There's not many bands ever that you can compare to led Zeppelin and have fair debate.

Iliketurtles;1554206 wrote:You haven't heard of Arcade Fire? You should give them a chance they are pretty decent.

I don't get them. Not impressed at all.

Sonofanump;1554275 wrote:I don't get them. Not impressed at all.

To each his own . I'm just saying since he hasn't heard of them to give them a listen.

Mohican00;1554182 wrote: music - huge appeal = it can't be that good.....if we're throwing out logical fallacies, how about your circular reasoning that popular music is good music because it is is popular. Plus, how you can you just broadly dismiss or not even give a chance to said music without even giving it a chance?

You can like whatever you want, IDGAF, but to casually dismiss less mainstream works as not good is premature when I'm wondering if you have ever given said artists a chance

I'm not "casually dismissing" non-mainstream works. It can be good music for people that like that particular style or genre, but the fact it isn't popular has A LOT to do with it's more limited appeal. It's "good" music only with caveats - where you seem to be confused is "good" music in a shitty genre most people don't like doesn't make it truly good music (and there are plenty of examples of songs/groups rising above the lack of popularity/distaste for such genres). LMAO, if the music is so good then why doesn't anybody buy it?

As for the "formulaic/stale/rehashed"...typical critic snobbery for genres they don't really care for. It's like saying all rap or hip-hop sounds the same(and truthfully, genres are pretty much defined by music with similar qualities). Along with the idea that good music has to have some great meaning or deep personal connection. Good music is simply what people enjoy listening to, and claiming something with 1/100 the fans is somehow better is truly rather dubious. Plenty of people are likely to tell you both are crap.

There's plenty of wholly original and fresh music out there that is complete crap. But I'm sure there are people that claim it is great music. That's why music is art - people look for different things. And that the absence of some things causes people to label something as garbage is nothing more than applying your standards/definitions that may not be mainstream.

All I'm really trying to do is differentiate between genre-specific "good music" and music that successfully reaches audiences beyond fans of that genre. The latter will normally see good sales and airplay regardless of how small a following that particular genre might have (and, oddly enough, the purist snobs typically bash those works).

I don't think it is being a snob to appreciate song writing and musicianship.

Yeah...but it is being a bit of a snob to label popular music 'shit' simply because in your opinion it is formulaic or rehashed. Art appreciation is by its nature 'subjective'...and if it appeals to lot of people and makes them happy...it is not 'shit' no matter how derivative it might be. There is a lot to be said for being 'utilitarian'...ie, if it makes people get up and dance and have a good time, it is not 'shit' no matter how formulaic it might be.

My dad was an architect, and he would try to incorporate art and design into his buildings, but above all, it had to be practical and livable. Now some of that practicality is formulaic and rehashed in order for it to work. Frank Lloyd 'Wrong' might sneer at his work as derivative....but then again, nobody had trouble moving a standard size chair thru one of his hallways. In the same way, music that doesn't excite people in general, and only appeals to the musically educated elite serves no purpose because it falls on deaf ears.

reclegend22;1554198 wrote:That sounds like something I once heard in an Asian pop music class. I took one when I was at BGSU to fill some ridiculous requirement or another because I'd heard the class was easy as shit. My final paper for that course was titled "Public Enemies: How Godzilla, Mothra and Chuck D Helped Forge a Hip-Hop Revolution in Japan." It consisted of 12 pages of complete nonsense interwoven with big words and Asian slang. That class was the worst thing I've ever willingly participated in, by a wide margin.

My ultimate observation from that class is that if Western music ever begins to sound Asian then music can officially be declared dead.

[video=youtube;yzC4hFK5P3g][/video]

I'd bang

^^^lose your CCW if you do.

Actually since the white stripes didn't release an album until 1999 I think you can but jack whites entire career up there. He has been fantastic with the white stripes, the raconteurs, the dead weather, and most recently solo.

HitsRus;1554329 wrote:ie, if it makes people get up and dance and have a good time, it is not 'shit' no matter how formulaic it might be.

Precisely. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Spare me the "keepin' it real starving artist" crap - that's an excuse from a garbage band.

With FB, Twitter, Youtube and many other social media sites today...there's is no trouble or hurdle preventing good music from building an audience. 10 or 20 years ago you might have an argument, but today there are millions of people saying "dude, listen to these guys they're awesome" and their friends are going "yeah, they're pretty good [read: they kind of suck]"

Lots of good niche bands out there...but the reason they're a niche band is that only a very limited group of people think they are good.

There's little correlation between popularity and quality, in either direction. There are scores of artists far more talented than big name acts, and there are starving artists that are starving because they suck. OTOH, while popularity isn't a sign of talent, neither is it a sign of a lack of it, to anyone other than the "look at me, I'm a music expert, I never listen to anyone you've ever heard of" types. These people are annoying as hell and really need to STFU.

Out of my top 5 favorite artists. 4 of them have probably sold over 50 million albums combined and are known worldwide.

My argument is you can popular but still be talented or you can be popular and a talentless hack.

pmoney25;1554373 wrote: My argument is you can popular but still be talented or you can be popular and a talentless hack.

No one disagrees with that (although a popular "talentless hack" is still very subjective). But the point is, good & talented usually sells, especially today.

Bieber might very well suck, but trying to claim a group with 5000 album sales is better is more than a bit of a stretch. I think the great vast majority of artists who claim they wouldn't be Bieber, if they could, are full of shit. Personally I'd make bank and then go make the music I want.

Personally I'd make bank and then go make the music I want.

indeed.....and it is easier to do and sell your 'art' AFTER you've become popular and developed a following.

gut;1554377 wrote:No one disagrees with that (although a popular "talentless hack" is still very subjective). But the point is, good & talented usually sells, especially today.

Bieber might very well suck, but trying to claim a group with 5000 album sales is better is more than a bit of a stretch. I think the great vast majority of artists who claim they wouldn't be Bieber, if they could, are full of shit. Personally I'd make bank and then go make the music I want.

I think we need to differentiate artist from performer. If you cannot write your own songs or sing without auto tune, you are just a circus monkey.

As for your last statement, I agree. If someone came to me and said ill make you rich and famous by sounding exactly like Nickelback, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

pmoney25;1554383 wrote:I think we need to differentiate artist from performer. If you cannot write your own songs or sing without auto tune, you are just a circus monkey.

As for your last statement, I agree. If someone came to me and said ill make you rich and famous by sounding exactly like Nickelback, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

That's pretty fair, and pretty much what I've been struggling to say.

Although I think there is room for artistry in singing songs other people have written (a good number write songs with a specific artist or two in mind). Beyond that, I don't think there's as much autotune in pop as claimed. Don't always realize it until you see live performances, but a few abuse it, some work it but it's trivial with most.

How does One Direction get away with this....bear with it for less than a minute and check out the melody.

http://youtu.be/VwR28rJP4cM

Ironman92;1557001 wrote:How does One Direction get away with this....bear with it for less than a minute and check out the melody.

http://youtu.be/VwR28rJP4cM

I'm assuming this is the one that sounds a lot like Pour Some Sugar on Me.

Yep....which is genius if they don't get sued.