Poll: Music that needs to Die
- Thread starter DreamerM
- Start date
Wistfane said:
Yes, because you need a formal education to have an opinion. Seriously, that was just stupid. by your logic, you'd need a degree in Philosophy to discuss a matter of right and wrong, a degree in Epidemiology to discuss the possibility of a zombie outbreak, and degrees in both Theology and[&i] Evolutionary Developmental Biology to discuss the theory of evolution. I'm not trying to protect unfounded or baseless arguments, but come on. Can't people have a personal opinion? And just for the record, I do have a formal musical education (no instruments, but rather editing and mixing music, sound studio stuff) and I still think that music would do just fine, or even better, without certain artists. An education does not automatically entitle you to belittle the opinions of people who don't necessarily know as much about the subject as you do.
OT: I voted for "Shrill, inappropriately sexual bubblegum tween pop". By that, I assume you mean Ke$ha, Justin Bieber (even though his music isn't exactly "inappropriately sexual"), and so on. It makes me weep for humanity when this is what kids today grow up listening to. But of course, they're too damn stupid to realise it's bad (mostly because they're barely exposed to 'real' music), and the big music corporations are all too eager to back the tasteless, untalented artists that said kids listen to, thus making even more money. This money is used to advertise the artists and their music, therefore more kids are lured into it, thus the companies make more money, etc etc. It's an evil circle.
Footnote: I'm not an anti-establishment "STICK IT TO THE MAN" jackass. I'm well aware that the overwhelming majority of 'good' artists through the years have been backed by the same (or similar) big corporations that now back the bottom scrape of the musical barrel. It just saddens me that they've abandoned quality for easy money.
EDIT: I'll be politically correct and agree with the whole "It's wrong to eliminate any genre of music" sentiment. It's true that we need shit to appreciate the good stuff. However, I still think that Ke$ha and brokeNCYDE (HOLY SHIT WHAT WAS THAT I AM NOT EVEN SURE THAT IS MUSIC) contribute nothing to the creative process.
3Oh3 needs to die. It objectifys women, has a terrible repetative tune, and the singer just talks the song.
As long as someone appreciates it, I'm content with ignoring music I find awful. The minute it stops being liked though, get rid of the cheesy country!
I'd just like to say that I probably have more formal musical education than everyone here (plus a fair bit of "informal" education, ahem) and I think Brokencyde are great. I don't think anyone else's opinion on music is "invalid" though. I might disagree with many people's music taste, but what you're saying is on another level - you're effectively stating that a person needs a degree in food manufacturing and chemical engineering to appreciate strawberry icecream.Wistfane said:
Just posting the YouTube again because it seems to be the thing to do around here. Damn that song is so catchy. Go on, just try to resist clicking on it. Admit it, you tapped your foot when no-one was looking...
Where is the none option? It's an incredibly arrogant statement to say that a musical genre shouldn't have the opportunity to be listened to. I dislike 90% of today's music but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
You do realise that if you posed that question to people who enjoy the majority of todays music then they would probably say metal and rock, right? I think you should stop acting so high and mighty and realise that people like different things to you.
Also, listen to this, might change your biased views on Techno.
You do realise that if you posed that question to people who enjoy the majority of todays music then they would probably say metal and rock, right? I think you should stop acting so high and mighty and realise that people like different things to you.
Also, listen to this, might change your biased views on Techno.
not really the point, if they can't sing they should not be in the studio trying to be 'famous singers'.BonsaiK said:
yeah but then he's not really playing is he?BonsaiK said:
so actually the editer/producer is more of a famous bass player.
it's like trying to be a famous painter but you can't paint so you take a picture of your painting and give it to someone so he can fotoshop it for you.
i especially hate the kind of autotune somebody posted earlier, because that's just really annoying.
look i've worked in a studio and seen all this autotune nonsense in action.
See, there's a difference. Sid Vicious didn't need any artificial help or editing to sound passable, even though he couldn't play a note, as you said. He just picked up a bass and did good. If someone needs to have their voice filtered in order to sound passable they shouldn't try singing.BonsaiK said:
Auto-Fucking-Tune songs need to die. its fine i guess to have 1 or 2 lines but when half the song is auto tuned then its just lame. unless your that guy that auto tune is his thing. he is allowed to use auto tune but anyone else is not allowed to have more that 1 line in 5 as auto tune.
its meant to be an effect in a song not auto tuned song.
its meant to be an effect in a song not auto tuned song.
I work in a studio too and we use Auto-tune all the time. Believe it or not, we've never used it once to hide a bum note - because every time you use Auto-tune people immediately suspect bum notes. We got Auto-tune in our studio because clients kept requesting it, because they like that sound. Auto-tune these days is generally used as a sonic effect, not a note-fixer. It's a popular sound right now, simple as that, just like gated drums in the 1980s and echoey vocals in the 1950s. There are far more subtle, far more effective ways to fix bum notes, that aren't as audible in the final product. If I wanted to fix a bad singer's pitching, the last thing I would use is Autotune.TheSanityAssassin said: