Your unpopular music opinions

AdamD

Pop is a pretty silly word to be using to describe any of these bands tbh. Yes they are popular..but most go under a different heading

smokedeels

Android 666 wrote: »

Black Flag, Hüsker Dü, Minutemen, Dead Kennedys…

The SST bands, Mission of Burma, Alibini and his mates were all picking up from were Pere Ubu left off, I just think you can discount the English bands when drawing up a family tree.

Android 666

smokedeels wrote: »

The SST bands, Mission of Burma, Alibini and his mates were all picking up from were Pere Ubu left off, I just think you can discount the English bands when drawing up a family tree.

What about Crass and the Exploited or Joy Division and The Fall? The post punk bands like Pil, 23 Skidoo and the Pop Group or the electronic experimenters that formed around the time of punk and often played gigs with them like the Human League and Cabaret Voltaire? It's very easy to dismiss the Engilsh punk movement as 'Ra ra ra 1,2,3,4' but the re-energising effect that punk had fed into an awful lot of subsequent styles and genres. Under the microscope today there is a lot to dismiss about the likes of the Sex Pistols and the Clash but you can't ignore the cultural effect (good or bad) these bands had at the time.

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

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".

I don't really want to distinguish between pop and rock. When genres start getting specific, they do more exclusion than inclusion. How many times have you heard people arguing (like really arguing, not a discussion or whatever) about the 'punkness' of a band or whatever? I know Green Day's song 86 was about them not being allowed play in a particular venue because they had signed to Warner Reprise. I bet that venue, and probably that scene, would have made a lot of money and publicity by having Green Day play there as a Warner band.

I've been thinking of music in terms of pop, classical, jazz and dance. Pop is music for singing and dancing and anyone being able to access it, be it by listening or performing, it's about communicating your emotions and having everyone feel the same with you. Classical is continuing the academic type of thing it's been doing for hundreds of years since the Gregorian lads or whenever you want to count as the start of Western art music. Jazz, for me, seems to be about playing with ideas, like in Bebop where there's a head tune, everyone solos around it, and then they all play the head again, or free jazz where the idea is everyone solos off each other at once and develop that over the length you're playing for... Now there's loads of stuff like swing and big band and all that I don't know so much about that has a lot in common with pop... And dance makes people dance. Ten minutes of four-to-the-floor with a good hook and a heavy bassline. Whether that's house or drum and bass or techno or whatever, if it's dance music, it's probably got some stuff in common with that really loose description I gave there? Maybe I'm getting a little too self-righteous... :P

TL;DR - I don't like breaking music up too specifically 'cause it does more harm than good. And I think I could have most/all music covered by those four 'genres' I wrote there.

Android 666

smokedeels wrote: »

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.

Genres will cross over all the time but as people we use them to help sort out what we're going to listen to or not. For instance if someone describes their music as Melodic MOR, I'm not going to listen to it. If someone says they have an amazing piece of Hardstyle that I should listen to I'm going to ignore. Whether its good or bad, we use genres as way of sifting through what we're going to listen to what we're not. You can call everything pop because that doesn't help us in trying to find the bands or types of music we like. Genres help to act as flags for us to look out for and find the stuff we want.

I listen to a fair bit of dance music and there are always people moaning about the amount of labels there are for different genres but the way I look at it if it helps you find the music you want, what's the problem?

So you can have arguments about whether you think certain bands are pop or rock but I think most people will know what generally constitutes rock and pop. The same works within genres for fans of the genre. A metal fan is going to know the difference between thrash metal and death metal, a dance fan the diffence between house and dubstep and so on.

**Vai**

Lads pop isnt a music genre, its music that is popular. A band like U2/Metallica/whoever can be pop and rock at the same time.

Pop means different things to different people because its not as defined as actual music genres like jazz or metal. Classical was pop music at one stage, in some places it still is.

I call semantics!

smokedeels

Android 666 wrote: »

What about Crass and the Exploited or Joy Division and The Fall? The post punk bands like Pil, 23 Skidoo and the Pop Group or the electronic experimenters that formed around the time of punk and often played gigs with them like the Human League and Cabaret Voltaire? It's very easy to dismiss the Engilsh punk movement as 'Ra ra ra 1,2,3,4' but the re-energising effect that punk had fed into an awful lot of subsequent styles and genres. Under the microscope today there is a lot to dismiss about the likes of the Sex Pistols and the Clash but you can't ignore the cultural effect (good or bad) these bands had at the time.

The Fall are an example of what the English should have been doing, Smith took the nod from American Garage bands and German bands but he also mined The Kinks and The Groundhogs for influence.

I was having a go at first generation English punk, and I still question if post-punk needed it to begin. Swell Maps, for instance, existed before and after the Pistols

Android 666

**Vai** wrote: »

Lads pop isnt a music genre, its music that is popular. A band like U2/Metallica/whoever can be pop and rock at the same time.

Pop means different things to different people because its not as defined as actual music genres like jazz or metal. Classical was pop music at one stage, in some places it still is.

I call semantics!

Nah, your wrong there. As a term 'pop' only stretches back to the fifties so you never would have had people coming out of the concert halls of Vienna or wherever in the 19th century saying 'That was a wonderful piece of pop by Bach wasn't it?'

Pop was an alternative term for rock and roll that later came to be the accepted term for commercially orientated music that was softer than rock or rock and roll and while that means what we consider pop is constantly changing the same could be said of must genres. Rock music as a whole wouldn't be the same as it was twenty years ago, either would dance or metal. Most genres are constantly changing or evolving so I don't think your argument is right.

Android 666

smokedeels wrote: »

The Fall are an example of what the English should have been doing, Smith took the nod from American Garage bands and German bands but he also mined The Kinks and The Groundhogs for influence.

I was having a go at first generation English punk, and I still question if post-punk needed it to begin. Swell Maps, for instance, existed before and after the Pistols

The Fall and Joy Division both formed after seeing the Sex Pistols in Manchester. I don't think that half the post punk bands would have existed if punk hadn't happened first. Punk showed that anyone could form a band and that it wasn't the preserve of the prog rock noodlists or pub rock bands. That gave people the freedom to experiment a bit more and completely changed the musical landscape in England.

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

I don't really want to distinguish between pop and rock. When genres start getting specific, they do more exclusion than inclusion. How many times have you heard people arguing (like really arguing, not a discussion or whatever) about the 'punkness' of a band or whatever? I know Green Day's song 86 was about them not being allowed play in a particular venue because they had signed to Warner Reprise. I bet that venue, and probably that scene, would have made a lot of money and publicity by having Green Day play there as a Warner band.

I've been thinking of music in terms of pop, classical, jazz and dance. Pop is music for singing and dancing and anyone being able to access it, be it by listening or performing, it's about communicating your emotions and having everyone feel the same with you. Classical is continuing the academic type of thing it's been doing for hundreds of years since the Gregorian lads or whenever you want to count as the start of Western art music. Jazz, for me, seems to be about playing with ideas, like in Bebop where there's a head tune, everyone solos around it, and then they all play the head again, or free jazz where the idea is everyone solos off each other at once and develop that over the length you're playing for... Now there's loads of stuff like swing and big band and all that I don't know so much about that has a lot in common with pop... And dance makes people dance. Ten minutes of four-to-the-floor with a good hook and a heavy bassline. Whether that's house or drum and bass or techno or whatever, if it's dance music, it's probably got some stuff in common with that really loose description I gave there? Maybe I'm getting a little too self-righteous... :P

TL;DR - I don't like breaking music up too specifically 'cause it does more harm than good. And I think I could have most/all music covered by those four 'genres' I wrote there.

This is probably the best answer to your previous question about "whats the difference".

**Vai** wrote: »

Lads pop isnt a music genre, its music that is popular. A band like U2/Metallica/whoever can be pop and rock at the same time.

Pop means different things to different people because its not as defined as actual music genres like jazz or metal. Classical was pop music at one stage, in some places it still is.

U2 are "pop rock" not "pop", just like Kings of Leon, Oasis, The Killers, Snow Patrol, Metallica, Aerosmith and so fort.

And yes being a partially pop band does not impact upon credibility.

And yes popular music changes from time to time. In the 1960s it was the Beatles and Elvis, then it was Abba in the 70s, 80s it was Madonna, 90s it was Oasis and Take That, 00s it was Kings of Leon/Coldplay and now its Lady GaGa.

me-skywalker

This whole discussion = Pigeon Holes.

All artists are music makers. They will write and play whatever music they are feeling they wanna share with the world and any artists that limits themselves to one genre is seriously limiting their own potential and own abillity. But then again some artists only have a limited amount of ability so prefer to stay in one simplified genre.

Android 666

me-skywalker wrote: »

This whole discussion = Pigeon Holes.

All artists are music makers. They will write and play whatever music they are feeling they wanna share with the world and any artists that limits themselves to one genre is seriously limiting their own potential and own abillity. But then again some artists only have a limited amount of ability so prefer to stay in one simplified genre.

But most bands or artists will stick usually to one genre will maybe dabbling in others because it's usually the one the prefer playing the most themselves. An excellent jazz trumpeter isn't lacking in ability if he chooses to just play jazz because that's what he prefers to play. A band might play a couple of rockier numbers but in the main prefer to play melodic pop. Does that band have to play jazz just to prove they have the ability?

Commerce is the other reason some bands play what they play as well. It's not always about artistic integrity either…

me-skywalker

Android 666 wrote: »

But most bands or artists will stick usually to one genre will maybe dabbling in others because it's usually the one the prefer playing the most themselves. An excellent jazz trumpeter isn't lacking in ability if he chooses to just play jazz because that's what he prefers to play. A band might play a couple of rockier numbers but in the main prefer to play melodic pop. Does that band have to play jazz just to prove they have the ability?

Commerce is the other reason some bands play what they play as well. It's not always about artistic integrity either…

Well it is true that someone of limited ability would stick to the one genre and that the wouldnt be able to play another type of music because of their limited ability. A classical guitarist might be the worst ever blues guitarist. Just because they are proficient in one style of music does not automatically make them proficient in another. Ergo your jazz trumpeter could simply be amazing but still stick him into a band with Clapton and he might fall apart.

smokedeels

Android 666 wrote: »

The Fall and Joy Division both formed after seeing the Sex Pistols in Manchester. I don't think that half the post punk bands would have existed if punk hadn't happened first. Punk showed that anyone could form a band and that it wasn't the preserve of the prog rock noodlists or pub rock bands. That gave people the freedom to experiment a bit more and completely changed the musical landscape in England.

The Fall already existed before that gig and the only quote I've read from Mark E. Smith regarding the Pistol's Lesser Free Trade Hall performance was "I thought, my lot are not as bad as that. We’re better. We just need a drummer.”

I can't disagree with the rest, you make a good point, I'll back down.

I guess I'm just suspicious of accepted musical lineage. For instance I thought The Beatles used distortion first, then somebody gave me that Monks cd a few years ago and have you heard that Detroit band “Death” from the 1970’s ffs another spanner thrown into the works (great album too if you haven’t heard it).

Android 666

me-skywalker wrote: »

Well it is true that someone of limited ability would stick to the one genre and that the wouldnt be able to play another type of music because of their limited ability. A classical guitarist might be the worst ever blues guitarist. Just because they are proficient in one style of music does not automatically make them proficient in another. Ergo your jazz trumpeter could simply be amazing but still stick him into a band with Clapton and he might fall apart.

Just because a person might not be comfortable playing in a certain genre (usually because they wouldn't have a huge interest in it) doesn't mean they are automatically of limited ability - that's a strange notion altogether. So do you think it's better for someone to be a jack of all trades than it is to master and specialise in one particular genre?

Because I'd prefer to see a shít hot jazz trumpeter to one that is equally medicore across the board... but the thing is if you have a good grasp of musical theory (which you'll definitely need to have to play jazz or classical) then you'll have the knowledge to understand and try your hand at most other genres.

Android 666

smokedeels wrote: »

I guess I'm just suspicious of accepted musical lineage. For instance I thought The Beatles used distortion first, then somebody gave me that Monks cd a few years ago and have you heard that Detroit band “Death” from the 1970’s ffs another spanner thrown into the works (great album too if you haven’t heard it).

Yeah, I don't ever think the notion musical lineage and music family trees ever give you the full picture of how fluid musical influences are. The accepted notion is that Beatles followed Rock and Roll but that's to ignore all the other things that they brought to the table that influenced them - the music hall songs that were on the Peppers album or the chords that they learnt from the older skiffle crowd that helped give them a greater impact with the folk scene in America. The notion that one band begat another I think ignores the myriad of influences that that make up even one individual within a band.

Surely Link Wray puncturing holes in his amplifier was the first in terms of working with distortion? You would have heard in that song 'Rumble' on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack.

Must check out that Band Death. Cheers.

rcaz

Android 666 wrote: »

Surely Link Wray puncturing holes in his amplifier was the first in terms of working with distortion? You would have heard in that song 'Rumble' on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack.

Or that Ike Turner song Rocket 88.

Android 666

El Pr0n wrote: »

Or that Ike Turner song Rocket 88.

The distortion on that would have been from pushing up the volume of the amp so that it would be heard along with the saxophone and drums and not something they really were looking to have as a sound. Link Wray actively sought it out by slashing his amp speaker.

**Vai**

Android 666 wrote: »

Nah, your wrong there. As a term 'pop' only stretches back to the fifties so you never would have had people coming out of the concert halls of Vienna or wherever in the 19th century saying 'That was a wonderful piece of pop by Bach wasn't it?'

Unfortunately I wasnt around in the 19th century but they obviously wouldnt have used a phrase like that, no. I think you'll find that as a word 'popular' stretches back further than the 50's and Im absolutely right in saying that classical was at one time popular music, as in, mainstream music, listened to by the masses.

Saying Im wrong for using the word in its correct context is a bit rich isnt it?

Android 666

**Vai** wrote: »

Unfortunately I wasnt around in the 19th century but they obviously wouldnt have used a phrase like that, no. I think you'll find that as a word 'popular' stretches back further than the 50's and Im absolutely right in saying that classical was at one time popular music, as in, mainstream music, listened to by the masses.

Saying Im wrong for using the word in its correct context is a bit rich isnt it?

But you didn't…

super_furry

Come On Eileen is one of the best songs ever written.

**Vai**

Android 666 wrote: »

But you didn't…

I give up.

me-skywalker

Android 666 wrote: »

Just because a person might not be comfortable playing in a certain genre (usually because they wouldn't have a huge interest in it) doesn't mean they are automatically of limited ability - that's a strange notion altogether. So do you think it's better for someone to be a jack of all trades than it is to master and specialise in one particular genre?

Because I'd prefer to see a shít hot jazz trumpeter to one that is equally medicore across the board... but the thing is if you have a good grasp of musical theory (which you'll definitely need to have to play jazz or classical) then you'll have the knowledge to understand and try your hand at most other genres.

Well you might prefer to see a **** hot jazz trumpeter if your into jazz but someone thats not into jazz couldn't give a fck if he played jazz then released an amazing roc/soul album filled with trumpets. They might enjoy that more than the jazz.
All im saying is don't be so specific and label everything because most artists would prefer not to label themselves.

Android 666

me-skywalker wrote: »

Well you might prefer to see a **** hot jazz trumpeter if your into jazz but someone thats not into jazz couldn't give a fck if he played jazz then released an amazing roc/soul album filled with trumpets. They might enjoy that more than the jazz.
All im saying is don't be so specific and label everything because most artists would prefer not to label themselves.

But originally you were saying about people of limited ability sticking only to one genre. I think most people will be able to appreciate when somebody is good or talented even they don't appreciate the genre the person plays in.

Most artists might like to label themselves but they will be labeled whether they like it or not. There is just too much music out there for us not to classify and specify it. Just because I like music with guitars doesn't mean I'll like the Script.

francois

Android 666 wrote: »

. Just because I like music with guitars doesn't mean I'll like the Script.

I had you down as a big script fan

Android 666

francois wrote: »

I had you down as a big script fan

Sshhh, don't tell anyone francois...

Firetrap

The Pet Shop Boys are under-rated.
Arcade Fire, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Arctic Monkeys are over-rated.
I don't think Elvis Presley was all that wonderful

AhSureTisGrand

music is shįt and the ppl who listen to it hav no life's. books FTW

karaokeman

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

music is shįt and the ppl who listen to it hav no life's. books FTW

Oh yeah sure just read any ole' book while the rest of us are rocking at Glastonbury.

Firetrap wrote: »

The Pet Shop Boys are under-rated.

The Pet Shop Boys are fairly rated. They sold 100 million records worldwide and they don't deserve any more or less critical acclaim or praise than they already had.

Firetrap wrote: »

Arcade Fire, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Arctic Monkeys are over-rated.

Arcade Fire and the Arctic Monkeys are somewhat over-rated. They are good but they get a lot more hype than what would be expected from bands of their calibre.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are not over-rated by any means or other. While Keidis may not have the best singing voice he is still one of the better American songwriters of the 1980s/90s.

Firetrap wrote: »

I don't think Elvis Presley was all that wonderful

Elvis actually was quite magnificent. Would've loved to see him live just as much as I would have Michael Jackson.

If you want someone over-rated to the brink, try Madonna.

El Weirdo

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

music is shįt and the ppl who listen to it hav no life's. books FTW

Yes, I can tell that you're a lover of the written language.