. Many bands will be a one trick pony and only have one "sound", is it a problem? No not really, there are tonnes of bands, and equally, there are bands which change their sound a lot.
Anyway, your point is that any artist going into it for the money is going to be bad. Not true, you can go into it for the money and be good, creative, everything else, despite having gone into it for the money.
But for the most part yes you're right.
Now what are you so angry about? I'm sorry but it's just music and people like different things, problem?
- 21 December 2010 - 10:51 PM
typing out knotty words means youre angry
- 22 December 2010 - 07:04 AM
- 24 December 2010 - 11:41 PM
No, sorry. Silly joke.
- 25 December 2010 - 12:28 AM
im in irc all the time you nerd and im criticizing what youre saying not you
- 25 December 2010 - 03:52 AM