12 utterly depressing facts about popular music

225 posts in this topic

There are no objective standards for good music, as there are none for painting, writing etc.

 

Good is what I like. And assuming that I have the better taste because I listen to X and not Y just shows the little world I live in.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

U2 are shite because middle aged rich men are about as edgy and rock and roll as Donald Trump. Also... the Pistols shouldn't be included in that list of legends you posted. They were the corporate rip-off version of better American bands.

 

Did anyone mention the Pistols being a good band?

Nope merely that they broke the mold.

 

Not sure what you mean about them being a corporate rip off.If you mean McClaren getting them together just to make money then yer but corporate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now, to show you how subjective music tastes are...I think this song is complete shit, but apparently Chocky enjoys it. Just listen to what you like and quit fretting over what kind of music others like.

 

You're right that is complete and utter shite and depressing too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Keleth... I'm incapable of talking about music without being an elitist prick. I don't care for the Sex Pistols for a lot of reasons that only elitist pricks care about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised how many under 20's have classic rock on their itunes, while I'd like to think that it's because they have eclectic taste in music...I pretty sure guitar hero had something to do with it.

 

That said, I would cringe with embarrassment if I had Rhianna or Britney on my itunes playlist... and though Zeppelin is probably my all time favorite band, my morning wake-up jam ritual usually includes screamo, death metal and Rick Ross.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are no objective standards for good music, as there are none for painting, writing etc.

 

Really? Have you ever tried reading anything by Dan Brown, then picking up something by Philip Roth? I think you'll see that there is quite a clear delineation between standards.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/dont-give-rock-bad-rap/

 

I completely disagree with this guy. Rock lyrics are and have always been either embarassingly lowbrow and insipid, or just plain gibberish. More often than not, both.

 

The 60's are massively overrated.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i was in high school, i did not really care for Led Zeppelin. Now i think they are absolutely phenomenal.

 

Regarding lyrics, LZ is pretty high on the gibberish rating.

 

For example:

 

 

 

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really? Have you ever tried reading anything by Dan Brown, then picking up something by Philip Roth? I think you'll see that there is quite a clear delineation between standards.

 

Although I don't like Dan Brown I have read some real trash authors.I read to be entertained not by the standard of the writing but by its entertainment value.Shakespeare although the stories themselves are based on a good premise absolutely bores the fucking pants off of me although apparently he is a high standard.

Who sets the standards that are an acceptable standard?

It's like in films I'd rather sit and watch Star Wars rather than some fucking subtitled film about a boy in 1930's Italy looking for his dog and finding his path in life on the way just because it's supposedly a higher standard.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.

 

In music I detest songs that aren't about anything and are mindless drivel as far as I'm concerned basically but if people want to listen to that I'm not one to say that music is of a lower standard than say Zeppelin or some such.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are no objective standards for good music, as there are none for painting, writing etc.

 

Good is what I like. And assuming that I have the better taste because I listen to X and not Y just shows the little world I live in.

 

Ah, but there actually ARE objective standards for all these things. I'm not going to get into it here, but there are LOTS of bands that play good music, writers who turn out excellent books/columns/stories/poems, and painters who create good art that I don't care for. I'm not going to pay for it, but I'm not going to label it "bad," either.

 

There's also "bad" music, art, books, etcetera that I like even so. I'll admit to sinking a few hours into The DaVinci Code book. In which case, I call them "entertaining" if anyone asks.

 

That said, Rihanna is still shite by any standards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 60's are massively overrated.

Compared to the century before with its Victorian age, the era of fascism and the conservative time after the war, the mid to late 1960's were nothing else but a cultural and social revolution. The widespread use of the pill after 1965, followed by women's liberation from their traditional role, the first mass protests against a war in history (correct me if I'm wrong here, please), an explosion in diversity in music and arts (lots of it fueled by drugs, I know) - and all that not only in the US, but worldwide. When has this ever happened before or after? I believe that the 1960's are quite underappreciated.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how are things looking now?

 

The period you refer to(and stepping back just a tad..) was also the age of Beethoven, Romantic poetry, the Impressionists, ...... and well, pretty much the last gasps of meaningful high Western culture. Til the '60's slapped a lid on it forever.

 

"Oh oh oh that Shakespa-hearean rag, it's so elegant, so intelligent.." And then on to David Hockney and toilets in art galleries or whatever.. Bringing us right on up to Britney Spears or this Rheana person you're talking about. If there can be no "high" culture, then everything counts.. And if everything counts, nothing does.. The 60's threw the baby out with the bath-water.

 

So why not blabber gibberish in a rock song?.. Nothing matters anyway.. As long as you're high and the music has a good beat.. Or as long as you can buy it and dispose of it as easily as a Coke bottle.. And now we're on to defining ourselves by what music we like by annoyingly posting youtube links to it on facebook..

 

The 60's were a cultural disaster afaic, and frankly the baby-boomers' "pride" in having "been there" is not only annoying but presumptuous..

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said that those of that 60's generation are any better .

 

It was a very interesting, creative period of the 20th century. And many born into this period feel glad about it. Not sooner, not later.That is all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is unusual: I agree with both Expat and HerrDinksBumps on the same thread! In a Western context. I´m glad I was around at the time, smoking dope, enjoying the Stones ( and stoned ) but that was me and a relative minority worldwide.

 

We also had Vietnam, the Cold War and my dad!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 60's are massively overrated.

 

I beg to differ. Growing up in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1960s we got the most fantastic bands and performers coming around live, or their LPs in the beatnik shops. The Doors, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Fugs (frat house misic par exellence), Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane, Joan Baez, Peter Paul and Mary, Woody and Arlo Guthrie, I could go on for hours. They laid the foundation for my ecelctic taste not only in pop and rock music but for the classics and modern composers as well.

 

Lady Gaga's glossolalia combined with pounding rhythms remind me of what Deadheaders say when they run out of pot at a Grateful Dead concert: This music sucks!

 

Rihanna's suicidal defeatism has me lunging for the dial.

 

Bruno Mars' airheaded lyrics are noisome.

 

"Jet-Lag" - pure fluff, see also "Hey There Delilah".

 

When I listen to the radio at work my preferred background noise is classics - that's how to avoid lungers.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...the age of Beethoven, Romantic poetry, the Impressionists, and well, pretty much the last gasps of meaningful high Western culture.

And who was able to enjoy all those cultural highlights in the late 1700's and 1800's? A handful of inbred aristocrats...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't all inbred. That's a predictable, simplistic British (anti-Thatcher, etc..) cliche..

 

Those cultural highlights were often not only produced at their behest as patrons, but BY them. And very often by people from more middle-class, EDUCATED backgrounds. Who cares what the rabble want anyway? Oh wait - what they want is rock 'n roll.. All those strict fathers of the 50's were right - rock and roll IS debasing and degenerate. It might make you feel good in the moment, but who has ever been inspired to actually accomplish something meangingful by a rock and roll song? It's really just a drug to escape the reality of life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now