The "My music taste is better than yours derp" thread

[Calicocat]

No, I have. I'm basically saying that she seems like she's building up around the "concept artist" ideal, i.e. that there's a blatant point to all of her normal ****. Someone came up with this idea before me, though, if I recall. I just don't want to know if this is right or not. Isn't there already some sort of appeal to her just bein' weird?

Yes, she certainly does build up that whole 'interesting individual' thing. Thats what makes me so interested as to what shed be like if she moved into the underground scenes. That kind of uniqueness on an un-judgemental stage...It would be scary 0.o

It's funny how all your examples of bad modern music are in one area. There are quite a few good modern bands out there... you just probably won't hear them on radio.

I agree, if you listen to Queen, youre probably not very well off looking in the Mainstream Pop area. Go for a little stroll down the rock aisles! Pick up something with a strange label and run with it!
(Shoplifting reference)

 

[Zazie]

I think whilst I have nothing against the mainstream, I think people if they have a genuine passion for music should explore more underground stuff, and a variety of genre's. People who will just listen to the same songs every day annoy me, the sort of people who only listen to the radio and like what its cool to like.
Cause if no one tries new bands, how are they aver going to get big? They all have to start somewhere.

Pretty much this. I don't care what music people like to listen to. (unless it's racist or the like). I do think people should be more open minded when it comes to finding new music. We have the internet, you can llok up and discover all kinds of bands and genres and no-one seems to be using this new great tool we all have properly.

Why not try to look up some strange band in a genre you are unfamiliar with. You may like it you my not, but either way you just learned something new which is always a great experience.

As for the songs vs albums thing, my current policy is buy the best (or most preferable) album the band has. After that I may buy 1 or 2 more albums by the band and/or get some particular songs I like not covered by the albums I own. It's great to have the whole album so you don't miss out on some good songs but if I can only get so many albums and I want to have a good variety in my collection.

 

[Lorde]

I hate modern music, with terrible so-called "artists" such as Miley Cycrus, Demi Lovatto (sp?), the Jonas brothers, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga... Mostly all Disney Channel crap.

Wait, are Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovatto, and the Jonas Brothers even relevant anymore? They all seem so 2 years ago to me. I never really liked that Disney Channel stuff because the company just mass produces "artists" faster than Idol does in an attempt to make $$$. I dislike it when record companies try to mass produce artists like that. Most artists spend years working on music and I think they deserve the credit. Even Ke$ha spent years working on music despite the fact that I don't particularly like her so I can respect her "art" even though I don't see eye-to-eye with it normally.

 

[natie]

Wait, are Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovatto, and the Jonas Brothers even relevant anymore? They all seem so 2 years ago to me. I never really liked that Disney Channel stuff because the company just mass produces "artists" faster than Idol does in an attempt to make $$$. I dislike it when record companies try to mass produce artists like that. Most artists spend years working on music and I think they deserve the credit. Even Ke$ha spent years working on music despite the fact that I don't particularly like her so I can respect her "art" even though I don't see eye-to-eye with it normally.

Although I agree with you, I have to say that the development time has no impact on the quality of the music.

Klaxons took 3 years to create their new CD, but it's still not good. I would have preferred hearing the two 'experimental' CDs they created in between, that the producers didn't approve of. Those probably sounded 10 times better.

Ah, I guess you can't do anything about the quality of music these days anymore. All bands that become popular commercialise their music too much and therefore it becomes shit.

 

[Calicocat]

Ah, I guess you can't do anything about the quality of music these days anymore. All bands that become popular commercialise their music too much and therefore it becomes shit.

So true! Its because it becomes no longer about the music for them, and instead about fame and wealth.
The few mainstream artists that do manage to produce decent music in my opinion would go on composing if they lived in a box on the side of the road.

Thats why I believe the best artists are undiscovered or small- their music has not yet been corrupted by greed and gluttony (the are some pop 'hits' that pump out mindless twaddle every minute)

It doesnt mean anything anymore.

 

[Hammerheart]

Ah, I guess you can't do anything about the quality of music these days anymore. All bands that become popular commercialise their music too much and therefore it becomes shit.

To be perfectly blunt, your talking out of your arse.

 

[Lorde]

I think a reason why I like Lady GaGa and not Justin Bieber is because Justin Bieber's music tends to sound fairly generic, whereas Lady GaGa's is not in the least.

Oh come on. Justin Bieber is generic but Lady GaGa isn't? Have you heard some of her older songs, like the unreleased stuff? Most of those and her old stuff from The Fame were all the generic pop stuff you'd expect to hear from everyone else. She didn't do much to seperate herself from the mass of popstars around at the time until she released The Fame Monster (and even that was a bit unsatisfying). Justin Bieber might be a tad on the generic side of pop and R&B but so are most of the people working in the same field so it's not accurate to blame his music but not take a look at some of the other music out there that's also hot at the moment.

 

[Cain Nightroad]

Thats why I believe the best artists are undiscovered or small- their music has not yet been corrupted by greed and gluttony (the are some pop 'hits' that pump out mindless twaddle every minute)

The Dave Matthews Band's biggest hit was with the album Crash, but then in two years they turned around and released Before These Crowded Streets, which dealt with extremely dark material and wasn't focused on "hits."

Look at some of the grunge bands of the '90's...Nirvana's huge hit came with Nevermind, but then released In Utero, which had some noise-rock elements and the pop fans who love Nevermind hated it. Pearl Jam had a bunch of hits on Ten, but then released albums like Vitalogy and Vs., both of which had a catchy song or two, but were essentially "underground and weird" compared to Ten.

And look at some of the earlier, classic metal bands: Black Sabbath hit radio gold with Paranoid, but then released a string of heavy, down-tuned albums that the radio stations wouldn't play. Iron Maiden hit number one on the charts with The Number of the Beast, but ended up having a string of at least six "classic" albums before making a mediocre album.

 

[palingensia]

All bands that become popular commercialise their music too much and therefore it becomes ****.

This is utter bullshit. There are plenty of bands out there that don't change their style whether they're popular or not. Radiohead changed their style between every single album yet they remained fantastic (except I don't like Pablo Honey much). Meshuggah seem to be quite popular, yet their sound has remained relatively static. Placebo sound pretty much identical from Placebo to Battle for the Sun. Opeth haven't ever tried to be radio-friendly seemingly, due to the abundance of 7+ minute songs which radio seems to hate. And these are only examples from bands that I myself listen to; I'm sure others can come up with plenty more.

 

[Cain Nightroad]

(except I don't like Pablo Honey much)

I don't think that counts as a "change of style" thing considering that it's their debut, so I think you're alright there.

Opeth haven't ever tried to be radio-friendly seemingly, due to the abundance of 7+ minute songs which radio seems to hate. And these are only examples from bands that I myself listen to; I'm sure others can come up with plenty more.

They cut "The Grand Conjuration" down to five minutes for radio play. And although the radio stations don't like Opeth, they've accumulated popularity after Damnation by bringing in listeners who normally wouldn't listen to anything even close to death metal.

 

[Hammerheart]

They cut "The Grand Conjuration" down to five minutes for radio play. And although the radio stations don't like Opeth, they've accumulated popularity after Damnation by bringing in listeners who normally wouldn't listen to anything even close to death metal.

Aye, and they had 2 music video's made for the Watershed album, and Dirge for November was on rock radio the other night.

 

[Cain Nightroad]

Unfortunately, the full-length version of "The Grand Conjuration" is all the Opeth played on satellite/XM radio. You know, when Liquid Metal decides that it needs to play something other than generic death metal/deathcore/metalcore/Pantera.

 

[Calicocat]

The Dave Matthews Band's biggest hit was with the album Crash, but then in two years they turned around and released Before These Crowded Streets, which dealt with extremely dark material and wasn't focused on "hits."

Look at some of the grunge bands of the '90's...Nirvana's huge hit came with Nevermind, but then released In Utero, which had some noise-rock elements and the pop fans who love Nevermind hated it. Pearl Jam had a bunch of hits on Ten, but then released albums like Vitalogy and Vs., both of which had a catchy song or two, but were essentially "underground and weird" compared to Ten.

And look at some of the earlier, classic metal bands: Black Sabbath hit radio gold with Paranoid, but then released a string of heavy, down-tuned albums that the radio stations wouldn't play. Iron Maiden hit number one on the charts with The Number of the Beast, but ended up having a string of at least six "classic" albums before making a mediocre album.

Please note that I said there are pop hits, not in the least referring to all of them. Id never make such a stupidly blanketing statement. But you have to admit, a lot of good bands go downhill after becoming overly commercialised. More often than not, I believe. Those who manage to hold on to their purity or blatantly go in a different direction have my utmost respct.
Its understandable, now being under so much pressure, to try to please the fans.
I know that I would want to stay in the spotlight.

 

[Hammerheart]

Please note that I said there are pop hits, not in the least referring to all of them. Id never make such a stupidly blanketing statement. But you have to admit, a lot of good bands go downhill after becoming overly commercialised. More often than not, I believe. Those who manage to hold on to their purity or blatantly go in a different direction have my utmost respct.
Its understandable, now being under so much pressure, to try to please the fans.
I know that I would want to stay in the spotlight.

Could you actually give us any examples.

And also prove that the change of musical direction or quality, was a result of them being 'commercialised', and not of their own decision.

Though how does one become over commercialised?

To me it sounds like you just want to sound cool by sayign I liked X or Y band before they got big, but now I'm bitter cause everyone else has heard of them.

 

[trunks298]

hmm well i like songs of adam lambert,linkin park,justin bieber,akon,west life,MJ,shakira,ne yo,enrique iglesias,blue band,katy perry,rihanna,lady gaga,owl city and many more...i like every kind of songs...

 

[TomNook]

A lot of problems arise from the term "**** music". Pretty much everyone says a certain type of music is good and another is bad and I'm guilty of this myself. But I think a lot of people (myself included) mean something else when we say this.

When I say I think a certain artist is ****, I mean that their music doesn't appeal to me. I'm not actually saying their music is bad. Say Justin Bieber, for example. His music doesn't appeal to me but I know that he has millions of fans. Who am I to say his music is bad if it can appeal to so many people?

I know that most people probably think that the music I listen to is bad and I don't think it's bad. I'm being just as ignorant as them if I say the music they listen to is bad.

On the other hand there are people who think that the music they listen to is better than the music others listen to, these people actually mean it when they say a certain kinds of music is ****. I encounter this a lot since I listen to music with smaller fanbases such as IDM (a term i really hate), contemporary jazz and other kinds of experimental music. I'm also doing a degree in music and most people in my course are completely ignorant and pretentious. I find there's a lot of sort of fanboyism with these people and bitterness towards mainstream kinds of music because the vast majority of people who listen to mainstream music don't understand or respect the values of the more obscure/artsy genres.

There's a lot of childishness and ignorance from both sides, I think. But what annoys me most about the whole ordeal are the pretentious music heads who have no respect for mainstream music because it doesn't vary enough, doesn't have enough meaning or whatever. If it doesn't appeal to you, fine. Don't listen to it but don't judge people based on the music they listen to and don't presume the music you listen to is better than theirs.

/rant

 

[Grei]

Oh come on. Justin Bieber is generic but Lady GaGa isn't? Have you heard some of her older songs, like the unreleased stuff? Most of those and her old stuff from The Fame were all the generic pop stuff you'd expect to hear from everyone else. She didn't do much to seperate herself from the mass of popstars around at the time until she released The Fame Monster (and even that was a bit unsatisfying). Justin Bieber might be a tad on the generic side of pop and R&B but so are most of the people working in the same field so it's not accurate to blame his music but not take a look at some of the other music out there that's also hot at the moment.

Well, frankly, a lot of what Lady GaGa produces isn't your "usual" music. It's poppy-sounding but it's well-written and not the crap like "OMG I'm a girl who wants LOVE but I can't have it" (aka Taylor Swift) or "Yeah, I love... things" (aka Justin Bieber).

And also, Lady GaGa has written about a number of deeper topics. Poker Face, for example, is about her bisexuality. It's deepness that songs from Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift lack.

If I listen to a song and can fully grasp the entire message of the song after hearing it only once or twice, the song is most probably just generic garbage. And I'm sorry, but that's what it is. Music is poetry set to musical notes. Poems that are shallow are, frankly, boring.

Taylor Swift, again, as an example. I have yet to hear a song from her that isn't insanely shallow. It's all about love and lack of love and crushes and there are no deeper meanings to be found anywhere. Just "well, love love love when you're 15 or if you're just shy or maybe if you're just a regular girl trying to make sense of the big bad world". Bieber's about the same.

At least some of Lady GaGa's music can be analyzed to find a deeper meaning.

[Mandatory addition due to above comment]: If you like stuff like Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber, whatever. Everyone has their tastes, it's just that... people need to accept that there is such a thing as bad music. If you like something that you can understand in about five minutes, then by all means, listen to what makes you happy. That doesn't mean I have to think the music you listen to is good.

 

[Hammerheart]

[Mandatory addition due to above comment]: If you like stuff like Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber, whatever. Everyone has their tastes, it's just that... people need to accept that there is such a thing as bad music. If you like something that you can understand in about five minutes, then by all means, listen to what makes you happy. That doesn't mean I have to think the music you listen to is good.

But good and bad music implies the are some sort of criteria to Objectively analyse music, which there aren't. I mean yes you can analyse music objectively, but it doesn't relate to it being bad and good.

I like a lot of music which I think muscially speaking is incredible, but the majority of people on here (and world over for that matter) would disagree. It realy is all down to opinion.

 

[Fenix]

And also, Lady GaGa has written about a number of deeper topics. Poker Face, for example, is about her bisexuality. It's deepness that songs from Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift lack.

No offense but I don't see how singing about bisexuality is any deeper than singing about love.

Anyway, I think the whole debate simply boils down to what someone expects from music. Personally, in music I like meaningful lyrics, something that makes me think, or even better, something that tells a story. That's why many of my favorite albums are concept albums. In terms of the actual music, I like to hear a distinguishable style, recognizable instrument-playing, strong vocals, progressive/experimental/new stuff.

With all that said, I think it's natural that pop music doesn't appeal to me, simply because it doesn't offer what I'm looking for in music, not because it's "bad" or inferior to what I like. True, there might be less meaning, simpler music, shallow lyrics and a lot of Autotune in pop, but when THAT is what some (actually, a lot) of people are looking for when they listen to music, I don't think it matters. Some people just need a catchy rythm to dance to and the music is good to them, for some (i.e., me) that simply doesn't cut it.

 

[pirate555]

But good and bad music implies the are some sort of criteria to Objectively analyse music, which there aren't. I mean yes you can analyse music objectively, but it doesn't relate to it being bad and good.

Quoted for truth. While studying music I inevitably came across serialist music; taken up with massive enthusiasm by some talented musicians because it adhered to mathematical formulae incredibly strictly. The result? => If you think these 30 seconds sounds great then enjoy, but you'll be in a minority. There is no 'formula' for music.


Anyway, my music tastes are quite broad, although they tend to miss out the popular music for the most part.

Firstly, classical music. Yep, raised on classical piano training, dad's tastes, classical radio stations, and studying music at school, I was indoctrinated into the traditional stuff ...As for composers, I like Ravel, Brahms, Debussy, Stravinskym Rachmaninoff, Vaughn Williams, Elgar and Beethoven best. So typically 19th - 20th music. I also love classical film scores. Composers like Hans Zimmer, Newton-Howard and Gregson-Williams created some exceptional soundtracks.

Then I like lots of traditional types of music. Celtic music, old sacred music (old as in pre-17th century) and Japanese traditional music are my favourites here.

I like classic rock, and I enjoy drum and bass. I've also got lots of tracks from musicals, and most music that includes a piano!

~Pirate