::rap Thread::

[chygry]

60s and 70s were WELL ahead of today's music. 80s rock (as opposed to the earlier Rock n Roll) was probably the lead era of that genre, and 90s I think is probably the best rap era...

Well said. But i think from 80s or 90s the rock genre has gone way downhill. Nowadays i cannot even think of a band that makes quality music like in the past, but i listen to progressive house mostly anyway.

This comes to mind, though.

I don't know how to type properly on my friends mac so i'll just link it. Listening to it on acid was amazing i must admit. But that's besides the point. Just a good song which reminds me of The Beatles a little bit. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wycjnCCgUes

 

[Zlatan]

People listen to music because they like it, not because of the creative process the Artist has gone through

You won't get any argument from me on that, but that's completely besides the point. I listen to music because I like it, too. But I don't like music that's not creative. That doesn't mean you can't, that doesn't mean 'people' can't. Listen to whatever you want, if the music's good to you the music is good.

Artists rarely evolve in a creative and tolerable way, it is usually new bands that are influenced by some aspect of the older band that "has gotten music where it is". Usually older bands who try to do something different do it very poorly because it is not genuine, or they just do something really shitty (like Blink as an example).

And that's where my trouble with bands like AC/DC lie. You’re right, all art evolves from one artist to the other. One brilliant artist takes something from brilliant artists before him and then goes on to add something unique of himself to that. That's the progresssion of creativity. But AC/DC did nothing of that sort. All AC/DC did throughout their career was just copy the exact sound of bands before them. They didn’t add anything to that. That's not creative. Bands like AC/DC at best just follow. I like bands that lead or at least those that take a chance, because they love music and want to evolve as artists.

Creative change goes gradually. It's not something a band decides to do overnight. blink-182 couldn't possibly be making the teenage pop punk music they were making fifteen years ago, because all three of them have grown up by now. They’re not the punk rock brats they were fifteen/twenty years ago, just as you are probably nothing like you were fifteen/twenty years ago. They all got kids, hell Travis Barker nearly died in a plane crash. It’s natural that your creative output changes when life changes, and I respect them for going along naturally with that change. You might not like them anymore, but there’s a lot of others that still do. If they’d stuck to the formula (because it once sold so well), like you seem to want them to, nobody would have taken them seriously anymore because honestly nothing is more pathetic than a 40+ year old writing songs about teenage angst.

But you are making an assumption that music has actually evolved to its current state, meaning that it is currently the best it has ever been. Is that really true?

No. Just because I signal the importance of creative process, doesn't mean that that process is per definition linear. On the contrary, I believe part of the crisis in rock music nowadays is right because of bands 'sticking to the formula', because they're obsessed with sales. There’s no invention in rock music anymore. A nasty side-effect of this is that when people fall for this sales trap of sticking to the formula, the artists that are still inventive and push boundaries generally get overshadowed in terms of popularity by the ones just aiming for a preservation of sales. Again, what rock music (or music in general) needs in my opinion is less bands that follow and copy old bands before them, and more bands that lead.

Nearly any big music fan would suggest that it certainly isn't true.

60s and 70s were WELL ahead of today's music. 80s rock (as opposed to the earlier Rock n Roll) was probably the lead era of that genre, and 90s I think is probably the best rap era...

Hurray! So, you agree with me? Because let’s think about 60’s and 70’s pop music, shall we? The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Velvet Underground etc. etc. What do all these bands have in common, you think? Right, they were inventive! They pushed boundaries! They all went through one or multiple different creative changes throughout their career. All of them were highly creative because they were very curious about other music and other forms of art around them. That all is exactly what AC/DC is not.

Same goes for the golden era of hip hop you signal. Groups like N.W.A., Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul, Wu-Tang Clan all the way through to 2Pac, The Notorious B.I.G. and Eminem and so forth. What made them so great? You guessed it! Their innovative creative spirit! The fact that they all did something different from what happened before them in rap music, the fact that all of them continuously were searching for ways to expand their sound, expand their art. Again, exactly the type of things AC/DC has never done throughout their career.

 

[chygry]

You're blowing this way out of proportion. Calm down!

 

[ShiftyPowers]

If you see Blink 182 in concert tomorrow, what songs do you want to hear?

BTW, not everything is about art and creativity, especially in this post modern world. I enjoy a band that rocks like AC/DC, just like I still enjoy the mindless music of the pop-punk era, Blink 182 most definitely included.

 

[Mandieta6]

This sums up my stance on balloon boy's 'music must be creative' shtick, and it is a scene that has stuck with me for over a decade:



Replace Jimmy with music in general and omit the drummer discussion at the end and that's my main beef with people like Zlatan or people who get bogged down by the lyrics or people who can't listen to band once it becomes commercial. They listen to the music rather than hearing it. They turn it into an intellectual or sometimes even political experience rather than a sensory one. As far as I'm conerned, someone telling me they need their music to be meaingful or deep or creative is not really enjoying music at all and is just in it for appearance's sake.

 

[Zlatan]

That's bullshit man. I was in love with music before I could even talk. I love all music. My favourite band is The Beatles. I think there has rarely been a band that was more commercial than them (at least in terms of commercial success). My favourite band growing up was blink-182, often cited by punk elitists for selling out the genre to the masses. At the same time I also like Albert Ayler and Eric Dolphy. Because they all have an innate desire to develop themselves as artist, and a love for what they do which is music.

I don't love music for the intellectual turn on. I love music for music. Therefore I love musicians that make music for the love of music. I love musicians that love music/art so much that they are willing to invest major time in it to find stuff that inspires them and to turn that into beautiful sounds. I love musicians that think about their art and create on basis of that. I don't love mindless machines that call themselves musicians and then go on to strum away the same song on their electric guitar just because it resonates well with a large crowd. I don't love 'musicians' that are copycats and 'stick to the formula', always doing exactly the same thing for the sake of money, not for the sake of music.

But that's just a difference in personal opinion. I won't ever judge any one's music taste or how they enjoy music. If the music is good to you, the music is good. If you say you like mindless entertainment that's completely fine with me. I do too, often times. Even mindless entertainment can creatively contribute, as long as it's done out of a love for music and a desire to develop your musical/artistic ability. That in my mind is called being human, wanting to improve yourself and being open to others. I just wanted to say how I felt about a certain type of band, reflecting what is in my regard a certain insincere commercial attitude that doesn't match well with the natural progress of creativity and that in my opinion has done a lot of damage to a genre that is near and dear to me. And to be honest, I really feel good about typing these thoughts out for once. Thanks.

 

[Mandieta6]

I didn't accuse you of being anti-commercial, I used the word 'OR'. I mean, you are anti-commercial, just that you use that concieted reasoning that says that you only stop liking a band that becomes willfully commercial rather than just shitting commercial gold.

I don't think you can love a musician's music because he loves music himself. You can make yourself love him, but ult8imately you're turning intellectual appreciation into an emotional response so you can condition yourself to liking cool hipster shit. Good music is good music and it creates an emotional response whether it's original or not. Original stuff obviously has more merit and that can make you alter your reaction to a band, but it is always come after actually listening to the song. If you can say a song is good or better than another because it's original, you're no longer hearing the song but listening to it.

Some musicians stick to their sound because they like it and they know their fans like it and they like their fans and they want to give their fans something that they like. I can hardly tell a Foo Fighters song from one album to another but they're all great.

Fuck you trying to patronise my musical taste by insinuating it is somehow subpar (mindless). Just because you've intellectualised it and turned it into your niche subject doesn't make you an authority nor are you the arbitrer of what music should be. It also shows that you completely missed the point and are just confirming what I said: you listen to music, you don't hear it. Listening to music is a mindless activity, no matter who created it. Music is something you react to. You can certainly appreciate a musician's process, or the difficulty with which certain sounds are achieved, but appreciating dexterity is an intellectual process and has nothing to do with whether the music is actually good or not. There's no denying that Xavi and Iniesta are some of the most dexterous footballers in the world but it is much more debatable whether they make for an entertaining spectacle. Picasso was certainly a very talented artist but that doesn't mean that his paintings were necessarily beautiful. If you want to be a musical critic and focus on ability and creativity, that's fine, but don't pass it off as an intrinsic aspect of your reaction to the music, because it isn't. It's similar to someone telling you that McDonalds doesn't taste good because it's so processed even though it obviously tastes fucking delicious and no one can teach you about your own taste buds and most people who don't like it have just conditioned themselves out of an intellectual or moral rejection of it, rather than the food itself.

I'm glad you're so self-satisfied. Being a musical hipster elitist is a better approach to balloons, I'll give you that.

 

[Filipower]

They listen to the music rather than hearing it. They turn it into an intellectual or sometimes even political experience rather than a sensory one. As far as I'm conerned, someone telling me they need their music to be meaingful or deep or creative is not really enjoying music at all and is just in it for appearance's sake.

This is more or less my stance on movies.

 

[Zlatan]

I didn't accuse you of being anti-commercial, I used the word 'OR'. I mean, you are anti-commercial, just that you use that concieted reasoning that says that you only stop liking a band that becomes willfully commercial rather than just shitting commercial gold.

I don't think you can love a musician's music because he loves music himself. You can make yourself love him, but ult8imately you're turning intellectual appreciation into an emotional response so you can condition yourself to liking cool hipster shit. Good music is good music and it creates an emotional response whether it's original or not. Original stuff obviously has more merit and that can make you alter your reaction to a band, but it is always come after actually listening to the song. If you can say a song is good or better than another because it's original, you're no longer hearing the song but listening to it.

Some musicians stick to their sound because they like it and they know their fans like it and they like their fans and they want to give their fans something that they like. I can hardly tell a Foo Fighters song from one album to another but they're all great.

Fuck you trying to patronise my musical taste by insinuating it is somehow subpar (mindless). Just because you've intellectualised it and turned it into your niche subject doesn't make you an authority nor are you the arbitrer of what music should be. It also shows that you completely missed the point and are just confirming what I said: you listen to music, you don't hear it. Listening to music is a mindless activity, no matter who created it. Music is something you react to. You can certainly appreciate a musician's process, or the difficulty with which certain sounds are achieved, but appreciating dexterity is an intellectual process and has nothing to do with whether the music is actually good or not. There's no denying that Xavi and Iniesta are some of the most dexterous footballers in the world but it is much more debatable whether they make for an entertaining spectacle. Picasso was certainly a very talented artist but that doesn't mean that his paintings were necessarily beautiful. If you want to be a musical critic and focus on ability and creativity, that's fine, but don't pass it off as an intrinsic aspect of your reaction to the music, because it isn't. It's similar to someone telling you that McDonalds doesn't taste good because it's so processed even though it obviously tastes fucking delicious and no one can teach you about your own taste buds and most people who don't like it have just conditioned themselves out of an intellectual or moral rejection of it, rather than the food itself.

I'm glad you're so self-satisfied. Being a musical hipster elitist is a better approach to balloons, I'll give you that.

Dude if you want to impose some image that you created in your mind on me, that's fine. That's not my responsibility.

I know why I love music. I know how it felt when as a little kid I touched a piano for the first time and felt what it was like to create music. I know how it felt when as a little kid I danced my ass off to jazz music, because my father used to put that on every time. I know what it feels like to be hurt, and to throw on music and feel all better. I know what it feels like to be happy, and throw on music and just completely lose yourself. I know I love music, because it makes me feel and it gives me a reason to live. This is why it's so important to me and why I feel so strongly about it. And I know, on that level it doesn't matter whether a band is creatively challenging itself or not. It's all about the music, as you rightfully say. Yet I'm a person that's naturally curious about the things he's attracted to and therefore I ask questions that go deeper. Why do I love this music? Why does a certain type of music make me feel this way, and other music doesn't? How do other people feel about that? Those type of questions are indeed largely disconnected from the actual experience of listening to music. But still I enjoy thinking about it and writing about it, because I feel strongly about music. Not because I want to impress you all. What would I have to prove to you guys? I don't even know you.

So, lay off. I'm not teaching anyone. I'm sharing what I think, which is an OPINION. Read that again: an opinion! I wish people like you, with all your prejudices, would understand. One more time: I respect everybody's music taste. I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to AC/DC. Who am I to decide what you should listen to and what not? The only thing I've said all along is why I don't listen to AC/DC, how I feel about their apparent approach to making music and why I prefer other bands. If the music is good to you, the music is good. End of story.

 

[Filipower]

Why DON'T you listen to AC/DC though? "Creative development" aside, you don't like their sound?

 

[Mandieta6]

I accept your stance now that you stated that what I said was entirely correct.

 

[Theodorakis]

I accept your stance now that you stated that what I said was entirely correct.

jew style!

 

[Mandieta6]

Not unless he paid me.

 

[Alex]

Az, I agree with you 100%...but can I ask your opinion on novels by John Grisham or Lee Child, or the Harry Potter novels?

 

[Mandieta6]

Perfectly fine although I think reading and to an extent watching movies are more intellectual processes anyway. If you asked me if they're great novels I'd say no, if you asked me if they're enjoyable novels I'd say yes.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

LOL, Blink didn't "sell out the genre to the masses", that was done like 25 years earlier by The Ramones, and 5-10 years earlier by Green Day. When Blink arrived on the scene they were niche "pop punk", I don't know what you think that means, but one thing it does mean is that they were deliberately commercial.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Az, I agree with you 100%...but can I ask your opinion on novels by John Grisham or Lee Child, or the Harry Potter novels?

I don't like them. I want something more out of literature than a story. I also, of course, want a great plot, but some higher meaning is a requirement for me. I'm different about movies.

 

[Alex]

Perfectly fine although I think reading and to an extent watching movies are more intellectual processes anyway. If you asked me if they're great novels I'd say no, if you asked me if they're enjoyable novels I'd say yes.

For you they may be.

Reading certainly isn't intellectual for me, nor are movies. I do them purely for enjoyment, and rarely analyse what I'm reading/watching.

I'm sure you get the point I'm making in any case.

 

[Alex]

I don't like them. I want something more out of literature than a story. I also, of course, want a great plot, but some higher meaning is a requirement for me. I'm different about movies.

The Harry Potter books I absolutely love. They're not great literature, but they're great stories. As with Az, I'm sure you understand my point though. You two guys have the same connection with reading as Zlatan does to music. You don't necessarily do this on purpose, it's not a conscious decision, your mind just analyses literature.

However, I'm also sure you guys wouldn't go around bagging those that read Harry Potter, John Grisham etc - there is a reason they're popular, and just because they're not your thing doesn't mean they're not good at what they want to do.

I guess that's the point Zlatan was missing with music. Not his thing and not good aren't the same.

 

[Mandieta6]

I have great appreciation for people who make novels that people enjoy reading and think that's an admirable skill. I just don't analyse them and analysing novels is something I love. But I appreciate that my liking a book because of thia is due to an intellectual reading and not an emotional response. I don't bag on Rowling.

I get your point but I don't hink Zlatan was more judgemental of the equivalent side of music than I am of Rowling.

Music is morr sensory than reading though because it requires no thought or imagination. You cant read a book like you can listen to a song.