Music Discussion Thread

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by JrKASperov: *snip*

Cliff notes version: you're a 19 year old progrock snob, who will hopefully get some sense in him when he gets older with respect to other people's tastes. You're making the wrong assumption that listening to "difficult" music automatically gives you a carte blanche to trash any other genres, while it only turns you into more of an embittered loner who can't relate to 99.9% of the people musically.

Just believe me JrKASperov, that knowledge of instruments, craftmanship and an urge to experiment in progrock, freejazz, modern classical music, minimalism, abstract IDM, whatever, may help to develop music in new and exciting ways and that they're often impressive feats - in that they turn non-conventional ways of composing into actual music that can be enjoyed on some level and is intruiging at the same time - but that does not automatically result in music that's "better" by fact than mere popsongs; just in compositions that are crafted in more complex ways. If I have to choose between the complex yet snoozefest-inducing guitar wankery of Yngwie Malmsteen and, say, an Outkast song, I'll probably go with the latter. Does that say something about my taste? You tell me - my interests range from King Crimson/Albert Ayler/Louis Andriessen/Coil on the one end to (deceivingly?) simple stuff like, well, see for yourself. Plenty of those latter bands are probably way too simplistic for Your Royal Refinedness, but I really do think there's some real talent involved in the creation of a "lesser" piece of a music that yet manages to capture millions of people and still doesn't grow stale over the years.

Taste is in the eye of the beholder, and so is talent, apparently. If a simple singer/songwriter with just a guitar can evoke a more emotionally involved response to more people (and to me) than a self-indulgent progrock band backed by an entire orchestra and their toothless grandmother on kitchen sink percussion in a 9/8 tone pattern, then I'll very likely prefer the former when it comes to judgments of taste and talent - but you'll probably see that differently. I'm fine with you using specifications like "light" and "shallow", just not that these should apply to entire genres, nor should you see these labels as ways to distinguish "good" from "bad", or at least not in the way that you seem to imply - judge the artist or the song, not the genre. Dare to admit that making an effort to avoid "shallow" music doesn't mean the piece of music will be any good per se (god, you don't even want to know how much of the so often praised "complex" music is mind-numbingly dull, especially in the progrock genre), or that a song from a "light" genre shouldn't be dismissed by default by Self-Respecting Music Followers, but should be judged on its own merit.

And you want complex rap music? Try music from the Anticon collective, with affiliations like cLOUDDEAD, Why? and Them. Complex hiphop beats-oriented music? Try Prefuse73, DJ Shadow, Amon Tobin, Madlib. You want quirky, experimental folk music? Try the Animal Collective and its spin-offs. You probably already lost interest when you saw the word "rap", but I'm sure you're seeing the point that I'm trying to make.

I'm probably closer to liking the genres you prefer than most Ironworkers, but I do think your sense of elitism expressed in this thread and others before that (not to forget the not so sophisticated manner in which you sometimes express yourself) is somewhat misplaced, and the sweeping generalizations you make with regards to (theoretically) rather vague genre definitions aren't really providing a strong framework for your argument. [/QUOTE]*sits in stunned silence*

Wow, amazing post Grojlach.

*stars "THE slow clap" seen in nearly every drama movie worth it's money*

[Brayf]

>:-| thread title is misleading.

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Brayf: >:-| thread title is misleading.

In what respect?

Just because the majority of the posts in this thread discuss Rap music doesn't mean that other types of music can't be discussed, only that no one else has instigated another discussion revolving around different genres.

[JrKASperov]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by JrKASperov: *snip*

Cliff notes version: you're a 19 year old progrock snob, who will hopefully get some sense in him when he gets older with respect to other people's tastes. You're making the wrong assumption that listening to "difficult" music automatically gives you a carte blanche to trash any other genres, while it only turns you into more of an embittered loner who can't relate to 99.9% of the people musically. [/QUOTE]But you are wrong in assuming that I think the difficulty of the music is the factor. I am pointing to the fact that in all of the mainstream (light) music, there is just less to hear. There is no real interplay between instruments, merely all playing the same chords, there is no virtuosity, merely playing the cliches belonging to a genre, ther is no experimentation, there is only staying in the same already tried out boundaries. That does make certain music better than other, but i will explain further. (the reference to progsnob is simply hilarious and I'm proud to tell that to my friends )

Just believe me JrKASperov, that knowledge of instruments, craftmanship and an urge to experiment in progrock, freejazz, modern classical music, minimalism, abstract IDM, whatever, may help to develop music in new and exciting ways and that they're often impressive feats - in that they turn non-conventional ways of composing into actual music that can be enjoyed on some level and is intruiging at the same time - but that does not automatically result in music that's "better" by fact than mere popsongs; just in compositions that are crafted in more complex ways.

There's simply more to hear and to discover, and the music itself is technically better. This makes for more athmosphere possible, more listening pleasure, more prolonged listening pleasure as well. That makes that kind of music have more quality.

[/qb] If I have to choose between the complex yet snoozefest-inducing guitar wankery of Yngwie Malmsteen and, say, an Outkast song, I'll probably go with the latter. Does that say something about my taste? You tell me - my interests range from King Crimson/Albert Ayler/Louis Andriessen/Coil on the one end to (deceivingly?) simple stuff like, well, see for yourself. Plenty of those latter bands are probably way too simplistic for Your Royal Refinedness, but I really do think there's some real talent involved in the creation of a "lesser" piece of a music that yet manages to capture millions of people and still doesn't grow stale over the years. [/qb]

The fact that lots of people like something is no feat, which has two reasons.
The first is the fact that masses are stupid, and have no special authority about anything. (except for mayhaps some lawful political thingies, but I'm talking about strict moral issues, but let's not digress, this isn't about filosophy)
The second is the fact that anyone can like anything. That makes 'being liked' is a non-feat, as it does not make you more special than anything else, it is simply a matter of what is liked at a certain time. Taste is not something to be discussed, and I'm certainly you agree with that, what i offer is, though, that musical quality can be discussed since it is dependant on several factors I posted in my first post.

(and please, Yngwie Malmsteen is just that, guitar wankery, it has no other thing to listen to )

Taste is in the eye of the beholder, and so is talent, apparently. If a simple singer/songwriter with just a guitar can evoke a more emotionally involved response to more people (and to me) than a self-indulgent progrock band backed by an entire orchestra and their toothless grandmother on kitchen sink percussion in a 9/8 tone pattern, then I'll very likely prefer the former when it comes to judgments of taste and talent - but you'll probably see that differently.

You assume a lot about progbands which are ungrounded, and unnessecary. What if those bands are not self-indulgent and are really searching for something artistically more deep and satisfying? You offer something based on taste, namely having an emotionally involved response, while above I show this to be a non-feat. It is no basis to show someone has talent or not. Everyone can take up a guitar, play some chords, write a song, and have some or a lot of people like it emotionally. That is not a feat.

I'm fine with you using specifications like "light" and "shallow", just not that these should apply to entire genres, nor should you see these labels as ways to distinguish "good" from "bad", or at least not in the way that you seem to imply - judge the artist or the song, not the genre. Dare to admit that making an effort to avoid "shallow" music doesn't mean the piece of music will be any good per se (god, you don't even want to know how much of the so often praised "complex" music is mind-numbingly dull, especially in the progrock genre), or that a song from a "light" genre shouldn't be dismissed by default by Self-Respecting Music Followers, but should be judged on its own merit.

The division in light and artistic isn't mine, but from the 'learned' on this matter. Namely those who have studied the subject on university level. you may find them to have no authority, but they have studied it like no other, I can tell you.

And how can you ever call those types of music dull? there is more to hear, more to discover, more interplay, more change of mood and structure, more experimentation. It has more to offer than any other type of music, yet you proceed to call it dull. If you call it dull it certainly has to do with your approach to music, listening to nothing more than 'the first impression'. Again, there is simply more there in the artistic music, and if a song in a certain genre has more, then it probably belonged to the 'artistic' side of music in the first place. So it is by judging by own merit in the FIRST place which places something in a specific genre!

And you want complex rap music? Try music from the Anticon collective, with affiliations like cLOUDDEAD, Why? and Them. Complex hiphop beats-oriented music? Try Prefuse73, DJ Shadow, Amon Tobin, Madlib. You want quirky, experimental folk music? Try the Animal Collective and its spin-offs. You probably already lost interest when you saw the word "rap", but I'm sure you're seeing the point that I'm trying to make.

I shall try to look for those and give them a spin! Sounds interesting.

I'm probably closer to liking the genres you prefer than most Ironworkers, but I do think your sense of elitism expressed in this thread and others before that (not to forget the not so sophisticated manner in which you sometimes express yourself) is somewhat misplaced, and the sweeping generalizations you make with regards to (theoretically) rather vague genre definitions aren't really providing a strong framework for your argument.

I'm only a progsnob in the way I'm argumentatively calling certain music better, but that in no way infers I order anyone to stop liking something. As I said above, there is a difference in being 'good' or being 'nice'. My first post was simply a bit provocative, which inspired this discussion, which I like. Also, the added effect that you posted to some experimental bands in the 'rap scene' is nice. And please, english isn't my first language, and pared with the fact that I'm over-enthousiastic in these kind of things make me make mistakes.

[ 05-05-2005, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: JrKASperov ]

[Brayf]

Originally posted by Rataxes: I think it's time for a non-rap related statement here: Oasis new album is several levels above anything they've released in 10 years and a very strong contender for album of the year. I know, because after three weeks of rumors and unbearable waiting since the first single aired on radio, the whole thing finally leaked!

I've only heard a few songs but it does sound mint, Mucky Fingers is one of the best songs I've heard in ages.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Brayf: quote: Originally posted by Rataxes: I think it's time for a non-rap related statement here: Oasis new album is several levels above anything they've released in 10 years and a very strong contender for album of the year. I know, because after three weeks of rumors and unbearable waiting since the first single aired on radio, the whole thing finally leaked!

I've only heard a few songs but it does sound mint, Mucky Fingers is one of the best songs I've heard in ages. [/QUOTE]Having heard the whole album, Mucky Fingers is one of the tracks that appeal the least to me, though I know loads who love it. Very atypical song for them at any rate, but for me there are at least 5-6 better tracks on the new album.

[Lucern]

At the risk of reducing the complexity and passion of the arguments about better music, as I see it, to argue that one kind of music is better than another is to put arbitrary distinctions on what is 'better'.

Arguing otherwise, while certainly possible and something that continues to be done, stands in flagrant disregard of the Avant Garde movement in the early-mid 20th century. People experimenting with electronic feedback for 20 minutes, or Phillip Glass's infamous 4:22 (essentially 4:22 of a guy sitting at a piano not playing), or Stravinsky's Firebird Suite's atonal parts were utterly progressive. Stravinsky's Firebird Suite's bit of atonalism even sparked an angry riot at its orchestral debut! Personally, do I enjoy listening to 20 minutes of painfully loud feedback until it starts to sound different? NO! lol. Avant Garde goes to show that this is an entirely moot point - to some extent almost nobody 'likes' it, and it says something that many classical composers dabbled and expanded upon it as a rebellion against a strict interpretation of music. You may argue that good music has to have basic things like notes, melody, movements, whatever restrictions, but at some point you'll have to come to terms with the fact that those are arbitrary distinctions, even if they are traditional for a genre. There is no way to 'prove' a Bach symphony is better than the sound of me typing this and occasionally coughing and marketing it as new wave avant garde music. You may agree, but that's an opinion ( and I particularly like the 6th movement, where I sip a drink of coke). Music is an area where opinions have a tendency to be stated as factual. The preceding knowledge was also given to me by a college music professor, who's knowledge of classical music and choral arrangements probably equals JrKASperov's professors - but he takes a relativist rather than an absolutist position. Arguing over aesthetics is an uphill battle that's invalid from the start IMO.

More specifically, JrKASperov's use of musical quantity and musical quality is off, as I see it. I can see, from an opinion perspective, how effort to design music with symphonic overtones, orchestrated movements and overall meaning make for some interesting music, but these are stated as matters of quantity in the post. I think these are better described as qualities of music, and qualities cannot be assigned quantities, right (which would support a relativistic perspective)? The complexity, atmosphere, and meaning of the 'wall of sound' in a death metal band cannot be considered superior or inferior to the complexity, atmosphere, and meaning in a prog rock song or classical piece, and both can definately be complex. Quantities of music are length, number of instruments, number of notes per measure, or beats per minute, time put into the song...and as I see it, arguing that having more of any of these things makes for better music would be quite challenging. [img]smile.gif[/img] That would seem to require a strict maximalist (more=better) perspective, and I'm not about to argue that the London Symphony Orchestra's goodness lies in its number of violinists hehe.

Finally, JrKASperov did start a bit of musical debate about more than what acts people like, thereby rectifying his initial complaint that only 'light' music is being discussed. Perhaps he was being a clever devil with a post just to stir everything up.

So, that's my way of saying 'ditto' to Groj's statement that

progrock snob, who will hopefully get some sense in him when he gets older with respect to other people's tastes. You're making the wrong assumption that listening to "difficult" music automatically gives you a carte blanche to trash any other genres

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-06-2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[Chewbacca]

I think all music is related and interconnected. Some of it is more rooted in an intellectual approach of creation, while other music is more inspired by and for emotion. All blended together makes a vast middleground between the 2 general extremes. The simplest gospel piece can have more raw emotional impact than the most complex classical arrangment.

How one determines which is better than the other can only be done arbritarily and subjectively.

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by JrKASperov: And how can you ever call those types of music dull? there is more to hear, more to discover, more interplay, more change of mood and structure, more experimentation. It has more to offer than any other type of music, yet you proceed to call it dull. If you call it dull it certainly has to do with your approach to music, listening to nothing more than 'the first impression'.

Originally posted by JrKASperov: Why don't you people go listen to something in which you'll really be discovering music in all of it's facets. Rap and all that is so shallow compared to a LOT. Same goes for pop, soft rock, hard rock, RnB, punk, punkrock etc.

Riiight...

JrKASperov, apparently, it's not sinking in very well. You tell people who have listened to these genres of music for years that their taste in music or the music itself is light, dull, or whatever saying that yours is more artistic, but we can't say the same about yours?

How is ours less artistic? There's less to hear, the same chords being played? The fact that you say all mainstream music which is quite a damn bit is all light because of how the music is played, because chords may resemble each other and the like, is ignorant. A great work of music doesn't need interplay between instruments, it doesn't need complexity or what have you, a great piece of music is something that is able to touch a person and connect with them, regardless of how it is written or conducted.

Tell me about atmosphere, have you ever been to a heavy metal concert? Have you ever went to see Linkin Park perform live with hundreds of screaming fans crowded around? Seeing a great group live gives an atmosphere to their music that can't really be described, only that all the people are there for one reason, to get lost in the music. (as for prolonged listening pleasure (wtf that means), listen to a longer song [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

You cannot talk about quality of music without having input of your taste in music also put in. Of course if you like the music, you're going to say the quality of it is better than another, that's painfully common sense talking.

I listen to as much music as I can, and I listen to more than one song of a genre before I condemn it like some people. Rap, I respect those artists because it takes skill to say lyrics much like they do even though I don't care much what they sing about as a whole. I have listened to several different groups in that field of music and I've come to my own conclusions about it.

Country, I thoroughly dislike, I won't lie. Just not upbeat enough for my tastes along with a few other things, but I'll respect those who enjoy it, listen to it, and leave it at that. But let me ask you something, why is it you can say that our music is light and dull and come back saying "How can you say what I enjoy is like that?"

But since you seem so quick to judge all mainstream music when you probably never really heard much of it, let me ask you, have you listened to the artists of hard rock like Motley Crue, Saliva, Ozzy Osbourne, or Skid Row? Have you listened to Rap Metal groups like Kid Rock or Limp Bizket? What about Nickelback, Godsmack, or Disturbed? Have you heard enough groups in each specific genre to openly condemn them? I don't believe you have.

So quit jumping to your own assumptions and give it a rest. You can't win an argument based on opinion.

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Sigmar: Great selection Chewbacca, I've only got Check Your Head, It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back and Cypress Hill though. Although I've heard the other albums, I've never heard anything by Ice T though. My favourite old school rap albums are "Radio" by Ll cool J and "Paid In Full" with Eric B and Rakim.

Two great Albums! [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh man I haven't heard either of those in forever.

Here is link with a bio and discography of Ice T:

http://www.artistopia.com/Music-Arti...271&Name=Ice-T [/QUOTE]Thanks for the link Chewbacca, interesting reading. I didn't know anything about him prior to reading that (well, except that he's confused with Ice Cube on a regular basis )

Vaskez, you converted me! I brought Streets Desciple, and it's brilliant! [img]graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img] I really like Suicide Bounce, and Bridging the gap. The album in general is great.

Also, I've heard Stillmatic and it's also amazing. I doubt Nasir Jones no longer! [img]graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]