Music Elitists

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
2,857
311
88
I'd say theres a certain level between musically open-minded, elitist, and a platform of sheer pretention where you only listen to avant-jazz post-metal thats more a mathematical construct to be observed then crafted for listening pleasure.

The open-minded individual probably drifts around genres a lot, but largely will just pick up on some personal bit of taste that makes them dislike whichever particulars. The elitists tend to burrow into some niche, and attack other niches. Often these are the vague and indefinable genres like 'indie' or 'classic rock', where you can barely (if at all) even come up with a musical definition that doesn't degenerate into a list of the elitists favorite bands.

The other reason classic rock tends to command this sort of attitude is that its filtered. The Rolling Stones have north of 200 songs. You can find plenty of classic rock purists (and alleged Stones fans) who'd have trouble naming more then 10-20 that have survived the ages in the radio format. Or anything off of Jethro Tull's 22 albums that weren't Aqualung.

Comparing the lyrics is even sillier, I recall recently dissecting one of those image memes comparing 'Kashmir' to 'Friday' and stating the superiority of 70s music, by flipping the angle around to compare 'Musical Chair" (Fair to Midland) to 'Disco Duck' (by whoever it was), released in the same corresponding years.

People forget that these isolated snapshots (usually the best work of the band in question) of the 60s/70s that classic rock radio formats focus on are isolated snapshots, and usually didn't even correspond to the pop music of the day (you can go rehash the Billboard 100 through time on wikipedia. Barry Manilow was the most popular artist, churning out hits like Katy Perry during the heyday of Led Zeppelin).

Biebers music doesn't interest me at all, but I wouldn't go so far as to deem it an offense to anything. You could compare him easily enough to Donny Osmond, or even Michael Jackson's earliest appearances. He's also a kid, so I wouldn't expect him to churn out anything of particular interest to mature adults. Carly Rae, beloved of the internet churns out the same garbage, except shes near 30, which makes Bieber look like a prodigy in comparison. Taylor Swift's still churning out her stale high school romance grit at age 23. While I don't really foresee Bieber making any sort of transition into his own identity a la MJ, or even a Justin Timberlake, I'm not particularly bothered that some teenage kid is making teenage kid music for teenage kids, that doesn't even seem to show up on radio often and has to be sought out if you even want to hear it.
 

dcdude171

New member
Oct 16, 2009
169
0
0
I'm kind of the opposite where I look for music mostly based upon lyrics.

The Gaslight Anthem, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison, Tom Waits , and Bob Dylan are among my favorite artists. I find the writing the thing that makes it superior to Justin Bieber.

I find Lines like this
Stay the same, don't ever change
Cause I'd miss your ways
With your Bette Davis eyes
And your mama's party dress

While this city pumps it's aching heart
For one more drop of blood,
We work our fingers down to dust
And we wait for kingdom come
with the radio on.

Better than " Baby Baby Baby Alright"

Other music I listen to is purely based upon composition and vocal ability. For instance Frank Sinatra's voice, Or the The strokes/Jack Whites intertwining guitar parts.
 

mojopin87

New member
Jun 5, 2009
74
0
0
CrunkParty said:
mojopin87 said:
Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.
Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.
Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really. It boils down to execution.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on. It's genre specific yes, but not as absolute as you are making it out to be.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
dcdude171 said:
I'm kind of the opposite where I look for music mostly based upon lyrics.

The Gaslight Anthem, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison, Tom Waits , and Bob Dylan are among my favorite artists. I find the writing the thing that makes it superior to Justin Bieber.

I find Lines like this
Stay the same, don't ever change
Cause I'd miss your ways
With your Bette Davis eyes
And your mama's party dress

While this city pumps it's aching heart
For one more drop of blood,
We work our fingers down to dust
And we wait for kingdom come
with the radio on.

Better than " Baby Baby Baby Alright"

Other music I listen to is purely based upon composition and vocal ability. For instance Frank Sinatra's voice, Or the The strokes/Jack Whites intertwining guitar parts.
Lyrics are a double-edged sword, man.

"I'm still alive but I'm barely breathing
just praying to a God that I don't believe in
'cause I've got time and she's got freedom
'cause when a heart breaks, no it don't break even"
-Breakeven, by The Script, 2009

"FLAPPING MY ARMS, I BEGIN TO CLUCK
LOOK AT ME, I'M THE DIIISCOOOO DUUUUUUUUUUUCK!
OHHHH MAMA, SHAKE YOUR TAIL FEATHERRRRRS! AHAHAHAHAHA!"
-Disco Duck, by Rick Dees, 1976
 
Mar 19, 2010
193
0
0
I guess I am music elitist because I cannot stay to listen to most of the modern music. It just sounds like complete shit to me but I try to refrain from pointing out to people that the music they like is not really music but turd in vocal form. There are probably good songs out there but i am not likely to ever hear them as they are drowned in a sea of poo. I should point out that i am not a metalhead as i dislike most of the metal as much as i dislike Bieber and i am more fan of rock and similar stuff but i also like oldies (Fallout 3 and NV style songs) also i can tolerate some rap songs provided they have good lyrics. So i am not completely narrow minded one kind of music to rule them all (or rather make them disappear). It is just something with today's popmusic that i cannot stand. I realize that a lot of the stuff that i listen to used to be popmusic 40-50 years ago so i guess i just live in the past like say James May.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
mojopin87 said:
CrunkParty said:
mojopin87 said:
Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.
Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.
Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.
We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?
 

Mick Beard

New member
Jan 9, 2013
46
0
0
Spot1990 said:
Em maybe I'm wrong but this comes off as a bit elitist. You keep mentioning that you like prog rock as though that adds to your argument and then say

AC/DC and Guns n' Roses are, by my definition, pop music. They write commercial, accessible music that follows the 4 chords, verse/chorus, three minutes structure.
It sounds like "If anyone should be elitist it's me, I mean I listen to prog rock." It doesn't sound like you're criticising elitism, it sounds like you're criticising elitists who don't have your superior music taste.
Dream Theater fan, what do you expect?

i think he is justs mad that his dad called his new Dream Theater cd a piece of crap
 

sammysoso

New member
Jul 6, 2012
177
0
0
Music is basically the worst medium when it comes to fanboys.

I like the music I like and simple cannot comprehend how somebody likes something else. I have to slap myself before I make snarky comments.
 

mojopin87

New member
Jun 5, 2009
74
0
0
lacktheknack said:
mojopin87 said:
CrunkParty said:
mojopin87 said:
Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.
Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.
Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.
We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?
Ah I see the confusion. The original criticism was that the songwriting and production are bad. He was then attacked for applying a rock standard to a teen pop song. While that may be true, I don't believe the conclusion is that all criticism of music must be absolutely genre specific.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
mojopin87 said:
lacktheknack said:
mojopin87 said:
CrunkParty said:
mojopin87 said:
Actually, what you and he are doing is saying that we shouldn't expect quality work in that genre, in terms of production or songwriting, which is far more insulting IMO. Songwriting and production quality are not exclusive to a genre. Rather, we expect different things stylistically depending on the genre. While I don't expect teen pop to have anything important, deep, insightful, or original to say lyrically, I would expect them to at least be catchy or smooth or at least coherent in some way. There is no excuse for cringeworthy/awkward lyrics if the idea is broad appeal. Likewise, the production should be polished and pleasing to the ear.
Boy you sure can say a whole lot without saying a goddamn thing. Once again I must point out that values differ between genre. Your usage of the vague term "quality work" only makes my having to re-explain this painfully obvious fact more unnecessarily obtuse than it already was. Define "quality work" to me. Define it in a way that's inclusive of all genres. When you can do that in a satisfying way I'll concede the argument to you. "Songwriting and production quality" between, say, hardcore punk and symphonic prog are almost complete opposites. Is it so inconceivable, then, that the standards of quality between genres as alike as "rock" and "teen pop" are similarly different?

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole, though. All I got from glossing over that was "Bleh! I don't like it!" and I put as much stock in those statements as I do, well, just about everything you've said actually.
Actually, I am agreeing that values differ between genres. But that is no reason to say that certain elements are by definition exempt from criticism.

As for 'quality work', it is quite simple really.

Is the melody appealing/catchy?
Does it have a good hook?
Are the lyrics tolerable by the standards of the genre?
Does the production hinder or enhance the enjoyment of the song?

And so on.
We never said any of the elements are exempt from criticism. We never implied this. We have NO IDEA where you got that.

And as for Baby,

Check,
check,
check,
enhance,

and so on.

What was the problem again?
Ah I see the confusion. The original criticism was that the songwriting and production are bad. He was then attacked for applying a rock standard to a teen pop song. While that may be true, I don't believe the conclusion is that all criticism of music must be absolutely genre specific.
I, however, DO think that genre should be noted and should very heavily affect your criticism of a song.

If I was to review, say, "Sweet Child of Mine" while in the mindset of my face-melting-electronica days, I'd say the riff is sweet, but it's too damn slow and reserved and has a singer who is too affected by the guitar line... and the drums are too minimalist. You might notice that this is a very unfair and inaccurate review.

There's no bloody way to make a criteria that can fairly judge AC/DC, Dragonette, Skrillex and Merzbow at the same time, so we should stop acting like there is one.
 

Latinidiot

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,215
0
0
Ranorak said:
Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.
Snippity
I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.
I'm seeing Maiden this summer :D

Also, I bolded the bit that really struck me as true, but all popmusicians have gone through the product machine. I mean, the Beatles image was largely fabricated by their salesperson/manager/agent/whateveryoucallthem.

And we must remember that the good bands tend to stick around, while the bland pop that populates the airwaves gets forgotten as soon as the new bland thing gets promoted.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
lacktheknack said:
You're saying repetitiveness is bad (or, for that matter, that "Baby" is particularly repetitive). That's a problem right there, especially if you're going to accuse me of being insensitive to opinion. Also, I'm not assuming anything about how his brain works. I'm stating statements based off what he's gone and said. He says teen pop doesn't sound pleasing. I've noticed that various genres require me to adjust to the tropes before I can enjoy them. I gave a perfect example (nothing encompasses teen pop tropes better than "Baby"). I've stated what I think the issue is.

What do you want me to do? Fall into the "Teen Pop Sucks" hivemind?
Well repetitiveness isn't exactly great isn't it? I am against Baby, I find that song to be every thing what's wrong with music. The only thing I've accused you of is assuming what people think and pointless arguments.

And you are assuming how his mind work, you're saying he's just looking for something different different. I love how Crunk can admit that.

CrunkParty said:
Nazulu said:
You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.
We can only assume how his mind works based on what he's said to us and, no matter how much you'd like, what's he's said doesn't leave a whole lot of room for ambiguity.

EDIT:

Nazulu said:
What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.
Nazulu said:
Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.
Nazulu said:
What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.
Nazulu said:
Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.
Are saying Baby isn't repetitive and boring? Because I find it is, I am saying it as an opinion. Sorry if you got confused. You haven't proven any thing and assuming how peoples minds work doesn't work.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Nazulu said:
lacktheknack said:
You're saying repetitiveness is bad (or, for that matter, that "Baby" is particularly repetitive). That's a problem right there, especially if you're going to accuse me of being insensitive to opinion. Also, I'm not assuming anything about how his brain works. I'm stating statements based off what he's gone and said. He says teen pop doesn't sound pleasing. I've noticed that various genres require me to adjust to the tropes before I can enjoy them. I gave a perfect example (nothing encompasses teen pop tropes better than "Baby"). I've stated what I think the issue is.

What do you want me to do? Fall into the "Teen Pop Sucks" hivemind?
Well repetitiveness isn't exactly great isn't it? I am against Baby, I find that song to be every thing what's wrong with music. The only thing I've accused you of is assuming what people think and pointless arguments.

And you are assuming how his mind work, you're saying he's just looking for something different different. I love how Crunk can admit that.

CrunkParty said:
Nazulu said:
You're also doing it. You're assuming how his mind works. What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion. Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.

I'm not trying to be mean, but your argument falls just as flat as his.
We can only assume how his mind works based on what he's said to us and, no matter how much you'd like, what's he's said doesn't leave a whole lot of room for ambiguity.

EDIT:

Nazulu said:
What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.
Nazulu said:
Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.
Nazulu said:
What you are doing is not factual but completely biased opinion.
Nazulu said:
Also, you're discussing quality, which you are never going to prove for a such a boring repeptitive song like Baby.
Are saying Baby isn't repetitive and boring? Because I find it is, I am saying it as an opinion. Sorry if you got confused. You haven't proven any thing and assuming how peoples minds work doesn't work.
Repetition is the way I prefer my music. So no, I think it's fantastic.

What were you saying about biased opinions, again?

Although if you're going to maintain that "Baby" is all that is wrong with music, then yeah, this is a very pointless argument.

I demand to know what you mean by "assuming how his mind works", though. You might notice that we actually came to agreement on the subject, the difference in opinion is now about to what extent different expectations should be used. Because we didn't assume a thing, we simply read what he wrote and reacted accordingly.

For that matter, I demand to know how "Baby" is more repetitive than, say, "Sweet Child of Mine".

EDIT: "We actually came to agreement" meaning me/Crunk and the other guy who you said we're assuming stuff about. Just to clarify.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
lacktheknack said:
RedDeadFred said:
Ranorak said:
Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.

To me, it's infinity harder to play a good guitar solo, live, with 3 or 4 other band members while staying on key, and all on the same 1,2,3 and 4's.

Opposed to standing on stage lip-syncing while your back ground dancer put more time in their work then you ever did.

Or earning your fortune by having the auto-tune squeeze your voice is such a way that even GLaDos sounds human.

I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.
This, all of this.

There's even a scientific study that says pop music is getting more and more simple. Don't ask me to find it, it was on the Escapist and it was something along the lines of: Your Grandma Was Right all Along. Pretty much anyone can sound okay with auto-tune if they have basic singing skills. The elitists that the OP are talking about just don't respect the pop artists as much.
OK, so pop is getting simpler.

So what?

Is "simpler" worse, somehow?

One of my favorite songs ever (if not actually my favorite) consists of five chords repeated over and over and over for seven minutes. It's physically impossible to get much simpler than that. How is the song so incredibly touching and moving to me if simple = bad?

Short answer: It's the opposite. Simple is much better at moving raw emotion. However, I'd wager that it takes more skill to condense music like that. Besides, even if you're guaranteed to sound good singing, that doesn't account for songwriting, instrumentation, stage presence, or charisma. All of those are also important, and pop stars have those nailed right the hell down (maybe not always the songwriting one, but still, I'd rather listen to them than a garage band with brilliant music drowned by irritating everything else).
Who said anything about garage bands?

Also, I'm sorry but a lot of the instrumentation in pop songs is not THAT hard to do. Seriously, play around with Garage Band (software for Mac) and you can come up with some pretty good beats. There are obviously exceptions to this. Kanye West for example comes up with genius and creative beats that require a lot of talent but so many pop songs just have a simple beat that's easy to dance to and then they but some extremely basic melody over top of it and add lyrics about going to clubs and having sex.

What about stage presence and charisma? They just don't seem as important to me. They only matter at concerts or for music videos but then that's not the music. That's the show built around it. Sure I acknowledge that pop artists are talented here but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual music.

As for simplicity of it, that's not necessarily the problem (ya I guess I kind of misspoke in my earlier post so my bad, I'll admit to the mistake). It's that the lyrics over top of it are forcing you to think about whatever shit they are talking about. Yes simple can be great but not when the lyrics are constraining what you can emotionally draw from.
For example, In C by Terry Riley is quite simple but it allows you to draw on whatever emotions you want because it doesn't have "Baby baby baby oh" sitting on top of it.
If you like this type of music I would highly recommend looking into the various minimalist types of music from the later 1900's. La Monte Young's Well Tuned Piano (playing off the title of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier) in particular is amazing. Regardless of your opinion on my post I would highly suggest listening to it. Probably not the whole thing in one sitting though:
Yes both of these pieces that I have mentioned so far are instrumental but there are simple pieces with words that can still illicit powerful emotional responses. Steve Reich's Come Out is a perfect example of this. It's mainly just a man saying "come out" over and over again. However, he has two recordings of it going at once and one is ever so slightly faster than the other. The two become farther and farther apart until you stop thinking about the words and just experience the unique sounds the piece offers.

As far as simple creating a more intense emotional response, well that's just a matter of opinion. I personally find more complex music more satisfying emotionally but both are great.

Lastly, you said music cannot get more simple than the same chord being played over and over. Well I'll see your piece and raise you John Cage's 4'33". 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Illustrating that even in silence, there music.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
CrunkParty said:
Nazulu said:
Are saying Baby isn't repetitive and boring? Because I find it is, I am saying it as an opinion. Sorry if you got confused. You haven't proven any thing and assuming how peoples minds work doesn't work.
You don't appear to understand how arguments, or conversation in general for that matter, work. Yeah, we're supposed to assume how we think based on the statements he's made and that's what we've been doing. You are reaching so hard you risk dislocating your shoulder. I mean "stop assuming how he thinks"? Are you fucking kidding me? As long as we're bringing up completely tertiary shit you forgot the word "you" between "Are" and "saying". Ergo, I win.

It's exactly the same.

Also, how do you miss Picard's point so hard? I couldn't have made it more obvious if I tried, lord knows I tried. I'm not even going to explain it. That's just pointless. If you didn't grasp it the first time then I can't help you. I'm not sure who can help you but I wish you luck.

I'm not entirely without compassion so here's a hint: This conversation is NOT about whether or not "Baby" is a good song. It's not even about whether or not "teen pop" is good music. That's a red herring. Search elsewhere.
Oh OK. You win the fluff award for assuming how people think. Keep doing that. I'm sure you'll make lots of friends. I love how you didn't get what he was saying by the way, and that lovely assumption of how he just means "bleh, I don't like it". You do that to someones face and see how that goes.

lacktheknack said:
Repetition is the way I prefer my music. So no, I think it's fantastic.

What were you saying about biased opinions, again?

Although if you're going to maintain that "Baby" is all that is wrong with music, then yeah, this is a very pointless argument.

I demand to know what you mean by "assuming how his mind works", though. You might notice that we actually came to agreement on the subject, the difference in opinion is now about to what extent different expectations should be used. Because we didn't assume a thing, we simply read what he wrote and reacted accordingly.

For that matter, I demand to know how "Baby" is more repetitive than, say, "Sweet Child of Mine".
You just don't get it do you. I already admitted it's my opinion. Repetition will be judged harshly. The word Baby becomes grating after the 4th time. This is off topic by the way, I wasn't talking about criticising a song, I just hate that song.

And you were assuming, it isn't as easy as what you said. It's come down to you misunderstanding him originally (no surprise there). Look at Crunks lovely response in post 71. Of course there is going to be confusion when your just making assumptions and hurling flames. I don't like Crunk, he's a bit too aggresive to have a proper discussion with.
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
Frankly there isn't enough musical elitism( i'd define it differently but whatever).

there is so much music around now there is no sense of music aspiring to the sense of artistic or social potentsy it once had.So often people just find a niche and live in it (and i agree hard rock/metal is one of those groups).these niche intrests are the problems (i think this wave of indie music being the most insipid, I'm looking at JJJ here)

Very rare is it to find an appreciator of music who loves all music of quality, who can see an unroken line in musical lineage from past to present and loves it all. Elitism should be the aspiration of the music lover, but an elitism based on reason and appreciation of diversity.


Stalkingpanda14 said:
How is Led Zeppelin IV an artistic masterpiece?
yeah you'll need to start a new thread if you want to insult the 70's most brilliantly bomabstic pieces of ultra heavy blues and get away with. just listen to it properly from start to finish then when youre done we'll talk, if you didn't get it thats ok.