Music snobs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

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.

I agree with this. Even in the so called "indie" scenes or "alternative" scenes there are people in it just to make money. Credibility isn't defined by the genre of music you make.
You get a band come out that's totally different to anything else and people praise them as revolutionary, then every Tom, Dick and Harry jump on the bandwagon and start making the same type of music.
Also the definition of pop music changes on a regular basis. Look at what's considered pop now, and then look at what was considered pop back in the 90's. Totally different things. Stuff like Rhianna and Beyonce would've been considered R&B back in the 90's. The Beatles were considered pop music back in the 60's, now most people, wrongly or rightly think they're one of the best bands to ever exist.

KeanSeenan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I agree with this. Even in the so called "indie" scenes or "alternative" scenes there are people in it just to make money. Credibility isn't defined by the genre of music you make.
You get a band come out that's totally different to anything else and people praise them as revolutionary, then every Tom, Dick and Harry jump on the bandwagon and start making the same type of music.
Also the definition of pop music changes on a regular basis. Look at what's considered pop now, and then look at what was considered pop back in the 90's. Totally different things. Stuff like Rhianna and Beyonce would've been considered R&B back in the 90's. The Beatles were considered pop music back in the 60's, now most people, wrongly or rightly think they're one of the best bands to ever exist.

I agree that in all circles there are people in it purely for the money, but chances are 'pop' music does have the highest amount of it because at the end of the day it's a commodity these days, it's not art. It's not produced to be art anyway, that's not to say somebody can't find something good in it, but as somebody else pointed out very well, it's lowest common denominator stuff. Also I don't think you can say Rhianna and Beyonce weren't ever Pop acts, despite being in whatever genre pop music is still popular music. Also also, I'm not sure you can think of the 60s in a similar way to now.

Oasis_Dublin

There have been no "proper" artsy musical acts who haven't taken some influence from pop groups, even if it was simply ideas. Radiohead have been bandied around as a band who didn't make music for anyone but themselves and that they did it in its pure forms and that they tried to crreate something totally different with each new album. They still took influence from pop acts, The Beatles obviously spring to mind. To try to separate "challenging" music from music produced simply to make money is not a reasonable argument to make.

KeanSeenan

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

There have been no "proper" artsy musical acts who haven't taken some influence from pop groups, even if it was simply ideas. Radiohead have been bandied around as a band who didn't make music for anyone but themselves and that they did it in its pure forms and that they tried to crreate something totally different with each new album. They still took influence from pop acts, The Beatles obviously spring to mind. To try to separate "challenging" music from music produced simply to make money is not a reasonable argument to make.

Seriously?I honestly think something that has been just grouped together from whatever musical trends and developed with the sense of a cult of celebrity about it definetly shouldn't be viewed in the same way as somebody like Why? for example who is doing something genuinely artistic, in my opinion. Once money gets involved, I think, people don't see it as a form of self expression, they see it as a career and that cheapens it across the board. Obviously nobody has created music in a vacuum, people are definitely informed by their influences, but the difference is that somebody like Radiohead(not madly well versed in their stuff) can take influence from something without exhausting it, a lot of good artists seem to be able to see what somebody has done and try to avoid certain trademarks they have.

KeanSeenan

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

There have been no "proper" artsy musical acts who haven't taken some influence from pop groups, even if it was simply ideas.

Depending on what you mean by 'pop' music and what you mean by 'proper artsy' musical acts I'm sure there has you just haven't heard it. There are other parts of the world where people don't listen to the ****e we do.

Oasis_Dublin

KeanSeenan wrote: »

Depending on what you mean by 'pop' music and what you mean by 'proper artsy' musical acts I'm sure there has you just haven't heard it. There are other parts of the world where people don't listen to the ****e we do.

Fair enough. I was referring to music I know, I'll accept that.

Namlub

Rigsby wrote: »

IMO, what makes a snob is when a person belittles or dismisses another person's music.

This. Music snobbery isn't limited to Pitchfork-worshipping, 'I liked them before they went mainstream' types. Justin Bieber fans can be just as dismissive as Radiohead fans :cool:

Malice

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

In my experience metal fans can be pretty snobbish, and seem to be among the most vocal about what music they think is "****".

I have to stick up for metal fans here . In my experience it's been the opposite. Precisely because they don't listen to mainstream music much metal fans are usually far more accommodating towards other genres. For example I was recently browsing through someone's music drive and despite both of us being metal fans at heart we were able to talk at length about both Meshuggah and Massive Attack. In my experience fans of trip-hop just wouldn't be able to do that.

I await a trip-hop fan to now start on fans of jazz or something .

KeanSeenan

In fairness, there's an overwhelmingly large amount of ****e music in the world, music snobs are a neccessary evil in that respect, that respect being pointing out stuff if ****.

Nailz

Malice_ wrote: »

I have to stick up for metal fans here . In my experience it's been the opposite. Precisely because they don't listen to mainstream music much metal fans are usually far more accommodating towards other genres. For example I was recently browsing through someone's music drive and despite both of us being metal fans at heart we were able to talk at length about both Meshuggah and Massive Attack. In my experience fans of trip-hop just wouldn't be able to do that.

I await a trip-hop fan to now start on fans of jazz or something .

Precisely, I'm open to all music, I put up with what I don't like too. Music snobs can't always be of the most vocal variety; pop radio listeners or general music retards (/music snob :P) say "Aw that's ****e" when I put what I want on a jukebox. And that's not only, what's considered, hard to listen to stuff like Death Metal, Black Metal, Avant Garde, Progressive Jazz or whatever, it's sometime's things like the Pixies, John Coltrane etc.

If that were the case those gob****es would be "music snobs" too. And even if music snobs is considered a bad thing to be, they'd be one hell of an insult to music snobs.

honru

Malice_ wrote: »

I have to stick up for metal fans here . In my experience it's been the opposite. Precisely because they don't listen to mainstream music much metal fans are usually far more accommodating towards other genres. For example I was recently browsing through someone's music drive and despite both of us being metal fans at heart we were able to talk at length about both Meshuggah and Massive Attack. In my experience fans of trip-hop just wouldn't be able to do that.

In my experience taking that scenario I would expect guys who are in to metal music to say "what the hell's a Massive Attack"?

CityMan2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfDwMbtBgfU

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

What is everyones thoughts on music snobs ? Are you one?

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.
Personally i dont really like punk with the odd exception i dont think that makes me a music snob.
Anyone know the sort of person who heard some bad dance tune and hates all electronic music because of it?

Oasis_Dublin

Daddio wrote: »

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.

Do you check the background to how a song was produced before you listen to it, just out of interest?

KeanSeenan

I don't think you really need to most of the time, you can tell by how it sounds and the person 'performing' it.Not that you were getting at that.

Setun

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Do you check the background to how a song was produced before you listen to it, just out of interest?

Totally depends, sometimes I'll buy something after reading how or why the music was produced, other times I'll buy something by an artist I've never even heard of before just to hear something different. The latter I'd read up on after listening probably.

Oasis_Dublin

Daddio wrote: »

Totally depends, sometimes I'll buy something after reading how or why the music was produced, other times I'll buy something by an artist I've never even heard of before just to hear something different. The latter I'd read up on after listening probably.

Do you ever hear something you like and then decide that you don't like it after having read up on how it was produced?

Setun

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Do you ever hear something you like and then decide that you don't like it after having read up on how it was produced?

Can't recall that ever happening no - not to the point of being unable to find any redeeming qualities in an album.

Sometimes I've been a bit put off when certain records aren't entirely authentic - for example there's an excellent album called Jazz at Massey Hall, featuring Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus and Max Roach - essentialy an all-star team of those widely considered the best jazz musicians of their time. The record as a document is incredibly important to the history of jazz music, but the audio quality is bad to the point of Charles Mingus re-recording his basslines in a studio a few months after the original concert. For me, this slightly detracts from the record because for me the beauty of jazz music is about "the moment", which dubbing in a bass line kind of goes against. Having said that, there's still some fantastic stuff played by the people who essentially invented a new way of playing music.

Can't think of anything else off hand, which probably means I haven't been overly offended by the production practices of any band in my music collection lately.

desertcircus

Why is one approach thought to be better than another?

"Let's make an obtuse concept album about a fictional character in a coma, and put a shedload of atonal howling noise on there as well..."

"Let's make a bunch of cracking tunes that people will want to sing along with and tell their friends about..."

The fact that the second group of people have as their motivation the earning of a heap of money doesn't and shouldn't matter. I don't see how "get absolutely stinking rich" is a less valid or true motivation than "give full vent to my pretentious meanderings".

And if you're right - if music is better the closer it gets to some expression of personal truth - the best song in history is Thong Song by Sisqo. The guy absolutely loves asses, and wrote a whole song about nothing but his love of asses. He even stuck on a cracking vocal so he could make it as clear as possible that there is nothing in the world he would rather have than asses. I dare anyone to name me a more heartfelt expression of personal conviction...

drumdrum

I think that everyone is slightly biased or "snobby" when it comes to music. Even people that say that they are into "everything".

No one likes everything, its what makes us individuals. Same applies to liking music. I think that if people dont like a certain type of music then that's fine, as they are perfectly entitled to it. In the end, the only loser from not liking a certain band/type of music is the person themselves. They miss out on appreciating something that lots of other people find entertaining, so its their loss. I myself am a proud U2 fan, and I still dont like Radioheads Kid A and Amnesiac albums (save Pyramid Song). I love Hail to The Thief and I liked In Rainbows. And I perfectly accept that millions of people like what I hate, and hate what I like... big whoop! The world keeps turning...

The bigger issue though is when music snobs try to force their opinions upon others. And we are all have been somewhat guilty of that at some point in our lives Im sure.

True, you do get pretentious people who think that their own opinion on music is more validating than others, but these people are usually just self-absorbed (or work in a record shop! ) and you usually find that they grow out of these phases at some point.

Anyways, my 2 cents....:)

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

Can't recall that ever happening no - not to the point of being unable to find any redeeming qualities in an album.

Sometimes I've been a bit put off when certain records aren't entirely authentic - for example there's an excellent album called Jazz at Massey Hall, featuring Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Bud Powell, Charles Mingus and Max Roach - essentialy an all-star team of those widely considered the best jazz musicians of their time. The record as a document is incredibly important to the history of jazz music, but the audio quality is bad to the point of Charles Mingus re-recording his basslines in a studio a few months after the original concert. For me, this slightly detracts from the record because for me the beauty of jazz music is about "the moment", which dubbing in a bass line kind of goes against. Having said that, there's still some fantastic stuff played by the people who essentially invented a new way of playing music.

Can't think of anything else off hand, which probably means I haven't been overly offended by the production practices of any band in my music collection lately.

I can see what you mean, but unless you are seeing a band live, recorded music is just that. The fact that Miles' "Bitches Brew" was stiched together in tapestry form, has not taken from it being an enjoyable album, or from it's iconic status.

Waking-Dreams

I haven't read every post here but I just want to add that we are all "snobs". No judgement on taste is innocent. In the course of everyday life we constantly choose between what we find aesthetically pleasing and what we find tacky, merely trendy, or ugly. Taste is not pure, and (Pierre Bourdieu) demonstrates in his book, Distinction that our different aesthetic choices are all distinctions – that is, choices made in opposition to those made by others.

Resi12

There are so many snobs on this forum it makes me sad, music is diverse. Who cares what you like as long as the individual gets something from it.

Waking-Dreams

I've written about this, so I'll add my last €0.02

At the end of the day, it's all just different forms of entertainment, which everyone has their own subjective tastes about. There are people who make music, and people who listen to said music. And if you happen to make great music, lots of people will want to listen to it. We all may disagree about what is 'great' music but that's the beauty of subjective taste, innit? If everyone in the world starting listening to these underground bands, they would then become mainstream by definition, and I'll bet some other underground band would then use that as a stick to beat them with.

‘Art’ and ‘entertainment’ aren’t synonymous though, and the amount of effort and work that goes into a piece can certainly be a testament to its perceived “greatness” in the eye of the beholder, so I would always make an allowance for that. But then again, I’ve never spoken to any of those songwriters who provide the hits these pop stars use. If it were just as easy as slapping together a few tunes, how come there is an 80% rate of failure? There are lots of variables to account for (who the artists is; their persona; promotion, etc.) but no one has discovered a tried and tested song structure that will win over people’s ears every time. Maybe it’s more difficult to create these songs (that become popular) than we think because even if you do write more in-depth music, that alone doesn't mean people will like it either.

I myself think that music is subjective and can only be graded using a reference group. But I was reading a piece about how some sociologists tried to argue that Britney Spears and Beethoven are equally valid because value is in the eye of the beholder. But what this author was saying is that while you could probably find many female vocalists and songwriters who could do what Spears can do (how many people can sing and dance like Spears? -- in a world of billions of people, the answer is, many) whereas not very many people can do what Beethoven could. How many people can write what Beethoven wrote? Not many. But how many professional songwriters could you find to write one of Spears' tunes? Much more people. It's not really an argument over the musical merits of classical to pop but more about the labour and rarity of innate abilities involved.

I’ve taken part in many debates about taste, and why piece of work this is better than that, but I never once thought I was “right” about any of it, just giving my opinion. Subjective discussions have their place, but I suppose you can only go so far until you realise what they are… subjective. One man’s wine is another’s plonk and so forth. If people utter these phrases then they have to be prepared to take them to their logical conclusion, especially when it applies to tastes they don’t like.

I just think there is a small element of elitism or snobism (is that even a word?) involved because what tends to be the most popular is often shrugged by a certain group of audiophiles who pride themselves as having “better” taste than other people. But this is human nature.

I certainly don’t have much time for the latest American Idol or X Factor winner, but obviously lots of people do. These entertainers are providing a service to millions of people and it would be a little insensitive to label them all idiots who have no taste whatsoever.

It’s all very tempting to label today’s Joe public as some meandering ignoramus who doesn’t know good music when they hear it but when you look back to the “golden years” of music, there was an awful lot of crap then too. You only need to watch one of those “Where Are They Now?” TV shows full of one hit wonders and bands that were predicted as being the next big thing, but flopped.

Setun

Rigsby wrote: »

I can see what you mean, but unless you are seeing a band live, recorded music is just that. The fact that Miles' "Bitches Brew" was stiched together in tapestry form, has not taken from it being an enjoyable album, or from it's iconic status.

I totally agree, I love In A Silent Way - with which a near 40-minute album was created out of 19 minutes of tape! What I was saying about Massey Hall is that I felt the album's importance as a document of these five musicians performing live was slightly diminished with the knowledge that some of it was in fact recorded in post-production. Nevertheless, it's still fantastic!

I enjoyed that post Waking-Dreams. I think it goes without saying that nobody is offering anything other than opinion in this thread, but I even find it interesting trying to verbalise how I feel about the music I listen too. I can recognise it's full of hypocrasies and u-turns - it's a pleasant reminder of the elusiveness of reasoning and logic when it comes to art and culture