Therein lies the complexity. If you can remove yourself from your upbringing and other influences to exhibit empathy while taking music in, you then have a clean palate to appreciate and understand it. Even if you don't 'like' it. Right in line with Emerson's 'Transparent eyeball' depiction... With this comes clarity, actual knowledge. And I'm not getting into the technical or academic aspects here. Most classically trained prodigies I know or have known don't get pop music at all.
Music and opinion
- Thread starter Scholesgoals
- Start date
Therein lies the complexity. If you can remove yourself from your upbringing and other influences to exhibit empathy while taking music in, you then have a clean palate to appreciate and understand it. Even if you don't 'like' it. Right in line with Emerson's 'Transparent eyeball' depiction... With this comes clarity, actual knowledge. And I'm not getting into the technical or academic aspects here. Most classically trained prodigies I know or have known don't get pop music at all.
an example,
the reason i like golden brown
the verse - count the beats
the chorus - count the beats
it loses a beat every bar and all adds up.
The only future of music is to somehow tie in medley with ever increasing musical complexity in terms of theory. This is what i mean when i say anyone can write "feckingsongs" jcurr, and this is why ok computer isnt as good as you think it is.
Dude, you've got some learning to do. You like Golden Brown for many reasons. The fact that it loses a bar through the structure should be way down the list. It's a quirky fecking tune with a beautiful melody. Add to that the tones are all spot on. That's why it's brilliant. Theory isn't very interesting in the end. So as I said, go listen to Satriani all day if that's what gets your rocks off. But I'll not pretend that Brubeck was in the class of Davis or Coltrane just because he fecked with a time signature. He still had to write a catchy tune. You and your kind of music lovers depress me.
satriani is wank though because he just widdles senselessly.
thats not what i was talking about.
But you obviously get my point. feck technical theory BS. We're talking about pop music for Chrissake. Have you ever heard Pedro the Lion? He's one of my favorite current artists. Absolute tops. He's also one of the simplest songwriters in terms of chord structure and time signature. It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. He writes brilliant intuitive lyrics, sings them in great melody and chooses his tones to a tee. Those are the three things that really matter in pop music. While I loathe those who only want to listen to music they can shake their asses to, you uber-theorists are tiresome as hell.
There's no common ground to be reached from which you can deduce which music is better than which.
I've spent a lot of time being elitist, and in the end just neverfeckingminding it is a whole lot simpler, and it has the same outcome.
I've spent a lot of time being elitist, and in the end just neverfeckingminding it is a whole lot simpler, and it has the same outcome.
Fair play. It is exhausting. I'll take a rest on that one.
By your standards then Hip Hop can never be great music because its not structuarly complex.
The last paragraph is utter bullshit in my opinion. complex beat patterns have been around since the begining of time and have NO bearing what so ever on how great a song is...they add to the appreciation of a song you like but have no relevance what so ever if the melody isn't any good.
That last paragraph is very snobbish if you ask me and if yo continue to think like that you'll spend your life perpetually frustrated that no one understands how right you are
If you didn't, I was standing by with: "arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics..."
Scholes is coming off a bit snobbish, yesh.. to me there's more to music than just its structure and theoretical content. It's audial qualities are inherently important, at least to most people. Sometimes the simplest thing can be made cool with the right production and effects.
That's a quality idea Moses, great little label you've got there by the sounds of it
But often the music itself (i.e. the individual musicians) brings with it some standards by which to judge it. F.ex. some would argue against lo-fi that it's annoying, but that would probably not be a valid critique. Most likely it's lo-fi because of either a) the band is poor, or b) they try to capture a specific mood or idea by producing it that way. You could argue that they fail at b), but you can't argue that it's altogether wrong to do lo-fi music.
Arguments about whether this or that music is good or not is usually pointless, but one can argue about whether they succeed at what they're trying to do, and also whether it's worth doing what they're trying to do. There's a zillion bands around just doing what others have done or do. You could argue that the world would've been better served if they went and took a job at a hospital instead of "realising" their pathetic selves.
What I intend to say is this: standards and rules doesn't necessarily have to be objective and true (and if not then merely subjective and nonsensical) in order to be rational.
Based on your hotmail-address, I would've expected that. Your kind isn't exactly the most enjoyable conversation partners when it comes to music. No offense.
It's the over analysing that bores the crap out of me and in the end renders me numb to it all.
Lost is a good personnal example for me, loved the first series of it, got well into it, but then the missus started to become a bit of an obsessive with it, analysing every tiny detail of it, and in the end it just started to leave me bored, so don't really watch it in any great detail now, the fact that it clashes with the Redcafe Poker tourney doesn't help either.
But yeah, just fecking enjoy the tunes man, that's what it's all about, but discussing music with others is always great craic, and it's the differing of opinions that makes it fun, but, just leave the arrogance out of it eh?
Lost is a good personnal example for me, loved the first series of it, got well into it, but then the missus started to become a bit of an obsessive with it, analysing every tiny detail of it, and in the end it just started to leave me bored, so don't really watch it in any great detail now, the fact that it clashes with the Redcafe Poker tourney doesn't help either.
But yeah, just fecking enjoy the tunes man, that's what it's all about, but discussing music with others is always great craic, and it's the differing of opinions that makes it fun, but, just leave the arrogance out of it eh?
i have two opinions on music, and both need careful explaining to get my point across.
1) Music is subjective and any argument cant determine what is good because no one agrees on what IS GOOD. In this thread i tried to develop an idea of classifying some music as somehow "higher" based on the fact that casual listeners might not have the experience in music to understand the extent that music can go. Remember being 12 and loving the spice girls, and then someone plays stairway to you, that feeling of .... woah. Anyway, my point was speculative and by no means gospel, i was seeing what you guys thought.
2) This is the more controversial one and is covered here https://www.redcafe.net/f8/future-music-236566/
but it basically says that in terms of the progression of music, nothing to do with what "good" music is, totally seperate. To progress with music has become very difficult using the standard band method, and to unlock the potential of our minds to create, we need a modern tool. That is the computer.
I would like to again clarify that these are opinions and are therefore steeped in subjectivity. Again, i'm interested to hear all views, so long as they understand my point.
Yours,
Scholesgoals.
Now lets cheer on our boys vs the barcodes.
This subjectivity argument really is a massive cop-out. How come people don`t say that when discussing film or literature? I`ll tell you why, it`s because when reading a book or watching a film you`re engrossed in the artform. A lot of people stick music on as a background noise.
This new U2 album for example, it`s gonna sell shitloads, but most of the people who buy it will not be passionate music fans - meaning the sort of people who take an active interest in finding new bands/artists and trying to broaden their listening habits. It will sell to the sort of people who watch ITV and wear combat shorts with flip-flops - ie cnuts.
This new U2 album for example, it`s gonna sell shitloads, but most of the people who buy it will not be passionate music fans - meaning the sort of people who take an active interest in finding new bands/artists and trying to broaden their listening habits. It will sell to the sort of people who watch ITV and wear combat shorts with flip-flops - ie cnuts.
Uh... it's an old addy, had it for 6 years, and I'm fairly young... I'm not a prog-head, mate.
ah, right... I read it differently.. sorry about that.
thats ok, i get vehement about them.
thats the point i try to make about "higher" forms of music.
I think that if you have an open mind about music you can appreciate the musicality of all different types of music, from kenyan tribal drumming to icelandic throat singing. I think alot of pop music these days is about image rather than music, which is the reason it is subjective.
Fantastic to finally see someone gets it on this forum. Pony up, lads.
Alright, I said "based on your hotmail" so I'm safe. Good to hear you've sobered up, then.
I was out in the aether for a while
Though, prog can mean lots of things... King Crimson are in that genre, and I certainly rate a few of their albums.
Fair enough, as long as you stay away from Dream Theatre and their likes.
Is Comus prog?
Is Comus prog?
If people are putting music on in the background and are not listening to it then their opinions are not valid; same was as someone who is not watching a film shouldn't give a critique.
For discussions about music we have to presume the people are actually listening to it.
Music is different because cnuts who watch x-factor and listen to radio 1 feel they have a say and like and understand music as much as a jazz anorak, it's the artform for the everyman, (because it is everywhere and really accessible at most levels), and he always thinks he is right, look at Jcurr for example, he has an opinion (based unimaginatively around two of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time) and has convinced himself he is at the vanguard of musical intellectual thought. It's like someone who digs Batman 2 giving people a lecture on the art of cinema or reading Captain Corellis mandolin and telling us all about literature.
Thing is with music you can and should be able to take what you want from it
It can work on many levels from the pop banal X factor - 'here's a way into the music industry but really fill Simon Cowells' pockets!! up to trying to understand what a major composer of atonal music is exactly trying to say in an aural world that most people feel excluded by.
Speaking as a musician it's nice to have had a musical grounding, so to speak, that maybe gives me access to music on a composers creative level but ultimately that is a theoretical sensibility that is unique to few but importantly does not inhibit the enjoyment of music for people that dont have this background.
Not having that does not exclude anybody from appreciating any music at its base level - an aural phenoma that strikes the human ear and creates an emotional attachment - that as often displeases as pleases
I think its wonderful gift that a sense as strong as music does not need any deep real expertise and is accessible to all purely on its sonic qualities.
For anyone saying Beethoven is better than Bach,The Beatles are useless, Burundi drummers are not as good as Keith Moon, Radiohead are worthless after OK Computer is meaningless actually and they are in fact missing the point of music
After nearly a lifetime in music I can only say there's more and there's different
Musical 'quality' is in the ear of the beholder
It can work on many levels from the pop banal X factor - 'here's a way into the music industry but really fill Simon Cowells' pockets!! up to trying to understand what a major composer of atonal music is exactly trying to say in an aural world that most people feel excluded by.
Speaking as a musician it's nice to have had a musical grounding, so to speak, that maybe gives me access to music on a composers creative level but ultimately that is a theoretical sensibility that is unique to few but importantly does not inhibit the enjoyment of music for people that dont have this background.
Not having that does not exclude anybody from appreciating any music at its base level - an aural phenoma that strikes the human ear and creates an emotional attachment - that as often displeases as pleases
I think its wonderful gift that a sense as strong as music does not need any deep real expertise and is accessible to all purely on its sonic qualities.
For anyone saying Beethoven is better than Bach,The Beatles are useless, Burundi drummers are not as good as Keith Moon, Radiohead are worthless after OK Computer is meaningless actually and they are in fact missing the point of music
After nearly a lifetime in music I can only say there's more and there's different
Musical 'quality' is in the ear of the beholder
true ... you are the anti JCurr, and as such a head of sense
My Dad once told me he couldn't be friends or respect someone if he didn't have respect for their taste in music.
is your dad 17?
This is too deep for me, but i'll give my opinion. There is no bad music, only different music. I like classical music, i like Killswitch Engage, i like Bob Dylan, i like Prince, i like dance music. Any pattern there, not really, i just like what i like.
And you are the typical business end of music. I've forgotten more about music than you'll ever be capable of learning. Cheers.
now you don't really know that for a fact, do you?
No, but he's a bit of an arrogant cnut, so I don't think it'll faze him to be honest (now, I don't know that either, but I think it is a quite accurate guess, based on his posts).
What's the point of arguing points like this? I mean, I know it's a forum.. But this is music we're talking about. It's preference. You can call that a cop out all day long, but for me, if I tell someone that I like a piece of music and they tell me I'm wrong, they can feck off.
What's the point of arguing points like this? I mean, I know it's a forum.. But this is music we're talking about. It's preference. You can call that a cop out all day long, but for me, if I tell someone that I like a piece of music and they tell me I'm wrong, they can feck off.
Good musical composition is not subjective. Where it becomes subjective is where the art part of it comes in, just the same as any other art. Many people on here think that certain music that is musically poor in its composition is great, yet think that certain music that is musically good in its composition is crap. This is where it becomes a problem and can cause valid arguments. Some people are tone deaf for example, some have no clue what rhythm, chorus, melody, etc. are.
Indeed.
Well, the degree of complexity in a composition can be measured quite objectively, but it doesn't go much further than that, does it?
Don't think he's referring to complexity at all. He said 'good musical composition'... In other words, the difference between a good band such as Wilco compared to contrived, played out shite such as Tim McGraw or the rest of modern 'country' music. I think that's what he's getting at anyway.
That's possible, but what's objectively better about Wilco's compositions?
In this context the compositions are the songs. From rhythm to instrumentation to melody. What's not objectively better? Are you being serious?