Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of music now, especially top 40, is produced with the intention of making the maximum amount of money. The artist does not make the song, it is created in a studio first, and then given to a personality to sell it.
With that concept, there is no love in making the music.
As far as individual tastes, to each is their own. I worked for a production company in the music industry for a number of years, and most everyone there had a chip on their shoulder about what was "good" music. I have never met so many music snobs in my life.
On the other hand, being a musician can influence the decision on what is good as well, because one recognizes the talent or lack thereof when listening to music.
Good post. We moved from an era where people like Louis Armstrong were celebrated and deservingly so, to an era where corporate hacks force feed mediocrity on us and most people get to the point where they defend that mediocrity to the death.
I don’t blame the individual; it is not really their fault. As you say being a musician really does open your eyes (or ears).
Agree with the corporate shoving down our throats thing. They only care about profit and let's face it, there's gold in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The problem of course is the dumbing down of not just music, but most things in American life.
My take on whether there is a universal good is yes, there is, but only up to a certain level of greatness. After that, it is all subjective. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will say The Osmond Brothers were better musically than say the Stones; but I think it would be justifiable if someone liked Willie Nelson better than the Stones. I don't but I think Willie's a good songwriter and musician. Just not my thing.
Agree with the corporate shoving down our throats thing. They only care about profit and let's face it, there's gold in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The problem of course is the dumbing down of not just music, but most things in American life.
My take on whether there is a universal good is yes, there is, but only up to a certain level of greatness. After that, it is all subjective. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will say The Osmond Brothers were better musically than say the Stones; but I think it would be justifiable if someone liked Willie Nelson better than the Stones. I don't but I think Willie's a good songwriter and musician. Just not my thing.
Ha! That's pretty funny, man. I only had to listen to about 10 seconds of each to say, No! Of course that does not make you a snob. The first one was simplistic and boring, the second intricate and textured and fully engaging. I mean, you could have pulled out two that were A LITTLE MORE comparable, but you're point was made.
There are standards of excellence in everything, right? Food, cars, housing, but the intangibles get a little trickier. Also, people have such a personal connection to music that even if they realize something from their youth, when life was happening for the first time, and in BOLD PRINT, is in retrospect a little subpar, it won't matter to them. They will still tend to love it. Music doesn't have to be complicated necessarily to be good, but for me at least if it's something you can get your teeth into that hasn't lost its musicality along the way, then it is something that will make me stretch and will therefore hold my attention.
Some music, this is glaringly so in jazz, is only intent on complexity, is over intellectualized and ugly. Miles Davis, one of my top three jazz instrumentalists was a guy who had to always grow, it was part of his make-up. But he had a period where for me he got a little noisy.
Ha! That's pretty funny, man. I only had to listen to about 10 seconds of each to say, No! Of course that does not make you a snob. The first one was simplistic and boring, the second intricate and textured and fully engaging. I mean, you could have pulled out two that were A LITTLE MORE comparable, but you're point was made.
There are standards of excellence in everything, right? Food, cars, housing, but the intangibles get a little trickier. Also, people have such a personal connection to music that even if they realize something from their youth, when life was happening for the first time, and in BOLD PRINT, is in retrospect a little subpar, it won't matter to them. They will still tend to love it. Music doesn't have to be complicated necessarily to be good, but for me at least if it's something you can get your teeth into that hasn't lost its musicality along the way, then it is something that will make me stretch and will therefore hold my attention.
Some music, this is glaringly so in jazz, is only intent on complexity, is over intellectualized and ugly. Miles Davis, one of my top three jazz instrumentalists was a guy who had to always grow, it was part of his make-up. But he had a period where for me he got a little noisy.
Very good post, I think you get my point. I so agree, it seems like very few people are willing to admit that the reason they think a group is so great is because of what was happening in their life when they were first into them. My wife is a prime example; she still loves all the hair bands from the 80's and thinks they are the best but most of what I notice is she is into the words, not the music so much. She would think my stuff sucks while hers is the best. It is all because of that is what she was into as teen.
There are a lot of very basic songs that just have something special; I love a lot of “pop” songs. I am not trying to compare the merits of (as someone said) Radiohead, to say Sonic Youth, both are good “hip” bands and the enjoyment is purely subjective. I am talking about why would someone who is really into music limit themselves to the upper tier of pop, when there are some amazing bands and musicians out there? Then they dis the amazing bands and defend to the death the pop.
I so agree about a lot of Jazz, Miles had some amazing songs but some I just can’t listen to, the same with Parker and all the Jazz greats.
You can't get over the Nirvana thing can you? Stick with bashing Michael Jackson, you are better at that.
Not really, my point there was a valid one that you just refused to accept.
Quote:
I know good musicians and I am tired of mediocrity being celebrated in our society, so shoot me. Again, for the 10th time, I just don't like people celebrating mediocrity as being the best thing ever; there is nothing wrong with that opinion. It is not subjective to compare good musicians vs. bad.
You think you're the ONLY person who knows good musicians?
Like others have said....it's a pompous and arrogant attitude to hold.
Quote:
You just keep missing the point with Nirvana, I was asking for who changed things, not who made things popular. Music critic’s talk about what is popular; they don’t talk about the sources of change. Any critic who thinks that grunge was not a mass consumption outpouring of punk is not much of a critic.
Well, maybe you never actually READ what I quoted. But you insisted upon tearing it down regardless.
You DID argue that they didn't cause a sea-change in music from the 80's to the 90's that lasted a decade.
The Beatles also cause a sea-change in music although they weren't the first or only band to play that style.
You DID argue that they didn't cause a sea-change in music from the 80's to the 90's that lasted a decade.
The Beatles also cause a sea-change in music although they weren't the first or only band to play that style.
Nonetheless....they get the credit as do Nirvana.
Again, the thread you are referring to is about innovators, not who brought innovations to the mainstream. It is like trying to say Henry Ford invented the automobile as opposed to Benz.
What's with the back and forth, maybe it's time to agree to disagree guys lol.
I could give a crap about musicianship, I'm not a musician, I'm a listener. I listen to something, and my ears tell me if I like it or not, I could care less about the complexity of the composed piece of actual music. There is probably good music that is complex, but there is also bad music that is complex, and there is great music that is simple.
This is music, not a drumming competetion, there is a reason they don't play those on the radio, because people would be driving off bridges.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
