Your unpopular music opinions

ItsAWindUp

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Ha, says it all really.

You seriously believe that The Beatles won't be remembered and listened to a thousand years from now? Much like Shakesphere and the bible will continue to exist only the most influential bands from our time will be listened to. The Beatles are one if the defining bands of all time and no matter how much you dislike them to burbe that they will ever be forgotten is a joke.

Irish Guitarist

Speaking of musicians that aren't nice, I think Charles Manson has made some great music.

lordgoat

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Who says? As far as I'm aware, the thread title is unpopular music opinions, and an unpopular musical opinion of mine is that John Lennon (a musician) was a prick.

That's actually quite a common opinion.

ItsAWindUp

lordgoat wrote: »

That's actually quite a common opinion.

Yet one that you replied to with anger and profanity?

lordgoat

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Yet one that you replied to with anger and profanity?

And you're point?

Awww does swearing upset you?

viadah

Here's an unpopular opinion - everybody loves pop music. 'Pop' being an abbreviation for 'popular'. Therefore Radiohead, Slayer, Girls Aloud, Meshuggah, all pop music. So's Susan Boyle and Anthrax and Cradle of Filth, Eminem and Ministry. The only people in the world who don't listen to pop music are emos, who hate bands that they listen to as soon as someone else says they like them, which probably has more to do with the deleterious effects of hair styling products seeping into the brain than anything associated with taste in music.

SilverScreen

viadah wrote: »

Here's an unpopular opinion - everybody loves pop music. 'Pop' being an abbreviation for 'popular'. Therefore Radiohead, Slayer, Girls Aloud, Meshuggah, all pop music. So's Susan Boyle and Anthrax and Cradle of Filth, Eminem and Ministry. The only people in the world who don't listen to pop music are emos, who hate bands that they listen to as soon as someone else says they like them, which probably has more to do with the deleterious effects of hair styling products seeping into the brain than anything associated with taste in music.

WTF?! For a start you are lumping bands like Slayer and Meshuggah in with actual pop acts like Girls Aloud which doesn't really make sense. I know Slayer and Meshuggah are fairly popular metal bands but they're not popular in the sense that they are tearing up the charts and everyone knows who they are. Yeah I certainly think you have a very unpopular opinion there.

As for the statement that people who don't listen to pop music are emos I think you just talking shit. Would you call people who listen to abstract ambient music, goregrind or free-jazz emos because they are not listening to pop music?

Also I bet you don't know what emo actually is

viadah

It would appear my sense of humour is more subtle than I thought.

And I bet I do know what 'emotional hardcore' is, and it has nothing to do with taking pictures of your new haircut in a mirror.

SilverScreen

Sorry thought you were being serious nevermind carry on...

karaokeman

viadah wrote: »

Here's an unpopular opinion - everybody loves pop music. 'Pop' being an abbreviation for 'popular'. Therefore Radiohead, Slayer, Girls Aloud, Meshuggah, all pop music. So's Susan Boyle and Anthrax and Cradle of Filth, Eminem and Ministry. The only people in the world who don't listen to pop music are emos, who hate bands that they listen to as soon as someone else says they like them, which probably has more to do with the deleterious effects of hair styling products seeping into the brain than anything associated with taste in music.

There is a difference between mainstream music (including pop and rock bands) and non-mainstream music.

Technically anything that makes the charts is considered "pop". You are right in saying pop was originally an abbreviation for "popular" music. It was only when people like Madonna, Kylie Minogue, the Beastie Boys started writing catchy songs intentionally targeted for the mainstream market that pop and rock were considered to be different.

Many rock bands today are considered by many to be pop (or "popular" as the term originally should imply). The Prodigy, Kings of Leon, Oasis, Kasabian, Kaiser Chiefs, Snow Patrol all have mainstream fan bases and their songs go in at top 10, top 20 or whatever. Clearly they have a mainstream fanbase.

There are of course specific pop genres alongside mainstream rock. Specific pop genres would be like R&B (Rihanna, JLS, Beyonce), Dance (Calvin Harris, Example) and manufactured (Boyzone, Pussycat Dolls etc.).

The likes of Megadeath, Cradle of Filth, Slayer, Meshuggah. Their songs don't chart and don't get heavy airplay. They aren't mainstream and therefore are not pop unlike the radio-friendly likes of The Script and Kings of Leon.

Android 666

karaokeman wrote: »

Technically anything that makes the charts is considered "pop". You are right in saying pop was originally an abbreviation for "popular" music. It was only when people like Madonna, Kylie Minogue, the Beastie Boys started writing catchy songs intentionally targeted for the mainstream market that pop and rock were considered to be different.

You are completely talking out of your hole. Pop and rock have been considered separate entities since the 60s - it's the difference between the likes of the Shirelles and the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and Abba. And why are lumping the Beastie Boys in with Kylie and Madonna? Totally ridiculous.

rcaz

I'm all for the 'everything is pop' argument. There are two kinds of music, pop and art. Art music is baroque, classical, romantic, contemporary classical, jazz, sound art stuff. Pop is stuff that has songs. I spent ages trying to figure out the right way to classify music (got sick of the "No, that's not death metal, that's tech death"-type arguments). Pop vs. Art was the best thing I came up with.

Now I know all music is art, but 'art music' in my mind would be academic-type music, music made to push music forward.

Sinfonia

El Pr0n wrote: »

I'm all for the 'everything is pop' argument. There are two kinds of music, pop and art. Art music is baroque, classical, romantic, contemporary classical, jazz, sound art stuff. Pop is stuff that has songs. I spent ages trying to figure out the right way to classify music (got sick of the "No, that's not death metal, that's tech death"-type arguments). Pop vs. Art was the best thing I came up with.

Now I know all music is art, but 'art music' in my mind would be academic-type music, music made to push music forward.

Which becomes a problem when you come across progressive rock bands etc.
Also you've left out traditional musics of the world.

But ultimately I agree with you.
Megadeth are pop. The Script are pop.
If I really need to differentiate the two, then I suppose I can turn to phrases such as 'metal' and 'godawful clichéd cack', respectively.

Android 666

El Pr0n wrote: »

Now I know all music is art, but 'art music' in my mind would be academic-type music, music made to push music forward.

But classical music recital wouldn't push music forward. And what about the innovations that have occurred in pop music that have pushed things forward - recording techniques, new instruments, sampling etc. If innovations exist outside the realm of academia do they cease to be of importance?

I'm quite happy to have some labelling of music to help guide me towards what I'm more interested in rather than just having it all labeled as pop. True there's always going to be those stupid 'is it death/tech death/tech death with a lemon twist metal' arguments but if I'm looking through dance music, I don't want to sit through a load of trance or hardstyle to try and find some of the stuff I might actually want to hear. Genres should really be more signposts than actual destinations.

Also, the whole pop music/art music just reeks of snobbery in my book.

Kold

El Pr0n wrote: »

I'm all for the 'everything is pop' argument. There are two kinds of music, pop and art. Art music is baroque, classical, romantic, contemporary classical, jazz, sound art stuff. Pop is stuff that has songs. I spent ages trying to figure out the right way to classify music (got sick of the "No, that's not death metal, that's tech death"-type arguments). Pop vs. Art was the best thing I came up with.

Now I know all music is art, but 'art music' in my mind would be academic-type music, music made to push music forward.

This is kind of like the art vs kitsch argument, you kinda lose yourself searching for a watertight definition of art though.

rcaz

Android 666 wrote: »

But classical music recital wouldn't push music forward. And what about the innovations that have occurred in pop music that have pushed things forward - recording techniques, new instruments, sampling etc. If innovations exist outside the realm of academia do they cease to be of importance?

I'm quite happy to have some labelling of music to help guide me towards what I'm more interested in rather than just having it all labeled as pop. True there's always going to be those stupid 'is it death/tech death/tech death with a lemon twist metal' arguments but if I'm looking through dance music, I don't want to sit through a load of trance or hardstyle to try and find some of the stuff I might actually want to hear. Genres should really be more signposts than actual destinations.

Also, the whole pop music/art music just reeks of snobbery in my book.

I don't mean recital, I mean composition, the proper important part of music. And no, of course innovations are important regardless of methods or surroundings or whatever. But I reckon most of the real conceptual innovations in music happen in academic settings, apart from like, working songs in the late 1800s or whatever that lead to jazz and blues. Also, a new recording technique is a technical thing, or and engineering thing, not a musical thing. I don't get your point there.

Yeah you're right it can come across as snobby but I don't mean it that way. I've said this to other people, and they always assume that by saying 'art' is better than 'pop' then that's a problem, nothing's better than anything else, everything is completely equal and valid. Lots of the people who thought I was being snobby about music were just being inverted snobs themselves, arguing that classical music is for ponces or whatever.

Android 666

El Pr0n wrote: »

Also, a new recording technique is a technical thing, or and engineering thing, not a musical thing. I don't get your point there.

Recording techniques can impact on composition - think of the studio innovations that occurred in Abbey Road during the recording of the latter Beatles albums which enabled unheard of before experimentation. Without multi tracking we wouldn't have had the full range of harmonies at the beginning of Paperback Writer etc…

Also the dread autotune was conceived of as a vocal correction tool and producers now use it as a musical tool. Innovation I wouldn't be fond of but innovation none the less.

rcaz

Android 666 wrote: »

Recording techniques can impact on composition - think of the studio innovations that occurred in Abbey Road during the recording of the latter Beatles albums which enabled unheard of before experimentation. Without multi tracking we wouldn't have had the full range of harmonies at the beginning of Paperback Writer etc…

Also the dread autotune was conceived of as a vocal correction tool and producers now use it as a musical tool. Innovation I wouldn't be fond of but innovation none the less.

Yeah, fair points. Using autotuned vocals as a musical tool isn't that different from using a vocoder though, is it? I always thought T Pain-type stuff was pretty similar to what Kraftwerk were doing. Quality edit reason too :pac:

mielzi

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Speaking of musicians that aren't nice, I think Charles Manson has made some great music.

I ****ing love Charles Manson, in regard to his music, of course. He also chooses very witty song titles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHxhoGqceDw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTDpcsgCDpw&feature=related

ItsAWindUp

lordgoat wrote: »

And you're point?

Awww does swearing upset you?

Enjoy the power trip do you?

lordgoat

Great points being made in here. I'm not a fan of music genre's at all, i tend to keep them large and non specific. Rock, Pop, Classical. I'm a mod of a forum that I don't really agree with Alternative - to what? Silence. Indie? The meaning of this is completely lost in modern terms of music.

That said i do see the need to break music up on boards etc.

I agree to the points made on composition, it's one of the most important aspects of modern music. Boundaries need to pushed and broadened more than ever.

Heading out now but will comment more later.

Malice

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Enjoy the power trip do you?

Why do you think he's on a power trip? He's got no more power on this forum than you do.

lordgoat wrote:

I'm a mod of a forum that I don't really agree with Alternative - to what? Silence. Indie? The meaning of this is completely lost in modern terms of music.

Going a tad off-topic but I've often wondered just how the strict breakdown between Alt & Indie and Rock & Metal was arrived at back in the mists of time whenever the forums were created. There are quite a few bands that I've seen discussed in both e.g. Smashing Pumpkins, The Pixies and Radiohead.

karaokeman

mapaco wrote: »

Take That are brilliant constantly trying new styles of music and venturing down new avenues. they write all their own material and put their hearts and souls into their albums and tours.

Its been discussed to death in this thread.

The Beatles may have been the fab four but Take That are the fab five.

VenomousFish

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Speaking of musicians that aren't nice, I think Charles Manson has made some great music.

Meh, it's average at best. I used listen to some of it, but it was only out of morbid fascination. The man could sing, though...

rcaz

karaokeman wrote: »

The Beatles may have been the fab four but Take That are the fab five.

Radiohead, Sonic Youth, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, The Sonics, The Furious Five...

Kold

El Pr0n wrote: »

Radiohead, Sonic Youth, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, The Sonics, The Furious Five...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GjTvV3bAt8

adox

Malice wrote: »

Going a tad off-topic but I've often wondered just how the strict breakdown between Alt & Indie and Rock & Metal was arrived at back in the mists of time whenever the forums were created. There are quite a few bands that I've seen discussed in both e.g. Smashing Pumpkins, The Pixies and Radiohead.

Ive more interest in rock music and have only started dipping in to the Alt & Indie forum recently. I hadnt realised there would be so many bands that I have an interest in being discussed on that forum.

lordgoat

Malice wrote: »

Why do you think he's on a power trip? He's got no more power on this forum than you do.

Going a tad off-topic but I've often wondered just how the strict breakdown between Alt & Indie and Rock & Metal was arrived at back in the mists of time whenever the forums were created. There are quite a few bands that I've seen discussed in both e.g. Smashing Pumpkins, The Pixies and Radiohead.

Ya i agree, when i think (in terms of genres - outside of what lordg likes/dislikes), rock- i think zeppelin/stones/lizzy alt&indie would include a lot of bands I'd call pop but in that forum we'd let a lot of electro/easy dance/hip-hop be discussed. Can't beat a good argument/discussion. (except maybe the thrills thread in there right now!!)

adox wrote: »

Ive more interest in rock music and have only started dipping in to the Alt & Indie forum recently. I hadnt realised there would be so many bands that I have an interest in being discussed on that forum.

Pop on over, we're a great shower of a-holes.

jill_valentine

A-holes. Like it. When can we have team t shirts?

The Marlboro Man

adox wrote: »

Ive more interest in rock music and have only started dipping in to the Alt & Indie forum recently..

Who fúck listens to rock music anymore? It's the year 2011 ffs..

Have you even listened to the new PJ Harvey or Wild Beasts albums? What decade are you living in?