Unpopular Musical Opinions

It's only cool if no one's heard of it.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

Jez
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:18 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Jez » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:26 am UTC

- Most people who rant about how terrible certain music is are opinionated and underqualified
- Most of the music you don't like and consider to be terrible is probably in fact not meant for your consumption anyway and in all likelihood serves its purpose
- The spice girls were a horrific stain on humanity, but you can't argue with the numbers
- Bon Jovi actually make good music and are a phenomenal live act, however cool it may be to hate them.
- Kid Rock's an asshole but that doesn't mean all his music sucks

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:46 pm UTC

Accountant13B wrote:Music is meaningless with the personae of the performers taken into consideration. No one would listen to anything if they new nothing about who made it or why or what they do or did outside of music. It functions as the ultimate from of artistic expression, a potent leitmotif for the performers, and nothing more.

Any 'music' that fails to reflect the performer as such is just organised sound, faceless and soulless.

That unpopular enough for you? :twisted:

Then, uh, how do you explain the fact that I can put on music, and someone can come up to me and say "This is good, but I don't recognize the artist."? By your logic, they should hate it without understanding the personal context.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

yukizora
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:13 am UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby yukizora » Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:26 pm UTC

Let's go for it:
- Most rap doesn't belong to music. Rapped Lyrics aren't music, and so are they even with a repetitive musical background.
- Burzum and Gorgoroth are pure melody.
- Trance and other electronic music don't have to be repetitive.
- Death metal is relaxing. (Yeah, I'm that strange).
- How can people like Nightwish?

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:53 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Then, uh, how do you explain the fact that I can put on music, and someone can come up to me and say "This is good, but I don't recognize the artist."? By your logic, they should hate it without understanding the personal context.


His opinion was crafted to be unpopular, and you're expecting it to make sense? Don't be so pretentious! :P

Accountant13B wrote:Any 'music' that fails to reflect the performer as such is just organised sound, faceless and soulless.


Music is, by definition, organised sound, faceless and soulless; if anyone can prove to me that a sound wave can carry "face" and "soul" should get a Nobel prize, or something. Any "face" and "soul" people see in music necessarily come from their own interpretation, which is purely optional for music enjoyment.

That's not intended to be "unpopular", though; I don't like boasting.

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Midnight » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:36 pm UTC

yukizora wrote:Let's go for it:
- Rapped Lyrics aren't music


Is there a difference between unpopularity and incorrectness? I can't tell.




um, classical music should simply be divided by time period, cause everyone in the romantic period sounds like their contemporaries, everyone in the baroque period sounds like their contemporaries... composer means less than time.
uhhhh fuck.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby achan1058 » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

Midnight wrote:um, classical music should simply be divided by time period, cause everyone in the romantic period sounds like their contemporaries, everyone in the baroque period sounds like their contemporaries... composer means less than time.
The problem is that it doesn't work with 20th century music. :wink:

User avatar
Ithinkabouttrees
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:10 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Ithinkabouttrees » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:04 pm UTC

Aleril wrote:I started this on another forum and it seems to be going pretty well there. Here is where you post your opinions about music that make most people tell you you're crazy. (There can be a bit of arguing, just dont make it into a flame war m'kay?)

-American Idiot is a near-perfect album
-Bjork needs her vocal cords cut out.
-Aphex Twin is a musical genius.
-Punk is not dead, just expanding to the needs of people.
-J-pop is addicting, but that doesnt mean it is good.
-Gatsby's American Dream, Fall Out Boy and P!ATD all sound the same, but that doesnt mean they are bad, in fact they are great.
-There is no best genre.
-Green Day is punk, but also pop at the same time. And they are 100% awesome.
-Screamo is like Rap. It isnt music, just ear rape.




I fucking love you. Is that weird? Whatever, you read my mind.
"When all else fails, accept the extraordinary."

Spoiler:
SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDOR, DOBBY DIES, TONKS DIES, LUPIN DIES, SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE, TYLER ISN'T REAL, PLANET OF THE APES WAS REALLY EARTH, JAKE BECOMES ONE OF THEM, BENJAMIN DIES.

Omerprime
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:02 am UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Omerprime » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:59 pm UTC

Midnight wrote:um, classical music should simply be divided by time period, cause everyone in the romantic period sounds like their contemporaries, everyone in the baroque period sounds like their contemporaries... composer means less than time.


Then again, some people love one composer from the X era, and hate another from the same era, so you can't just divide it into period.
Oh, and:
-The fact that YOU like a certain song doesn't mean you're supposed to play it on full volume with speakers at the back of the bus, some of us have a different taste in music than you and don't like that song, you prick.(This is not aimed at anyone from this forum in particular, just at a few idiots who go to school with me...)
ImageImage

User avatar
Midnight
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 am UTC
Location: Twixt hither and thither. Ergo, Jupiter.

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Midnight » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:53 pm UTC

people that hate extended guitar solos should just take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. or take a flying fuck at the moon.





xooll wrote:-The Beatles are nothing special. They have a couple of good songs and a lot of other songs.
-Black Sabbath got good when they had Dio singing.
-Any other band would probably also be improved by the addition of Dio.
-Dio should be cloned so that when he dies there will still be a copy.

I onced had bran sells but i saw post they suicide dead now..
uhhhh fuck.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:13 am UTC

Stairway to Heaven is overplayed, and most of the time that it plays on the radio, it isn't really appropriate and is often just boring.

The only music Metallica made that is worth hearing is from load, reload, and s&m.

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Various Varieties » Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:14 am UTC

Midnight wrote:people that hate extended guitar solos should just take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. or take a flying fuck at the moon.

I don't hate long guitar solos per se. But I think that in general, it's best to keep them short and sweet (about a minute), because I think you have to be a really good musician to get away with making long solos (i.e. much more than about two minutes) and keep my interest. Either that, or they can prevent them from getting boring by switching the focus between different instruments, so that they're more "instrumental breaks" than "guitar solos".

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

When I hear about guitar solos, I get permanently afraid that people will praise Comfortably Numb, which to me is the absolute pinnacle of everything a guitar solo must NOT be: a hacked-and-spliced-together mess of tape, meandering, aimless and pointless. I think Steve Hackett is exactly the kind of guitar player David Gilmour always tried to be and repeatedly failed.

Gilmour's strengths are in songwriting and in his interplay with the band; in 95% of the times he tries to steal the spotlight, he fails.

User avatar
Kaelri
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:42 pm UTC
Location: York, New
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Kaelri » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:06 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:When I hear about guitar solos, I get permanently afraid that people will praise Comfortably Numb, which to me is the absolute pinnacle of everything a guitar solo must NOT be: a hacked-and-spliced-together mess of tape, meandering, aimless and pointless. I think Steve Hackett is exactly the kind of guitar player David Gilmour always tried to be and repeatedly failed.

Hm. I can only speak for myself, but Comfortably Numb really is one of the only extended guitar solos that I can not only get through, but enjoy. It works on an intuitive level; it's not over-composed the way some of the more ambitious pieces can be. He sounds like he really enjoys playing it, too. Sincere, I would say. That's good music in my book.

User avatar
Accountant13B
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Accountant13B » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:54 pm UTC

Are you missing a negation somewhere in there


Yup. XP Typing late at night is a bad idea. It should read 'without the personae . . .'

Then, uh, how do you explain the fact that I can put on music, and someone can come up to me and say "This is good, but I don't recognize the artist."? By your logic, they should hate it without understanding the personal context.


The same way one can enjoy anything ordinary. I enjoy fruit juice, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, The Black-Eyed Peas and other stuff as simple pleasure's - I enjoy the works of Peter Gabriel, games like Shadow of the Colossus and fine culinary delicacies as artwork. I guess what I mean is that, without the personae of the performing artist and/or creator to compare and contrast with, works of music cannot be more than such a simple pleasure (if this seems contradictory with my previous post, then I apologise - again, late nights :P).

Of, course, sometimes one can deduce form a piece of work what the personae of the performing artist is; this is the hallmark of a great piece of art, and is also a case where we are both correct. :)

His opinion was crafted to be unpopular, and you're expecting it to make sense? Don't be so pretentious!


Yes, being rude to strangers over the internet make you cool. :roll:

Music is, by definition, organised sound, faceless and soulless


100% disagree. Sound is faceless and soulless, however it's organisation. It's when exterior elements come in to elevate those sounds to artwork, just as they may do to a picture or novel, that the sounds become music.

My personal belief is that the personae of the artist is the greatest way to give that extra depth and message to music; however, it only an opinion based on my observations, and I may turn out to be wrong. Peace out :]
Weight is both a blessing and a curse.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Accountant13B wrote:I guess what I mean is that, without the personae of the performing artist and/or creator to compare and contrast with, works of music cannot be more than such a simple pleasure (if this seems contradictory with my previous post, then I apologise - again, late nights :P).


You know what is the problem with that point of view? Is that it evokes situations like this:

Person 1: (removes pipe from his mouth, takes off monocle) Oh, God, what is all that grating noise? It's getting on my nerves!
Person 2: Ah, this? It's a piece from Iannis Xenakis, Persepholis.
Person 1: Oh! What sublime, marvellous music!

It smells of that nasty need for validation, as when you find yourself enjoying a new piece of music, only to find out it's done by a band you despise and feel guilty and dirty afterwards, trying hard not to question your own preconceptions and prejudices. Good music is good music, regardless of who made it, and if you need all sorts of bizarrely arbitrary criteria to separate "simple pleasures" from "art" (shouldn't usually one thing imply the other?), it might be because you're not truly enjoying the music itself, but the status it gives.

Music, as well as any sort of art, is done primarily to entertain -- everything else is an added bonus.

Of, course, sometimes one can deduce form a piece of work what the personae of the performing artist is; this is the hallmark of a great piece of art, and is also a case where we are both correct. :)


I don't actually agree. For me, a great piece of art is one that can stand on its own and remain impressive regardless of whom it was made by, why it was made, when it was made, where it was made and why it is (or was) relevant. This is, in my opinion, why pieces of art become eternal and remembered for ages -- you don't need the whole historical background to enjoy it. You may enhance your experience by going further into it (and I usually do exactly that, very often), but that's an added bonus. It's sort of like a joke: if you need someone to explain the joke to you after telling it to make you laugh, the joke failed. The joke only works if you get it and laugh by yourself.

Now just wait; someone will make a sex analogy soon, and everything will go back to normal.

User avatar
Accountant13B
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Accountant13B » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:35 pm UTC

It smells of that nasty need for validation, as when you find yourself enjoying a new piece of music, only to find out it's done by a band you despise and feel guilty and dirty afterwards, trying hard not to question your own preconceptions and prejudices.


I personally love situations like this; it suddenly makes one startlingly aware of an absolute contradiction to an otherwise unshakeable belief. Many times have I found myself liking some music, then finding out who made it and being surprised; once I looked more into said artist and his other choons, I realised my superficial assessment of him, based on the music I had heard alone, was insufficient, and that once I knew what the guy was tying to do I found myself liking his work more and more. In fact, that is almost the story of how I came to like Rammstein, my favourite band. :)

Of course, the inverse is also true; one can be hating a piece of music, then learn of the performer and suddenly be more considerate of it's merits and willing to explore it's insights. It's assumption busting, that is all. I do not mean that one will suddenly, arbitrarily 'like' a piece on being told of the performer, as you suggest - rather, knowing the artist's intentions, approaches and views can suddenly make what would otherwise seem a drab and pointless sound-collection into a statement or message, purposeful and 9hopefully) of artistic merit. Sometimes, just hearing the artist' name will tell you that, but then that presumes you know about the performer in question - it would be foolish to suddenly like some rap just because it's by 'Snoop Dogg', without knowing anything about the man

For me, a great piece of art is one that can stand on its own and remain impressive regardless of whom it was made by, why it was made, when it was made, where it was made and why it is (or was) relevant.


To this I say why do people remember great deeds - because of what the deed itself was, or rather because of what -directly or indirectly - it achieved? The first time fire was tamed (if we were to hypothetically be aware of this event) is great because it was a massive achievement, and a huge step towards man's development. The actual fire itself is nothing special, anyone can light a fire. It was what that first fire DID that matters.
Weight is both a blessing and a curse.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:04 pm UTC

UMO: Maybe Diamond Eyes really isn't as good as other albums, and maybe it has a lot to do with Chi's coma.

AwTin
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:14 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby AwTin » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

Vocals are a supplement to the melody and beat; the beat is not a supplement to the vocals. The beat is what one dances to. The instrumentals are where true musical genius comes out.

We've heard every type of voice out there. And I'm tired about hearing about being in love (Seriously, at what point in history has 90% of music not been about love or God?).

Hit me with a jamming beat and catchy melody, and I'll start rocking the place out.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:55 pm UTC

Accountant13B wrote:I do not mean that one will suddenly, arbitrarily 'like' a piece on being told of the performer, as you suggest - rather, knowing the artist's intentions, approaches and views can suddenly make what would otherwise seem a drab and pointless sound-collection into a statement or message, purposeful and 9hopefully) of artistic merit.


But that would mean that the musical piece, as a musical piece, failed. It's the joke analogy once again: the joke may be inteligent or clever, but if it failed to make you laugh and needed a further explanation, it failed as a joke. And in this case the analogy is valid because both comedy and music are forms of art, each in its own way. Music is supposed to entertain, and enjoyment is what you gain when you listen to it; everything you do afterwards is research, and it shouldn't really be necessary to the enjoyment.

I get this when I listen to many pieces by Xenakis: they often sound like completely pointless sounds, but then I go and read about it and find there's an extremely complex and interesting concept behind its construction, so I go back and listen to it again and... it sounds like completely pointless sounds. And, in fact, Xenakis himself acknowledges that, saying his works are displays of ideas to be explored, and not finished pieces for mass consumption. So, as pieces to be enjoyed, some of them just fail (though it may vary, depending on mood -- some of that stuff helps me focus).

On the other hand, nobody needed to know of Mike Oldfield's intentions and purpose when he released Tubular Bells in 1973 -- it went out to sell millions and become a stone cold classic. In fact, after many years of pointless revisionism, Oldfield himself doesn't understand his intentions well and failed to capture it in his several remakes. Tubular Bells is, today, a classic REGARDLESS of Oldfield's intentions. Which also leads me to

Accountant13B wrote:Sometimes, just hearing the artist' name will tell you that, but then that presumes you know about the performer in question - it would be foolish to suddenly like some rap just because it's by 'Snoop Dogg', without knowing anything about the man


which sort of imples that artists never change, doesn't it?

Accountant13B wrote:To this I say why do people remember great deeds - because of what the deed itself was, or rather because of what -directly or indirectly - it achieved? The first time fire was tamed (if we were to hypothetically be aware of this event) is great because it was a massive achievement, and a huge step towards man's development. The actual fire itself is nothing special, anyone can light a fire. It was what that first fire DID that matters.


Well, "Deeds" and "Pieces of art" have completely different merits and completely different ends. A comparison here doesn't quite work; a "deed" in itself may not be the achievement, but the piece of art IS, in itself, the achievement. An artist usually doesn't make a piece to "change the world", and when he does, either he's deceiving himself or fooling a lot of people, including himself (Bono's ears are burning right now).

User avatar
Accountant13B
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Accountant13B » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

But that would mean that the musical piece, as a musical piece, failed.


Well, then I guess what I'm saying is that it's impossible for a piece of music TO fail, just as it is impossible for a fire to fail or for a lump of iron to fail. These are just things, found or made for a purpose that is entirely external from it. It's down to the user - or in some cases, the creator - to succeed in using said item to achieve their end. If I set out to please my friend, and I choose to use fire, and he gets set on fire and hates me, it's not the fire that has failed (of course, the fire has failed, but it's not the fire's fault, if you get me), it is I.

Of course, a piece of music is evidently more advanced and technical a tool than something as raw as a flame or a brick - it can be likened more to a device, like a car or a spanner or a roof. It is a common figure of speech to say, if your car breaks down, that 'the car has failed'. Well, yes and no: the car has indeed not done what is was meant to do, but then as a standalone item the car was not intended to do anything. The power of intention - and therefore the standard by which success and failure are measured - lies with either the creator or the user, depending on whether the failure lies in the automation or the operation.

My point is, Music is very definitely a purpose built thing, quite apart from the raw sounds harnessed in it's composition (if sounds are bolts and rivets and plate metal and seats, pieces of music are vehicles and engines). It fits into the artistic bracket of creation, as it serves no purpose other than to enlighten and provoke thought and agreement (whether with or against the artist is another issue). The artist creates the song, the melody, the symphony, the painting and sculpture and fine video game etc. only to try and get a message across, to illustrate a point to the listener/viewer/gamer -to illuminate their mind.

Now, it is entirely possible for a piece of music to, as you rightly say, provoke thoughts and feelings in the observer outside the intentions of the artist, just as it is possible to use a car to store belongings, experience the pleasures of high acceleration or indeed kill things, rather than just move from A to B. I concede than that it is possible to find some appreciation for a piece of art (like music) outside of the realm of it's creator. I firmly believe, however, than it is rarely the case that meaningful accidental insight is derived from works of art, and then only in the most wonderful of pieces in existence made by the most wise and brilliant of artists. More often, impressions outside of the maker's intent are either a) due to naivety on the listener's part, which is inevitable and and simple fact of life, b) a lack of clarity on the artist's behalf, making him a poor or untrained artist, c) the artist is deliberately leaving his work unclear to see what happens, which makes him either a radical scientist or a clever and talented trickster. For the vast majority of cases, the sole real message in a work of art is that which the artist set out to share, and without that will, that intention considered, it is impossible to judge the artistic merit of music, just as it is to judging the usefulness of a spanner without knowing it's for tightening bolts (only more so, for at least a wrench can let you brain someone for just five dollars :P).

Tiring but enjoyable debate, eh? :)
Weight is both a blessing and a curse.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby achan1058 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
Accountant13B wrote:I do not mean that one will suddenly, arbitrarily 'like' a piece on being told of the performer, as you suggest - rather, knowing the artist's intentions, approaches and views can suddenly make what would otherwise seem a drab and pointless sound-collection into a statement or message, purposeful and 9hopefully) of artistic merit.


But that would mean that the musical piece, as a musical piece, failed. It's the joke analogy once again: the joke may be inteligent or clever, but if it failed to make you laugh and needed a further explanation, it failed as a joke. And in this case the analogy is valid because both comedy and music are forms of art, each in its own way. Music is supposed to entertain, and enjoyment is what you gain when you listen to it; everything you do afterwards is research, and it shouldn't really be necessary to the enjoyment.
Le me use the same analogy against you. Suppose someone tells you a joke in Chinese, and you do not understand Chinese, does it mean that the joke itself is a failure? It is true that the target audience in this case is wrong, but it doesn't mean that the joke itself is worthless. Now, you go learn Chinese for a few years and hears the same joke again and understand it, does it suddenly turn it from a failure to a success?

Music also has a language, for example, the (intentionally) wrong chords in Mozart's A Musical Joke is only wrong because it is by Mozart, from the Classical era, and not by say Stravinsky or Prokofiev, from the 20th century. On the other hand, if you play the Rite of Spring to an audience 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago, they will regard it as noise, instead of the masterpiece being copied by every major film composer today. There is no music that is completely independent of context. True, some of them depends on the context more than others, but nothing is completely free of it.

No, I am not saying that the artist's intentions are everything, but it would be incorrect to say that musical merit is completely independent of society, and the history surrounding the creation of the work.

User avatar
Accountant13B
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Accountant13B » Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:23 pm UTC

Thank you, achan. You make a very reasonable point :)
Weight is both a blessing and a curse.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:33 pm UTC

I don't disagree that a piece of music inherently has a purpose -- it's impossible for an artist, however consciously or unconsciously, to make a work of art devoid of any purpose, just as it is impossible for us to do anything completely devoid of purpose. The thing is, I fail to see how the enjoyment of a musical piece is limited to how much we know the artist, and what I'm arguing is that, in a piece of music, the purpose should be self-evident. I'm not stipulating rules here, but there's a minimum we should expect: the piece of art should give you a bare minimum of material so you can work out what it's trying to do. Perhaps the joke analogy is reaching its limits here, so I'll mention parody: how can you distinguish whether a finished work of art is serious or a parody? You have to somehow, within the work itself, figure out, or else the parody is lost. Same thing with irony: somehow it must be clear that you are being ironic (and I say this with knowledge of cause, because I've said ironic things only to see them taken wrong, and I recognise that as my own fault -- except in cases of extremely dumb readers).

I don't think, though, that every piece of music has A Very Important Message that you should get. The Message, in art, is optional: the primary focus is to entertain, to keep the mind busy -- and very usually The Very Important Message can SEVERELY get in the way of enjoyment. Putting A Very Important Message in a work of art is sort of like putting a tophat on a fish -- it might have a great effect on people, but if you remove the tophat, the fish still swims.

As for impressions outside the artist's intention, I don't think things are so radical: sometimes the artist just wants to let the minds of the audience flourish freely, and I think that's a very valid for of expression and not at all some sort of "trickery" or "science". You can't control what your audience will think, so it's worthless to even try: either you give them the minimum tools and let them work out their own stuff, or you just free yourself from the burden of Making The Whole World Listen.

Le me use the same analogy against you. Suppose someone tells you a joke in Chinese, and you do not understand Chinese, does it mean that the joke itself is a failure?


It means that the joke failed its obvious purpose; I think it's too strong to say it "is a failure", because that would imply that the joke couldn't possibly be good in any way. But yes, if the joke failed to make you laugh, for whatever reason, it failed. In the case of comedy, that's exactly why it's so important for the author to know his audience. Music can be like that too, and it usually is. But I don't think it's the people who should learn about the artist before they check his works; it's THE AUTHOR that must know his audience.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:55 pm UTC

By the way

Accountant13B wrote:Tiring but enjoyable debate, eh? :)


Yes! Thanks a lot for the attitude, honest. I get very jaded when people start taking disagreements as personal insults, and unfortunately this happens more often than I'd like.

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby achan1058 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:29 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:It means that the joke failed its obvious purpose; I think it's too strong to say it "is a failure", because that would imply that the joke couldn't possibly be good in any way. But yes, if the joke failed to make you laugh, for whatever reason, it failed. In the case of comedy, that's exactly why it's so important for the author to know his audience. Music can be like that too, and it usually is. But I don't think it's the people who should learn about the artist before they check his works; it's THE AUTHOR that must know his audience.
Unless the author is dead for 200 years. Regardless, I do think the listener/critique should do a minimal amount of work before dismissing a song/piece completely.

RabbitWho
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby RabbitWho » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:00 am UTC

I love Linkin Park. As I expected it's much less of a problem now that I'm 23 than it was when I was 14.

User avatar
Accountant13B
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Accountant13B » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

Only a short reply, but I pretty much agree on everything SirMustapha and I think you have a point. On re-reading my posts and a bit of reconsideration, I think that 'the purpose of the piece' is probably more than I was getting at. I also underestimated the impact of individual interpretation a little. But hey, it's the internet so like I said I'm prepared to be wrong. :)
Weight is both a blessing and a curse.

vaguelyhumanoid
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:27 am UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby vaguelyhumanoid » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:20 am UTC

Mine are:
Noise doesn't all sound the same
Radiohead are an uplifting band
Lady Gaga is a real musician
The Residents > Primus
They Might Be Giants aren't just a novelty band
American Idiot wasn't a sellout
Deerhoof have a good singer
Outsider music is good unironically
Abbey Road was better than Sgt. Pepper's
Not all rap/country/electronic dance sucks, and saying otherwise only weakens your arguments
Spoiler:
tesseraktik wrote: of course you need to gornax your frifftop to a proper taibou (which, as the construction of this tempered tutatu suggests, consists of two bed.pans joined by a haiku), or else angry zubat are going to flork off your penis.'

User avatar
mutestorm
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:32 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby mutestorm » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:14 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:Then, uh, how do you explain the fact that I can put on music, and someone can come up to me and say "This is good, but I don't recognize the artist."? By your logic, they should hate it without understanding the personal context.

His opinion was crafted to be unpopular, and you're expecting it to make sense? Don't be so pretentious! :P


Wait, you do know this is the Music forum right?

Anyway, my unpopular musical opinion is that learning an instrument does not enhance your listening experience, but cheapens it.

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Various Varieties » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:45 pm UTC

mutestorm wrote:Anyway, my unpopular musical opinion is that learning an instrument does not enhance your listening experience, but cheapens it.


It's definitely possible to suck a lot of the fun out of a song you love if you over-analyse and over-listen to it during the course of learning to play it.

User avatar
Sasha
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:26 pm UTC
Location: The REAL wild wild west. At 7000 feet.
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Sasha » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:09 pm UTC

Modest Mouse's earlier albums and EPs were better than their newer ones.
Techno, like rap and screamo, is ear-rape.
Industrial and swing are some amazing genres, as well as EBM.
All pop music sounds the same.
Using autotune makes you sound like a complete moron, as well as swearing and using improper grammar.
Marbas wrote:I'll usually jump from one strange thought to the next, such gems as: "I wonder if bears get depressed", "I think the sun is unnecessarily smug" and so on.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby TheAmazingRando » Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:42 pm UTC

Sasha wrote:Modest Mouse's earlier albums and EPs were better than their newer ones.
Sasha wrote:Using autotune makes you sound like a complete moron, as well as swearing and using improper grammar.
I'm pretty sure Modest Mouse swears quite a bit on their earlier albums.

User avatar
mutestorm
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:32 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby mutestorm » Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:13 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:I'm pretty sure Modest Mouse swears quite a bit on their earlier albums.


Note: He didn't actually say modest mouse was good. he just said their earlier albums were comparatively better.

User avatar
Dasboard
Posts: 961
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:09 pm UTC
Location: I wish I was dreaming of soap.... wait where was this space for again?

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Dasboard » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:25 am UTC

I agree. Their later albums are also good. But their first two, three, are glorious.

And some singles like The fruit that ate itself.
Are you ready? Well I made my bet
Are you ready? I made some.. preparations.
Are you ready? But I'm older now!
But are you ready? Yeah...

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby achan1058 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:42 am UTC

mutestorm wrote:Anyway, my unpopular musical opinion is that learning an instrument does not enhance your listening experience, but cheapens it.
Wait til you start analyzing its harmonic progression and etc like a music school student.
Sasha wrote:Using autotune makes you sound like a complete moron
agreed 100%.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Jesse » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:32 pm UTC

I, for one, would love it if the next Mountain Goats album was auto-tuned.

User avatar
Sasha
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:26 pm UTC
Location: The REAL wild wild west. At 7000 feet.
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Sasha » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:25 pm UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:
Sasha wrote:Modest Mouse's earlier albums and EPs were better than their newer ones.
Sasha wrote:Using autotune makes you sound like a complete moron, as well as swearing and using improper grammar.
I'm pretty sure Modest Mouse swears quite a bit on their earlier albums.


I could be an ass and say that the swearing Modest Mouse does is different. Take, for instance, 3rd Planet: "...I've got this thing that I consider my only art of fucking people over..." This is a proper use of the word "fuck". However, in Young Jeezy's "masterpiece," Lose My Mind, there is this wonderful bit: "...A half fuckin' mil, that's what the whip cost me, 100 dollars, that's what the pussy cost me..."

Or, I could just admit that you caught me in my own musical elitism. Take your pick.
Marbas wrote:I'll usually jump from one strange thought to the next, such gems as: "I wonder if bears get depressed", "I think the sun is unnecessarily smug" and so on.

User avatar
CosmicFugue
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:57 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby CosmicFugue » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:40 pm UTC

-I fucking hate Metallica
-I listen to drone/noise and don't think it's pointless
-I can listen to grindcore/powerviolence or any other "extreme music" genre in order to relax.

Yeah, I get a lot of shit for those 3.

Rwm28juni
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:48 pm UTC

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Rwm28juni » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:44 pm UTC

- Coldplay and oldies like Queen and Eagles are awesome (something which is controversial at my school, probably not most other places... My fellow students barf when they hear Bohemian Rhapsody. Well, actually it's mostly my peers.)

- Hip-Hop is glorified disco music
- The only artists who don't really need to know to play an instrument are one (wo)man 'bands'. (Assuming other, non-famous people do play instruments.) Examples are people like Justin Bieber (who I don't like *at all*, but still, he only has one person in the entire 'band'; him
Black Eyed Peas are an example of a band that all don't play an instrument (synthesizers and drum machines, etc. don't count, I mean real instruments). I mean, seriously, 4 people in one band/ group that don't play instruments?
Then you have Sting, who actually plays instruments.

User avatar
Dasboard
Posts: 961
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:09 pm UTC
Location: I wish I was dreaming of soap.... wait where was this space for again?

Re: Unpopular Musical Opinions

Postby Dasboard » Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:33 am UTC

-I listen to drone/noise and don't think it's pointless


High five!
Are you ready? Well I made my bet
Are you ready? I made some.. preparations.
Are you ready? But I'm older now!
But are you ready? Yeah...


Return to “Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests