Indeed I agree but re. alt/punk/metal Flowers that did not fully bloom IMOOriginally Posted by princeofcats67
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- San Jose CA
- Posts
- 22,504
Indeed I agree but re. alt/punk/metal Flowers that did not fully bloom IMO
No, you just don't like it, which is fine... It's not really for you.
Yes, because I like good music. If it were artfully done, I would like it.
Everyone thinks they like good music and the music they hate is bad, but the truth is everyone likes a mix of good and lousy music, and that 90% of what they like is hardly superior. I've seen your list and even your top top songs are good, but not the greatest. I mean, on the one hand, who doesn't like The Who? They wrote some kick ass songs. At the same time, The Who, nor any band is the end all be all of music and they definitely have weak-points and they're the same weakpoints everyone from that era had.
We have a difference of opinion. Welcome to humanity
I believe I can relate.
Heh. I decided to expose myself to "Jazz", but I had no idea what it was. So I just followed my
insticts and went out and bought Coltrane's-A Love Supreme(I mean the name just says it all).
It freaking ruined me! I mean, where do you go from there?(BTW, that's rhetorical
Prince
PS: And yes, I know quite a few hardcore jazz-guys. "Obsess" is so right!
Like, to the point of MAJOR-"loathing"(of themselves and others!).
Kinda weird dudes, IMO. I can relate.
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
I know. I knew he had killed himself, but I didn't know how. The Wiki says his blood alcoholI saw them live in 1983 (or 84?), wore the shit out of the cassette.
Did you know that the lead singer killed himself, maybe 10-15 years ago? Sad.
content was really high. Tragic. *sigh*
Prince
PS: That reminds me of another kick-ass "lost treasure" from our time-period.
INXS-Don't Change. Michael Hutchence was really cool! Good band, IMO.
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
Loved INXS! I was also a huge Tears for Fears fan. There are also some guilty pleasures that I don't talk about much
Logical fallacy, 10 yard penalty. You can't declare something good or bad and then cite absolute relativism as the reason for the quality.We have a difference of opinion. Welcome to humanity
Our NPR has a great jazz show Saturday night. Only downside? The two hosts, even in that emotionless robotone NPR is famous for, need to go out back, have a fist fight and have sex and come back. The tension is painful.
Oh my goodness, you caught me!
Unfortunately, it doesn't change my opinion.
But it certainly speaks volumes about it.Oh my goodness, you caught me!
Unfortunately, it doesn't change my opinion.
The music speaks for itself. But you didn't even really catch me, because I didn't claim that musical opinions are "relative." I just said we (and people) have different ones.
But you cited opinion as justification for good and bad, inother words you're relying on opinion to justify something that requires objective criteria.
Well no, there is no possibility that objective criteria can determine what is good or bad music, except the listening to a common object.
No-one can be convinced about what is good or bad music through discussion and argument. That's not because there is no such thing as good or bad music, but because it's not something that can be described or settled with words.
To the contrary, music isn't magic. While, yes, you have to listen to it. It is, in fact, identifyable, classifyable, and therefore objective. It's a complex analysis, yes, but it's still objective. You can convince someone something is good in the realm of music, you just can't convince them to like it.
For instance, there are groups that are challenging because they're good musicians writing and playing good music, it's just that your first few listens are going to be hard to get through because they're doing things differently. Kid Dynamite is a great example. They have verse, chorus, breakdown song structure, but sometimes because their timing changes are such a juxtoposition and their music is so short. Doesn't change that it's good music.
Meanwhile, there's awful music. Doesn't stop people from liking it. Sometimes it's just comfortable, sometimes it's because because the song structure is good even though it's preformed poorly (I call this The Bob Dylan factor), sometimes it's a bad song preformed amazingly (I call this the Cheap Trick factor), sometimes it's not multifaceted enough (Phil Rudd factor).
So yeah, you can identify good, bad, better, best, in music. You can also like and dislike music in all categories (for instance I don't like Thursday simply because they're the poor man's Thrice. I already have Thrice, what do I need Thursday for?), for a variety of reeasons (I'm usually not into the engineering styles of Butch Vig. I don't like what he does with drum production, and it's turned me off several albums) But the spectrum of good and bad is, by virtue of the terms, a value judgement and value judgement requires objective criteria.
There is no difference.
That's true, it might not. I probably still disagree with your choice, but in general, we often need to listen more carefully, and then as a result change our minds and learn to appreciate some music more. I have changed my mind often as a result of further listening. Exhibit A around here of course IMO is Justin Bieber. People just can't get past their prejudices about him, and they simply can't hear it. You probably say the same about these 3T alt rock artists you are mentioning; I just hear nothing there. I think if it sounded artistic to me, I would like it. I would not dismiss it because I am not a Gen Xer. But brash, musty, negative, unmelodic stuff (like the example you gave me a while back of something you liked) is likely not going to appeal to me, and so I am not going to call it artistic. It does not have musical qualities, as far as I'm concerned.For instance, there are groups that are challenging because they're good musicians writing and playing good music, it's just that your first few listens are going to be hard to get through because they're doing things differently. Kid Dynamite is a great example. They have verse, chorus, breakdown song structure, but sometimes because their timing changes are such a juxtoposition and their music is so short. Doesn't change that it's good music.
If people make poor choices about music, pro or con, it is usually because they listen inadequately to it.Meanwhile, there's awful music. Doesn't stop people from liking it. Sometimes it's just comfortable, sometimes it's because because the song structure is good even though it's preformed poorly (I call this The Bob Dylan factor), sometimes it's a bad song preformed amazingly (I call this the Cheap Trick factor), sometimes it's not multifaceted enough (Phil Rudd factor).
I don't see your last sentence at all. Good music is a matter of experience, not judgement. Either you experience it as good, or you don't. If you do, it could be because the music is good; or if you don't, it could be because the music is bad. Or maybe not, in either case. There is a subjective and objective component. There is the music, and then there's what you bring to it.So yeah, you can identify good, bad, better, best, in music. You can also like and dislike music in all categories (for instance I don't like Thursday simply because they're the poor man's Thrice. I already have Thrice, what do I need Thursday for?), for a variety of reeasons (I'm usually not into the engineering styles of Butch Vig. I don't like what he does with drum production, and it's turned me off several albums) But the spectrum of good and bad is, by virtue of the terms, a value judgement and value judgement requires objective criteria.
There is a difference between good and likeability. Likeability is experiential, but good is not. Good is a matter of proficiency. That proficiency is multispectral (and at times it can be situational and mutually exclusive), but it's definitely objective.
This is where existentialism fails, there are many things which a person doesn't like experientally that they do because it yields a greater good. While both the subjective and the objective exist, they're not the same thing. So a song like "Tonight, Tonight" by The Smashing Pumpkins, you can objectively say that every element of that song as good with the exception of Billy Corgan's vocals, you can also make some persnickity criticism about the production. Otherwise, well written song. Doesn't keep me from wanting to beat my skull in with a claw hammer every time I hear it because of Billy Corgan's voice. It's bad. Some people like it, that doesn't make it a good voice, it just means they like an awful voice.
The problem with stating music is purely experience driven is that experience draws on a sum total that lies outside the realm of music. So if Ben Folds killed your parents, you probably don't care much for the guy. It doesn't change the fact that he is a great pianist. Similarly, if you lost your virginity to the music of Tiny Tim, that doesn't make it good music.
I don't agree. If music is well done, that is a component of likability. Music is all experiential, but it is partly objective, and it is good or not based on what is put into it. People can speculate on the ingredients of good music. But there is no way to judge it in a detached way.
Experience is not limited to the personal. We exist inter-personally. Existentialism has its limits. But I don't see a connection between an idea of the "greater good" and an evaluation of a piece of music.This is where existentialism fails, there are many things which a person doesn't like experientally that they do because it yields a greater good.
Using 3T examples is not likely to work for me, but maybe for others. If Tonight Tonight is well-written, then you have experienced that, or you can't say that; even if you have to filter out the effect of Corgan's voice. Or in my case, almost any singer of rock from that era.While both the subjective and the objective exist, they're not the same thing. So a song like "Tonight, Tonight" by The Smashing Pumpkins, you can objectively say that every element of that song as good with the exception of Billy Corgan's vocals, you can also make some persnickity criticism about the production. Otherwise, well written song. Doesn't keep me from wanting to beat my skull in with a claw hammer every time I hear it because of Billy Corgan's voice. It's bad. Some people like it, that doesn't make it a good voice, it just means they like an awful voice.
Experience outside the music itself, is not what is meant by an experience of the music. What you said about Ben Folds, though an extreme fictional example, is not any different than those who don't like Justin Bieber just because his fans are teenage girls. Sheer prejudice, not an experience of the music.The problem with stating music is purely experience driven is that experience draws on a sum total that lies outside the realm of music. So if Ben Folds killed your parents, you probably don't care much for the guy. It doesn't change the fact that he is a great pianist. Similarly, if you lost your virginity to the music of Tiny Tim, that doesn't make it good music.
FYI, Boomers and to some extent Jonesers can self justify anything.
(Music has to artful to be good)
As more down to earth, but just as bad case of self justification.
The Federal Reserve has trashed bond yields, so Rags has to stoop to buying a known subsidy snarfer, Exxon-Mobile stock to keep the cash flow coming in to his IRA.
The average Xer or Millie is unaware of this fact and will write numerous posties in an attempt to convince said Boomer/Joneser that he/she is messed up in the head. However, it won't work. Just sayin'
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Obviously, you've never worked with guitarists before... Also, this is my big complaint about a lot of 2T music, which is it's total lack of discretion.
Sure, your big names managed to handle it well somewhat, however, when you look at how well just "feeling" the music and doing whatever worked out for 2Ters, compare it to either jazz from the Great Power Saeculum or music from the recent 3T. Both had strong pocket presence. The 20's did it better on average, mostly because those musicians on average knew their scales better and could pull out stuff on the fly quicker, but on average the most recent 3T understood to get out of eachother's way much better than most of the groups from the 2T (with the exception of Queen, Frank Zappa, and the like... Stuff that was meglomaniacally driven with the intent of producing the greatest overall songs). Most groups of the 2T, though... Lots of big egos competing for limited space, so you wound up with these long, extensive jams to nowhere. You don't get that through most of the 3T, because artists developed a sense of timing for the greater good of the song.
Not to say musicians have less of an ego between the turnings, just saying the sensibility changed to something better.
Yeah, me too. I really liked the entire Listen Like Thieves record backLoved INXS! I was also a huge Tears for Fears fan. There are also some guilty pleasures that I don't talk about much
when I first went away to college in '85. Great band. And I remember
we were talking about Tears for Fears-Sowing The Seeds Of Love.
How about XTC-Mayor Of Simpleton.
Plus, it's only a "guilty pleasure" if you actually feel guilty about it!
Prince
PS:
My pleasure.I searched for this on youtube a few years ago and couldn't find it.
Thank you.
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
Huh. I don't think I fully understand "selling out". I mean, I've certainly known plenty ofHmm ... see prior discussion about "selling out."
musicians that try to "direct" their songs to the flavor of the day, and I actually work
pretty hard on trying to teach them to not do that(ie: worry so much about selling records,
or being "popular"). Just trying to maintain whatever the "true colors" of the song is, can
be difficult, and it gets really confusing when new fans show up, but like the music for what
seems like all the wrong reasons. So like, "indie cred" doesn't really mean anything to me.
I remember really liking Elvis Costello-Brutal Youth, and IIRC, it didn't really "go" anywhere.
It's really interesting and quirky, IMO; I love it. Here's an example: My Science Fiction Twin!
So, it's not that I like it because it wasn't "popular", I just like it. But bands do seem to lose
"certain somethings" when everybody starts jumping on-board. I do kinda get that.
I really don't know, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Prince
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
No music is perfect and you can find fault. My impression is that the gap between 2T and 3T is so wide in favor of the former, that there isn't even grounds for discussion. It is off the charts. The 3T was a total bust for pop and rock. If the 2T had "total lack of discretion" (which is not true; much pop and rock then was expertly arranged), what can you say about 3T? Deliberate total lack of discretion? And dark, musty, brash, harsh, noisy, aimless, insensitive, manufactured (especially pop), cynical, deliberately irritating (especially rap and metal), without melody....
I totally disagree. There are big egos in rock, to be sure; in all turnings. The 2T rock musicians were more individualistic and egotistic than big band members, for sure. But whether the folks could get along is beside the point. The 2T groups produced much, much better music on the whole than any other period in pop and rock, and overall the earlier in the 2T it was, the better it was. We just hear the music differently; we are just nowhere close to agreement on that, and I accept that.Sure, your big names managed to handle it well somewhat, however, when you look at how well just "feeling" the music and doing whatever worked out for 2Ters, compare it to either jazz from the Great Power Saeculum or music from the recent 3T. Both had strong pocket presence. The 20's did it better on average, mostly because those musicians on average knew their scales better and could pull out stuff on the fly quicker, but on average the most recent 3T understood to get out of each other's way much better than most of the groups from the 2T (with the exception of Queen, Frank Zappa, and the like... Stuff that was meglomaniacally driven with the intent of producing the greatest overall songs). Most groups of the 2T, though... Lots of big egos competing for limited space, so you wound up with these long, extensive jams to nowhere. You don't get that through most of the 3T, because artists developed a sense of timing for the greater good of the song.
Not to say musicians have less of an ego between the turnings, just saying the sensibility changed to something better.
I have low expectations, culturally, for 1Ts, 3Ts, and 4Ts.
Sounds like they took their cue from "I am the Walrus"
Daily Motion seems to have no place for the poster to write some information on a song. I don't remember the dates for Tears for Fears. mid-80s? I guess this one is 1989 acc. to wikipedia.
