Taste in music?

[NYJets]

Re: Taste in music?

If you somehow devised a comprehensive value system for music all by yourself, that would be very educational indeed. It might be gibberish, but it would explain your ideology.


As for Creed and Nickleback, I'm not into their stuff. I play metal guitar, and I usually require much more intricate guitar lines than what they offer. I like Opeth, Dream Theater, Symphony X, BTBAM and Necrophagist. But see how what I like doesn't require me to take value away from what other people personally enjoy? Try it, it's fun!

Nobody's trying to take value away from what other people enjoy.

This is a message board, people post their opinions. There have been a number of threads about Creed and Nickleback, some people like them, some don't.

I don't know why other people saying they don't like something would effect the people who do like it.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: Taste in music?

Nobody's trying to take value away from what other people enjoy.

This is a message board, people post their opinions. There have been a number of threads about Creed and Nickleback, some people like them, some don't.

I don't know why other people saying they don't like something would effect the people who do like it.

Saying you don't like it and saying it sucks are two different things. My point is, people need to understand that. The former is personal preference and the latter is a value judgement. There is plenty of good music that I don't care to listen to, but with the powers of reason I understand that my personal opinion doesn't define good or bad, especially in an art form as subjective as music. Most people don't know enough about music to have an informed critieria for their own personal opinion of good or bad. Those people need to understand their own lack of knowledge and stick to more accurate words such as "like" and "dislike" if they don't want to sound like high schoolers after their first exposure to something new.

[eXperiment63]

Re: Taste in music?

When I listen to music I listen for a hook and Creed and Nickelback have these hooks in their songs for me.

That's because they found hooks that work and use them in every song. Ever notice how every rhythm is similar? How the vocal melodies are the same? They found a formula, and they stick to it. I don't blame them, it is making them millions upon millions. It's just wayyyyyy too formulaic for people who actually CARE about the music, and don't just listen to shake their asses. I'm a musician and an artist, so I actually CARE about the state of music. It sickens me that the public enjoys listening to the same song over and over.

Creativity is the basis of all art, and their music is NOT creative in the slightest bit, therefore it is not art. It is a formula based upon an art to make millions. They sold their artistic integrity for money. Like I said, I can't blame them for doing so. But as an artist, it sickens me that the public actually appreciates someone lowering their artistic standards for the almighty dollar.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: Taste in music?

^^^What pop artists do doesn't affect the integrity of music as a whole. Music has always had a function besides intense and studied listening. Pop music is no different. The tragedy is just that people don't understand this, so there is an affectation of musicianship around pop stars, rather than an open and honest agreement to make simpler tunes for simpler listening.

All the same, people who want to challenge themselves to write great pieces of music will always do it, and people who want to listen to those great pieces of music will always find it, and even pay for it. Mainstream, pop, or commercial music has changed to this point, but that change happened a long time ago. People need to let it go and let it be what it is. More so than ever, there is PLENTY of great music out there, and more channels with which to find that music. Who cares what the unconcerned masses listen to?

[Scottdau]

Re: Taste in music?

That's because they found hooks that work and use them in every song. Ever notice how every rhythm is similar? How the vocal melodies are the same? They found a formula, and they stick to it. I don't blame them, it is making them millions upon millions. It's just wayyyyyy too formulaic for people who actually CARE about the music, and don't just listen to shake their asses. I'm a musician and an artist, so I actually CARE about the state of music. It sickens me that the public enjoys listening to the same song over and over.

Creativity is the basis of all art, and their music is NOT creative in the slightest bit, therefore it is not art. It is a formula based upon an art to make millions. They sold their artistic integrity for money. Like I said, I can't blame them for doing so. But as an artist, it sickens me that the public actually appreciates someone lowering their artistic standards for the almighty dollar.

I think that is why I like them. There are other bands I like a couple of songs, but that is it. They made them all sound the same, I like it! lol

[Jistic]

Re: Taste in music?

I also have found a new appreciation for some classic rock bands in my old age that I hated growing up.

I think some of it is because of the sound. There really wasn't anything that was over produced back then. Most of the guys actually could read and write a sheet of music, and had skill. Plus they didn't have a team of song writers and record company execs picking/writing songs for them. The landscape has changed.

I used to hate the Doors when I was young. Now in my old age I've really gotten into them.

[Scottdau]

Re: Taste in music?

I also have found a new appreciation for some classic rock bands in my old age that I hated growing up.

I think some of it is because of the sound. There really wasn't anything that was over produced back then. Most of the guys actually could read and write a sheet of music, and had skill. Plus they didn't have a team of song writers and record company execs picking/writing songs for them. The landscape has changed.

I used to hate the Doors when I was young. Now in my old age I've really gotten into them.

Yeah that makes sense. It seem like the talent level was higher back then.

[pk500]

Re: Taste in music?

While I certainly agree with your view of differing opinions, I think that is somewhat the problem. Bands like Nickelback know that with little to no effort or substance, they can put out similar records and the general public will eat it up, mainly because the general public doesn't care anymore about songs with good substance and content. People are too easily accepting of mediocre music, and that's where a lot of the bands end up popping up. They make one radio friendly, thoughtless single, people eat it up, then they put out a whole record all too similar to their single, and people purchase based on that single alone. And because of a lot of bands having good name recognition, they know they really don't have to try and put out good music, just simple, repetitive CD's.

Kearnzo:

That's no different than the bubblegum pop singles of the 70s that dominated the Billboard charts. Crap music sold tons back then, too.

Ever hear "The Pina Colada Song" by Rupert Holmes, a huge hit in the 70s? "Sailing" by Christopher Cross, one of the biggest hits of the 70s? "Cars" by Gary Numan in the early 80s? "Too Shy" by Kajagoogoo in the 80s? I rest my case.

The difference now is that rock has become so mainstream that bad rock bands like Nickelback and Creed can dominate the Billboard charts like the horrible bubblegum pop of the 70s and synth-pop of the 80s.

Sh*t bands like Creed and Nickelback think they are hard and have street cred because they play crunchy, repetitive, mindless riffs. In reality, they're no different than bubblegum pop other than the stack of Marshall amps turned to 11 when they play.

Pseudo-rockers like Creed and Nickelback and bubblegum popsters both play formulaic music that lacks creativity and is designed to sell billions of copies. They're the Budweiser of music. Bland and lacking in distinctive character, but inhaled by millions.

Take care,
PK

[Cletus]

Re: Taste in music?

Kearnzo:

That's no different than the bubblegum pop singles of the 70s that dominated the Billboard charts. Crap music sold tons back then, too.

Ever hear "The Pina Colada Song" by Rupert Holmes, a huge hit in the 70s? "Sailing" by Christopher Cross, one of the biggest hits of the 70s? "Cars" by Gary Numan in the early 80s? "Too Shy" by Kajagoogoo in the 80s? I rest my case.

The difference now is that rock has become so mainstream that bad rock bands like Nickelback and Creed can dominate the Billboard charts like the horrible bubblegum pop of the 70s and synth-pop of the 80s.

Sh*t bands like Creed and Nickelback think they are hard and have street cred because they play crunchy, repetitive, mindless riffs. In reality, they're no different than bubblegum pop other than the stack of Marshall amps turned to 11 when they play.

Pseudo-rockers like Creed and Nickelback and bubblegum popsters both play formulaic music that lacks creativity and is designed to sell billions of copies. They're the Budweiser of music. Bland and lacking in distinctive character, but inhaled by millions.

Take care,
PK

You know, I was going to weigh in on this debate/discussion but since pk already said what I was thinking. I'll just say I agree 100% Music is more of a formula than an artform, it's been this way since music was a means of getting rich. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Nickelback, Creed, Green Day, etc. didn't invent this, they're just the ones cashing in.

I think musical tastes just change when you get older, like everything else. When you mature you notice things you didn't notice before, the same as with music. Plus, some songs have sentimental value to you that might not have years before. I used to hate a lot of pop music, but now I like a fair amount of 90's pop because it's goofy and it helps me feel younger and dumber on the days when I get beaten down by mundane details of everyday life.

I guess I weighed in anyway, oh well.

[Kearnzo]

Re: Taste in music?

You know, I was going to weigh in on this debate/discussion but since pk already said what I was thinking. I'll just say I agree 100% Music is more of a formula than an artform, it's been this way since music was a means of getting rich. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Nickelback, Creed, Green Day, etc. didn't invent this, they're just the ones cashing in.

I think musical tastes just change when you get older, like everything else. When you mature you notice things you didn't notice before, the same as with music. Plus, some songs have sentimental value to you that might not have years before. I used to hate a lot of pop music, but now I like a fair amount of 90's pop because it's goofy and it helps me feel younger and dumber on the days when I get beaten down by mundane details of everyday life.

I guess I weighed in anyway, oh well.

Totally agreed with tastes changing as you get older. When I was back in middle school and early high school, I was a big fan of the garbage on the radio. Even crap like Backstreet Boys sadly enough. After a while, even in early high school, I realized practically everything on the radio is straight TRASH, aside from obscure rock stations that actually play MUSIC.

One glaring example I can think of is the song Silent Lucidity by Queensryche. I had heard the song before, as my dad played it when I was about in middle school, and I hated it, mainly because I didn't know any better. However, not too long ago, I heard the song on the radio again, and after listening to it, I HAD to find more by Queensryche. Now I love their music.

I had to laugh at myself as well. When I moved into my apartment with my fiance, I snatched up pretty much everything in my closet as well. Well, I had a box of old CD's, and I couldn't believe what I listened to when I was younger. I had crap by Aqua, Backstreet Boys, Creed, Nickelback's first popular CD, and so on. I ended up throwing the box away.