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.omega 616 said: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.omega 616 said:So what do you think of this, wait for the rapping ...
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.NotSoNimble said: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.
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.Cowabungaa said: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.TestECull said:snip
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.
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.Scrubiii said: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.
I bet it will be stuck in your head now...Polarity27 said: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.omega 616 said:So what do you think of this, wait for the rapping ...
Would you consider this music?omega 616 said: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.
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.Guitarmasterx7 said: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.arrjay93 said: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?Guitarmasterx7 said:That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.HardkorSB said:Really?Guitarmasterx7 said: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.
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?
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.Guitarmasterx7 said: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.arrjay93 said: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?Guitarmasterx7 said:That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.HardkorSB said:Really?Guitarmasterx7 said: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.
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?
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.Guitarmasterx7 said: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.arrjay93 said: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?Guitarmasterx7 said:That's all marketing. I'm saying that anyone can preform this song, or create something of similar complexity and composure.HardkorSB said:Really?Guitarmasterx7 said: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.
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?
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.
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.arrjay93 said: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?
B.o.B was pretty mainstream but those were all good tracks right there.bahumat42 said:that my friend is a gauntlet right there.NotSoNimble said: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.
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.
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.bahumat42 said: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).Alexnader said:B.o.B was pretty mainstream but those were all good tracks right there.bahumat42 said:snipNotSoNimble said: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.
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
Thanks for trying though.
*edit*
remixes can be good, ala the best version of the ellie goulding song
<youtube=bQniG3PK_jY>
You think classic bands like Led Zepplin spent months on their lyrics, or are you referring to some other genre of music?macacos2 said: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.aww yea said:Its as much music as anything else.macacos2 said: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.SystemUpdate said:electronia..
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.