Your unpopular music opinions

Bobby Baccala

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycaocta_OCw

Oasis best tune.

TAlderson

Music isn't art, it's entertainment. Which is what it should be.

karaokeman

TAlderson wrote: »

Music isn't art, it's entertainment. Which is what it should be.

The Simpsons is entertainment, that doesn't mean its not also an art form.

Birneybau

karaokeman wrote: »

The Simpsons is entertainment, that doesn't mean its not also an art form.

The Simpsons is a cartoon (which is an art form). The Simpsons is not an art form.

smokedeels

So... if art is entertaining* it's not art anymore

*seasons 4-6

rcaz

TAlderson wrote: »

Music isn't art, it's entertainment. Which is what it should be.

That's just incorrect. Music is art made with sound. Like sculpture is art made with stone or whatever sculptures are made of.

Madbod

Gary Glitter deserves a second chance, his music is too good for humanity to lose it cos of his other activities




some music is art, some is pure entertainment. and Some is utter ****e

Rothko

TAlderson wrote: »

Music isn't art, it's entertainment. Which is what it should be.

Art is entertainment

rcaz

Madbod wrote: »

some music is art, some is pure entertainment. and Some is utter ****e

All music is art.

Some art is entertainment, some art is ****e, etc.

old hippy

rcaz wrote: »

That's just incorrect. Music is art made with sound. Like sculpture is art made with stone or whatever sculptures are made of.

John Cage 4.33

kunst nugget

old hippy wrote: »

John Cage 4.33

http://theunobserved.com/art/invisible_art/

kunst nugget

Madbod wrote: »

Gary Glitter deserves a second chance, his music is too good for humanity to lose it cos of his other activities

Poor old aging Gary Glitter
As a pensioner he's gotten quite bitter
Some glam tracks he sang
About us being in his gang
But he's only remembered for doing kids up the sh¡tter

And no, his music was terrible. Bolan and Bowie had far, far better tunes in the Glam era. Glitter was lowest common denominator rubbish. I'm glad he got caught feeling up those kids because it means I don't have to listen to that twaddle on the radio.

rcaz

old hippy wrote: »

John Cage 4.33

What's your point?

4'33" is made up of all the sound that you hear while the performer isn't playing anything.

Kold

It's like 1880-the entire 20th century of art didn't even happen in this thread.

smokedeels

Madbod wrote: »

Gary Glitter deserves a second chance, his music is too good for humanity to lose it cos of his other activities

He was hardly pumping out hits around the time they caught him

karaokeman

Birneybau wrote: »

The Simpsons is a cartoon (which is an art form). The Simpsons is not an art form.

It is part of an art form, which as you say is animation, its obviously not a whole genre itself but its still entertainment and art.

Anyway's this thread is about music and not anything else so for another opinion of mine, I think if Justin Bieber wrote Boyfriend when he was going out with Selena Gomez, that is just sad.

Sinfonia

karaokeman wrote: »

Anyway's this thread is about music and not anything else so for another opinion of mine, I think if Justin Bieber wrote Boyfriend when he was going out with Selena Gomez, that is just sad.

Don't know why, just felt the urge to point out this sentence for some reason.

Mcjmetroid

can't stand Red hot chilli peppers. Does NOTHING for me.

SilverScreen

TAlderson wrote: »

Music isn't art, it's entertainment. Which is what it should be.

It's both. Always has been and always will be.

TAlderson

rcaz wrote: »

That's just incorrect. Music is art made with sound. Like sculpture is art made with stone or whatever sculptures are made of.

See, I think you've got it backwards. Music is a medium, it's not art in and of itself. Many works of art are made through music, but music is not in and of itself an art form.

Even as a classically trained musician I have no problem with Cher Lloyd, Justin Bieber, Jedward, et al., because they're part of a long line of entertainers. They don't need to be deep or meaningful, they just need to be fun. Pop, early rock n roll, trad, blues, showbands, all of it is music to dance and socialize to, and it's great. Honestly, most of the time people try to make it into "art" it sucks (think of all the excesses of hard rock and prog as it got "artsier").

Now, sometimes one of these fun songs can really speak to a wide swath of people and be considered "art," but I don't think music should have the burden of having to be art every time someone opens their mouth to sing.

-Tyler

SilverScreen

TAlderson wrote: »

See, I think you've got it backwards. Music is a medium, it's not art in and of itself. Many works of art are made through music, but music is not in and of itself an art form.

Even as a classically trained musician I have no problem with Cher Lloyd, Justin Bieber, Jedward, et al., because they're part of a long line of entertainers. They don't need to be deep or meaningful, they just need to be fun. Pop, early rock n roll, trad, blues, showbands, all of it is music to dance and socialize to, and it's great. Honestly, most of the time people try to make it into "art" it sucks (think of all the excesses of hard rock and prog as it got "artsier").

Now, sometimes one of these fun songs can really speak to a wide swath of people and be considered "art," but I don't think music should have the burden of having to be art every time someone opens their mouth to sing.

-Tyler

It's different strokes for different folks. If people want to be just entertained by music, then there's no problem with that. But I think all of the forward-thinking, really ground-breaking generally falls into music as an art form. There is absolutely nothing wrong with music being "artsier". It usually just takes a certain type of listener to appreciate it and it's that type of music that gives the listener something new and contributes to the evolution of music. Sure acts such as Cher Lloyd and Justin Bieber can be seen as "entertainment", but what they don't do is give people something new and interesting like art does.

rcaz

TAlderson wrote: »

See, I think you've got it backwards. Music is a medium, it's not art in and of itself. Many works of art are made through music, but music is not in and of itself an art form.

No, I reckon you've got it wrong. Sound is the medium, music is the art resulting from humans controlling sound to a musical end. And 'a musical end' isn't defined - whatever kinda sound you want to make with your instrument(s), that's music, and that's art.

TAlderson wrote: »

Even as a classically trained musician I have no problem with Cher Lloyd, Justin Bieber, Jedward, et al., because they're part of a long line of entertainers. They don't need to be deep or meaningful, they just need to be fun. Pop, early rock n roll, trad, blues, showbands, all of it is music to dance and socialize to, and it's great. Honestly, most of the time people try to make it into "art" it sucks (think of all the excesses of hard rock and prog as it got "artsier").

Even as a classically trained musician, you haven't realised that assuming music has to stick to its original intentions is destroying so much of the music's spirit and excitement? As soon as you decide X was just made to 'dance and socialize to', you've cut down what that music can do. If you close your mind you're going to miss something.

People don't every try to 'make it into art', as soon as they try to make anything at all, they're making art.

How about all the painters who did classical portraits and still life paintings throughout the centuries, they were painting in a popular style, to please other people, get paid and live a nice life. Yet that's all 'fine art', hung in the biggest galleries all over the world, praised by experts. Hell, what about J. S. Bach, who was writing formulaic contrapuntal music for Church every week, getting paid and living it up? His style of music was hugely popular, and he was very good at it, but he never pushed envelopes or invented anything. He was ****ing GREAT and putting a fugue together, the same way Beyoncé is ****ing GREAT and belting out a great pop tune. Yet Bach is high art music and Beyoncé isn't art at all?

TAlderson wrote: »

Now, sometimes one of these fun songs can really speak to a wide swath of people and be considered "art," but I don't think music should have the burden of having to be art every time someone opens their mouth to sing.

-Tyler

'Being art' isn't a burden, it's inherent of being music, like it or not. When I go to see an orchestra play the Rite of Spring, I'm going to see art the say way I'm going to see art when I go to hear a DJ play a Jungle set.

As a classically-trained musician, I'm surprised you haven't learned enough about music to open your mind a bit more.

SilverScreen

I think the best way to think of music is as a creative outlet, and being a creative outlet would you not consider it a form of art?

notnumber

rcaz wrote: »

How about all the painters who did classical portraits and still life paintings throughout the centuries, they were painting in a popular style, to please other people, get paid and live a nice life. Yet that's all 'fine art', hung in the biggest galleries all over the world, praised by experts. Hell, what about J. S. Bach, who was writing formulaic contrapuntal music for Church every week, getting paid and living it up? His style of music was hugely popular, and he was very good at it, but he never pushed envelopes or invented anything. He was ****ing GREAT and putting a fugue together, the same way Beyoncé is ****ing GREAT and belting out a great pop tune. Yet Bach is high art music and Beyoncé isn't art at all?

Good points but the key point they where not recognised as being great in their day..the passage of time has deemed it art.
Who knows what people 200 years will extract from 2012 and hold it in high esteem..most likely some band that very few have heard..like the way cult films get more popular over the years.
Real art has to some enduring quality that makes it timeless and 95% of music released in the modern era is completely forgotten by the following year.

TAlderson

rcaz wrote: »

How about all the painters who did classical portraits and still life paintings throughout the centuries, they were painting in a popular style, to please other people, get paid and live a nice life. Yet that's all 'fine art', hung in the biggest galleries all over the world, praised by experts. Hell, what about J. S. Bach, who was writing formulaic contrapuntal music for Church every week, getting paid and living it up? His style of music was hugely popular, and he was very good at it, but he never pushed envelopes or invented anything. He was ****ing GREAT and putting a fugue together, the same way Beyoncé is ****ing GREAT and belting out a great pop tune. Yet Bach is high art music and Beyoncé isn't art at all?

rcaz wrote: »

As a classically-trained musician, I'm surprised you haven't learned enough about music to open your mind a bit more.

This is a thread about unpopular music opinions, I gave mine. Obviously it's somewhat unpopular (which is good, otherwise it'd be off-topic), and I'll grant that you have a completely valid opinion, though it differs from mine. I hope you don't think I'm closed-minded or ignorant because of our differing opinion...

That said, I think one issue many might have with my statement is that the words "art" vs "entertainment" have different connotations: "art" is seen as "good" or "intelligent," "entertainment" is thought of as vapid. That's why we call someone like Justin Bieber an "artist," because to call him an "entertainer" would seem to be derogatory towards what he does. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't be ashamed to call music "entertainment"- it's just as valid as "art." Some of Bach's music is transcendent, some of it is very definitely "formulaic contrapuntal music." I'm not a big Beyoncé fan, but I'm sure some of her songs are quite brilliant, and others not so much. I'd find it absurd to say that all Bach is "high art" and all Beyoncé isn't; I think the closed-minded people you're looking for are those who actually do think that way.

Now, this might sound like stupid semantics, but I think when we start putting music on a pedestal as high art we start to distance it from the vast majority of people, who think "I'm not an artist, therefore I'm not a musician." Before the advent of recording technology, the only music you could hear was music either you or someone else within earshot could play. I love recordings, but they've created a situation where people can exclusively listen passively to music without getting involved, or even being anywhere near the actual music-making process. Recordings also make people think that unless they or others are up to par with the professional musicians, they shouldn't bother. Look on Youtube and you'll find a lot of teenage girls singing their favorite songs. You'll also find comments *****ing down their throats for not being the best singers. This is toxic, and it is detrimental to music as a whole (and to the music industry, which my own fortunes are tied to). While I'm not a huge fan of the music on reality singing shows, I am glad that they promote the idea that anyone can sing and maybe even get heard (that might be another unpopular music opinion right there).

Anyway, I've written much too much about this; for the record, I think Gary Glitter should get a bit more airplay than just "Rock and Roll Parts 1 and 2," but I hope never to hear "Another Rock and Roll Christmas" again. Also, molesting children is bad. I hope THAT's not an unpopular opinion.

-Tyler

old hippy

rcaz wrote: »

What's your point?

4'33" is made up of all the sound that you hear while the performer isn't playing anything.

You said music is art made with sound. Is that piece music (in the traditional sense) or just sound? Depends on what the individual thinks, I suppose...

rcaz

old hippy wrote: »

You said music is art made with sound. Is that piece music (in the traditional sense) or just sound? Depends on what the individual thinks, I suppose...

Obviously it's not music in the traditional sense, but I don't think John Cage ever did anything in the traditional sense.

For what it's worth, I prefer to think of 4'33" as a kind of philosophical statement above a piece of music. But according to John Cage's philosophy, it's a piece of music like every other. And I'm totally cool with that.

The first few minutes of this explains his thinking on this kinda stuff better than anyone else ever will...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aYT1Pwp30M

John Cage wrote:

"You mean it's just sounds??", thinking, for something to just be a sound is to be useless, whereas I love sounds just as they are, and I have no need for them to be anything more than what they are...

Ulveren

I don't really like the Doors.

Mozart is ok, Beethoven is brilliant, but Debussy, Stravinsky, Varese and Bartok are the best composers.

I think this year's music is better than the last 5 years put together.

Radiohead's later period is better than the band's early '90's output.

Ian Dury is underrated.

Mister Jingles

As much as I like Dire Straits I don't think Mark Knopfler is a great singer, I'd imagine he's not meant to be though.

George Harrison is by far my favorite Beatle. His solo career was fantastic.

A-ha are an amazing band, I would consider them one of the top ten bands from the 80's.

Jeff Lynne is a musical genius.

Think I've said this before but I'll say it again, David Bowie can't sing for **** live, with the exception of the FM tribute concert in 92.

Bob Marley is a bit over-ratted these days.

Robbie Williams is actually not a bad singer, not as good a Gary Barlow but he's no.2 in terms of Take That.

As much of a die hard fan I am of Queen I think they (Brian & Roger) should either do another tour with Paul Rodgers or call it a day.

Thin Lizzy are okay, I only like a few of their songs, hearing a lot of them in the media the past few months for some reason.

Bobby Kimble from Toto has one of the best live performances voices ever.

Tom Jones is the man.

I could go on all day but I'll finish on this.....

Good music in the past 5 or so years has only come in drips a drabs, I will admit though that it is slowly picking up, finger crossed it stays like that.

TAlderson

Mister Jingles wrote: »

As much as I like Dire Straits I don't think Mark Knopfler is a great singer, I'd imagine he's not meant to be though.

Yeah, he's one of those guys who has more "soul" or whatever in his voice than actual singing ability. But I think he's an underrated songwriter; you don't hear him in the same group as the big ones, but he's got some well-written songs out there.

Mister Jingles wrote: »

George Harrison is by far my favorite Beatle. His solo career was fantastic.

Same. Didn't lapse into weirdness (Lennon), saccharine pop (McCartney), or novelty (Ringo). Just really kept going from where he had left off as a Beatle.

Mister Jingles wrote: »

Bob Marley is a bit over-ratted these days.

The problem is that his music has been co-opted by the potheads and white wannabe rastafarians. They tend to play just his peace and love stuff and skip over the more revolutionary music he made. Anyway, Peter Tosh is the better Wailer if you ask me.

Mister Jingles wrote: »

As much of a die hard fan I am of Queen I think they (Brian & Roger) should either do another tour with Paul Rodgers or call it a day.

I think they should call it a day. Queen without Freddy Mercury is not Queen, even if Paul Rodgers is a great singer (which he is). Would the Stones tour without Mick, or the Who without Daltry? Of course not. Mercury is a better singer than either of those guys; you can't replace him with anyone.

-Tyler