Your unpopular music opinions

D'Agger

Jason Fly wrote: »

Lupe Fiasco... yes mr. CEO is only concerned about his own business

somebody that has been recording with big record labels from the start is corrupted by the money right from the start, like our friend Nasir... the album with Damien Marley was just another business

Lol - truly trolltastic stuff

First they care about nothing but chains, hummers, then when I point out rappers who have tried to rap about modern day issues like the struggling continent of Africa, The war on Terror etc. and you state that they're only looking to make money.

I suppose all the artists you support work pro bono correct?

Jason Fly

PaulieC wrote: »

Lol - truly trolltastic stuff

First they care about nothing but chains, hummers, then when I point out rappers who have tried to rap about modern day issues like the struggling continent of Africa, The war on Terror etc. and you state that they're only looking to make money.

I suppose all the artists you support work pro bono correct?

you won't find Third World commitment in a big record label, because they only look after themselves. Hip hop is just a business... even Nas says is dead..


p.s. by the way, this is not trolltastic stuff, we are talking about music opinions, and opinions are like arses everybody has one and doesn't want to know the others'

karaokeman

Blink 182 are very very pop.

People who think U2 are pop are generally just trying to be cool.

D'Agger

Jason Fly wrote: »

you won't find Third World commitment in a big record label, because they only look after themselves. Hip hop is just a business... even Nas says is dead..


p.s. by the way, this is not trolltastic stuff, we are talking about music opinions, and opinions are like arses everybody has one and doesn't want to know the others'

Again, I fail to agree - I've already said you're correct in a way that rap is becoming a business - G Unit Clothes lines etc.

But there are artists out there rapping about contemporary issues, making good music and you're simply painting them with the same brush....you're in the wrong imo

Jason Fly

PaulieC wrote: »

Again, I fail to agree - I've already said you're correct in a way that rap is becoming a business - G Unit Clothes lines etc.

But there are artists out there rapping about contemporary issues, making good music and you're simply painting them with the same brush....you're in the wrong imo

I reckon that you may still find rappers making music with a real subject, but I think that is not very usual in the US, where everything seems faded by the growth of a false "culture" sponsored by Ed Hardy...

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

Blink 182 are very very pop.

People who think U2 are pop are generally just trying to be cool.

They are both pop bands. They write catchy songs, usually under 4 minutes, tonal, guitar based music. Pop music.

rcaz

Jason Fly wrote: »

I reckon that you may still find rappers making music with a real subject, but I think that is not very usual in the US, where everything seems faded by the growth of a false "culture" sponsored by Ed Hardy...

How hard have you looked? I could name maybe 10 of the big business hip hop guys from the US off the top of my head, I presume they're the guys we're talking about. So you're saying it's not very usual to find any other rappers outside that group in the US?

me-skywalker

The first Hip Hop inspired artist I lsitend to was Rage Against The Machine. Fair from being inspired by the bling culture. Form reading more about them I learned more about Public Enemy. From Public Enemy I learned the real essence of hip hop. The 'Hip Hop' genre nowadays is similar to the R'n'B genre of modern times. The real essence and breakdown of it has been lost somewhere along the lines and now a more modern twist has been eaten away at the soul of it as a genre.

But hey who likes to be pigeon holed anyway.

If you wanna hear a hip hop artist sing about cars and bling and ed hardy then go listen to it nobody cares. If you wanna hear them sing about society and the breakdwon of communication and values then go ahead nobody cares. The options are there.

AdamD

El Pr0n wrote: »

They are both pop bands. They write catchy songs, usually under 4 minutes, or tonal, guitar based music. Pop music.

Somebody has only listened to blink's singles

Jason Fly

me-skywalker wrote: »

The first Hip Hop inspired artist I lsitend to was Rage Against The Machine. Fair from being inspired by the bling culture. Form reading more about them I learned more about Public Enemy. From Public Enemy I learned the real essence of hip hop. The 'Hip Hop' genre nowadays is similar to the R'n'B genre of modern times. The real essence and breakdown of it has been lost somewhere along the lines and now a more modern twist has been eaten away at the soul of it as a genre.

But hey who likes to be pigeon holed anyway.

If you wanna hear a hip hop artist sing about cars and bling and ed hardy then go listen to it nobody cares. If you wanna hear them sing about society and the breakdwon of communication and values then go ahead nobody cares. The options are there.

that's the reality. Once they have money, they don't look back

rcaz

AdamD wrote: »

Somebody has only listened to blink's singles

I have three of their albums actually. Have they ever written atonal or modal music? Do they not write catchy songs? Are they not usually under four minutes long and guitar-based?

[Edit: I made a typo in that post you quoted me from, that 'or' shouldn't be there.]

Jason Fly

El Pr0n wrote: »

How hard have you looked? I could name maybe 10 of the big business hip hop guys from the US off the top of my head, I presume they're the guys we're talking about. So you're saying it's not very usual to find any other rappers outside that group in the US?

those 10 names in your head are the ones occupying the seats in the Billboard club, further from the values hip hop supposes to be made for...

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

karaokeman wrote: »

Blink 182 are very very pop.

People who think U2 are pop are generally just trying to be cool.

They are both pop bands. They write catchy songs, usually under 4 minutes, or tonal, guitar based music. Pop music.

If you have listened to U2's stuff from the late 1990s onwards of course you will think they're a pop band.

I will admit U2 have been more pop-ish in the last few years and generally gone kinda soft in their later age but thats where people go wrong with their interpretation of U2. If you listened to their earlier stuff from the 1980s like I Will Follow and Sunday Bloody Sunday and even the non-single songs you would see a massive difference from the likes of Stuck In A Moment and All Because of You.

Look at it this way I have a friend and I asked him who he thinks are pop U2 or Westlife and the other was the rock band. He called U2 pop? Sound suspicious? If I were him and truly believed U2 were pop I would've proclaimed both as being pop bands and neither is rock. He also listens to Metallica and My Chemical Romance just for the sake of thinking they are rock just because they play hard. This is what I mean when I say people want to be cool by saying U2 are pop just because their music is more along the indie lines.

U2 are rock in general but of course they use elements of different generes in their music, all the best rock bands do that. If you were to say U2 are pop just because their singles are under 4 minutes and have catchy lyrics then by your logic Bon Jovi, Guns 'n' Roses, R.E.M. and other classic acts must also be defined as pop.

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

If you were to say U2 are pop just because their singles are under 4 minutes and have catchy lyrics then by your logic Bon Jovi, Guns 'n' Roses and other classic acts must also be defined as pop.

Exactly! Rock is popular music, nothing to do with getting heavy or aggressive or challenging. Well it's not classical, jazz or dance is it?

rcaz

Jason Fly wrote: »

those 10 names in your head are the ones occupying the seats in the Billboard club, further from the values hip hop supposes to be made for...

That's my point. There are thousands/millions of other artists across the US (let alone the world) making music completely against the messages and values of these 10 guys. You said that wasn't usual in the US - of course it is!

AdamD

El Pr0n wrote: »

I have three of their albums actually. Have they ever written atonal or modal music? Do they not write catchy songs? Are they not usually under four minutes long and guitar-based?

[Edit: I made a typo in that post you quoted me from, that 'or' shouldn't be there.]

If you basing pop on something that general then I would agree, just about. Still pop-punk though

rcaz

AdamD wrote: »

If you basing pop on something that general then I would agree, just about. Still pop-punk though

'Pop' is the most general term for music there is :pac: There isn't anything remotely punk about them though, apart from distorted guitars. I don't get 'pop punk', because it's still pop, just pop that has different wardrobe staff. If you want to argue that having a distorted guitar instead of a synthesiser or a piano makes it 'punk', fine, but apart from instrumentation, the music is exactly the same as any other pop act.

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

Exactly! Rock is popular music, nothing to do with getting heavy or aggressive or challenging. Well it's not classical, jazz or dance is it?

There are many different types of rock music.

As I've said I know people who think rock is specifically metal/emo and whatnot. These are the people who rarely mention Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones or Queen.

Coldplay contary to popular belief are rock. They are more piano rock than guitar rock similar to John Lennon who is not specifically pop either.

When I say pop I refer to those who are unquestionably pop, Boyzone, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Black Eyed Peas, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber not U2, Oasis, Blur or anyone else who is falsely accused of being pop just because they have a few rhyming songs.

KnifeWRENCH

El Pr0n wrote: »

I don't really get this one... Here's another unpopular opinion from me. A 'great voice' isn't enough to be a good musician. Adele, Amy Winehouse, Michael Bublé, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lopez, Tom Jones, anyone else like that, they have 'great voices', but they're not doing anything to make music better... Now I don't know the exact details of everyone in that list, as regards whether or not they write their own songs or anything, but you know what I mean. They all made it big 'cause of a notably good voice. But everyone knows a few people with great singing voices, and if someone who couldn't sing wanted to pay for singing lessons, they could have a great singing voice too. That isn't enough. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.

Well Amy Winehouse did write (or co-write) her own stuff. Adele does too. Not sure about the rest, though Tom Jones started off in an era where a lot of popular singers didn't write their own stuff (Sinatra, Gaye, Franklin etc.) so I'm not sure if that should be held against him.

The likes of Winehouse and Adele may not be making music better as regards revolutionising a genre or experimentation but it could still be argued that they are still making significant contributions to music by not only singing but also writing stuff that proves to be very popular. They are both very good singer-songwriters imo. And if that inspires young girls (or boys) to pick up an instrument and take a stab at writing their own stuff....well then maybe it could be said they're helping make music better. Big "if" maybe.....but shur you never know!

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

When I say pop I refer to those who are unquestionably pop, Boyzone, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Black Eyed Peas, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber not U2, Oasis, Blur or anyone else who is falsely accused of being pop just because they have a few rhyming songs.

But what's the difference between their music and the music from the 'rock' bands you mentioned? (By the way I'm not saying your choices aren't rock and mine are, I'm just saying that all 'rock' music is pop music). They're short songs, with hooks and choruses you'll remember, lyrics about feelings or ideas that appeal to the masses without being too cryptic or arty, the musicians are identified with a particular look and market, they're being marketed by big companies to sell a product... Swap the guitars for synthesisers and the acoustic drum kits for synthesisers or samplers, and really, what's the difference?

ciaranmac

Rock is in the ear of the beholder imo. I had a former bandmate tell me the Ramones and the Stones aren't rock, I had a mod on here tell me Oasis aren't rock. As far as I'm concerned everything from Chuck Berry and Elvis to Kings of Leon is rock. Including metal, punk, grunge, brit rock, rockabilly, folk rock, country rock, glam...

smokedeels

Punk is the most disingenuous marketing ploy in music history; English people stole American music (Rocket from the Tombs, MC5, Television) dumbed it down and used it to sell clothes. Worse still, modern day American bands like Green Day and Blink 182 still marketed in the same way are ignorant of their own native culture and rather than trying to play like The Sonics they try to play like The Buzzcocks.

rcaz

ciaranmac wrote: »

Rock is in the ear of the beholder imo. I had a former bandmate tell me the Ramones and the Stones aren't rock, I had a mod on here tell me Oasis aren't rock. As far as I'm concerned everything from Chuck Berry and Elvis to Kings of Leon is rock. Including metal, punk, grunge, brit rock, rockabilly, folk rock, country rock, glam...

But if you're going to group a load of different music scenes together that all have a lot of common, why not do it and call it all pop music?

AhSureTisGrand

Pop is not a dirty word

karaokeman

ciaranmac wrote: »

Rock is in the ear of the beholder imo. I had a former bandmate tell me the Ramones and the Stones aren't rock, I had a mod on here tell me Oasis aren't rock. As far as I'm concerned everything from Chuck Berry and Elvis to Kings of Leon is rock. Including metal, punk, grunge, brit rock, rockabilly, folk rock, country rock, glam...

That is exactly the point I'm making. The term "rock music" has become as broad as "pop music". You will always get people who don't like a particular band claiming them to be pop. People who don't like Green Day will call them pop just because their songs promote anti-American government hysteria. Then others will say Oasis are pop because well their britpop. Britpop was a term used to define rock bands who had a mainstream appeal in the early 1990s, hence why Take That aren't defined as britpop.

El Pr0n wrote: »

But what's the difference between their music and the music from the 'rock' bands you mentioned? (By the way I'm not saying your choices aren't rock and mine are, I'm just saying that all 'rock' music is pop music). They're short songs, with hooks and choruses you'll remember, lyrics about feelings or ideas that appeal to the masses without being too cryptic or arty, the musicians are identified with a particular look and market, they're being marketed by big companies to sell a product... Swap the guitars for synthesisers and the acoustic drum kits for synthesisers or samplers, and really, what's the difference?

All generes have choruses people can remember. Listen to The Unforgiven II by Metallica and you will see that even metal bands can produce heartfelt lyrics that will linger in your mind if the song means something to you. It doesn't mean they are pop, it just means you take in something from their songs and you don't just listen because you enjoy the way they sound.

By "lyrics of feelings" do you mean love songs in general. Thats another criticism I've heard against pop bands. People say their songs are about romance, crushes and so fort. The same goes for I Don't Want To Miss A Thing by Aerosmith and Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls. They are rock bands but with love songs, so that can't define a pop band either.

U2's music was not originally aimed at the pop market. They created music because thats what they enjoyed to do, it was in their later years that they went from indie rock to indie pop. The same goes for Beady Eye who are softer than Oasis were back in the day.

I can understand people who call U2 "pop rock" because that would be a more appropriate term. "Pop" generally refers to music that is pure pop like the teen pop stars I mentioned earlier.

The reason I think Blink 182 are pop is because they release songs for the pop market and most of their songs are less mature than the average rock band and have cheesy lyrics.

Android 666

smokedeels wrote: »

Punk is the biggest and most disingenuous marketing ploy in music history; English people stole American music (Rocket from the Tombs, MC5, Television) dumbed it down and used it to sell clothes. Worse still, modern day American bands like Green Day and Blink 182 are ignorant of their own native culture and rather than trying to play like The Sonics they try to play like The Buzzcocks.

What about the Ramones and the Descendents? These are bands in America that were creating pop punk in the 70s and 80s and were definitely more of an influence on these bands than the Buzzcocks would have been imo. And there was/is an awful, awful lot more to American punk and hardcore than what we have seen make it into the charts. Black Flag, Hüsker Dü, Minutemen, Dead Kennedys… all punk pioneers not influenced by the Buzzcocks.

And them being ignorant of their native culture? They're hardly Sioux Indians…

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

All generes have choruses people can remember. Listen to The Unforgiven II by Metallica and you will see that even metal bands can produce heartfelt lyrics that will linger in your mind if the song means something to you. It doesn't mean they are pop, it just means you take in something from their songs and you don't just listen because you enjoy the way they sound.

By "lyrics of feelings" do you mean love songs in general. Thats another criticism I've heard against pop bands. People say their songs are about romance, crushes and so fort. The same goes for I Don't Want To Miss A Thing by Aerosmith and Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls. They are rock bands but with love songs, so that can't define a pop band either.

U2's music was not originally aimed at the pop market. They created music because thats what they enjoyed to do, it was in their later years that they went from indie rock to indie pop. The same goes for Beady Eye who are softer than Oasis were back in the day.

I can understand people who call U2 "pop rock" because that would be a more appropriate term. "Pop" generally refers to music that is pure pop like the teen pop stars I mentioned earlier.

The reason I think Blink 182 are pop is because they release songs for the pop market and most of their songs are less mature than the average rock band and have cheesy lyrics.

But I would call all of the bands you mentioned pop. Metallica, Aerosmith and The Goo Goo Dolls all make popular music. In the same way Prince, Stevie Wonder, The Flaming Lips, Radiohead, Lady GaGa, Ricky Martin, ABBA all make popular music. Being a 'pop' band doesn't limit credibility or seriousness or intensity or anything. But it's music made to engage listeners and get people singing and dancing (and buying).

AdamD

El Pr0n wrote: »

'Pop' is the most general term for music there is :pac: There isn't anything remotely punk about them though, apart from distorted guitars. I don't get 'pop punk', because it's still pop, just pop that has different wardrobe staff. If you want to argue that having a distorted guitar instead of a synthesiser or a piano makes it 'punk', fine, but apart from instrumentation, the music is exactly the same as any other pop act.

I cant see how you can group Blink in with most pop acts tbh, listen to songs like 'Stockholm Syndrom' 'Violence' 'Dysentary Gary' etc etc

hardly pop songs, looks like your judging them off All The Small Things and First Date :rolleyes:

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

But I would call all of the bands you mentioned pop. Metallica, Aerosmith and The Goo Goo Dolls all make popular music. In the same way Prince, Stevie Wonder, The Flaming Lips, Radiohead, Lady GaGa, Ricky Martin, ABBA all make popular music. Being a 'pop' band doesn't limit credibility or seriousness or intensity or anything. But it's music made to engage listeners and get people singing and dancing (and buying).

This is why these discussions always bring out more questions than answers.

Lets face it, by our logic all music is pop and all bands are doing it for the cash and the sales aspect.

Usually when I debate this with my friends it usually comes down to the likes of Metallica, AC/DC and Thin Lizzy being the only bands who are specifically rock.

You are actually the first person I know who has ever called Metallica pop. That leaves the other 2 bands as the only two I know of who are never accused of being pop.

Metallica despite much less airplay than say Kings of Leon are popular in a mainstream sense. They have sold 100 million albums worldwide and many many people know about their music.

None of us really know how to distinguish pop from rock. There will always be that element of "oh they are popular and have a mainstream fanbase so are therefore pop".

smokedeels

karaokeman wrote: »

That is exactly the point I'm making. The term "rock music" has become as broad as "pop music". You will always get people who don't like a particular band claiming them to be pop. People who don't like Green Day will call them pop just because their songs promote anti-American government hysteria. Then others will say Oasis are pop because well their britpop. Britpop was a term used to define rock bands who had a mainstream appeal in the early 1990s, hence why Take That aren't defined as britpop.



All generes have choruses people can remember. Listen to The Unforgiven II by Metallica and you will see that even metal bands can produce heartfelt lyrics that will linger in your mind if the song means something to you. It doesn't mean they are pop, it just means you take in something from their songs and you don't just listen because you enjoy the way they sound.

By "lyrics of feelings" do you mean love songs in general. Thats another criticism I've heard against pop bands. People say their songs are about romance, crushes and so fort. The same goes for I Don't Want To Miss A Thing by Aerosmith and Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls. They are rock bands but with love songs, so that can't define a pop band either.

U2's music was not originally aimed at the pop market. They created music because thats what they enjoyed to do, it was in their later years that they went from indie rock to indie pop. The same goes for Beady Eye who are softer than Oasis were back in the day.

I can understand people who call U2 "pop rock" because that would be a more appropriate term. "Pop" generally refers to music that is pure pop like the teen pop stars I mentioned earlier.

The reason I think Blink 182 are pop is because they release songs for the pop market and most of their songs are less mature than the average rock band and have cheesy lyrics.

You can't define music based on the effect it has culturally and commericaly, John Coltrane sold a lot of records and his music is very "heartfelt", he's not pop is he?

Rock/Pop = verse-chorus-verse, I, IV and V chord songs and their off-shoots, they can sing about lollipops or handjobs, sell 1m records or 5 records, it's still pop.