Page 4 of 6
#121
Quote by captainsnazz
when i call you out in detail you either ignore it or backpedal like a timid little forum mouse so i don't even have time for you

so get in your spaceshuttle and ascend
make sure you bring your dry lunch with you too cos it's gonna be a long journey

You're so full of yourself, man. It's hilarious.
#124
Quote by Sean0913
Contest it, I'm waiting.
it's entirely subjective.

To a 12 year old that has listened to Eminem, 50cent, TI, Outkast, JayZ, and Kanye might listen to any of their favourite artists and immediately identify them. They might listen to all the artists you listed and view them as having pretty much a likeness to each other.

A 15 year old whose parents are classical musicians and that has only ever seriously listened to classical music might be able to hear Debussy's violin sonata for the first time and immediately recognize it as Debussy. They might listen to all the artists you listed and deem that they all pretty much sound the same.

Someone that has listened to 70s rock that doesn't listen to classical music might not be able to tell Bach from Beethoven, all classical music pretty much sounds the same to them.

Some 19 year old metalwhatevercore fan might hear clear and distinguishable differences in the specific genre of music that they are familiar with but hear only passing differences in the 70s rock you are talking about.

To them Clapton doesn't sound like Clapton, it's just some guy playing the guitar. They'll hear a Cream song and think it could just as easily be the Beatles, Queen, or Led Zeppelin.

Just because you know this music well and can hear definable differences in the styles of artists from a particular era doesn't make it an objective fact. It's just that you have a more specialized knowledge of that particular style of music than some other people.

For me G'N'R, Nirvana, RATM, RHCP, Metallica, Tool, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Snoop Dogg, and other artists of the 90s were unique and clearly distinguishable. They didn't sound like anyone else.

My daughter at four years old could hear a RHCP song she had never heard before and correctly identify that it was the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

It's a claim that's often made "music is all the same these days" and usually it's from the older set that prefer the music they know and grew up with, or from the alternative set that reject mainstream music in preference for the music to which they are more familiar with.

To those people Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, and Kesha all sound the same. To a 19 year old girl from suburbia those artists may be as different and unique as you think the Steve Miller Band is to the Yardbirds or Stealers Wheel.

Having said that there have been scientific studies done on the subject of increasing homogeneity in music. The conclusions differ.

One study published in Nature concludes that music is becoming more homogenous.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html
[W]e observe a number of trends in the evolution of contemporary popular music. These point towards less variety in pitch transitions, towards a consistent homogenization of the timbral palette, and towards louder and, in the end, potentially poorer volume dynamics.


Another study done at Stanford university reached exactly the opposite conclusion. http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/projects2013/cs224w-052-final.pdf
there is a lot of variety in nonmainstream artists, but as artists get more and more popular they tend to become a lot more similar to other artists. However, the fundamental question is whether or not that tendency is increasing over time. Just looking at the degree distributions, the answer seems to be no...

...So what does this mean for music? So far, it means that based off of our data, everything is currently fine. Music is not all becoming the same


It seems that even the scientists can't agree, so what hope is there in MT.

In my view there are two positions you can take.
1. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that there really isn't much more that can be done or,
2. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that it is just a drop in the ocean of the musical possibilities ahead of us.

To someone that sees a world of possibilities stretched out before them the first view seems absurd. Particularly if that view is combined with an authoritative claim that there is a fuzzy line somewhere around 1980 that marks the end of musical originality.

Or, to be fair, if your focus is purely on rock and believe that there was really only about 30 years of original material that could be mined out of that particular style of music before it became a rehash of older ideas then the best thing you can do is join a classic rock cover band and have fun. There's nothing wrong with that.

Just don't get upset if someone that sees a world of possibilities stretched out ahead finds your position comical.
Si
#125
If, for example, you think that Outkast sounds like Wu-Tang Clan (to take the two most successful hip-hop groups of the past 20 years) you're simply not listening. That's okay. The music doesn't speak to you, so there's no reason why you SHOULD listen to it. But if you're not listening to it, you shouldn't attempt to talk about it intelligently.

And of course, yeah, the Beatles don't sound like Zeppelin. But then again, that's the Beatles and Zeppelin. Compare the second tier and third bands who made up most of the music at the time (I dunno ... The Hollies, or King Harvest) and you hear a very different story. Listen to the Yardbirds before they turned into proto-Zeppelin, compare what they were doing to early Stones, for example.

Take a look at the lineup at Woodstock. For every Sly and the Family Stone on the bill, there's a Canned Heat or a Keef Hartley.
#126
Quote by 20Tigers
1. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that there really isn't much more that can be done or,
2. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that it is just a drop in the ocean of the musical possibilities ahead of us.

See, I prefer the latter view. Experimentation, man. It drives the musical world.
#127
Quote by 20Tigers
it's entirely subjective.

To a 12 year old that has listened to Eminem, 50cent, TI, Outkast, JayZ, and Kanye might listen to any of their favourite artists and immediately identify them. They might listen to all the artists you listed and view them as having pretty much a likeness to each other.

A 15 year old whose parents are classical musicians and that has only ever seriously listened to classical music might be able to hear Debussy's violin sonata for the first time and immediately recognize it as Debussy. They might listen to all the artists you listed and deem that they all pretty much sound the same.

Someone that has listened to 70s rock that doesn't listen to classical music might not be able to tell Bach from Beethoven, all classical music pretty much sounds the same to them.

Some 19 year old metalwhatevercore fan might hear clear and distinguishable differences in the specific genre of music that they are familiar with but hear only passing differences in the 70s rock you are talking about.

To them Clapton doesn't sound like Clapton, it's just some guy playing the guitar. They'll hear a Cream song and think it could just as easily be the Beatles, Queen, or Led Zeppelin.

Just because you know this music well and can hear definable differences in the styles of artists from a particular era doesn't make it an objective fact. It's just that you have a more specialized knowledge of that particular style of music than some other people.

For me G'N'R, Nirvana, RATM, RHCP, Metallica, Tool, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Snoop Dogg, and other artists of the 90s were unique and clearly distinguishable. They didn't sound like anyone else.

My daughter at four years old could hear a RHCP song she had never heard before and correctly identify that it was the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

It's a claim that's often made "music is all the same these days" and usually it's from the older set that prefer the music they know and grew up with, or from the alternative set that reject mainstream music in preference for the music to which they are more familiar with.

To those people Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, and Kesha all sound the same. To a 19 year old girl from suburbia those artists may be as different and unique as you think the Steve Miller Band is to the Yardbirds or Stealers Wheel.

Having said that there have been scientific studies done on the subject of increasing homogeneity in music. The conclusions differ.

One study published in Nature concludes that music is becoming more homogenous.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html


Another study done at Stanford university reached exactly the opposite conclusion. http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/projects2013/cs224w-052-final.pdf


It seems that even the scientists can't agree, so what hope is there in MT.

In my view there are two positions you can take.
1. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that there really isn't much more that can be done or,
2. You can look at the hundreds of years we have been playing the same 12 pitches and decide that it is just a drop in the ocean of the musical possibilities ahead of us.

To someone that sees a world of possibilities stretched out before them the first view seems absurd. Particularly if that view is combined with an authoritative claim that there is a fuzzy line somewhere around 1980 that marks the end of musical originality.

Or, to be fair, if your focus is purely on rock and believe that there was really only about 30 years of original material that could be mined out of that particular style of music before it became a rehash of older ideas then the best thing you can do is join a classic rock cover band and have fun. There's nothing wrong with that.

Just don't get upset if someone that sees a world of possibilities stretched out ahead finds your position comical.



Of course it's subjective. 90 percent of the topics on here are opinion and subjective. But that's what a discussion here is. My point of view, your point of view and someone else's. Something is presented, and its discussed.

Line up all your 12 year olds, your 15 year olds, and your 19 year old metal core. Bring them in, let them present the body of material that they have, and let me at their points, and there's no contest. I'll prove the very points I made in my first post. All I have to do is pile their evidence and body of work of these artists, and arguments next to mine, and it won't stand. Let them bring anyone and everyone out of the wood work. Bring a million Katy Perrys and you bring your Nineties guys in, and take the sheer weight of them, and I still say that, though it's every bit as unique, it topples and is crushed to bits by the sheer weight of my argument, and in fact makes my point that it's on the decline since the period I stated, which is what I stand to, and present my argument concerning.

But, you can say I'm subjective and line it right up...everyone from Mother Love Bone, My Sister the Machine, Dinosaur Junior, and anyone you like, and your Big 4 from the Northwest, and I'll grind them to atoms. To atoms. Knock them down like bowling pins. Go for it.

The point of MT isn't to find agreement. It hasn't happened and it never will. It's to present points of view and discuss them. Make a point, and present your side and respond to others. That's it. It's not Rocket Surgery That's Forum 101.

There's nothing to "get upset" about. None of this is of any life altering consequence. If I'm doing anything at all, at worst, I'm amused by someone, usually in a "watching the prolific drunk village idiot soil himself", kind of way. Certainly not upset.

But this topic is really making me consider starting a topic of my own titled "Why Dan Fogelberg is Better than all of You (or any "Hero" you wish to bring into the argument)."

I may just yet do it!

(By the way that would also be subjective)

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Sep 12, 2014,
#128
Quote by Sean0913
You had bands that didn't sound like one another. Music had not subdivided itself into "cores"

I see these two sentences as contradictory. You're saying that because music didn't exist in different genres, and was just 'music', it was different? I hope I'm reading this wrong, but in no way does this make sense at all.

Steve Miller Band sounded like Steve Miller Band and not anyone else. Clapton sounded like Clapton, Rush sounded like Rush, Queen sounded like Queen. Yet all of them sounded and delivered something different from one another. Pink Floyd, and the Allman Brothers sounded different. They all had signatures to their uniqueness that set them apart from other bands. Allmans had quartal harmonies and slide, Pink Floyd had Gilmour. Yes sounded like themselves, Eagles had sophistication, with music that was and is still considered accessable. Even Aerosmith was a different band before their RunDMC Mtv Comeback. Seasons of Wither and Toys in the attic, compared to Pump? Sabbath. Show me how Supertramp sounded like Fleetwood Mac.

I'm really not that familiar with a lot of classic rock. I don't know if I could name a single Steve Miller Band song. To me, they would sound like generic classic rock. Because I'm not familiar with classic rock, I can't distinguish very well between the bands, other than the ones that are very obviously their own sound.

And I think it's very easy to say that classic rock was filled with bands with signature sounds, when you're listing the pioneering bands.

Using one modern genre, post-rock, Godspeed You! Black Emperor has a very distinct GY!BE feel. Sigur Ros is very Sigur Ros. Mogwai is Mogwai. Explosions in the Sky is Explosions in the Sky. This Will Destroy You is This Will Destroy You. They are all so unique in their own way, all very distinct from each other. As soon as one song of any of theirs starts, I can identify exactly which band it is. So I don't really know what you're saying, because it can absolutely be done with modern genres. You just have to be familiar with the genres in order to hear the differences.

In another genre, hip-hop, NWA is really NWA. 2pac is 2pac. Wu-Tang is Wu-Tang. Nas is Nas. Biggie is Biggie. Jay-Z is Jay-Z. Kanye is Kanye. Kendrick is Kendrick. etc etc. Again, I wouldn't be able to confuse any of them with each other, because I am familiar with the genre.


I should be the one laughing. Bring your guys out, show me how they haven't had to adopt new tunings and are staying right there in E. Put the progressions out, Go write out Dream on and then Hotel California. That's because theres almost nothing left, dude, that can be written that isn't riding on the influential backs of bands from these other eras. And here's the thing. Show me where Rush got it's sound from. What 50's band influenced rush where you can hear it in their music? Steve Miller was a Chicago Blues player. Alice Cooper was the forerunner of Glam and Theatre Shock Rock.

Bring your guys out.

Not a contest.

music today is becoming increasingly less and less about progressions, and more and more about sound. That's why I think that music is evolving. We're moving past trying to come up with cool time signatures, and never-before-heard progressions. We've coming up with sonically unique music, rather than theory-unique. So it doesn't matter if the theory has been done before, because the music hasn't.

I'm not familiar with Rush, so I can't say exactly where they got their sound from. No doubt they were a hugely influential and pioneering band though. But to say that they didn't have influences (which is what I'm reading, again I hope I'm wrong) is so bizarre. Everyone has influences. Bach had influences. Mozart had influences. Chopin, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, Schoenberg, Tchaikofsky, etc. Everyone has influences, and it can always be heard.

But, because we're playing this game, what exactly would you say are the influences in this song? Or better yet, this one


There was much more musical diversity and uniqueness, and craft band after band. Then you hit disco, and I couldn't tell you one from the other. The basslines were the sme, the syncopated drum was the same, then you had the 80's and hair metal, and the rise of the guitar heroes, but how many actually stood apart, when you compare them to the uniqueness of the 70's players?
Oddly enough, I'm actually better at distinguishing metal than I am at classic rock. And I like classic rock more.


It hasn't gotten better since. Because now, in order to have music, you have people having to tune their guitars like basses, drop tuning into the bass harmonic range, screaming, and coming up with every complex poly rhythmic thing, desperately trying to claw out their niche, and they are failing. There's so little left for people in E standard tuning, and those that are, sound like someone that came before. Folk guys sound like their influences. I'm not saying the music isn't any good, I'm saying that it's declined, subdivided into more sub genres than there ever were in the 70's, and whittled themselves into a little pocket, where there's NO definitive "clearly this is that band" delineation from one to the other as marked as there was in the 70's. And even if you pull the 80's in they lose against the bands above. What, Bang Tango and Danger Danger didn't sound like Dangerous Toys and LA Guns?

wtf? So because bands are trying to do more now with the sounds that they can create, they're no longer 'music' or 'unique' or whatever? Why does it have to be in E standard? Why can't bands create sounds unique enough to warrant obscure sub-genres? How does that in any way devalue music of today?


Quote by Sean0913

Line up all your 12 year olds, your 15 year olds, and your 19 year old metal core. Bring them in, let them present the body of material that they have, and let me at their points, and there's no contest. I'll prove the very points I made in my first post. All I have to do is pile their evidence and body of work of these artists, and arguments next to mine, and it won't stand. Let them bring anyone and everyone out of the wood work. Bring a million Katy Perrys and you bring your Nineties guys in, and take the sheer weight of them, and I still say that, though it's every bit as unique, it topples and is crushed to bits by the sheer weight of my argument, and in fact makes my point that it's on the decline since the period I stated, which is what I stand to, and present my argument concerning.

so...now you're argument is that your argument is better? The weird thing is, you just said 'of course it's all subjective' and then went to say that your own self-admitted subjective argument, is objectively better?
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
Last edited by Baby Joel at Sep 12, 2014,
#130
bloody hell I'm even listening to Rush's debut album (ugh), and it just sounds so generic classic rock to me How could you even say that this you can't find out where they got their sound from. Like, this just kind of sounds like a crappier version of Boston, mixed with a crappier version of Zeppelin.


edit: my ears physically hurt, so I had to turn it off.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
Last edited by Baby Joel at Sep 12, 2014,
#131
Quote by Baby Joel
wtf? So because bands are trying to do more now with the sounds that they can create, they're no longer 'music' or 'unique' or whatever? Why does it have to be in E standard? Why can't bands create sounds unique enough to warrant obscure sub-genres? How does that in any way devalue music of today?

Well...you know, Black Sabbath isn't music then. Because they experimented with odd tunings. Neither is Led Zeppelin.




Sorry, Sean, but I can't agree with you on this argument.

Quote by Baby Joel
bloody hell I'm even listening to Rush's debut album (ugh), and it just sounds so generic classic rock to me How could you even say that this you can't find out where they got their sound from. Like, this just kind of sounds like a crappier version of Boston, mixed with a crappier version of Zeppelin.


edit: my ears physically hurt, so I had to turn it off.

Yeah, Rush isn't really that innovative, compared to the other Prog Rock bands of the '70s. (I don't know that I should have to, but to avoid the whole "you don't even know '70s Prog Rock" comment...I'm just gonna restate what a look at my profile confirms. That I'm a huge Prog fan.) Rush just sort of threw in a few odd times and called it good. They still sounded and felt like a regular '70s rock band.

As an example, when you listen to the band Yes, all of their stuff sticks out massively. Very few Yes songs could be called standard '70s rock songs. Why? Because they had a lot of classical influences. (in fact, for years, Yes used an upright bass instead of a bass guitar, to emphasize the classical feel.) Most rock bands of the time had blues influences.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 12, 2014,
#132
I see these two sentences as contradictory. You're saying that because music didn't exist in different genres, and was just 'music', it was different? I hope I'm reading this wrong, but in no way does this make sense at all.

Nope, I'm saying that it's not better than mid 70's when popular music peaked.

Using one modern genre, post-rock,

As valid as that is, and as great as anyone in that group or individual may be, popular music peaked in the mid 70s as per my argument. They do not overshadow what peaked by the mid 70's. Pioneering bands indeed, well said.

music today is becoming increasingly less and less about progressions, and more and more about sound. That's why I think that music is evolving. We're moving past trying to come up with cool time signatures, and never-before-heard progressions. We've coming up with sonically unique music, rather than theory-unique. So it doesn't matter if the theory has been done before, because the music hasn't.

And that may well be true, and valid. I like the points of your argument here. But, in my opinion, that's a signal that music turned, and has become something else. So, to me, that might signal devolving, but for you that may signify evolving. That's a subjective point. But where does it stand against the mountain of influential work that I cited? I don't see that it does. Is that music "popular"? I don't think if you used the same standards measuring what popular was at the time the body of music came out, that it is. Is it as/more influential? That remains to be seen. I'll defer to the future to tell us.

But, because we're playing this game, what exactly would you say are the influences in this song?

Static, Noise...feedback, air, sound effects, voice overs and randomness. This doesn't even stand as "popular" music. You brought an orange to compare to the apple. I'm not making a value judgement on the piece. It is what it is to people. I don't mind it at all, but it's done nothing to say that popular music hasn't peaked, and that it was in the 70's

bloody hell I'm even listening to Rush's debut album (ugh), and it just sounds so generic classic rock to me How could you even say that this you can't find out where they got their sound from. Like, this just kind of sounds like a crappier version of Boston, mixed with a crappier version of Zeppelin

You're in the overwhelming minority there. All that says is that you haven't a clue about what these were when they came out. I said popular peaked in the mid 70s.

So because bands are trying to do more now with the sounds that they can create, they're no longer 'music' or 'unique' or whatever? Why does it have to be in E standard? Why can't bands create sounds unique enough to warrant obscure sub-genres? How does that in any way devalue music of today?

Nope. I said that popular music peaked in the mid 70s. You're saying the rest of it. All that you are saying, doesn't hold a candle to the body of work represented by the bands or their influences. There's no contest. Popular music hit its peak in the mid 70s. All your comments have done is establish that further.

Yeah, Rush isn't really that innovative. Rush just sort of threw in a few odd times and called it good. They still sounded and felt like a regular '70s rock band.

All you are saying there, is that they were musically more accessible to a wider base, making more complicated ideas, while at the same time listenable. Steely Dan did the same thing, on the Jazz side. They were most certainly innovative. That's different than saying they "invented" anything. Yes deserves to stand right up there with them, as does ELP.

so...now you're argument is that your argument is better? The weird thing is, you just said 'of course it's all subjective' and then went to say that your own self-admitted subjective argument, is objectively better?

My subjective argument is better than your subjective argument, yes. Subjectively that is my opinion.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Sep 12, 2014,
#133
Ok. I'm getting confused. Can you say in three sentences or less, what you're arguing for? I think I'm just getting confused by the walls of text.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#135
ok that makes a lot more sense now I thought you were arguing that as a whole, music has gotten worse. Popular music is a different thing though.

I'll have to give a think about it in that context, and then get back to you with what I think.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#136
Quote by Sean0913
Popular music hit its peak in the mid 70's and has been on the decline ever since.

Best,

Sean


that's just not true, hair metal is humanity's greatest cultural achievement
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#137
Quote by Sean0913
Of course it's subjective. 90 percent of the topics on here are opinion and subjective. But that's what a discussion here is. My point of view, your point of view and someone else's. Something is presented, and its discussed.

Line up all your 12 year olds, your 15 year olds, and your 19 year old metal core. Bring them in, let them present the body of material that they have, and let me at their points, and there's no contest. I'll prove the very points I made in my first post. All I have to do is pile their evidence and body of work of these artists, and arguments next to mine, and it won't stand. Let them bring anyone and everyone out of the wood work. Bring a million Katy Perrys and you bring your Nineties guys in, and take the sheer weight of them, and I still say that, though it's every bit as unique, it topples and is crushed to bits by the sheer weight of my argument, and in fact makes my point that it's on the decline since the period I stated, which is what I stand to, and present my argument concerning.

But, you can say I'm subjective and line it right up...everyone from Mother Love Bone, My Sister the Machine, Dinosaur Junior, and anyone you like, and your Big 4 from the Northwest, and I'll grind them to atoms. To atoms. Knock them down like bowling pins. Go for it.

The point of MT isn't to find agreement. It hasn't happened and it never will. It's to present points of view and discuss them. Make a point, and present your side and respond to others. That's it. It's not Rocket Surgery That's Forum 101.
Yeah I know the point is to discuss. I'm just pointing out that people that have done objective scientific research have reached different conclusions. And knowing how argumentative we all are here...well nevermind it's not much fun having to explain very subtle, very dry attempts at humour.

So your conclusion is popular music peaked in the 70s. You back this up with an argument that 70s classic rock artists that formed part of the popular music scene were more original than popular music artists of other genres and more distinct from one another in their sound and style than artists of other eras.

Is that a fair summary?

I tried to show that popular music in the nineties had original unique artists. I also tried to explain that popular music in any time period has original and unique artists that differ from those that came before and those that were in the same era. I listed a number of 90s artists that I believe had their own signature style, that had a fresh and unique sound and many of whom were incredibly influential.

Your argument in response to that was "my argument crushes all of them".

To which my response is, no your argument is weak and flimsy and is no more meaningful than an argument that yellow is the best colour.

Besides, everyone knows the Beatles were the height of popular music. So that would be the 60s .
Si
#138
Quote by Sean0913
All you are saying there, is that they were musically more accessible to a wider base, making more complicated ideas, while at the same time listenable. Steely Dan did the same thing, on the Jazz side. They were most certainly innovative. That's different than saying they "invented" anything. Yes deserves to stand right up there with them, as does ELP.

Sort of. If I was to rank Rush, Yes, & ELP (and some other bands) on some arbitrary scale of innovation (which only included '70s Prog Rock), it would go:

Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis on the upper level;

Rush & Pink Floyd on the lower level.


Honestly, I don't think Rush really did a whole lot that was innovative. They're comparable to a longer-lasting Tool, imho. If that makes me an asshole or elitist or something like that...well, I don't really care.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Sep 12, 2014,
#139
Quote by Dave_Mc
that's just not true, hair metal is humanity's greatest cultural achievement

I'd argue that hair metal was the exact embodiment of money > substance that caused the increased commercialization of popular music.
ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ raise your dongers ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ
#140
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Sort of. If I was to rank Rush, Yes, & ELP (and some other bands) on some arbitrary scale of innovation (which only included '70s Prog Rock), it would go:

Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis on the upper level;

Rush & Pink Floyd on the lower level.


Honestly, I don't think Rush really did a whole lot that was innovative. They're comparable to a longer-lasting Tool, imho. If that makes me an asshole or elitist or something like that...well, I don't really care.

Pink Floyd on the lower level of an arbitrary scale of musical innovation?
Si
#141
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Honestly, I don't think Rush really did a whole lot that was innovative. They're comparable to a longer-lasting Tool, imho. If that makes me an asshole or elitist or something like that...well, I don't really care.


Don't worry, that's not what makes you an asshole or elitist...


just kidding, obviously, but you kind of lobbed it up as a softball

Quote by caeser1156
I'd argue that hair metal was the exact embodiment of money > substance that caused the increased commercialization of popular music.


hair metal is awesome
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#142
Quote by 20Tigers
Yeah I know the point is to discuss. I'm just pointing out that people that have done objective scientific research have reached different conclusions. And knowing how argumentative we all are here...well nevermind it's not much fun having to explain very subtle, very dry attempts at humour.

So your conclusion is popular music peaked in the 70s. You back this up with an argument that 70s classic rock artists that formed part of the popular music scene were more original than popular music artists of other genres and more distinct from one another in their sound and style than artists of other eras.

Is that a fair summary?

I tried to show that popular music in the nineties had original unique artists. I also tried to explain that popular music in any time period has original and unique artists that differ from those that came before and those that were in the same era. I listed a number of 90s artists that I believe had their own signature style, that had a fresh and unique sound and many of whom were incredibly influential.

Your argument in response to that was "my argument crushes all of them".

To which my response is, no your argument is weak and flimsy and is no more meaningful than an argument that yellow is the best colour.

Besides, everyone knows the Beatles were the height of popular music. So that would be the 60s .



Yes, that's a fair summary, as per the norm, you more or less have that correct, you can add to that, the sheer volume of diversity in terms of the number of influential bands themselves. As I said before, the point isn't to reach consensus. It's to present a point of view.

You "tried to show" that artists in the 90's has a fair amount of original, unique artists, however, you were massively over matched. Even if you do accept all those, the argument wasn't about the 70's being exclusive to originality. If it were, your response makes sense. Having your original and unique artists, only gets you in the game, but it doesn't win it. You'd need 3-4 more decades of what these 90's bands were and did, to even begin to stand next to the volume of material, and present an argument that can be taken seriously. I'm entertained that you even tried. You're like the Little Engine that Could.

I will throw you a bone, and say that I do think that secondary to the 70's, and it's peak the 90's were the next in line to hold the crown. There were some really good bands and music, and they definitely carved out some influential niches, but they run a distant second.

A for effort.

Beatles were a great band, that put out a lot of unique and influential work, and the 60's were the launching point, that carried the momentum into the 70's where, as I said before, it peaked.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Sep 13, 2014,
#143
It was a creatively fertile time. I'll give you that. We'll just have to disagree on whether it was the peak of popular music.

Regardless,

I'm still floored by this...
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Sort of. If I was to rank Rush, Yes, & ELP (and some other bands) on some arbitrary scale of innovation (which only included '70s Prog Rock), it would go:

Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis on the upper level;

Rush & Pink Floyd on the lower level.
Pink Floyd on a lower level of innovation??

I admit I'm not into a lot of those other bands to be honest. They all sound very similar to me. But I haven't heard a lot of them. If you really think they are more innovative than Pink Floyd please choose the most innovative of the group and give me a good set of examples that show the range of their material. I think there are very few bands, if any, that come close to the innovation exemplified in Pink Floyd's catalogue.
Si
#145
I think we can all agree that music evokes a human feeling, whatever that is. Runs entire gamut of incredible despair to eternal bliss. Why? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer. If someone does, please post.

If someone hit a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth of game 7 of a world series, there is a feeling associated with it, something incredibily rare and epic. "Can you describe the feeling?" the report will ask. "No" the person says. "You had to have done it."

I believe there is certain music that can be written to evoke this feeling. Someone has mastered the art of sound to evoke such an "epic" feeling. Songs like Stairway to Heaven evoke an "epic" or "legendary" feel - hopefully you're still with me...if you're not, oh well

Many, many people seem to be able to evoke "teenage angst" through music, for example and many people can relate to it. However, is this feeling "inferior" to a legendary, once in a lifetime type feeling? If you were the person who assassinated Hitler and ended WW2, could you describe that feeling to someone? Probably not...

I argue that there is a certain superiority in expression through music. Some bands are capable of letting an everyman feel the power of "epic" feelings that are once in a lifetime. Few can relate to this feeling however, despite feeling it.

Teenage girls for example wouldn't "relate" to it...but could they naturally "feel" the feeling evoked?

This is very difficult to put into words, and my goal is to stimulate discussion, however that goal may not work out I am fully aware.
alphadark.com
Get a free eBook for beginners.

Concertear.com
Don't be a fool, protect your hearing for life.
#146
Quote by TheRiz


I believe there is certain music that can be written to evoke this feeling. Someone has mastered the art of sound to evoke such an "epic" feeling. Songs like Stairway to Heaven evoke an "epic" or "legendary" feel - hopefully you're still with me...if you're not, oh well


I disagree with this assessment of Stairway To Heaven, personally. I have never felt an "epic" feeling to the song, I have just thought it sounded "pretty", but also considered it too long and repetitive. This is not to say I don't get these special feelings you're talking about, just in songs that aren't Stairway To Heaven(Like Last Fantasy of Christ by Vehemence, or Book Of The Fallen by Caladan Brood, or Pulverized by Hecq).

Many, many people seem to be able to evoke "teenage angst" through music, for example and many people can relate to it. However, is this feeling "inferior" to a legendary, once in a lifetime type feeling? If you were the person who assassinated Hitler and ended WW2, could you describe that feeling to someone? Probably not...

I argue that there is a certain superiority in expression through music. Some bands are capable of letting an everyman feel the power of "epic" feelings that are once in a lifetime. Few can relate to this feeling however, despite feeling it.


What is a legendary, once in a lifetime feeling? I thought I had an idea of what you mean from what you said earlier in this post, but now it sounds as if you are describing something magical.
#147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua2loiGHZ38

you don't need lyrics to evoke emotion

as much as i hate that "things were so perfect back then" pretentiousness, i've learned over the last year or so that there is something to just being able to write a good song. there's plenty of subjectively amazing music to me that most people wouldn't "get", but listening to old beatles or elliott smith or louis jordan tunes, you just get this wholesome feeling of "wow, this is how you write a song", like there's a secret formula somewhere for channeling inspiration in just the right, catchy way. plenty of people still do it, but there are plenty of other avenues of expression to explore.

Last edited by Hail at Sep 13, 2014,
#148
For me it's pretty hard to find new stuff to listen to these days, I stumble on most of the stuff I like by accident. Most new releases from artists I like tend to disappoint. So much to choose from, and a large percentage doesn't appeal to me.

I remember growing up with no internet in my teens, you had the one FM station you liked best, songs became popular by airplay, you were pretty limited on what you even could hear, sometimes a friend would turn you on to something good that got no airplay. Buying an album was something everyone (without much cash) took pretty seriously.
#149
Quote by TheRiz
I think we can all agree that music evokes a human feeling, whatever that is. Runs entire gamut of incredible despair to eternal bliss. Why? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer. If someone does, please post.

If someone hit a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth of game 7 of a world series, there is a feeling associated with it, something incredibily rare and epic. "Can you describe the feeling?" the report will ask. "No" the person says. "You had to have done it."

I believe there is certain music that can be written to evoke this feeling. Someone has mastered the art of sound to evoke such an "epic" feeling. Songs like Stairway to Heaven evoke an "epic" or "legendary" feel - hopefully you're still with me...if you're not, oh well

Many, many people seem to be able to evoke "teenage angst" through music, for example and many people can relate to it. However, is this feeling "inferior" to a legendary, once in a lifetime type feeling? If you were the person who assassinated Hitler and ended WW2, could you describe that feeling to someone? Probably not...

I argue that there is a certain superiority in expression through music. Some bands are capable of letting an everyman feel the power of "epic" feelings that are once in a lifetime. Few can relate to this feeling however, despite feeling it.

Teenage girls for example wouldn't "relate" to it...but could they naturally "feel" the feeling evoked?

This is very difficult to put into words, and my goal is to stimulate discussion, however that goal may not work out I am fully aware.

Not all music is supposed to be "epic". There are "epic" songs and there are "just having fun and partying songs". There is music for every situation and I think that's a good thing. Sometimes I don't want to listen to "epic" songs. I just want to turn it up and rock.

What I mean is that music can evoke different feelings. And it is different for different people. Not all feel the same when listening to "Stairway to Heaven". If we all felt exactly the same, everybody would listen to similar music.

Some music has made me feel the feeling I think you are describing. But there are lots of people who have listened to that song and not felt the same. And there are also lots of songs that people say are epic and I haven't felt the same. I think the way I feel when I listen to certain music depends on my mood. As I said, sometimes this kind of "epic" songs don't just work. That's when different songs work. It's all about my mood.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#151
Quote by TheRiz
I believe there is certain music that can be written to evoke this feeling. Someone has mastered the art of sound to evoke such an "epic" feeling. Songs like Stairway to Heaven evoke an "epic" or "legendary" feel - hopefully you're still with me...if you're not, oh well

Ok, so...?

There's new bands/songs that evoke the same epic quality.
#158
Music doesn't exist.
ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here