Has the mainstream become worse?

karaokeman

Every now and then, a thread pops up here about music in general being rubbish nowadays.

That includes the last thread which made reference to numerous indie stations to refute the argument that modern music in general was bad.

So the last thread got me thinking, we have had a lot of great non-mainstream acts over the last few years with Hot Chip, Bat For Lashes and our own Cashier No. 9.

But is it mainstream music that gets airplay, and makes the charts that has taken a hit, as opposed to modern music in general?

When you look at it The Smiths, New Order, Human League all had mainstream popularity in the 80s and were talented musical outputs, but have we had the same amount of good mainstream music in recent times, or is most great music going underground?

I_p_freely

I think that music across the board has gotten worse. There are some non-mainstream music that is decent, but not great - in my opinion of course. I like new stuff like Beach house, but I don't think that in ten years I will be looking back saying that it is the soundtrack to our generation or anything. There are a lot of bands with a few great songs but are not producing a stream of great albums.

I think there's a lack of creativity - where are the new sounds coming from? Where are all the rock bands gone? All we seem to have now in indie circles are singer songwriters and indie pop. Where are the bands like the Pixies, Sonic Youth, the Smiths and Nirvana?

If we had great underground music it would have no problem breaking through to the mainstream - as we have seen many times in the past. Maybe record companies aren't taking chances due to reduced revenue and that's why none are breaking through. Its very frustrating.


Maybe i'm just becoming an old fart....

Irish Aris

One point would be that there can't be something really new nowadays. The vast majority of artists "recycle" successful formulas. This, of course isn't necessarily bad, there are many good things to come up.
As for mainstream, the problem for me is that everything is happening so fast. An artist has a single out and in a month or so has another single. . .and then another. . .for the big record companies is mostly quantity, not quality.
I still find good music in both mainstream and non mainstream,though it's more likely to be surprised in the non-mainstream area. And to be fair, most of mainstream music information I get either from IRMA or friends that post songs on facebook.

Rothko

I do think that mainstream music is probably the worst it's ever been. However, I think that music in general is as good as it's ever been.

Blisterman

karaokeman wrote: »

Every now and then, a thread pops up here about music in general being rubbish nowadays.

That includes the last thread which made reference to numerous indie stations to refute the argument that modern music in general was bad.

So the last thread got me thinking, we have had a lot of great non-mainstream acts over the last few years with Hot Chip, Bat For Lashes and our own Cashier No. 9.

But is it mainstream music that gets airplay, and makes the charts that has taken a hit, as opposed to modern music in general?

When you look at it The Smiths, New Order, Human League all had mainstream popularity in the 80s and were talented musical outputs, but have we had the same amount of good mainstream music in recent times, or is most great music going underground?

There's a few factors at work here:

Firstly, a person's opinion of "good" music becomes fixed as they get older, while music constantly evolves. For example, if you were a fan of swing music, you'd probably have thought music from the 1950's onwards was rubbish.

Secondly, time tends to erase the majority of bands from popular memory, with only the highlights remaining. The Beatle's first single Love Me Do 50 years ago this month shared the charts with the King Brothers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, Matt Monro, and the Temperance Seven.

Finally, due to the ease of sharing music, the underground is vastly larger now, so it's rarer for individual bands to become hugely popular. When, The Smiths were big, record purchasers would have only had a small number of "indie" records to choose from in their local record store. Now there's literally millions, while the supply of heavily advertised big label artists remains quite small in number, meaning they dominate the charts and mainstream radio.

I_p_freely

Blisterman wrote: »

There's a few factors at work here:

Firstly, a person's opinion of "good" music becomes fixed as they get older, while music constantly evolves. For example, if you were a fan of swing music, you'd probably have thought music from the 1950's onwards was rubbish.

Secondly, time tends to erase the majority of bands from popular memory, with only the highlights remaining. The Beatle's first single Love Me Do 50 years ago this month shared the charts with the King Brothers, Shane Fenton and the Fentones, Matt Monro, and the Temperance Seven.

Finally, due to the ease of sharing music, the underground is vastly larger now, so it's rarer for individual bands to become hugely popular. When, The Smiths were big, record purchasers would have only had a small number of "indie" records to choose from in their local record store. Now there's literally millions, while the supply of heavily advertised big label artists remains quite small in number, meaning they dominate the charts and mainstream radio.

I agree somewhat with what you are saying - I think that music usually evolves but for the last decade it hasn't. Let me give you an example - if I name a few music genre you should be able to identify the time frame they're from. Glam-rock, Punk, Grunge, Brit-pop etc. What new genre have there been in the last 10 years? I believe that music has stalled and maybe its to do with music labels not taking chances.

I do think that there is a huge underground music scene but I don't believe that its as good as people think. If a band is good enough, it will break through. The Arcade Fire did it a decade ago with a great album, Funeral, but then followed it up with a few very average albums. The Shins nearly did it but the album that followed the brilliant 'chutes too narrow' wasn't great. Kings of Leon also have broken out from Indie circles.

I don't believe that the Smiths popularity was somehow enhanced by a lack of competition - they would have broken out no matter what! And there were a load of great indie bands during that period - The Pixies for Christ sake! Echo and the Bunnymen, Jesus and Mary Chain etc etc

There is a lot less variety in the charts now. In the 90s I remember watching MTV and Saturday morning TV and you had plenty of the like of Take that, but also the Beautiful south, Mike and the Mechanics and Greenday, Foo Fighters, RHCP - a lot more variety in the charts back then.

Before you ask, I'm 29.
If you have any great underground bands - feel free to let me know!

Blisterman

I_p_freely wrote: »

I agree somewhat with what you are saying - I think that music usually evolves but for the last decade it hasn't. Let me give you an example - if I name a few music genre you should be able to identify the time frame they're from. Glam-rock, Punk, Grunge, Brit-pop etc. What new genre have there been in the last 10 years? I believe that music has stalled and maybe its to do with music labels not taking chances.

Dubstep, Reggaeton, Crunk, Chillwave. etc.

It's hard to notice music evolving at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, but it's happening. There's millions of people, experimenting, trying new stuff, mixing things together, sharing ideas, right as we speak. The future of music is in somebody's hard drive right now.

I was recently reading the reprinted first issue of the NME from 1952, and the editorial was arguing that music had stopped evolving then!

Sure, MTV aren't playing much of a variety of music these days, but it's no longer how people source their music. Spotify and Youtube have taken its place.

I think your problem is you're applying an outdated criteria to this. Who cares what the record labels are signing? It's no longer relevant. Nor is who's being played on MTV. The biggest shift of the past decade has been from being dictated to by mass media towards individuality, and people cultivating their own music tastes, sifting through the masses to find music they like, sharing it with their friends.

SilverScreen

I_p_freely wrote: »

I agree somewhat with what you are saying - I think that music usually evolves but for the last decade it hasn't. Let me give you an example - if I name a few music genre you should be able to identify the time frame they're from. Glam-rock, Punk, Grunge, Brit-pop etc. What new genre have there been in the last 10 years? I believe that music has stalled and maybe its to do with music labels not taking chances.

I do think that there is a huge underground music scene but I don't believe that its as good as people think. If a band is good enough, it will break through. The Arcade Fire did it a decade ago with a great album, Funeral, but then followed it up with a few very average albums. The Shins nearly did it but the album that followed the brilliant 'chutes too narrow' wasn't great. Kings of Leon also have broken out from Indie circles.

I don't believe that the Smiths popularity was somehow enhanced by a lack of competition - they would have broken out no matter what! And there were a load of great indie bands during that period - The Pixies for Christ sake! Echo and the Bunnymen, Jesus and Mary Chain etc etc

There is a lot less variety in the charts now. In the 90s I remember watching MTV and Saturday morning TV and you had plenty of the like of Take that, but also the Beautiful south, Mike and the Mechanics and Greenday, Foo Fighters, RHCP - a lot more variety in the charts back then.

Before you ask, I'm 29.
If you have any great underground bands - feel free to let me know!

Just because no particular popular genre emerged over the past ten years doesn't mean that music has stalled, who cares about new genres anyway? Great music is still being made. People don't notice music evolving when they are right there in the moment, people will look back in twenty years time and notice the evolution.

Underground music has been great over the past ten years. What you are saying about bands not being good enough to break through is completely wrong. Some bands just have no interest in bothering the charts, but that doesn't mean they are making bad music. Using Kings Of Leon was a bad example, they were a mainstream band from the word go. There was a lot of hype about them being the 'Southern Strokes' back in 2003 for christ sake and the likes of Dave Fanning were giving them plenty of radio play.

If you're looking for great indie bands from our generation you've got the likes of Blonde Redhead, The Antlers, Wild Beasts, Broadcast, Deerhunter and so on. Does it really matter that these bands cross over into the mainstream or not? No because the music is still there for you to listen to, you've just got to look for it yourself.

karaokeman

Blisterman wrote: »

Dubstep, Reggaeton, Crunk, Chillwave. etc.

It's hard to notice music evolving at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, but it's happening. There's millions of people, experimenting, trying new stuff, mixing things together, sharing ideas, right as we speak. The future of music is in somebody's hard drive right now.

+1 on the new genres you mentioned.

Dubstep is particularly breaking the mainstream, when you look at producers like Chase & Status who have collaborated with Snoop Dog, Example and Cee Lo Green, and they have had some mainstream hits when you look at the way their music has evolved from electronic music of previous generations.

You also have the likes of Skrillex who have evolved from the ambient genius of Aphex Twin in the 90s, and have incorporated different elements of other genres like the industrial metal of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, and electro house as seen with Deadmau5, The Whip and Basement Jaxx.

You can also see how guitar music has also been preserved thanks to its conenctions in the indie rock scene, with the likes of The Darkness and The Strokes who are now breaking into the mainstream, and starting a new era of new wave, garage rock etc etc.

Youtube has been a great help to new-and-coming underground Hip Hop acts who previously wouldn't have had that from MTV, and its been much easier for them to reach out to their specific audiences through sharing.

Music is evolving all the time, and its becoming easier with time because as more genre's come about there will be more room for fusion of different styles new and old, the mainstream is only in need of reform due to the impact the likes of X Factor, and public radio have had on the charts it may be a long time before there is a huge selection of great music doing well.

kunst nugget

karaokeman wrote: »

You also have the likes of Skrillex who have evolved from the ambient genius of Aphex Twin in the 90s, and have incorporated different elements of other genres like the industrial metal of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, and electro house as seen with Deadmau5, The Whip and Basement Jaxx.

All kinds of wrong in this post but I'll start with this. Skrillex has mentioned one of Aphex Twin's tracks in the past as being one of his favourite but the man's bombastic wogga music shows none of the hallmarks of Aphex Twin's sound. I think any comparison between the two is completely dunderheaded. It's dance music for limp bizkit fans. I can't discern any Basement Jaxx influence in his music either. The less said about the all encompassing blandness of Deadmau5 the better.

karaokeman wrote: »

You can also see how guitar music has also been preserved thanks to its conenctions in the indie rock scene, with the likes of The Darkness and The Strokes who are now breaking into the mainstream, and starting a new era of new wave, garage rock etc etc.

Seriously, was this written in 2001? Neither of them are in any way up and coming bands. The new era of new wave has been and gone, replacing by the yawn-inducing likes of the Vaccines

karaokeman wrote: »

Youtube has been a great help to new-and-coming underground Hip Hop acts who previously wouldn't have had that from MTV, and its been much easier for them to reach out to their specific audiences through sharing.

The main problem with this model is trying to earn money out of it. The other is trying to make yourself be noticed out the thousands of others doing the same thing. Most of the time, the big numbers on Youtube outside of the commercial acts are novelty tracks like Rebecca Black.

karaokeman wrote: »

Music is evolving all the time, and its becoming easier with time because as more genre's come about there will be more room for fusion of different styles new and old, the mainstream is only in need of reform due to the impact the likes of X Factor, and public radio have had on the charts it may be a long time before there is a huge selection of great music doing well.

There probably isn't going to be a huge selection of great music doing well in the charts in their present form anymore. The record companies are operating on a more precise form of lowest common denominator music than ever before. Any new genres of musics entering into the mainstream will only be sanitized and absorbed into a bigger and safer genre of music. The only proper way to hear new music and new genres is to get stuck in and do your own research. Taste is becoming more and more an individual thing.

karaokeman

kunst nugget wrote: »

All kinds of wrong in this post but I'll start with this. Skrillex has mentioned one of Aphex Twin's tracks in the past as being one of his favourite but the man's bombastic wogga music shows none of the hallmarks of Aphex Twin's sound. I think any comparison between the two is completely dunderheaded. It's dance music for limp bizkit fans. I can't discern any Basement Jaxx influence in his music either. The less said about the all encompassing blandness of Deadmau5 the better.

Fair enough, I always thought Aphex was a huge influence, that thought was mainly provoked when I learnt that his first record was Come To Daddy, but as you say it may just be one song.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Seriously, was this written in 2001? Neither of them are in any way up and coming bands. The new era of new wave has been and gone, replacing by the yawn-inducing likes of the Vaccines.

I wasn't referring to The Strokes and The Darkness as being up and coming, I was talking about their influence which was relevant for the early part of the 2000s. There's also better bands than The Vaccines who have been influenced by either.

I_p_freely

Blisterman wrote: »

Dubstep, Reggaeton, Crunk, Chillwave. etc.

It's hard to notice music evolving at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, but it's happening. There's millions of people, experimenting, trying new stuff, mixing things together, sharing ideas, right as we speak. The future of music is in somebody's hard drive right now.

I was recently reading the reprinted first issue of the NME from 1952, and the editorial was arguing that music had stopped evolving then!

Sure, MTV aren't playing much of a variety of music these days, but it's no longer how people source their music. Spotify and Youtube have taken its place.

I think your problem is you're applying an outdated criteria to this. Who cares what the record labels are signing? It's no longer relevant. Nor is who's being played on MTV. The biggest shift of the past decade has been from being dictated to by mass media towards individuality, and people cultivating their own music tastes, sifting through the masses to find music they like, sharing it with their friends.

Those genre you mention are hardly mainstream now and I believe that a new genre can be spotted straight away - I remember when Grunge started (barely) and I remember how people started to change their appearance, clothes and music taste over the period of a year or so. It was spotted fairly quickly by the media and tagged grunge. Same when brit-pop came around - the media were calling it that at the time and there was a small cultural shift to go along with it (snorkel jackets and "mad for it"). Spice girls in the mid 90s brought loads of girl-bands and teenagers dressed like sl*ts. These genre and the culture that come with them are spotted and tagged right away.

About your NME article - it was right! Elvis came out in 1953 and was a breath of fresh air and music is much better since!

I think that there are a lot of good bands out there, I listen to a LOT of music, I just don't see those great bands that release brilliant albums, have huge followings and become mainstream anymore.

I think record labels have a huge part to play in it - their money is what can get the bands together with good producers and make great albums. Would the Beatles have been so good without George Martin's arrangements?! For all record labels ills, they do funnel money into new and more creative bands - and, I think, make them better (or worse sometimes).
I have a friend in a band and I liked some of the demos of the songs they had - they're a blues band. They saved up money, went into a studio and ruined the songs. Added horns, violins and backing singers and came out with Junk. If they had been picked up by a label and given money, direction, a good producer they might have a half decent album.

I_p_freely

Zero1986 wrote: »

Just because no particular popular genre emerged over the past ten years doesn't mean that music has stalled, who cares about new genres anyway? Great music is still being made. People don't notice music evolving when they are right there in the moment, people will look back in twenty years time and notice the evolution.

Underground music has been great over the past ten years. What you are saying about bands not being good enough to break through is completely wrong. Some bands just have no interest in bothering the charts, but that doesn't mean they are making bad music. Using Kings Of Leon was a bad example, they were a mainstream band from the word go. There was a lot of hype about them being the 'Southern Strokes' back in 2003 for christ sake and the likes of Dave Fanning were giving them plenty of radio play.

If you're looking for great indie bands from our generation you've got the likes of Blonde Redhead, The Antlers, Wild Beasts, Broadcast, Deerhunter and so on. Does it really matter that these bands cross over into the mainstream or not? No because the music is still there for you to listen to, you've just got to look for it yourself.

I would disagree that Kings of Leon weren't mainstream straight away - they were hyped up to no end because of the Strokes, though. They were virtually unknown in the USA till recently.

Of the bands you mention, I do like deerhunter, not fond on the rest. I don't think its important that bands cross over to mainstream (my favourite band is the Pixies - never mainstream), but I think having a good amount of indie bands crossing over is healthy for the industry and for people to discover this music. This isn't happening now. Why? Many possible reasons... I think one is that money isn't filtering down to bands, as I have described in other posts.

Blisterman

I_p_freely wrote: »

Those genre you mention are hardly mainstream now and I believe that a new genre can be spotted straight away - I remember when Grunge started (barely) and I remember how people started to change their appearance, clothes and music taste over the period of a year or so. It was spotted fairly quickly by the media and tagged grunge. Same when brit-pop came around - the media were calling it that at the time and there was a small cultural shift to go along with it (snorkel jackets and "mad for it"). Spice girls in the mid 90s brought loads of girl-bands and teenagers dressed like sl*ts. These genre and the culture that come with them are spotted and tagged right away.

About your NME article - it was right! Elvis came out in 1953 and was a breath of fresh air and music is much better since!

I think that there are a lot of good bands out there, I listen to a LOT of music, I just don't see those great bands that release brilliant albums, have huge followings and become mainstream anymore.

I think record labels have a huge part to play in it - their money is what can get the bands together with good producers and make great albums. Would the Beatles have been so good without George Martin's arrangements?! For all record labels ills, they do funnel money into new and more creative bands - and, I think, make them better (or worse sometimes).
I have a friend in a band and I liked some of the demos of the songs they had - they're a blues band. They saved up money, went into a studio and ruined the songs. Added horns, violins and backing singers and came out with Junk. If they had been picked up by a label and given money, direction, a good producer they might have a half decent album.

Things like Britpop and Grunge were mostly media constructs. Britpop especially. Find a few bands doing vaguely similar music, and proclaim it a scene. I don't think Nirvana or Pearl Jam ever referred to themselves as grunge. And were Suede and Oasis really doing anything that hadn't been done by the likes of the Smiths and the Stone Roses?

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. This "scene" is invented, record labels rush to sign bands to fill this mould, an image is created which teenagers try to mimic.

And I'll have to disagree about music before Elvis came out being stagnant. The late 1940's/Early 1950's saw R n B, Bebop, Rockabilly, Folk Revival, and Mambo all develop. Sure the charts were dominated by easy listening crooners, but there was a lot else happening.

Father Damo

karaokeman wrote: »

You also have the likes of Skrillex who have evolved from the ambient genius of Aphex Twin in the 90s, and have incorporated different elements of other genres like the industrial metal of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, and electro house as seen with Deadmau5, The Whip and Basement Jaxx.
l.

The fact people are listening to Skrillex and other talentless fcukwits with their Brostep and Dubstep really highlights the title of this thread. That garbage is frankly an insult to dance culture.

Saying all that, generally speaking it really does only seem to be popular with people born in the 90s. I give it another year before it dies a death.

Klaas

Father Damo wrote: »

The fact people are listening to Skrillex and other talentless fcukwits with their Brostep and Dubstep really highlights the title of this thread. That garbage is frankly an insult to dance culture.

Saying all that, generally speaking it really does only seem to be popular with people born in the 90s. I give it another year before it dies a death.

Skrillex is nothing in front of Skream or Burial. I agree with Father Damo. Skrillex's music and brostep in general is an insult to EDM. You hear Justin Bieber putting dubstep drops at his new track.
Also this hip house (hip hop & house patterns) hybrid is an insult to pop music. I agree that music doesn't have boundaries. But some things are better not to be blended. Hip hop is hip hop with artists like 2pac, Biggie, Eminem etc. And house is house with artists like Hardwell, M. Knight etc. Guys like Pitbull have championed that hip house sound and have become millionaires. Even David Guetta which was a great house producer, rode the wave of hip house and became no1 dj in the world with this move. It's a joke...

I hope things will go better in the next years for mainstream music. Although i don't listen to mainstream music like rock or pop, i think at late 90's all the genres of music were making great tunes. Nowadays this doesn't happen.

Blisterman

Fair enough, if it's not your cup of tea, but if you're immediately going to dismiss everyone involved an extremely broad genre such as Dubstep, as talentless, then that signifies an very close minded attitude, which of course if going to be hostile to new ideas.

Klaas

Blisterman are you talking about me or Father Damo? I don't think dubstep producers are talentless. Skream, Mala, Kode 9, Secret Panda Society, Nero and etc, are respected dubstep producers and respect edm artists generally.

Father Damo

Klaas wrote: »

Blisterman are you talking about me or Father Damo? I don't think dubstep producers are talentless. Skream, Mala, Kode 9, Secret Panda Society, Nero and etc, are respected dubstep producers and respect edm artists generally.

Skream? Please. Sorry but people sometimes like to make some sort of bizarre distinction between Skrillex and these sarf Landan dubstep artists. To me the stuff sounds almost ironic. It sounds like something that a comedian who hates dance music would produce as a sort of Brass Eye type joke.

They are all talentless. And as said, I dont expect this crap to last more than another year or two.

Blisterman wrote: »

Fair enough, if it's not your cup of tea, but if you're immediately going to dismiss everyone involved an extremely broad genre such as Dubstep, as talentless, then that signifies an very close minded attitude, which of course if going to be hostile to new ideas.

What if the critical and popular flavour of the month suddenly turned to Justin Bieber? (who like it or not is somewhat more talented than most Dubstep artists). Would you consider me closed minded because I did not listen to his stuff? There is such a thing as personal taste and knowing what type of music is plain garbage. There is nothing pretenious about that at all. I have sample listened to a great deal of this stuff and heard maybe two decent tracks.

flyswatter

Blisterman wrote: »

Fair enough, if it's not your cup of tea, but if you're immediately going to dismiss everyone involved an extremely broad genre such as Dubstep, as talentless, then that signifies an very close minded attitude, which of course if going to be hostile to new ideas.

Exactly.

Father Damo wrote: »

Skream? Please. Sorry but people sometimes like to make some sort of bizarre distinction between Skrillex and these sarf Landan dubstep artists. To me the stuff sounds almost ironic. It sounds like something that a comedian who hates dance music would produce as a sort of Brass Eye type joke.

They are all talentless. And as said, I dont expect this crap to last more than another year or two.




What if the critical and popular flavour of the month suddenly turned to Justin Bieber? (who like it or not is somewhat more talented than most Dubstep artists). Would you consider me closed minded because I did not listen to his stuff? There is such a thing as personal taste and knowing what type of music is plain garbage. There is nothing pretenious about that at all. I have sample listened to a great deal of this stuff and heard maybe two decent tracks.

Can't see where your coming from here at all. Sure there are genres of music like Death Metal that I wouldn't be a fan of but I wouldn't dismiss some of those musicians as being talentless. Same goes for dubstep, usually the people I see criticizing it are the ones who've only heard the type with wobble bass and drops that it gets stereotyped as.

As Blisterman says it's a varied genre with numerous styles. I'm not huge into it myself but you have the likes of Burial who is one of the most original artists in the last 10 years or so.

Father Damo

flyswatter wrote: »

. Sure there are genres of music like Death Metal that I wouldn't be a fan of but I wouldn't dismiss some of those musicians as being talentless.

Yes, I can.

Take, say, Coldplay. They are not my type of thing at all. I just find them a bit bland. But I would not call them talentless. They play intruments, they can write, fair enough I dont actually like 99% of their material but I would not call them talentless, they merely do not catch my ear. Whereas Slipknot, say, apart from their ability to play instruments, are talentless. As are most death metal artists. That is not just an opinion, it is fact.

To compare it to dance culture, for example I do not really feel Deadmau5. I find most of his stuff to be fairly bland, gimmicky rubbish with wearing the mouse head and all that. But I would not regard him as talentless. He makes very average but reasonably listenable stuff. Not my bag, but he is not talentless either.

Skream, Skrillex, Caspa, any any other moron who has emerged from the South London scene is, generally, utterly talentless in the Dubstep they produce, riding the coatails of a popular appreciation for sh1t electronica. Not an opinion, just a fact.

Daveysil15

Father Damo wrote: »

Yes, I can.

Take, say, Coldplay. They are not my type of thing at all. I just find them a bit blnd. But I would not call them talentless. They play intruments, they can write, fair enough I dont actually like 99% of their material but I would not call them talentless, they merely do not catch my ear. Whereas Slipknot, say, apart from their ability to play instruments, are talentless. As are most death metal artists. That is not just an opinion, it is fact.

To compare it to dance culture, for example I do not really feel Deadmau5. I find most of his stuff to be fairly bland, gimmicky rubbish with wearing the mouse head and all that. But I would not regard him as talentless. He makes very average but reasonably listenable stuff. Not my bag, but he is not talentless either.

Skream, Skrillex, Caspa, any any other moron who has emerged from the South London scene is, generally, utterly talentless in the Dubstep they produce, riding the coatails of a popular appreciation for sh1t electronica. Not an opinion, just a fact.

If they can play instruments they are not talentless. I'm not really a fan of Slipknot or death metal, but been able to play a guitar well or be a good drummer is a talent. These sort of artists are probably more talented than the majority of the X-Factor contestants.

I like a couple of Deadmaus' songs but I think most of his stuff is crap, but he can still make music. It's all subjective. There's talented and talentless in all genre's.

flyswatter

Father Damo wrote: »

Yes, I can.

Take, say, Coldplay. They are not my type of thing at all. I just find them a bit bland. But I would not call them talentless. They play intruments, they can write, fair enough I dont actually like 99% of their material but I would not call them talentless, they merely do not catch my ear. Whereas Slipknot, say, apart from their ability to play instruments, are talentless. As are most death metal artists. That is not just an opinion, it is fact.

To compare it to dance culture, for example I do not really feel Deadmau5. I find most of his stuff to be fairly bland, gimmicky rubbish with wearing the mouse head and all that. But I would not regard him as talentless. He makes very average but reasonably listenable stuff. Not my bag, but he is not talentless either.

Skream, Skrillex, Caspa, any any other moron who has emerged from the South London scene is, generally, utterly talentless in the Dubstep they produce, riding the coatails of a popular appreciation for sh1t electronica. Not an opinion, just a fact.

You see, this is a textbook example of where a lack of enthusiasm for a genre skews the line between opinion and fact. It is not a fact that most death metal artists are talentless. That's your opinion which is subjective and seems to be based on the reason that you don't enjoy the music, so now most of the musicians who play this music are talentless?

I enjoy some metal, my favourite band at the moment have incorporated a lot of heavy influences into their sound in the last decade. Death metal isn't my bag but I'm sure there are some very good Death metal bands out there.

Father Damo

Daveysil15 wrote: »

If they can play instruments they are not talentless.

True that. What I actully meant to say ws that the songwriter/ lead singer of mos death metal bands are largely talentless.

titan18

Father Damo wrote: »

Yes, I can.

Take, say, Coldplay. They are not my type of thing at all. I just find them a bit bland. But I would not call them talentless. They play intruments, they can write, fair enough I dont actually like 99% of their material but I would not call them talentless, they merely do not catch my ear. Whereas Slipknot, say, apart from their ability to play instruments, are talentless. As are most death metal artists. That is not just an opinion, it is fact.

To compare it to dance culture, for example I do not really feel Deadmau5. I find most of his stuff to be fairly bland, gimmicky rubbish with wearing the mouse head and all that. But I would not regard him as talentless. He makes very average but reasonably listenable stuff. Not my bag, but he is not talentless either.

Skream, Skrillex, Caspa, any any other moron who has emerged from the South London scene is, generally, utterly talentless in the Dubstep they produce, riding the coatails of a popular appreciation for sh1t electronica. Not an opinion, just a fact.

Lulz.

Whilst Slipknot have some bad songs (some good songs too tbh), anyone who calls Corey Taylor (lead singer of them and of Stone Sour) or Joey Jordison talentless have no idea about music. The fact you seem to be classifying them as death metal makes it even worse.

Also, since I presume you're saying the whole screaming/death growl stuff is talentless. Try it, repeatedly, and see if you can not damage your throat/voice

nyarlothothep

I would say Coldplay just write to a formula which is really boring although I acknowledge that they have a certain amount of talent to get this far. As for death metal, it's a different kind of music which most people don't get, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean that dm musicians are talentless. Death metal is rock music taken to an extremely technical level, you need a certain kind of talent to reach that level. As with any genre most of the bands hop on the conventional wagon and sound boring but there are some excellent songs in death metal. Even a band like Opeth, which incorporates death metal writes vastly deeper and richer songs compared to bands like Coldplay.

Daveysil15

titan18 wrote: »

Also, since I presume you're saying the whole screaming/death growl stuff is talentless. Try it, repeatedly, and see if you can not damage your throat/voice

Try getting kicked in the groin repeatedly and see if you can not damage your testicles. It's hardly a talent.

titan18

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Try getting kicked in the groin repeatedly and see if you can not damage your testicles. It's hardly a talent.

Do you not think having to learn techniques etc to be able to perform/sing in death metal isn't a talent. The fact that it is extremely harsh on a persons throat makes being able to do it impressive imo

nyarlothothep

To crush the dm musicians have no talent argument basically this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdRmyAM8PAY

I know Opeth aren't strictly dm but it's a good gateway introduction

And this, ok prog/future metal whatever but it's death metal enough

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6qRFb2jisg

Yeah, I know djent, not dm, but regardless close enough imo, and check out the crazy polymeters and the way it opens up at the end, that's talent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6VerKdcrOQ

Daveysil15

titan18 wrote: »

Do you not think having to learn techniques etc to be able to perform/sing in death metal isn't a talent. The fact that it is extremely harsh on a persons throat makes being able to do it impressive imo

You either have a good voice or you don't. A lot of these screamo guys actually have a good singing voice when they're not screaming. If you can do both you're talented - otherwise you're just screaming.

titan18

Daveysil15 wrote: »

You either have a good voice or you don't. A lot of these screamo guys actually have a good singing voice when they're not screaming. If you can do both you're talented - otherwise you're just screaming.

Cool, then just to bring it back to Slipknot, Corey Taylor can do both