Musical Ignorance

[Polarity27]

So what do you think of this, wait for the rapping ...

That's not bad. The guitar is a little ouchy but at least no RAWWWWWR screeching. It's the screaming that I just can't abide.

 

[Fanta Grape]

I will stop saying 'I don't like rap' when I hear rap I like.

I hear what you're saying. But I don't think I throw the words hate around that much.

Try listening to a band called Nujabes. I'm not completely sure if you'll like it but it has a lot of strong rap, hip-hop and jazz elements mixed in.

 

[Bleedingskye]

Current pop artist I like-Ellie Goulding...current rap artist I like-Galactic

Single artists aside, I think it's alright to judge whole genres so long as you really have given it a chance. I feel ya OP that it's ridiculous to write off a genre based on some perception from only one or two songs. But I can't stand most indie rock bands. If i see they're labeled as indie rock, I've already got preconceived ideas about what it's going to be and it usually is what I think, and sucks.

You gotta give some artists a shot but, I like to stick to my guns.

Ex. I wrote of The Black Keys for a while cause I can't stand the idea of a band with only drums and guitar. But my bro kinda force me to listen to an album a couple times and now I completely dig em.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

snip

Vocals are instruments yes, and rap is a way of doing vocals. That's all there is to it. Technically you can use rap in every genre you want, it's just that you almost exclusively hear it in hiphop, the whole 'gangsta' scene is what you're describing. But the Red Hot Chili Peppers for example had plenty of rapping in their early work.

As for pop, tell me then; what is pop? Which musical characteristics, of course without judging it, defines it? That's where the problem lies, there basically isn't. It's one of the most useless labels there is.

Pop used to mean 'popular music' but I don't think it does anymore. If we all woke up tomorrow and everyone on Earth suddenly hated Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber, people would still refer to that genre as Pop.

But a whole lot of different kinds of music are popular, that's what it makes it so useless. Hell, even Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber sound barely alike. Bieber's some soft R&B type, and Lady Gaga an electro...thing.

Indeed, popular is a term used for centuries to designate music that is made based on the most popular genre, but with a few changes to try to please an even bigger crowd. There is no such thing as popular music genre. In the 20s pop music was based on jazz, in the 70s on rock, noawadays mostly on hip hop.

 

[omega 616]

So what do you think of this, wait for the rapping ...

That's not bad. The guitar is a little ouchy but at least no RAWWWWWR screeching. It's the screaming that I just can't abide.

I bet it will be stuck in your head now...

The guitar adds a nice edge I think, most rap is plain and repetitive in that respect. It's something new and I know a lot of people will hate it for that very reason but that's there right.

If your looking for a laugh at that RAWWWWWRing look at dying fetus, I was watching it before and was nearly crying with laughter. 3 guys stood bolt straight up then with perfectly straight faces, start these bizarre vocals that really don't suit there look.

(40 seconds the bald guys starts and I think he is the funniest)


The music is great (to me) the vocals are a joke (to me).

 

[arrjay93]

I see art as something that takes skill to do, I think the Mona Lisa is art 'cos I cannot do something close to that, I think good writers and film directors are artists 'cos they build the feeling they want, I think bands like slipknot are artists 'cos it takes skill to play instruments but any idiot can sit down and throw a pop song together (just the music) in about an hour.

Heres lady Gaga's latest song, skip to anywhere mid song and all you can hear is overpowering bass and a simple tune over the top.


It's the same constantly through the song, maybe with the odd bit of silence were it is just vocals but if you go to any intrument playing band (that I have heard anyway) they always, bar maybe one, song are always changing the music in the song.

Such as hatebreed, all there songs are never constant except "destroy everything", which is the same all the way through (to my memory).

Anyway, I am rambling now.

Would you consider this music?


Meets your requirements - that's a real guitar after all, which someone had to learn to play with their actual hands. Might even be "art" - after all, it's got a message.

Then again, it's not very complicated, is it? Same few bars, no big changes, no improv sections. Listen to Gaga again - it's got a god damn saxaphone solo in between the third and the fourth minute, and a different sound under the vocals in most of the verses. There is a lot more going on in that song than just bass and vocals. If either of those two songs could be thrown together over a lunchbreak, it would be the Deathcab track. Lady is a multimillion dollar brand. She does not shit out singles someone threw together with an iphone app. That song was produced by someone who's been making music since he was 16, and I guarantee you that he and the artist will have spent hours and hours and hours with it, deciding where and when everything (and there is, I will say again, a lot of different things happening in that song) should go.

If complexity and ease of reproduction are your only standards for when something can be music, then the Deathcab song is far less a song than Gaga's. It doesn't meet any of the standards you set out above - no real rhythm or departure from the established melody, nothing that any half decent guitarist couldn't reproduce - by the definition you've given me it's not real music. Do you think it is music? If you do, is that intrinsic to it being made with real instruments and not synthethised, in which case all the justifications about what makes music music were a bit pointless, or is there something else.

I'm not saying you have to like the Gaga song - hell, I dont - but to me it look like all the reasons you think it isn't music are rationalisations you're trying to put out as fact, because they apply equally to stuff that meets your requirements, and sometimes don't apply to songs that don't. What is it that makes years spent mastering a guitar superior to years spent mastering electronic production, and why are the tunes made by the physical instrument superior to those made by the synthetic?

 

[arrjay93]

Have you ever considered that sometimes people dislike genres at least partially because of the lack of talent involved? I mean I'll admit there are probably exceptions (though I've never experienced any firsthand, so that's more obligatory than genuine) but at the end of the day, regardless of personal opinion, almost anyone can do this.

Really?
OK then, make a song that will make millions of people run to the dancefloor whenever it plays.
I dare you. After all, almost anyone can do that.
Or are you one of the few who can't?

That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.

Catchy music isn't as complicated as complicated music but it isn't much easier. Some of these talentless artists do better than the other talentless artists - why?

Well now were onto something else entirely, but catchyness doesn't imply anything about quality or talent. Soulja Boy was able to make a "catchy" song with the presets on the demo version of FL studio and the lyrics "Soulja boy up in this ho, watch me crank it watch me roll, watch me crank that soulja boy and superman dat ho" Which over the course of one single stanza reiterates the same thing twice and recycles the word "ho" to rhyme with itself. Catchyness comes with repetition, whether it be that the song plays on the radio constantly or that the song constantly repeats itself to create a similar sense of familiarity.

As for success, there are a number of factors involved in marketing a musician. The actual music definitely is a factor, but when it comes to mainstream success it isn't the only one, and probably not even the main one. Marketing to a demographic plays a huge part. For example, 50 cent has more appeal within his demographic than Eminem, who is similar and arguably better, because he's more "gangsta." There are less popular musicians have much catchier songs who aren't as big because they don't have the right agent or haven't been around as long. Rebbecca Black has made millions of dollars off marketing alone to the "I hate Justin Beiber" crowd, even though a majority of her consumers hate her music. Success doesn't necessarily imply anything of quality or talent either.

I could probably go off a lot more about this because I know a good amount about music and the entertainment industry, but basically the point I was trying to convey originally is that it takes a lot less to be like 50 Cent than it does to be like Dave Mustaine.

Well yes, and I'm not saying than Fiddy is an extraordinarily gifted musician. But then again, quantity of talent doesn't always translate into quality of music - there are a lot of genuinely talented musicians whose work I can't stand. But that's music; some people look for different things than others. I know a lot of people who will always prefer Katy Perry to Radiohead no matter how many times I force them to listen to idioteque. I don't think it's wrong that some people don't look for layers upon layers in their music.

I suppose what I resent is the iplication that anyone could do what pop artists are doing - that they are interchangeable puppets of Big Music. Something separated Bruno Mars, say, from the millions of other little boys and girls who grew up wanting to be popstars. "Marketability" just means that a wide spectrum of people are going to want to buy their product - if that is the deciding factor in who gets a contract, then isn't that what we should expect from pop music. Music marketing conforms to people's tastes, which are not decided in advance by the record companies. If I hear a lot of shit music on the radio (which I do), it's because that's what people are buying, which is to say that I have a niche definition of shit. No amount of marketing would get the songs I like to number one, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[arrjay93]

Have you ever considered that sometimes people dislike genres at least partially because of the lack of talent involved? I mean I'll admit there are probably exceptions (though I've never experienced any firsthand, so that's more obligatory than genuine) but at the end of the day, regardless of personal opinion, almost anyone can do this.

Really?
OK then, make a song that will make millions of people run to the dancefloor whenever it plays.
I dare you. After all, almost anyone can do that.
Or are you one of the few who can't?

That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.

Catchy music isn't as complicated as complicated music but it isn't much easier. Some of these talentless artists do better than the other talentless artists - why?

Well now were onto something else entirely, but catchyness doesn't imply anything about quality or talent. Soulja Boy was able to make a "catchy" song with the presets on the demo version of FL studio and the lyrics "Soulja boy up in this ho, watch me crank it watch me roll, watch me crank that soulja boy and superman dat ho" Which over the course of one single stanza reiterates the same thing twice and recycles the word "ho" to rhyme with itself. Catchyness comes with repetition, whether it be that the song plays on the radio constantly or that the song constantly repeats itself to create a similar sense of familiarity.

As for success, there are a number of factors involved in marketing a musician. The actual music definitely is a factor, but when it comes to mainstream success it isn't the only one, and probably not even the main one. Marketing to a demographic plays a huge part. For example, 50 cent has more appeal within his demographic than Eminem, who is similar and arguably better, because he's more "gangsta." There are less popular musicians have much catchier songs who aren't as big because they don't have the right agent or haven't been around as long. Rebbecca Black has made millions of dollars off marketing alone to the "I hate Justin Beiber" crowd, even though a majority of her consumers hate her music. Success doesn't necessarily imply anything of quality or talent either.

I could probably go off a lot more about this because I know a good amount about music and the entertainment industry, but basically the point I was trying to convey originally is that it takes a lot less to be like 50 Cent than it does to be like Dave Mustaine.

Well yes, and I'm not saying than Fiddy is an extraordinarily gifted musician. But then again, quantity of talent doesn't always translate into quality of music - there are a lot of genuinely talented musicians whose work I can't stand. But that's music; some people look for different things than others. I know a lot of people who will always prefer Katy Perry to Radiohead no matter how many times I force them to listen to idioteque. I don't think it's wrong that some people don't look for layers upon layers in their music.

I suppose what I resent is the iplication that anyone could do what pop artists are doing - that they are interchangeable puppets of Big Music. Something separated Bruno Mars, say, from the millions of other little boys and girls who grew up wanting to be popstars. "Marketability" just means that a wide spectrum of people are going to want to buy their product - if that is the deciding factor in who gets a contract, then isn't that what we should expect from pop music. Music marketing conforms to people's tastes, which are not decided in advance by the record companies. If I hear a lot of shit music on the radio (which I do), it's because that's what people are buying, which is to say that I have a niche definition of shit. No amount of marketing would get the songs I like to number one, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[arrjay93]

Have you ever considered that sometimes people dislike genres at least partially because of the lack of talent involved? I mean I'll admit there are probably exceptions (though I've never experienced any firsthand, so that's more obligatory than genuine) but at the end of the day, regardless of personal opinion, almost anyone can do this.

Really?
OK then, make a song that will make millions of people run to the dancefloor whenever it plays.
I dare you. After all, almost anyone can do that.
Or are you one of the few who can't?

That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.

Catchy music isn't as complicated as complicated music but it isn't much easier. Some of these talentless artists do better than the other talentless artists - why?

Well now were onto something else entirely, but catchyness doesn't imply anything about quality or talent. Soulja Boy was able to make a "catchy" song with the presets on the demo version of FL studio and the lyrics "Soulja boy up in this ho, watch me crank it watch me roll, watch me crank that soulja boy and superman dat ho" Which over the course of one single stanza reiterates the same thing twice and recycles the word "ho" to rhyme with itself. Catchyness comes with repetition, whether it be that the song plays on the radio constantly or that the song constantly repeats itself to create a similar sense of familiarity.

As for success, there are a number of factors involved in marketing a musician. The actual music definitely is a factor, but when it comes to mainstream success it isn't the only one, and probably not even the main one. Marketing to a demographic plays a huge part. For example, 50 cent has more appeal within his demographic than Eminem, who is similar and arguably better, because he's more "gangsta." There are less popular musicians have much catchier songs who aren't as big because they don't have the right agent or haven't been around as long. Rebbecca Black has made millions of dollars off marketing alone to the "I hate Justin Beiber" crowd, even though a majority of her consumers hate her music. Success doesn't necessarily imply anything of quality or talent either.

I could probably go off a lot more about this because I know a good amount about music and the entertainment industry, but basically the point I was trying to convey originally is that it takes a lot less to be like 50 Cent than it does to be like Dave Mustaine.

Well yes, and I'm not saying than Fiddy is an extraordinarily gifted musician. But then again, quantity of talent doesn't always translate into quality of music - there are a lot of genuinely talented musicians whose work I can't stand. But that's music; some people look for different things than others. I know a lot of people who will always prefer Katy Perry to Radiohead no matter how many times I force them to listen to idioteque. I don't think it's wrong that some people don't look for layers upon layers in their music.

I suppose what I resent is the iplication that anyone could do what pop artists are doing - that they are interchangeable puppets of Big Music. Something separated Bruno Mars, say, from the millions of other little boys and girls who grew up wanting to be popstars. "Marketability" just means that a wide spectrum of people are going to want to buy their product - if that is the deciding factor in who gets a contract, then isn't that what we should expect from pop music. Music marketing conforms to people's tastes, which are not decided in advance by the record companies. If I hear a lot of shit music on the radio (which I do), it's because that's what people are buying, which is to say that I have a niche definition of shit. No amount of marketing would get the songs I like to number one, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[omega 616]

Would you consider this music?


Meets your requirements - that's a real guitar after all, which someone had to learn to play with their actual hands. Might even be "art" - after all, it's got a message.

Then again, it's not very complicated, is it? Same few bars, no big changes, no improv sections. Listen to Gaga again - it's got a god damn saxaphone solo in between the third and the fourth minute, and a different sound under the vocals in most of the verses. There is a lot more going on in that song than just bass and vocals. If either of those two songs could be thrown together over a lunchbreak, it would be the Deathcab track. Lady is a multimillion dollar brand. She does not shit out singles someone threw together with an iphone app. That song was produced by someone who's been making music since he was 16, and I guarantee you that he and the artist will have spent hours and hours and hours with it, deciding where and when everything (and there is, I will say again, a lot of different things happening in that song) should go.

If complexity and ease of reproduction are your only standards for when something can be music, then the Deathcab song is far less a song than Gaga's. It doesn't meet any of the standards you set out above - no real rhythm or departure from the established melody, nothing that any half decent guitarist couldn't reproduce - by the definition you've given me it's not real music. Do you think it is music? If you do, is that intrinsic to it being made with real instruments and not synthethised, in which case all the justifications about what makes music music were a bit pointless, or is there something else.

I'm not saying you have to like the Gaga song - hell, I dont - but to me it look like all the reasons you think it isn't music are rationalisations you're trying to put out as fact, because they apply equally to stuff that meets your requirements, and sometimes don't apply to songs that don't. What is it that makes years spent mastering a guitar superior to years spent mastering electronic production, and why are the tunes made by the physical instrument superior to those made by the synthetic?

Art is such a vague word these days, I have seen a 1 by 1 foot of canvas and on it were bars of differing colour separated by equally sized bars of white, if that is considered art anything and everything is.

Yes, I think it's music. Do you have a point with that? I think it's boring as hell but that's just my opinion.

When I said pop music is repetitive etc I was just ranting. I think simple songs can be pretty awesome, Mick from Slipknot puts it best (Go to 1:30) Imagine a song made up of nothing but that slow, "crushing", simple tune, I would fucking love it.

I didn't know you worked for lady gaga, is she as nice as she is on tv? How do you know how long it takes for her or the song writers to put a song together? There is nothing separating her from JLS, Justin Bieber, the pussy cat dolls, Akon, Cheryl Cole, Rihanna and every other pop act, 99% of there songs lyrics are about the same thing (love or lack of it)and there music all sounds similar.

Loud bass and a simple tune underneath (to be more accurate), there maybe odd exceptions but even if there are they are drowned out by the vocals. Saying there is a lot of stuff in a song doesn't make it so, I can't bring myself to listen to that song 'cos I actually don't like it but I do like others of hers. ("poker face" is a catchy ass song!)

I bet it takes longer for a rock/metal album to come out than a pop song, much longer. I always hear of a new pop song coming out but don't really hear that much about anything else, although I am not exactly at the epicentre of music.

I used to live in a place with a full sound studio in, which I know sounds far fetched but it's true. I watched a guy make a that Alton towers theme tune into a happy hardcore track, from scratch in about 20 minutes. He then made a sample of music were it sounded like the bass was playing backwards (so it sounded like a sucking noise) and that took about 5 minutes, he then dragged it across to play for about 20 minutes.

The speed that music can be created is silly, compared a guy sat with a guitar coming up with new riffs and seeing what is good, what works and what doesn't, then perfecting the guitar only then to have to deal with how it sounds with drums next to it and if they clash.

Every time a pop song is played it comes out perfectly, exactly how it was tweaked to sound like. A rock/metal guitar player has to remember every second of each song, for the entire of a bands play list, he has to keep time with the rest of the band etc etc etc. There is no way you can say pop requires equal amount of skill to play compared to rock/metal.

Let me just correct you ... "but to me it looks like all the reasons you think it isn't music are rationalisations you're trying to put out as opinion, because they apply equally to stuff that meets your requirements, and sometimes don't apply to songs that don't." there, that sorted that out ....

 

[Alexnader]

I will stop saying 'I don't like rap' when I hear rap I like.

I hear what you're saying. But I don't think I throw the words hate around that much.

that my friend is a gauntlet right there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn6-c223DUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzAsBFj4fR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhbe74hoJFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgT1AidzRWM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4kmytPqVZQ&feature=fvst



And i dont even like RAP. If i can find stuff i like, there will be something out there for you.
Although in all honesty im as (sometimes more) disimissive as of dubstep, which really pisses me off.

B.o.B was pretty mainstream but those were all good tracks right there.

As for your dubstep issue, sure a lot of it may sound like just *insert generic wobble bass to win music but I quite like the wobble bass XD

Its the cliched structure that lends itself well to remixes, since there's a range of tropes that can be employed to convert a song into dubstep:

http://soundcloud.com/distrikt/distrikt-beats-sail-away-enya-dubstep-rmx
That's right, enya dubstep. (This probably isn't the best example but I was listening to it at the time, yes I listen to Enya or rather I listen to Sail Away which is just awesome)

Dubstep also seems to work very well with female British singers.
http://soundowl.com/track/djg/ellie-goulding-lights-wired-dubstep-remix
Also see Katy B for some lighter dubstep/pop.

Finally there's Skrillex for the ultimate "dubstep for people who don't like dubstep" songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeNSzJ2-Jw - Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (I can't leave that out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaIZ0mUJzr0 - Remix of Benny Benassi's 'Cinema'

Also if you want a bit of smoother, relaxed dubstep to add that hint of class to your dinner party/soirée/swingers party:
http://soundcloud.com/ibenjidub/ibenji-boneless-free

 

[LITE992]

I don't hate rap and pop, but because it's overplayed to the point where it's everywhere, and most listeners will denounce other genres of music, I'm disliking the influence it has on people. That and the fact that it's the same shit every time with little to no innovation at all. We're at the point where it appears to be mandatory to have a rapper in every other song, rapping something that has nothing to do with the song.

From what I've read on Yahoo Answers, the record labels are run by cash-grabbing whores who don't want their artists to change because this brings the risk of earning less money.

But just to clarify: I don't hate rap, pop, hip hop whatever, I just feel like it's getting crammed down my throat and I'm sick of hearing it.

But who knows, I'm just cynical .

 

[Alexnader]

snip

snip


And i dont even like RAP. If i can find stuff i like, there will be something out there for you.
Although in all honesty im as (sometimes more) disimissive as of dubstep, which really pisses me off.

B.o.B was pretty mainstream but those were all good tracks right there.

As for your dubstep issue, sure a lot of it may sound like just *insert generic wobble bass to win music but I quite like the wobble bass XD

Its the cliched structure that lends itself well to remixes, since there's a range of tropes that can be employed to convert a song into dubstep:

http://soundcloud.com/distrikt/distrikt-beats-sail-away-enya-dubstep-rmx
That's right, enya dubstep. (This probably isn't the best example but I was listening to it at the time, yes I listen to Enya or rather I listen to Sail Away which is just awesome)

Dubstep also seems to work very well with female British singers.
http://soundowl.com/track/djg/ellie-goulding-lights-wired-dubstep-remix
Also see Katy B for some lighter dubstep/pop.

Finally there's Skrillex for the ultimate "dubstep for people who don't like dubstep" songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSeNSzJ2-Jw - Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (I can't leave that out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaIZ0mUJzr0 - Remix of Benny Benassi's 'Cinema'

Also if you want a bit of smoother, relaxed dubstep to add that hint of class to your dinner party/soirée/swingers party:
http://soundcloud.com/ibenjidub/ibenji-boneless-free

only 1 of those songs i'd willingly listen to again tbh, (cinema if you were wondering), because there are better versions of those songs available. In my eyes all music should serve a purpose, whether that be to get down with the beats, relax, get angry, or dance like a maniac, iv found MOST dubstep correlates to no emotion. Except me being aware there are versions of songs where the instruments are allowed to sound like they do (ibenji notably i loved the sax, but felt the interuptions ruined it, similar to how a lot of awesome metal tunes are ruined by screamers).

Thanks for trying though.

*edit*
remixes can be good, ala the best version of the ellie goulding song
<youtube=bQniG3PK_jY>

I have that version too One of my playlists has the original song, the bassnectar remix, the WIRED remix and the eyes remix. Yeah if I hear a good song I have no issue listening to it over and over again.

I know what you mean by the "interruptions" and for a lot of dance or electro remixes the insertion of sections that are purely beats and nothing to do with the original song annoys me no end (though they may be functionally required for dancing).

I don't think the songs I picked fell into that trapping for two reasons.

1. I like the bobwobwobwobwob and
2. the wobble bass bits seemed a bit more integrated into the rest of the song. For instance I didn't find it intrusive at all in Boneless and I thought it went quite well with the sax. At 48 seconds in there's one noticeable bit of just bass but after that everything seems a bit more layered.

It's more intrusive in the WIRED remix of Lights but I can forgive it because they keep the vocals going over the bass. Cinema on the other hand I like precisely because it almost jarringly shifts between the vocals and the crazy electro stuff and they're more complex than just bass.


Anyway those are 5 songs out of a whole genre/subgenre, if you didn't hate just one of them I'd consider that a success.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

You know, I don't really care. So long as you're not saying 'everyone who listens to this band is a spastic' then I don't care. Music tastes by and large really aren't serious business, and it's simply pedantic to make people say 'All rap I've heard so far is crap' rather than 'rap is crap'. I'm sure most people could infer that.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

electronia..

I'm sorry if you think a bunch of random bass and bleeps made by a computer software operated by some kid is actual music.

Its as much music as anything else.

It isn't. Real music is made by composers who actually spend years of their lives studying music itself at an Academy and mastering the instruments required to reproduce the sound of perfection along with criativity.

Remember the time people actually spent months perfecting only the lyrics for their songs, and not just a couple hours?

I really doubt you do because you probably weren't even born yet.

You think classic bands like Led Zepplin spent months on their lyrics, or are you referring to some other genre of music?

I'm really hoping your attitude here is not serious, because technical training does not make a composition or player great. In another medium, painting for example, you're saying someone's art is not art unless they went to school for years and studied shading, color, etc.? If that is what it takes to be art/music for you, then I pity you for all the cool stuff you're missing out on.