Whats the point of music snobbery?

karaokeman

Technocentral wrote: »

The Brits are about as culturally significant as Coldplay ie; not at all.

You'd be surprised how relevant Coldplay will still be to music in 20 years from now.

They shift millions more albums than the vast majority of British bands and bands in general today. Only thing about Coldplay is they stand out among all the music that's on the radio nowadays. They are actually very talented unlike much of the rubbish that's mainstream now.

Think that point was made clear before that all the autotuned stars will fade after a while. But you can be sure Coldplay will still be renowned.

glord

Coldplay are diet radiohead.Making radiohead sound more radio friendly.Coldplay are imitators,not originators

Kold

glord wrote: »

Coldplay are diet radiohead.Making radiohead sound more radio friendly.Coldplay are imitators,not originators

No they're not. Coldplay are nothing like Radiohead.

Technocentral

Kold wrote: »

No they're not. Coldplay are nothing like Radiohead.

I could never understand that comparison either, they are more like Phil Collins or Foreigner, middle of the road and boring.

glord

exactly tecnocentral.Coldplay always claim that theyre hugely influenced by radiohead.But theyre just too boring and uninventive to compare them too.They are in the alternative window but just about really.Chris Martin even said they would love to be ABLE to make an album like OK Computer but theyre not and thats just it.

Radiohead have changed since their first albums,theyve mixed electronica,changed time signatures,dabbled in jazz.They are there own genre really.They have way more substance.Thom yorke aint a showman neither .

Yellow is ok though .

rcaz

glord wrote: »

Coldplay are imitators,not originators

Radiohead aren't exactly originators either. They take lots of different styles and mix them together well. I think the reason it works so well for them is their songwriting, they take all these somewhat disparate influences (let's say things like Autechre, CAN, Television, Miles Davis, Gyorgi Ligeti and Krzysztof Penderecki) and tie them all together with fantastic songwriting. And their production, a Radiohead record always sounds PERFECT.

Radiohead didn't invent anything, but they do what they do excellently.

glord

Well .They are at least responsible for bringing in such influeces in rock.Maybe im totally wrong but i never heard many rock bands before them write songs in 5/4(based on Brubecks Take Five) and 7/8.

Radiohead were in the beginning probably only really influenced by The Smiths and some punk bands but they have grown and went their own way .We really cant say they imitated anyone in particular ,can we?They may not be originators but then neither is Miles Davis then.we would have to go back to Bach or something.Theyre definitely innovators though.

rcaz

glord wrote: »

Well .They are at least responsible for bringing in such influeces in rock.Maybe im totally wrong but i never heard many rock bands before them write songs in 5/4(based on Brubecks Take Five) and 7/8.

Radiohead were in the beginning probably only really influenced by The Smiths and some punk bands but they have grown and went their own way .We really cant say they imitated anyone in particular ,can we?They may not be originators but then neither is Miles Davis then.we would have to go back to Bach or something.Theyre definitely innovators though.

Bach didn't invent anything, he just did stuff really well and a ****ing LOT of it. The amount of music he wrote, no wonder his **** was so tight :pac:

Check out CAN, they were a huge influence on Radiohead. In particular they played in a good few different time signatures. What stuff did Radiohead base on Take Five?

Miles Davis was pretty original right? Was there much stuff like In A Silent Way or Bitches Brew before he came along?

Oasis_Dublin

Technocentral wrote: »

I could never understand that comparison either, they are more like Phil Collins or Foreigner, middle of the road and boring.

Listen to Bulletproof... I Wish I Was by Radiohead and then High Speed by Coldplay. Very similar; undoubtedly the former influenced the latter.

Nowadays, they cannot be said to be similar but the first two Coldplay albums definitely had moments influenced by Radiohead, of The Bends/OK Computer era.

Sinfonia

karaokeman wrote: »

You'd be surprised how relevant Coldplay will still be to music in 20 years from now.

They shift millions more albums than the vast majority of British bands and bands in general today. Only thing about Coldplay is they stand out among all the music that's on the radio nowadays. They are actually very talented unlike much of the rubbish that's mainstream now.

Think that point was made clear before that all the autotuned stars will fade after a while. But you can be sure Coldplay will still be renowned.

Popularity does not equal relevance.

ntlbell

glord wrote: »

Coldplay are diet radiohead.Making radiohead sound more radio friendly.Coldplay are imitators,not originators

A bit of digging would show radiohead do plenty of imitating themelves.

Others might call it been "inspired by"

Everyones balls sweat at some point.

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

Popularity does not equal relevance.

Please clarify this.

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Please clarify this.

Just because a lot of people like something, it doesn't mean that thing has made a significant contribution to its field. I'll assume that describing Coldplay as 'relevant to music' refers to either the art form or the entertainment industry, and as popular as they are, I don't think that they've contributed anything to either that has been particularly novel or influential.
In short, I'm saying I believe that if Coldplay had not formed or been successful, the landscape of neither music as an art form nor the entertainment industry would be any different.
They may have solid, well-written songs (I particularly like the first album), and they may be very popular, but I don't think they're very 'relevant to music' now, or ever will be, based on their output to date.

While it's been pointed out that Radiohead are not as innovative as many people seem to think, their output is still very relevant, because while each element of their music has been explored previously, the manner in which they combine those elements and package them within the framework of popular song structures is quite novel and influential.

Similarly, rcaz pointed out that Bach didn't invent anything, which isn't strictly true. He may not have invented new styles and genres, but his compositional style was still more exploratory and original than the mass of Baroque-era composers who constantly churned out practically the same works over and over for the sake of function. And while he was incredibly prolific, I don't think it was a case of 'throw enough **** at the wall, and some of it's bound to stick'.

I don't think Coldplay can claim the same, and in 20 years' time, their 'relevance' should most likely be overshadowed by that of the artists that they have taken great influence from (U2 being the most obvious example).

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

Just because a lot of people like something, it doesn't mean that thing has made a significant contribution to its field. I'll assume that describing Coldplay as 'relevant to music' refers to either the art form or the entertainment industry, and as popular as they are, I don't think that they've contributed anything to either that has been particularly novel or influential.
In short, I'm saying I believe that if Coldplay had not formed or been successful, the landscape of neither music as an art form nor the entertainment industry would be any different.
They may have solid, well-written songs (I particularly like the first album), and they may be very popular, but I don't think they're very 'relevant to music' now, or ever will be, based on their output to date.

While it's been pointed out that Radiohead are not as innovative as many people seem to think, their output is still very relevant, because while each element of their music has been explored previously, the manner in which they combine those elements and package them within the framework of popular song structures is quite novel and influential.

Similarly, rcaz pointed out that Bach didn't invent anything, which isn't strictly true. He may not have invented new styles and genres, but his compositional style was still more exploratory and original than the mass of Baroque-era composers who constantly churned out practically the same works over and over for the sake of function. And while he was incredibly prolific, I don't think it was a case of 'throw enough **** at the wall, and some of it's bound to stick'.

I don't think Coldplay can claim the same, and in 20 years' time, their 'relevance' should most likely be overshadowed by that of the artists that they have taken great influence from (U2 being the most obvious example).

Do you mean the field of popular music? Or music in general? Or to music in the 2010s?

Other than that, plenty of unoriginal bands come out and are popular. Are there more like to be bands looking to Paradise by Coldplay in twenty years or Feral by Radiohead? I'd assume the former.

Novel or influential? I won't say what I actually think of that as a point of reference, but music is a personal thing. There will be as many people influenced by simplistic Oasis, or manufactured Coldplay, as there will be by brave, novel and not-in-any-way-pretentious Radiohead IMHO.

karaokeman

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Listen to Bulletproof... I Wish I Was by Radiohead and then High Speed by Coldplay. Very similar; undoubtedly the former influenced the latter.

Wow someone other than myself has listened beyond Coldplay's singles I'm impressed.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

There will be as many people influenced by simplistic Oasis, or manufactured Coldplay

I need clarification too. How are Coldplay manufactured?

Android 666

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Do you mean the field of popular music? Or music in general? Or to music in the 2010s?

Other than that, plenty of unoriginal bands come out and are popular. Are there more like to be bands looking to Paradise by Coldplay in twenty years or Feral by Radiohead? I'd assume the former.

So you frame the question by asking to choose between one band's big single and another's more obtuse moments, disregarding the rest of each band's output, as an indicator how influential these bands will be in the future. What about OK Computer, Kid A, The Bends, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows versus Parachutes, A Rush of Blood to the Head and X an Y? Coldplay are like Simple Minds imo. Huge in their day but their influence beyond that has been negligible.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Novel or influential? I won't say what I actually think of that as a point of reference, but music is a personal thing. There will be as many people influenced by simplistic Oasis, or manufactured Coldplay, as there will be by brave, novel and not-in-any-way-pretentious Radiohead IMHO.

I think people will continue to be influenced for many a year by Oasis and Radiohead, beyond the affected sentimentality we see at present in bands like the Coronas, Coldplay's influence will dissipate. I reckon someone like Muse will have more of a lasting influence than Coldplay, our generation's Midge Ure fronted Ultravox.

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Do you mean the field of popular music? Or music in general? Or to music in the 2010s?

Other than that, plenty of unoriginal bands come out and are popular. Are there more like to be bands looking to Paradise by Coldplay in twenty years or Feral by Radiohead? I'd assume the former.

Novel or influential? I won't say what I actually think of that as a point of reference, but music is a personal thing. There will be as many people influenced by simplistic Oasis, or manufactured Coldplay, as there will be by brave, novel and not-in-any-way-pretentious Radiohead IMHO.

It's a very convenient argument to cherry-pick songs, we're talking about the influence of a band, so their entire body of work is a significant factor.

Why won't you say what you actually think of that as a point of reference?
Anyway, there is more to music or any art form than subjective assessment, particularly in relation to aesthetics.

My point about Oasis and Coldplay versus Radiohead is that if you're going to be influenced by Coldplay, you're effectively being influenced by other bands, most prominently U2, and in recent times, Arcade Fire for example. If you're going to be influenced by Oasis, you're effectively being influenced by T-Rex et al. And, as I already effectively explained, while you could say similar for Radiohead, the manner in which they have combined influences and crafted their songs around them, they have yet brought something to the table beyond that.
In other words, Radiohead aren't merely the sum of their parts.

Oasis_Dublin

Android 666 wrote: »

So you frame the question by asking to choose between one band's big single and another's more obtuse moments, disregarding the rest of each band's output, as an indicator how influential these bands will be in the future. What about OK Computer, Kid A, The Bends, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows versus Parachutes, A Rush of Blood to the Head and X an Y? Coldplay are like Simple Minds imo. Huge in their day but their influence beyond that has been negligible.



I think people will continue to be influenced for many a year by Oasis and Radiohead, beyond the affected sentimentality we see at present in bands like the Coronas, Coldplay's influence will dissipate. I reckon someone like Muse will have more of a lasting influence than Coldplay, our generation's Midge Ure fronted Ultravox.

I intentionally chose an obscure song to make my point. People argue that Radiohead are more influential than Coldplay or Oasis because they like to think that they are. Realistically, Radiohead influenced Coldplay and Coldplay have surpassed Radiohead in popularity. In fifty years time people will remember Creep and not any of this supposedly brave and influential nonsense that Radiohead have been releasing of late.

Saying that Muse will be remembered more is a guess, and you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Mindkiller

Surely it's their more insipid, early stuff that'll vanish into obscurity, and not the 'brave' stuff? I don't follow that at all. Even now, no-one really talks much about Pablo Honey. At least, I don't think they do, right?

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

It's a very convenient argument to cherry-pick songs, we're talking about the influence of a band, so their entire body of work is a significant factor.

Why won't you say what you actually think of that as a point of reference?
Anyway, there is more to music or any art form than subjective assessment, particularly in relation to aesthetics.

My point about Oasis and Coldplay versus Radiohead is that if you're going to be influenced by Coldplay, you're effectively being influenced by other bands, most prominently U2, and in recent times, Arcade Fire for example. If you're going to be influenced by Oasis, you're effectively being influenced by T-Rex et al. And, as I already effectively explained, while you could say similar for Radiohead, the manner in which they have combined influences and crafted their songs around them, they have yet brought something to the table beyond that.
In other words, Radiohead aren't merely the sum of their parts.

See my other reply, which more or less addresses your opening point here.

Well no, Oasis have sold more records since T-Rex. Oasis have influenced more bands than T-Rex. Oasis have toured further than T-Rex. So no, I'm not saying The Libertines, as an example, were influenced by T-Rex.

No influential band are merely the sum of their parts.

ntlbell

Sinfonia wrote: »

It's a very convenient argument to cherry-pick songs, we're talking about the influence of a band, so their entire body of work is a significant factor.

Why won't you say what you actually think of that as a point of reference?
Anyway, there is more to music or any art form than subjective assessment, particularly in relation to aesthetics.

My point about Oasis and Coldplay versus Radiohead is that if you're going to be influenced by Coldplay, you're effectively being influenced by other bands, most prominently U2, and in recent times, Arcade Fire for example. If you're going to be influenced by Oasis, you're effectively being influenced by T-Rex et al. And, as I already effectively explained, while you could say similar for Radiohead, the manner in which they have combined influences and crafted their songs around them, they have yet brought something to the table beyond that.
In other words, Radiohead aren't merely the sum of their parts.

So radiohead are better at being unoriginal than other unoriginal bands?

Deep.

Kold

ntlbell wrote: »

So radiohead are better at being unoriginal than other unoriginal bands?

Deep.

There's nothing new under the sun. Everyone is influenced by something.

I feel that some people here have no idea what creativity actually is.

Oasis_Dublin

Mindkiller wrote: »

Surely it's their more insipid, early stuff that'll vanish into obscurity, and not the 'brave' stuff? I don't follow that at all. Even now, no-one really talks much about Pablo Honey. At least, I don't think they do, right?

Creep, The Bends and OK Computer. That's what people talk about.

Kid A, up to a point, also. But no one will be listing King of Limbs or Hail to the Thief as the best albums of the last x amount of years in the future. In the same way that Standing on the Shoulder of Giants won't be listed as an influential album. Generally, it's popular albums, which have lastibility, that are influential.

ntlbell

Kold wrote: »

There's nothing new under the sun. Everyone is influenced by something.

I feel that some people here have no idea what creativity actually is.

So why put one band down for being unoriginal an applaud an other for the exact same thing?

Oasis_Dublin

karaokeman wrote: »

Wow someone other than myself has listened beyond Coldplay's singles I'm impressed.

I've been listening to Coldplay (or Starfish, as real fans call them!) since you were in nappies!

Kold

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Creep, The Bends and OK Computer. That's what people talk about.

Kid A, up to a point, also. But no one will be listing King of Limbs or Hail to the Thief as the best albums of the last x amount of years in the future. In the same way that Standing on the Shoulder of Giants won't be listed as an influential album. Generally, it's popular albums, which have lastibility, that are influential.

This is opinion, not fact. You should really point that out because otherwise you end up looking a bit twattish.

Kold

ntlbell wrote: »

So why put one band down for being unoriginal an applaud an other for the exact same thing?

Do you actually think Coldplay and Radiohead do the exact same thing?

Oasis_Dublin

Kold wrote: »

This is opinion, not fact. You should really point that out because otherwise you end up looking a bit twattish.

Please tell me you are being ironic here. The whole "Radiohead are the most original entity which ever existed" brigade are arguing on what they think will happen in the future. That's what this humble Oasis fan might call opinion, not fact.

I'd look to music polls, which consistently place OK Computer and The Bends above Hail to the Thief as my evidence. This whole debate is about opinion and perception though, if one is to read the title.

Jaysus7

Music snobbery, tv snobbery, movie snobbery, food snobbery, wine snobbery, snobbery snobbery......so many kinds of snobbery. In terms of the people/opinions I have experienced, its always been down to their need to elevate themselves and their own lack of self esteem.

ntlbell

Kold wrote: »

Do you actually think Coldplay and Radiohead do the exact same thing?

No.

Where radiohead get plaudits for being "brave" it's blatantly taken from other artists who actually were fairly creative.

Coldplay in general are just a bit bland.

So in real terms does it really matter?

If bands in the future are influenced by coldplay they'll probably be fairly bland too and if it's radiohead they'll be slightly less bland because coldplay decided to copy a more creative band.

deep breath.