Music snobs

g5fd6ow0hseima

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

(BEAR IN MIND)

Kold

Esteban Shallow Minicam wrote: »

One thing I will shout from the rooftops is: If you've to alter your dress sense to demonstrate your music preferences, you're not just a music snob, you're also a wanker.

I never got the image/music link either really.

lordgoat

Kold wrote: »

I never got the image/music link either really.

I can see the goth/punk/mod scene and the clothes were part of it. I'd lable these the ultimate music snobs. But they'd prob view it as, we just don't like other music, this is our thing so...

Oasis_Dublin

Esteban Shallow Minicam wrote: »

lolololololololololz

A V A

music snobs are people who like the beatles that are also in collage and stuck up their own arse!!!!!i dont mind the beatles but now im just getting sick of hearing them in every single comparission with music etc :mad:

smokedeels

A V A wrote: »

music snobs are people who like the beatles that are also in collage and stuck up their own arse!!!!!i dont mind the beatles but now im just getting sick of hearing them in every single comparission with music etc :mad:

that's a lot of people man

Mindkiller

Is a music snob the same as a hipster?

Actually, what the hell is a hipster anyway?

smokedeels

Mindkiller wrote: »

Is a music snob the same as a hipster?

Actually, what the hell is a hipster anyway?

I think that's a fashion thing, like a fashionista.

I can't keep track of these subcultures....

A V A

smokedeels wrote: »

that's a lot of people man

thats what i mean about everyone liken them ,most are in collage and are snobs n stuck up their own arses about the beatles and go on about how no body are better !!!

lordgoat

A V A wrote: »

music snobs are people who like the beatles that are also in collage and stuck up their own arse!!!!!i dont mind the beatles but now im just getting sick of hearing them in every single comparission with music etc :mad:

ridiculous statement

A V A wrote: »

thats what i mean about everyone liken them ,most are in collage and are snobs n stuck up their own arses about the beatles and go on about how no body are better !!!

backed up with another one...

i've met plenty of people in college who love/hate the beatles and aren't stuck up their own arses.

I've met plenty of people who sneer students for no reason as well.

College students are no more snoby about music than anyone else. Same is true for beatles fans.

Malice

lordgoat wrote: »

i've met plenty of people in college who love/hate the beatles and aren't stuck up their own arses.

Maybe so but perhaps AVA meant people who are into collages?

A V A wrote:

music snobs are people who like the beatles that are also in collage

A V A wrote:

most are in collage

A V A

lordgoat wrote: »

ridiculous statement



backed up with another one...

i've met plenty of people in college who love/hate the beatles and aren't stuck up their own arses.

I've met plenty of people who sneer students for no reason as well.

College students are no more snoby about music than anyone else. Same is true for beatles fans.

and to me they are ridiculous statements aswell

lordgoat

A V A wrote: »

and to me they are ridiculous statements aswell

Your own statements are ridiculous to yourself?

wtf?

A V A

lordgoat wrote: »

Your own statements are ridiculous to yourself?

wtf?

Oasis_Dublin

Pointing out the misspellings of other members is most hilarious, one must say.

Kid V

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The same people I know who dismiss it for being simple couldn't play a G chord on a guitar. They know shag all about how the music is played. Their sources for how difficult the music is to play are usually similarly ignorant gombeens on internet forums.

Radiohead's earlier albums do have some "depth" and it was not the same as other music being released.

I think the people that you are calling snobs simply just have a better taste in music than you

(BEAR IN MIND I AM ONCE MORE TALKING ABOUT MY FRIENDS SO DO NOT CLAIM THAT I AM GENERALISING!!!)

Music is a language. I believe that the more you listen, the more you learn. I cant play a G chord (wtf is that? :P) but i can tell you that my opinion is as valid as yours.

Oasis_Dublin

Kid V wrote: »

Music is a language. I believe that the more you listen, the more you learn. I cant play a G chord (wtf is that? :P) but i can tell you that my opinion is as valid as yours.

Never said it wasn't V I thought the whole point of music snobbery was that people thought their music opinions were better than others, not the same. Music is a language, I like it V :cool:

desertcircus

A few needlessly kneejerk opinions:

1. If you think Dream Theater are better than the Ramones, you're a music snob.

2. I can't stand people starting from the standpoint that all pop music is a waste of time. It's like refusing to view any paintings made after the Cubist period, or declaring that you have no truck with books that haven't been nominated for the Orange Prize. It betrays a total lack of understanding of what music is for. Who gives a rat's ass how the music is produced? I know this is entirely subjective, but I don't care: absolutely nothing released by Arcade Fire, Animal Collective or any other bands that Pitchfork wet themselves over has been anywhere near as perfect as Walk On By by Dionne Warwick. You might disagree with that opinion, but it's impossible to seriously claim that anyone is definitely wrong to think so.

But Walk On By is a pop song. Great music can come from pop, and it's ludicrous to pretend that it's all of no value. If you can't point to a dozen out-and-out pop songs that you love, then you've failed at listening to music.

3. Listen to Cry Me A River by Justin Timberlake. Then listen to Cry Me A River by Glen Hansard. If you prefer the latter, you're a music snob. One is insanely experimental, with a freakish vocal and a rhythm track made of nothing but human voices, and the other is a bad barroom singer wrecking everything that made the song good. Who cares about the motivation of the artist? If it sounds good, that's the end of it. Some pop music sounds good, some doesn't, just like non-pop music.

4. Just to change things around: Kid A is better than Pablo Honey. Pablo Honey is not a very strong album; The Bends is a very strong album; OK Computer is a phenomenal album; Kid A is a messy but fascinating album. And Idioteque beats everything on Pablo Honey bar possibly Creep.

honru

Esteban Shallow Minicam wrote: »

To me, ive always held that a music snob in the popular sense - and not my own - is one who goes to great lengths to show their taste in music. An example being ostentatious punks / metal fans.

That seems accurate to me. To me a music snob is a person who sets very firm criteria which regards to what they listen to so it fits with a particular self-image they have of themselves. Then they get overly dismissive or emotional if you talk about an artist which they dislike.

I mean if I'm talking to a person who brings up, say, the band Nickelback in a convo I'm more likely to simply tell them I'm not a fan (which is true!) rather than telling him/her that "they're ****!" to their face. Now, I'm not expecting a Nobel Peace Prize or something... I just have little emotional attachment to music I dislike.

I hear people go on about X Factor and how shiote it is and bla bla bla. Now while I am a little concerned about how most of the acts on these shows focus on cover versions over their own original material, I don't go out of my way to watch the show, so I don't really give a ****.

Esteban Shallow Minicam wrote:

One thing I will shout from the rooftops is: If you've to alter your dress sense to demonstrate your music preferences, you're not just a music snob, you're also a wanker.

I don't necessarily agree here, I mean my style is definitely influenced by rock music and the bands I listen to, and I dress that way as I feel it portrays my personality well... but I don't think doing so automatically makes me a wanker.

Kid V

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree here, I mean my style is definitely influenced by rock music and the bands I listen to, and I dress that way as I feel it portrays my personality well... but I don't think doing so automatically makes me a wanker.

Exactly me too! Whats the difference between wearing a band t shirt and a football jersey?

honru

desertcircus wrote: »

A few needlessly kneejerk opinions:

1. If you think Dream Theater are better than the Ramones, you're a music snob.

Why?

I mean I love both these bands and wouldn't be thinking which band is "better" than the other, but I do listen to Dream Theater a lot more. So if I go on to say I prefer Dream Theater, does that make me a music snob?

I do agree with you re: pop music... certainly wouldn't turn my nose up to a good pop song.

desertcircus

Apologies, that one was a bit more kneejerk than necessary. I can't stand Dream Theater and instinctively associate them with the kind of people I knew in school and college who were more interested in technical ability than actually producing something people would want to listen to - which always struck me as a really weird way of judging art, like admiring a kid's painting of a horse over a Mondrian because there are more brushstrokes in the painting of the horse. Their stuff sounds to me like an extremely polished expression of blind terror that at any point the listener will hear Sheena Is A Punk Rocker and go for that instead.

As I say, though, it's an entirely subjective one. I should have said that it's a warning sign, but can be entirely innocent.

honru

I think if someone universally prefers progressive music then that's fine. It's when this kind of music becomes a rigid part of their identity: "I associate myself with this type of music because I want to appear xyz" that it becomes more than simply "liking" a particular band. Subsequently they see themselves as "above" those who generally listen to, say, more simple rock/pop music.

In my experience metal fans can be pretty snobbish, and seem to be among the most vocal about what music they think is "****". Common thread seems to be those who firmly align themselves with 80s thrash and completely shun most other [metal] styles.

KeanSeenan

desertcircus wrote: »

Who gives a rat's ass how the music is produced? I know this is entirely subjective, but I don't care:

I assume you mean production in terms of studios, why do you think this?Just curious really.

desertcircus

I meant it in terms of the entire process of making music - I don't care whether the performers wrote it, whether it's live instruments, whether the band has a rigid writing process or smokes a metric ton of drugs before hitting record and playing for three days straight. The fact that a particular artist is designated as being "pop" isn't relevant to whether they're any good or not. Girls Aloud are as manufactured as they come, but they have a stack of cracking tunes. Rihanna is pure pop, but she beats the hell out of any number of whining indie singer-songwriters. This idea that music is no good if someone plans to make money out of it is wrong, foolish, and ignorant of the entire history of music up until the sixties.

Oasis_Dublin

Radiohead definitely didn't want to make money though. They just wanted to make music they liked and they would have definitely done it all for free... heck they would have paid for the privilege.

Malice

KeanSeenan wrote: »

I assume you mean production in terms of studios, why do you think this?Just curious really.

I think he meant production as in being produced by instruments rather than by synths which was a point made in the OP:

Sharkey 10 wrote:

From my own experience i come across what i call music snobs a good bit because i hang around with a lot of musicians , allot of my friends dont think music can be made unless it is with live instruments.

KeanSeenan

desertcircus wrote: »

I meant it in terms of the entire process of making music -

Ohh, I thought you meant like production value, which I think does play a large part.

Setun

desertcircus wrote: »

I meant it in terms of the entire process of making music - I don't care whether the performers wrote it, whether it's live instruments, whether the band has a rigid writing process or smokes a metric ton of drugs before hitting record and playing for three days straight. The fact that a particular artist is designated as being "pop" isn't relevant to whether they're any good or not. Girls Aloud are as manufactured as they come, but they have a stack of cracking tunes. Rihanna is pure pop, but she beats the hell out of any number of whining indie singer-songwriters. This idea that music is no good if someone plans to make money out of it is wrong, foolish, and ignorant of the entire history of music up until the sixties.

A few pages back I was making the point that producing music for the sake of selling to as much people as possible (and nothing else) is lowest-common denominator: a formula; crowd-sourced audio tailored to a target market. It is not about the content of the song so much as it is about the act of marketing, branding, and a cult of celebrity. Nevertheless, a good tune can still be stumbled upon from the big ghost-songwriters - but personally I just don't enjoy the musical results of that approach to producing a record. Simple as that.

strobe

desertcircus wrote: »

I meant it in terms of the entire process of making music - I don't care whether the performers wrote it, whether it's live instruments, whether the band has a rigid writing process or smokes a metric ton of drugs before hitting record and playing for three days straight. The fact that a particular artist is designated as being "pop" isn't relevant to whether they're any good or not. Girls Aloud are as manufactured as they come, but they have a stack of cracking tunes. Rihanna is pure pop, but she beats the hell out of any number of whining indie singer-songwriters. This idea that music is no good if someone plans to make money out of it is wrong, foolish, and ignorant of the entire history of music up until the sixties.

No doubt Girls Aloud might have some good songs, I haven't heard any I liked, not my kind of music but if someone likes them that's fine with me. But in terms of talent I just wouldn't hold the opinion that they are anywhere near as talented as an equivalent band who writes their own songs, sing without pitch correction on their records, can perform live consistently etc. I don't think that makes me a music snob, just honest. To put it another way I would also think a painter who came up with their own idea for a painting and painted it completely themselves and to a high standard would be more talented than a painter that was given a rough sketch of a painting by someone else and then painted over it with other painters helping them with the difficult bits. I might like both finished paintings but would have no problem giving the opinion that painter number one was far better. I could give other examples. That's not snobbery, it's just having standards, giving credit where it's due and withholding it where it's not and having an appreciation of talent.