Music R.I.P

DarkJager

leahyl wrote: »

People are getting so snobby about music nowadays - if you don't write your own music or play an instrument then you're not a credible artist (not directed at you! Just in general!)

Anybody that creates their own music (by instrument or production software) is a credible artist. Being a glorified ****ing karaoke singer is not.

leahyl

DarkJager wrote: »

leahyl wrote: »

People are getting so snobby about music nowadays - if you don't write your own music or play an instrument then you're not a credible artist (not directed at you! Just in general!)

Anybody that creates their own music (by instrument or production software) is a credible artist. Being a glorified ****ing karaoke singer is not.

Your opinion, so anybody who doesn't write their own music but is a successful and talented artist (has a fantastic voice, stage presence etc) is just a glorified karaoke singer?? Jesus Christ.

Why do you even need to think about who wrote it? If it's a good song who gives a s**t?? I just don't get why people rubbish music if it hasn't been written by the artist themselves.

Logical Fallacy

leahyl wrote: »

Your opinion, so anybody who doesn't write their own music but is a successful and talented artist (has a fantastic voice, stage presence etc) is just a glorified karaoke singer?? Jesus Christ.

Why do you even need to think about who wrote it? If it's a good song who gives a s**t?? I just don't get why people rubbish music if it hasn't been written by the artist themselves.

A lot of people have an issue with the idea that the record label and the artist will do everything in their power to imply that the song has a great and deep meaning to them, when in fact they just reckoned it will sell so they bought the rights and recorded it.

The funny thing is that it happens a lot more than people think. P-Diddy (or whatever he is calling himself now) had a monumental hit with a song about his best friend and fellow G Biggie Smalls. He didn't even write the ****ing thing, yet he stood on every stage that would have it at the time and talked about how the next song was about his fallen fellow rapper.

It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouth sometimes.

Personally i don't give a ****, I'm a producer and a song is a song, I'm capable of differentiating between the writing and the performance...but even i get annoyed when people try and imply something that simply isn't true.

I like a good connection between the genesis of the tune and it's final incarnation on stage. I grew up on rock and metal, reading stories about the inspirations and events behind songs, the time spend in rehearsal space writing them and the studio recording them. The labour of love that people went through...so I guess that is why i generally dislike fake sentiment...which is pretty much what pop music is.

Hell, right now my main sphere of interest and activity is predominantly electronic dance music and I firmly believe you get more honest human emotion there than you do in pop.

seamus wrote: »

Surprised no-one's posted this yet:
http://c.cslacker.com/9599l.jpg

As far as pop-muck goes, there could be and have been a lot worse ****e than one direction. Like the backstreet boys. Or N'sync.

Apparently there is some Harry Potter "fan fiction" out there where the two ginger twins have a threesome with one of the lads from N'Sync.

Just to throw a monkey wrench made of feces into this thread.

GarIT

DarkJager wrote: »

I've heard an orgy of cats that sound better than wrong direction.

That is your opinion and that fine just don't listen to them, that doesn't mean they are bad at what they do.

leahyl

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

leahyl wrote: »

A lot of people have an issue with the idea that the record label and the artist will do everything in their power to imply that the song has a great and deep meaning to them, when in fact they just reckoned it will sell so they bought the rights and recorded it.

The funny thing is that it happens a lot more than people think. P-Diddy (or whatever he is calling himself now) had a monumental hit with a song about his best friend and fellow G Biggie Smalls. He didn't even write the ****ing thing, yet he stood on every stage that would have it at the time and talked about how the next song was about his fallen fellow rapper.

It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouth sometimes.

Personally i don't give a ****, I'm a producer and a song is a song, I'm capable of differentiating between the writing and the performance...but even i get annoyed when people try and imply something that simply isn't .

I totally get that logical fallacy and that would annoy me too (claiming the song when you didn't write it etc) but the majority of artists don't do this (Diddy is a D**k head anyway!). The way I see it is One Direction are 5 young guys who just happen to be likeable (IMO) and have very catchy songs. They aren't doing any harm to anyone and I just think it's great that they are doing so well. They aren't talking about their emotional connection to the songs or claiming they wrote them (cos they obv didnt) so what's the problem?

bnt

DarkJager wrote: »

Anybody that creates their own music (by instrument or production software) is a credible artist. Being a glorified ****ing karaoke singer is not.

leahyl wrote: »

Your opinion, so anybody who doesn't write their own music but is a successful and talented artist (has a fantastic voice, stage presence etc) is just a glorified karaoke singer?? Jesus Christ.

There's no need to put artificial limits on what makes someone a creative musician or not. You know it when you hear it, and I don't hear it on the charts today. There's room for skilled singers to make songs their own, to do more creatively than mere karaoke. And no, warbling up and down the octaves, like Britney, Mariah or Christina, is not "creative".

More history: before the mid-1960s it was rare for singers to write their own songs; you had the likes of Buddy Holly, Elvis and the Beatles, but that was about it. Instead, you had professional songwriters writing for others. Barbara Streisand doesn't play an instrument, and hardly wrote a lyric in her life, but she became famous for her voice as an interpreter of others' songs -and that was not a problem at the time she was working. Some of those songwriters did make it as artists in their own, such as Neil Sedaka and (most famously) Carole King, whose 1971 album Tapestry has sold over 25 million copies and kick-started the era of the "singer-songwriter".

They should teach this stuff in school. It's got to be more interesting and useful than "media studies".

Eric Cartman

Same was said about spice girls, backstreet boys etc... The chart is no reflection of whats a good track. Charts are just a guide for the intellectually inferior todecide what they like.

Listeb to whatever you like and ignore what billboard etc... Says

Logical Fallacy

leahyl wrote: »

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I totally get that logical fallacy and that would annoy me too (claiming the song when you didn't write it etc) but the majority of artists don't do this (Diddy is a D**k head anyway!). The way I see it is One Direction are 5 young guys who just happen to be likeable (IMO) and have very catchy songs. They aren't doing any harm to anyone and I just think it's great that they are doing so well. They aren't talking about their emotional connection to the songs or claiming they wrote them (cos they obv didnt) so what's the problem?

The problem is that some people, me included, will think it's ****. And we'll say it's **** because we are not really harming anyone by simply expressing out opinion.

Hell, i listen to loads of music that plenty of people would think is **** but I wouldn't worry about it. Ever.

No point.

Casillas

Music isn't dead, you just gotta know where to look;

http://www.wwoz.org/listen/player/

karaokeman

Least we will always have Jimmy MacCarthy;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbO8nBejEWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ8uocZXUPY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAsxQI5aZ-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiqSK2y-0ro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qr5DxH03EE

l.m

Music isn't dead, but unfortunately the charts let down the music being made nowadays, besides the charts are basically dominated by what teenage girls like, and think about it One Direction would never have made it big if they weren't good looking!

minidazzler

Beans on Toast sums it up pretty well, and yes, he is very very high in that video.

The poets and musicians will still be singing songs,
we don't needs as much money as Elton John.

flanders1979

Sometimes I think I will just give up and start listening to country music.

Acacia

I'm aware myself recently of sounding like an auld wan complaining about what the young folks are into but it really does seem like it's gotten worse. Like back in the 90's sure you had manufactured crap like the Spice Girls but you also had somewhat decent stuff mixed in with it ( even if it was just Blur/Oasis soft rock, at least it had some sort of soul). I just hate how now any song, even something as woeful Little Mix, can get to the top of the charts or pretty near it anyway just by having been on the X-Factor.

It makes me a sad panda.

cassElliot

its not music thats the problem - its society's greed. mass production for quick profit. you have to search out good bands, they are there, but if you dont look you'll be under the impression that music is ****e for the rest of your life.

also alt country is amayonnasing! old crow medicine show! they are whopper.

:pac:

Eric Cartman

Acacia wrote: »

I'm aware myself recently of sounding like an auld wan complaining about what the young folks are into but it really does seem like it's gotten worse. Like back in the 90's sure you had manufactured crap like the Spice Girls but you also had somewhat decent stuff mixed in with it ( even if it was just Blur/Oasis soft rock, at least it had some sort of soul). I just hate how now any song, even something as woeful Little Mix, can get to the top of the charts or pretty near it anyway just by having been on the X-Factor.

It makes me a sad panda.

it what proves the charts are invalid. Theres lots of great music out there, and its easier to get to than ever, once you ignore all the chart x factor / florence and her dildo / indie / hipster bullshít then theres pleanty of great music out there.

Youtube has given rise to a lot of new hip-hop acts, and genres like dubstep and drum & bass, your getting a lot better dance music now as software has got better and more accessible, small metal bands from the states can now be heard anywhere. Theres never been an easier way to ignore shít music and turn on something good.

Napper Hawkins

Listen to meshuggah. If they are too much for you then your musical tastes are as lame and as mainstream as a one direction fan.

The best and only good thing about foo fighters is that Dave grohl is sound.

Yes, this is musical snobbery in action.

No, I don't give a toss.

Acacia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

it what proves the charts are invalid. Theres lots of great music out there, and its easier to get to than ever, once you ignore all the chart x factor / florence and her dildo / indie / hipster bullshít then theres pleanty of great music out there.

Youtube has given rise to a lot of new hip-hop acts, and genres like dubstep and drum & bass, your getting a lot better dance music now as software has got better and more accessible, small metal bands from the states can now be heard anywhere. Theres never been an easier way to ignore shít music and turn on something good.

Oh yeah I agree, I just meant that it seems like there was a time even when I was young teenager (only about ten years ago ) when even the mainstream/chart didn't seem quite as manufactured and sh1t as it does now. I thought the likes of Pop Idol ( the X Factor in it's infancy) would show up pop as the generic, factory-produced sh1te it was and turn people off it, but no, it seems to have spurred the whole thing on.

Having said that, not to sound like a ponce, but I gave up on mainstream music a long time ago anyway so it doesn't bother me too much.

Eric Cartman

Acacia wrote: »

Oh yeah I agree, I just meant that it seems like there was a time even when I was young teenager (only about ten years ago ) when even the mainstream/chart didn't seem quite as manufactured and sh1t as it does now. I thought the likes of Pop Idol ( the X Factor in it's infancy) would show up pop as the generic, factory-produced sh1te it was and turn people off it, but no, it seems to have spurred the whole thing on.

Having said that, not to sound like a ponce, but I gave up on mainstream music a long time ago anyway so it doesn't bother me too much.

I know what you mean, Biggie Smalls - Hypnotize got to number 1 on the billboard 100 in the 90s , if anything halfway decent and original even got to number 20 these days id be amazed

Irish Guitarist

I've never understood why anyone pays any attention to the charts. So a load of people went out and bought/downloaded a song you don't like. Why do you care?

Mister Blobby went to number one in the nineties and Bob The Builder had a number one in 2000. By your logic this should have ended music back then.

And what's all this nonsense people come out with about the eighties and nineties being a great time for music? Is everyone forgetting how Stock, Aitken and Waterman virtually took over the British charts in the late eighties? Or that Jive Bunny could go to number one by haphazardly throwing a bunch of fifties and sixties songs together?

The only real difference between music now and music from twenty years ago is that technology has made it easier for producers to make music sound 'perfect'. Back in the late eighties Stock, Aitken and Waterman used loads of reverb and other effects on Kylie Minogues voice, now producers have Autotune.

Buy an issue of The Word or Uncut magazine. They both come with CDs of music from albums that have been released that month. Usually they have at least a couple of good songs. Occasionally they have one or two great songs.

Eric Cartman

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I've never understood why anyone pays any attention to the charts. So a load of people went out and bought/downloaded a song you don't like. Why do you care?

Mister Blobby went to number one in the nineties and Bob The Builder had a number one in 2000. By your logic this should have ended music back then.

And what's all this nonsense people come out with about the eighties and nineties being a great time for music? Is everyone forgetting how Stock, Aitken and Waterman virtually took over the British charts in the late eighties? Or that Jive Bunny could go to number one by haphazardly throwing a bunch of fifties and sixties songs together?

The only real difference between music now and music from twenty years ago is that technology has made it easier for producers to make music sound 'perfect'. Back in the late eighties Stock, Aitken and Waterman used loads of reverb and other effects on Kylie Minogues voice, now producers have Autotune.

Buy an issue of The Word or Uncut magazine. They both come with CDs of music from albums that have been released that month. Usually they have at least a couple of good songs. Occasionally they have one or two great songs.

i think youll find thats just the fashionable hipster thing of loving the 80s despite being born in the 90s. The 80s was a very mixed bag for music and by no means a memorable decade for it.

Cybercubed

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

And what's all this nonsense people come out with about the eighties and nineties being a great time for music? Is everyone forgetting how Stock, Aitken and Waterman virtually took over the British charts in the late eighties? Or that Jive Bunny could go to number one by haphazardly throwing a bunch of fifties and sixties songs together?

No one is denying that crap came from the 80s and 90s. The difference being is that with the crap, there was a lot of fantastic music and songs about the place, in the charts etc. Legendary all time selling songs, bohemian rhapsody etc.

To prove my point in the UK (don't know about Ireland but would like to know) there is only about 3 songs in the top 50 all time best selling singles from 2000 onwards. Given that the population is much bigger, and people have more money, music sales should be much better, at least equal, but they're not.

Irish Guitarist

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i think youll find thats just the fashionable hipster thing of loving the 80s despite being born in the 90s. The 80s was a very mixed bag for music and by no means a memorable decade for it.

I was born in 1976 so I would have been twelve years old in 1988. That was the year the charts were filled with Bros, Kylie Minogue and Jason Donovan. Despite the fact I was a boy I loved this type of music, or at least some of it, back then.

I suspect if I was a teenager now I'd be listening to chart music that I'd hate in twenty years time.

Cybercubed

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i think youll find thats just the fashionable hipster thing of loving the 80s despite being born in the 90s. The 80s was a very mixed bag for music and by no means a memorable decade for it.

In your opinion, a lot of people disagree. The 80s has been consistantly voted across all forums, online polls, surveys etc as one of the best decades ever, if not the best.

digitalspy ran a recent poll, for example in its music forum which I contributed to - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1467039

Its typical of what I see.

Irish Guitarist

Cybercubed wrote: »

No one is denying that crap came from the 80s and 90s. The difference being is that with the crap, there was a lot of fantastic music and songs about the place, in the charts etc. Legendary all time selling songs, bohemian rhapsody etc.

To prove my point in the UK (don't know about Ireland but would like to know) there is only about 3 songs in the top 50 all time best selling singles from 2000 onwards. Given that the population is much bigger, and people have more money, music sales should be much better, at least equal, but they're not.

Bohemian Rhapsody was originally released in 1975.

Cybercubed

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Bohemian Rhapsody was originally released in 1975.

I know it was. I was pointing out that people who say it's invalid to make a claim that modern music hasn't declined somewhat have to understand that all the best selling songs/music are virtually all from the 20th century.

Eric Cartman

Cybercubed wrote: »

In your opinion, a lot of people disagree. The 80s has been consistantly voted across all forums, online polls, surveys etc as one of the best decades ever, if not the best.

digitalspy ran a recent poll, for example in its music forum which I contributed to - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1467039

Its typical of what I see.

ok and how many people born in the 50s or 60s are users of forums and the internet for that sort of thing, not many , the problem is your dealing with people who were born mostly in the 90s and 80s contributing to results like that and especially considering everyone born in the 90s has a weird obsession with the 80s and the fact that 60s/70s music hasnt been in fashion for a long time now , that the polls would be skewed somewhat

Endless Nameless

music was never good

EdenHazard

music isnt dead heard it on the radio

Latchy

Endless Nameless wrote: »

music was never good

That Jack the Ripper was a bad un to ...