but it isnt actualy 'music'. it is an assortment of special computerized effects and electric beats. my personal definition of music is: an assortment of notes played by instruments. maybe if all the effects were done by guitars with chaos pedals or something it would be deemed as music by me but it is a digitally created sound.EternalFacepalm said:I stopped reading at "it's not music", as that phrase is pretty much only uttered by morons.Shark Wrangler said:The music sucks and it will go away very soon. Hate this kind of crap with a passion and its not music. Everybody knows that this crap is just club music. Go out and dance to this garbage while getting very drunk. You go home with some random person and and hate yourself in the morning. Very much like to think this stuff plays in hell when you first enter.
People listen to it because they like it. You might not like it, but they do.
I think that's part of my problem, even if it isn't that genre, it's got those connotations of becapped fucknuggets who kit out a £500 car with £5,000 worth of speakers purely to piss off anyone in range of a mile of them with their bass bins.FolkLikePanda said:I dunno music like that gives me a headache and soon enough makes me aggressive, probably because it really annoys me and reminds of dickheads who drive around blasting music out of their cars.
How about it being taught on the A Level Music Technology syllabus? Whilst I'm willing to accept that its definitive origins weren't there, it's known that Jazz was played by bands in red light districts before the success of big band music.phazaar said:You got a source for this? I assume it's a doctoral thesis you're writing or something, intending to suggest a new origin for jazz than -all- scholarly literature to date? Really, source this or sit down, because it's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.
Well by your definition it's music to me, as it both stirs emotions and I can dance to it. So take your subjectivity to the long term parking.bahumat42 said:its purposeless noise, can't even dance to it, waste of time.
music should either evoke emotion (see anger,happiness,sadness, melancholy, peace) or be in conjunction with an activity (see swing music, most videogame songs, and the massively wide genre known as "dance")
step achieves none of these criteria, whilst also ruining the various songs it comes across (im talking to you whoever posted that butchered version of still alive.
It'l go away in due time, its gained very little traction, and whilst some elements may survive by being integrated into other genres such as house and techno(which has already happened to a certain extent), the movement itself will die down.
What "artistic merits" could dubstep really have? "Entire genre of music"? Dubstep is to music what throwing random paint at a piece of paper is to art. Sure it's subjective, but some things still have a greater artistic value than other things, if I put a bowl of shit on a table and claim it is art, you would probably disagree right? I didn't put alot of effort into it, well depends on if I'm having a good day or not but that's besides the point... I could use the same arguements as the pro-dubstep-likers, "it's new art so old people can't understand!" or "who are you to judge art?". But fact remains, it's still just a bowl of shit, objectively it wouldn't be nearly as amazing as the Mona Lisa as an example, sure I can call it art all I want but it still smell and look like shit, and anyone who likes it is obviously hipsters full of shit. There you have it.InterAirplay said:possible artistic merits of an entire genre of music
Jesus did you even read my post, or the three others after it, where I was rather posting IN DEFENSE of dubstep as music?! Don't drag me into this, I enjoy the music, good sir, I merely started my post with a rather topical and personally opinionated thrashing of Skrillex, not an attack on dubstep. Perhpaps you missed that.InterAirplay said:unoleian said:*snip*
Oh, look at that. A lot of people have never heard of subjectivity and have subsequently taken it upon themselves to make ill-fated attempts at dismissing the possible artistic merits of an entire genre of music by using various objective standards selectively derived from their own personal tastes and perceptions - even going so far as to make ridiculous negative generalisations about it's listeners or their tastes
Come on, guys. Really? Really?
-----unoleian said:Good things do happen with dubstep's sound, when you take it and try to grow it beyond a bass-line and a massive drop-- Very good things.
I'm all for doing away with trash that amateurs throw together in Ableton in 15 minutes and call music, but anyone who vehemently states dubstep can't make music at all is in denial or just plain ignorant.
I know a few of these tracks push genre lines pretty hard, perhaps even break them, but dubstep's influence on the above ranges from outright explicit to hovering around just in the background. And, personally, as a lover of a wide range of music, I think this is good shit. But maybe that's just me.
Aye, I personally don't like Skrillex very much, but if his bass gives me them bumps and sends shivers down my spine, I can even ignore the crap non-wub-wub bits of noise.WhySoElitist said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-aYZl7JhU
this is why