When people complain about new music not living up to old, it just means they've quit exploring and form their prejudices on the pop genre they hear, which has always been the lowest hanging song on the tree.
absolute truth right here. I used to be like that, "Brehh Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and Queen were the last good bands". Looking back I was such a tool. First because it's such a douche thing to belittle people for their music preference, and second because there is a ton of a great music. Now I can say I'm honestly a huge swiftie and I like a ton of music across several decades.
We have the most variety of music in history right now. To say "I don't like new music" is absurd, and you're exactly right, just means they just don't even try.
I think survivorship bias plays into it as well. Yeah, most the stuff on the radio today is kinda meh. Most the stuff on the radio in those days was kinda meh too. All the meh songs got forgotten, and you only remember the bangers. You've already seen it happen to 00s music and we're watching it happen with the 10s.
But yeah, it's wild how many people look at how accessible different types of music are now and just... don't go looking.
For so many artists, they'll have a single hit that survived the test of time and most that didn't. We hear the one song that not only topped the charts but continued to be remembered. I tried going back to the top 100 songs of the 50's. Some of them are good (Hound Dog), but others frankly just aren't very good. Contrast that with the modern day, I had a neighbor growing up who is a professional singer who has better original songs.
Then you just get the factor of time itself. Old includes all surviving music before the present day. When you have centuries of music (if not more),
As an unpopular opinion on the other end, it’s ok to stop participating in pop culture. Pop music, Blockbuster movies, and TV are all meant to sell consumerism to young people with disposable incomes. Not to people who are bogged down by kids and mortgages.
New media isn’t made for your tastes, so unless you make an effort to change your tastes to those of the current generation of young people, new media will never be seen as good enough by you
Doesn't this usually refer to music on the radio? I think most people understand that there's lots of good music if you look for it, but the problem is the "popular" music is getting more and more formulaic
The thing is, I don't want to have to look for it. Growing up I could turn on the radio and hear amazing music on pretty much any popular channel. Depeche Mode, Billy Idol, David Bowie, REM, XTC, Goo Goo Dolls, En Vogue, Green Day, Alanis Morrissette, Boyz II Men, Sarah MacLachlan, and so many others. It was a preponderance of great music with some shitty stuff interspersed.
Growing up, everything you heard was new to you. An experience. People older than you was saying the same shit about the music you were enjoying at the time. That's how it goes.
performance by the musicians itself is not as central to the composition
Extremely debatable. With Renaissance and Romanticism came the cult of personality around celebrities. Lisztomania basically mirrored Beatlemania but for the virtuoso Hungarian pianist and composer, in the mid 1800s. Haydn and Paganini reportedly had a rather large female followings who weren’t really interested in their knack for musical harmony. IIRC, there are accounts of Mozart indulging in the lifestyle of a young royal composer with some renown.
I don’t know if he’d be making electronic music, honestly. Mozart broke so many of his contemporary musical rules, with all that has been invented since, I find it hard to believe he’d limit himself to it. Maybe progressive/experimental stuff ala Aphex Twin lol?
The composers are usually not the musicians though when it comes to classical music, especially since most of the composers are already dead 🤪
But just imagine a Beatles cover band becoming more famous than the Beatles themselves. Something like is common when it comes to orchestras that play classical music though.
Sure, there is some personality cult around famous conductors and so on, but that is really more comparable to DJs that remix but do not compose their own electronic music.
I mean, of course it’s gonna be interprets nowadays if the composers are dead, but composers were also often musicians or directors for their own music when they were alive 🤷♂️ It’s very difficult to play multiple instruments by yourself to hear your own composition when multitrack audio recording wasn’t a thing lol
A more accurate equivalence for the Beatles cover band would be if they were from year 2187 and all of The Beatles’ recordings were lost to time, which wouldn’t be particularly weird at this point, considering nobody alive in this year would remember what hearing The Beatles was like.
I guess if you’re talking about classical music as we live it now the comparison kind of makes sense, but “classical music” means so many things, spanning a couple centuries through multiple countries and waves - e.g. Bach, Mozart and Glass barely have anything to do with each other.
Mozart would probably go fucking nuts looking at modern notation software like Sibelius/MuseScore/Dorico tho lol
I upvoted you, but you are not entirely right in my opinion.
Not all classical music is created equal. I am quite convinced that if J.S. Bach had lived today, he would make music like Squarepusher. However, somebody like Gustav Holst would probably be in some kind of doom metal or progressive metal.
Taylor Swift is fine, her music is enjoyable, but ultimately kind of forgettable. Her popularity comes from the social-cohesion function of popular music.
She took what she learned in country music and applied it to pop, which has a much larger audience, catapulting her to success. Country songs tell a story, which engages the listener, and makes the songs memorable. That's why people still get excited about a country song that was popular 30 years ago, they remember the story, and the lyrics. She has done that for pop music and listeners love it. Plus, she focuses on being popular. She has said that she really wants people to like her, so she actively works towards being likable. Last, but certainly not least, she was smart to remaster all of her songs, giving her full rights to the music. That put a lot more money in her pockets, and she has used that money wisely to continue promoting herself, her music, and her tours. She's a smart lady, who seems to have a fun personality, and is very easy on the eyes too. She basically has everything needed to be immensely successful.
IDK if it’s unpopular, but I’m worried that TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube Shorts have completely screwed with what kind of music gets popular nowadays. It seems like every popular song has some kind of intense drop because content creators love the “quick build up to some kind of visual punchline” video format and it has ruined what I think could otherwise influence and encourage originality
Historically, music changes to fit the medium that's used to deliver it to the listener. Short form video is no different. I just have to trust that artists will always find ways to say what they need to say. After all, "the enemy of art is the absence of limitations."
It's often attributed to Orson Welles, but I don't know if that's accurate. It is paradoxical, yes, but I find it to be a commonly relatable sentiment though across many art forms. It almost seems like the art world's version of "necessity is the mother of invention".
Without limitations, there's little opportunity for art; or to frame it another way, if everything is expected, nothing can be surprising. It's when an artist's work "jumps off the page" that people are in awe, so it's important there's a "page" to "jump off of" as it were.
Separating the artist from the art is fine for me as long as you don't support them. There is nothing inherently wrong with consuming media you like from a controversial figure.
Of course it's hard to separate the artist and the art if you actively give them money for it.
I like some of Kanye West's music but I would never spend a single cent on one of his albums, watch an ad on Youtube for his music videos or listen to his songs on streaming services.
It depends: if you only listen to music (or view artwork) to feel "good" or enjoy "basking" in the emotions it evokes, then it makes sense to steer clear of artwork you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable.
But if you find value in viewing artwork that illicits a multitude of emotions, evokes introspection, throws you off balance, and forces you to consider concepts you wouldn't otherwise, then taking a moment to peak into the mind of someone you fundamentally disagree with is a great way to do that.
As Werner Herzog put it, "the poet must not avert his eyes".
You have to separate the art from the artist because there is not a single artist I've ever encountered who wasn't some kind of fucking trashhole of a person.
Artists spent their lives on being artists, not developing good interpersonal skills or understanding politics or philosophy.
Beleiving an artist is a "good person" is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Start out assuming they suck dogshit and you usually end up being right.
I think it's reasonable to draw some lines that, when crossed, you'll choose to disengage from their art.
The musician doesn't have to be a saint. But if I find out they, I don't know, love eating live puppies, I'm going to prefer spending my time and attention elsewhere.
This is actually really popular among my music students. I completely disagree on most case. X raped 300 kids but hey, he makes pretty good beats so let's pay 200$ for a concert.
I felt that was true for a long time. There are a lot of sub-genres out there that don't promote that kind of thing. Honestly, and this is probably me wearing a conspiracy theorist hat, a lot of hip-hop that essentially glorified a lot of horrible traits was just what a lot of old, rich white dudes figured would make them money.
Look into underground hip hop, there's all sorts of awesome music of much higher caliber than mainstream rap/hip hop.
Mf Doom, Busdriver, Kool Keith (and his many many aliases), Aesop Rock (not ASAP Rocky or whatever), and I'm sure lots of newer stuff I'm not even familiar with. Digable Planets are pretty big and they're good (and old, like me)
Yes unpopular, but your final sentence indicates a deep lack of understanding regarding the origins, purpose, and breadth of the genre.
You are welcome to your opinion, and I'm 100% sure that no one coming in like that is going to look any deeper. I'm just sharing my opinion that yours is uninformed and superficial.
Hey that's fair. I'm not privy to a lot of the socioeconomic shit that took/takes place that led to the rise of rap and what I call ghetto culture.
I just think it's been glorified to the point people who have no experience with ghetto culture outside of rap music start acting like they thugs n shit. Like "gangster" shit started happening everywhere with a shitload of people fully embracing not only the visual look but the "hustler" "gangster" lifestyle.
Also don't mistake my ignorance for inability to learn. I'm willing to listen and learn about it all I just don't think it'll change my outlook on how it's effected everyone everywhere negatively.
And you know maybe I'm wrong and I'm just upset things aren't changing the way I want them to. In that case oh well I'll live.
Rap was important and had a clear goal; to inspire afroamerican people, kids to learn, to live their life and fight for their rights. to get up from the ghetto, to keep on going, make them see they aren't alone, they have their backs by the community. (In the US)
this all was rather successfull.
but then, I don't know what rap's function is today. if there is any... so what you are saying, I can aggree with it, but I tend not to forget what was the original goal of this genre, and this is why I can't completely dismiss rap.
Agreed wholeheartedly. And just to pile on another unpopular opinion: it all sounds like trash. Literally it's not music. Just a repetitive beat while some douchebag talks fast at you.
"the Beatles are overrated" is a poorly defined statement often made by people who give the impression they want to be seen as an iconoclast of some sort.
Ok. Overrated on what metrics? Historical impact? Popularity at the time? Popularity now?
"I don't like the Beatles' music" is probably closer to what people mean, and that's fine. I rarely listen to them on purpose. But the whole "I don't like them, and neither should you" thing is kind of insufferable.
When I say they're overrated, I mean I don't understand why they're so popular. They're not bad but they're not that good, either. I don't understand the praise lauded on them. It's too much relative to their quality.
I can understand if someone loves them in their time. For example, Nirvana was absolutely amazing in their time. However, it's been 30 years and that sound is a lot more mainstream, but in their day, they were breaking new ground.
But my kids age? Why do people think they're that good?
I generally assume that "popular thing is overrated" is generally said just to troll people. At least, I like to dog on things that are popular that I'm not in to just to get a raise out of people that can't accept any criticism of their thing.
Some music is made by and for lowlifes, where I live is Vallenato, Campesina, Rancheras, Bachata, and 90%of reggaeton.
Lyrics about asking for forgiveness after cheating, smoking, domestic violent (being the one that does the domestic violence), admitting to spike drinks and brag about it, simping for drug Lords, and women are nothing but a sex object.
The people who listen to that music is just as you imagine them. Uneducated, sexist, wife beaters, going around in huge SUVs blasting that music outloud with no respect for anyone around then, they are the ones who start blasting the music at 1AM on a Wednesday and doesn't let anyone sleep in their entire neighborhood.
People give me shit for this and claim is "culture" but I think there is such a thing as music for lowlifes.
While I can see where you're coming from, about 90% of the music I listen to is some kind of metal. Most of it is just about cool nerdy stuff but there's definitely some truly horrible shit in there. I have yet to and don't intend to do any of it.
I think the bias comes from how loud some of these shitty people are. They build the stereotype. For the most part, people just mind their own business, go to work, raise their kids, and bob their heads to the beeps and boops.
I see where you're coming from, because I kinda also hate the genres you mentioned in specific, but man, it's not ALL bad. You put on some Juan Luis Guerra and he makes better bachata than anyone else you can think of. It's actually fucking enjoyable. It took me decades to even begin to appreciate some of the more pop music (or even tolerate it, cause fuck regueton....but everyone listens to it where I live), and he definitely stands out.
There are too many damn love songs. 75% of all music does not need to be about love, relationships, and breakups. I stopped listening to radio because all the damn love songs got annoying.
Can we please have more songs about literally anything else. Weed, flowers, rainy days, animal companions, construction work, types of cars, card games, anything. There’s more in life to sing about than just relationships and/or the lack of them!
Sincerely,
A person whose sexuality is “No” and has no interest in that kind of relationship.
There is, in fact, good country music that isn't just about trucks, beer, flags, and right-wing U.S. propaganda.
People have a lot of hate for the genre due to the mass appeal, common denominator examples. But like with all music, dig a little deeper beyond what gets radio play and you can find some good shit.
Had a chat with a coworker about this. I'm not a big fan of the genre as a whole, but something happened to the genre around 20ish years ago. The country twang went from being a natural signature sound of some artists to being something everyone emulated while singing their bird cage bottom piece of shit piece about their truck.
My grandparents used to watch this show on TV called Club Dance. Imagine Soul Train for old white people; it was shot in a fictional "saloon" and they'd have both professional country dancers and amateurs who wanted to be on the show. Most of the music I remember hearing about the show was basically about dancing. The whole "truck jeans beer girl creek boots truck" phenomenon hadn't been invented yet.
Here is a random list of songs I like, in my opinion under the umbrella of country in one way or another (though some stretch that a little. Or a lot. Don't @ me, die-hard country fans).
Some may, indeed, involve beer, trucks, and American Christian propaganda - but pleasant sounding at least. I'm also confirmed to be pretty lame, and that may be reflected in my choices here.
I also never said you needed to dig deep - some/most of this is like, a fingernail scratch. But if you find something here you dig, strongly recommend diving deeper into the artist.
Merle Haggard - Mama Tried
George Jones - White Lightning
The Highwaymen - Highwayman
Dick Curless - The Heartline Special
Eddy Arnold - Cowpoke
Conway Twitty - Hello Darlin'
Townes Van Zandt - Waiting Around to Die
Sons of the Pioneers - Empty Saddles
Marty Robbins - Running Gun
Willie Nelson - Bubbles in my Beer
Hank Thompson - A Six Pack to Go
Johnny Cash - Sunday Morning Coming Down
Sonny James - Baltimore
Del Reeves - A Dime at A Time
Dale Hawkins - Everglades
Jimmy Bryant and Speedy West - Blue Bonnet Rag
Tim Carroll - I Think Hank Woulda Done It This Way
Buddy Emmons - Orange Blossom Special
Tommy Collins - You Better Not Do That
The Louvin Brothers - Satan is Real [here's that propaganda I told you about - still love this song]
Eddie Noack - Psycho
Chet Atkins and Jerry Reed - Jerry's Breakdown
Tom T. Hall - That's How I Got to Memphis
Roger Miller - Dang Me
I have a real love hate relationship with country music, I love almost everything except it feels very low energy most of the time and like you said the classic truck songs
I've found bands like poor man's poison and the dead South, hurry up and wait by ben miller band is a great example of something decent
Disturbed's cover of Sound of Silence is not only awful, it is an antithesis of the meaning of the song. Anyone who likes that version better than S&G's arguably doesn't understand the point of the song, and the fact that everyone holds it up as the gold standard of "covers better than the original" is even worse.
A close second is Postmodern Jukebox and their horrendous tendencies to take tempos to an opposite extreme instead of finding more meaningful ways of changing the genre of a song. I like some of their stuff, but the number of people who love their cover of Welcome to the Jungle is mind-boggling to me.
There are plenty of songs that I prefer the cover of to the original (Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You'), or ones that just give the original a modern coat of paint without changing much else (Smash Mouth's 'I'm a Believer'), but these songs in particular are just awful imo.
I don't mind a cover changing the meaning of a song, but stuff where the cover is just the song again is...lazy as fuck?
Like Fast Car by (country music guy) is fantastic, but it's the same as the original, which is also fantastic. Feels cheap or something, I don't know. Like the whole Weezer cover album was boring as fuck. The songs are technically great, but why listen to that over the originals? Rivers said his goal was to try and reproduce the original sound, which seems like an interesting exercise for the band, but not for the listener. So that wraps back around to respecting the band.
Anyways, I have a lot of strong feelings about covers. Make it your own, even if you don't change it that much.
There's people on spotify with less than 5000 monthly listeners pumping out music so good it would have topped charts 10 years ago. The quality and talent of artists these days is insane.
These days? This has always been the case. I remember downloading mp3s from unknowns who offered their music for free in the internet on the early 2000s. Great music.
Lyrics ruin most music. This is one is weird because I actually love the sound of the human voice, but it most music its just ugly. Also most of the lyrics themselves suck. Usually vague, meaningless, hoping you'll interpret them as something deep. There's just so many songs that most lyrics have to be bad.
Also drums ruin most music. They are harsh, dissonant, overly loud, overpower subtler instruments, and reduce complex, varying melodies to a simple beat. Even when I want simple heavy beats, I prefer electronic alternatives (no idea what they're called) so it's not so harsh
I have a pretty broad music taste, I have rock, classical, pop, eurodance, opera, bitpop, industrial, metal, ballads and more on my phone, except rap or hiphop.
There is just something in me that as soon as I hear either it just sounds like shit.
I like it because I can equate it to poetry. You have to be one talented motherfucker to come up with some of those rhymes, and to be still able to put it along to a rhythm and beat, sometimes incredibly fast (Busta Rhymes, George Watsky).
ETA: I also have a soft spot for three particular white Jewish boys from NYC
I've been thinking about something similar (as someone who isn't a fan of rap/hip-hop). No matter how much I don't like it (the actual music behind it is too bland for me), it has the greatest potential to deliver deep lyrics with puns and other wordplay.
But then it got me thinking:
What the HELL is holding us back from improving the other genres' lyrics, or actually slapping some decent music on top of rap/hip-hop music, and not just some bland base or short and repetitive catchy tune?
Rock had excellent lyrics in the 60's and 70's, but lyrical poetry kind of fell off a bit after that era. In the 90's a lot of bands were experimenting with mixing rap, rock, rasta, and other genres together. Some of it works really well, and some of it doesn't, but it's all pretty unique music. Eminem did an excellent job of mixing rock and pop with rap, and he has a lot of success to show for it. So, we've seen a lot of experimentation and progress over the decades, but we don't see much of that any more, at least not from major labels. They figured out a decade and a half ago that there's a very algorithmic approach to selling lots of music, and they'd rather continually follow that formula than take a risk on originality. So now most of the music coming from major labels are songs that are written by studio song writers, following a specific formula proven to sell albums, and the artist is secondary. They'll find someone with a good stage presence, that looks good, teach them to dance, and hand them a stack of songs to perform under heavy auto-tune. Most of the popular music I've heard in the last 10 years is devoid of soul.
There's a lot of rap and hip-hop that isn't just running along to a bassy beat. Busta Rhymes doesn't rap to a beat, and he comes up with some clever lines. I've heard that Childish Gambino is one of the most clever writers right now, with some lines in Bonfires and Sweatpants being pretty damn hard.
I really like A Tribe Called Quest as well, because they have a more jazzy sound than most. I REALLY like Digable Planets though because they're like the ultimate fusion of funk, jazz, and hip-hop.
For more unconventional hip-hop, try Flobots. Handlebars is the only song that got radio play and it's alright, but most of the rest of that album is better. Mayday is my favourite song by them
I tried to, but I just coulnd't stand the rythm or the rapper's voice.
Sorry but the genere just isn't for me.
The one song that might classify as rap/hiphop that I do enjoy is https://youtu.be/KD59LJX2r38 though is has a lot of pop in it, the video is quite cool, and I would be lying if I said that I would not like to have a fur baseball cap.
It helps if there's a transcript to read along with it. Zack De La Rocha from Rage Against The Machine has a verse at the end of that song that hits really hard, because he's a great lyricist.
There's a line in El-P's verse where he says "hand on my heart and my mind on my drugs, got a Vonne-gut punch for your Atlas Shrugged," and the whole song is about modern ultra capitalism and our state of society at large.
You shouldn’t generalize, a lot of the stuff that gets played a lot is not indicative of the whole genre. There is some rap that makes me cover my ears, and there is some rap that makes me feel enlightened. Hip hop it just depends on the song, since there is so much variety.
That's true, I was just hoping to maybe convince you to try out something that maybe you don't know is wonderful yet. I've had that experience with music before, and I think it helped me to understand why people like things
Billy Joel is the only thing I recognize on your list. I guess we have very different musical tastes. I like pretty much every genre of music, but I gravitate towards rock and metal.
On the rare occasions I'm scanning through FM radio stations, the reason I hit the Next button the fastest when I find myself "listening" to a hip-hop station? The hi hat. tss ts ts ts ts ts tss ts tssssss. It's most of what you hear, everything else is mixed down in the mud beneath it. I'm informed this is an...artistic choice?
I ain't gonna call them mediocre myself, and The Wall means a lot to me personally with my own life journey, but there's absolutely better, more musically interesting prog rock groups out there than Pink Floyd.
You might like this line from Arrested Development, Season 4:
And, like all bagpipe music it was hard to tell if it was good music played horribly, or horrible music played well.
I'm Scottish, so I felt guilty for laughing at that as much as I did :-)
On rare occasions, I do think bagpipe music can be spectacularly beautiful and moving, but it takes a really talented piper and/or some contextualising occasion (like a major sports event) to really make me like it all that much.
I had to google whether this is some idiom unknown to me, or if you're mocking me, or what it really is. I'm no philosopher, but at one point it's not the same ship for me.
Oh, not mocking you. It's just a semi famous Greek thing about when changing the parts of a thing changes the thing. It's hard to draw clear lines about it.
Especially in the case where you take the parts off the original ship one at a time and replace them, while reassembling them somewhere else. Now you have two ships and it's unclear which is the "original"
It applies somewhat well to a band changing members, but I guess if your band is only like 3 people it's less fuzzy. A symphony of 100 people that changes one member every year, though, would be harder to call.
Yeah. I was thinking like the usual 4 piece rock band. You switch one member and it's ok. Let's say next year one member dies, so he's replaced. Still ok. But when there's ultimately nobody from the original lineup, it's just not the same band for me. On paper it is, but for me it's just milking the name...
when there's ultimately nobody from the original lineup, it's just not the same band for me
I agree in general, but I think longevity comes into it too.
If the band lost a couple of members early on, but replaced them, then had decades of success and eventually replaced the remaining originals, you still have the early replacements there, who were involved for most of their career.
It would seem harsh to say it's not the same band just because none of the original members are there.
Good question, but the comment I was replying to only mentioned a single band member change.
Philosophically it's hard to say at what point it stops being the same band. It's the Ship of Theseus, or as it's often known here in the UK, Trigger's Broom, after a scene in the sitcom Only Fools and Horses.
I dislike modern pop's mixing of the human voice, mixed so high compared to the rest, to the point where you can't hear instruments anymore. The music is often there just for accompanyment, elevetor music. I rather have chillwave, where everything is one big reverb trick pony, than having to hear people screaming.
I don't understand Dylan but I believe he was lauded because of other musicians looking for anything new. Dylan pioneered the 3 minute song as a short story. So if you are a pop artist struggling to write a new song, it opened up lots of new ideas.
Dylan called his technique his crutch in writing "4th Time Around" to Lennon about Norwegian Wood copying Dylan's style.
Nowadays not that much. Ofc those radio songs you've heard more than billion times are awful and helps nobody to appreciate Beatles. But if you dig a bit deeper into songs that are ignored by radios, there are quite some good songs.
For one, I can't believe Helter Skelter was made by the same Beatles as e.g. Help. Or whole Sgt. Pepper album is nice too.
Satriani is a great guitarist (among the best), but a mediocre song writer. He suffers from what I like to call The Solo Syndrome (not a reference to guitar solos). A song tends to be better when multiple musicians have had input, otherwise there's too much focus on only one instrument. A lot of solo musicians' music suffers from this.
Take for example Satrianis "Made of Tears". How much better wouldn't the song have been if an actual basist had written a cool bass riff to go along with it?
Or another example from Satriani: "Searching". Excelent guitar hook in the beginning and the end, but I would've loved it more if there were other bandmembers who could tell him that the middle section is long and boring and would be better spent playing WITH other instruments instead of TO other instruments.
I find that Steve Vai is a better (and comparable) songwriter (although a lot of his songs aren't to my taste)
Right on. I was kinda holding back from saying his music is boring, but you explained it better. And I agree, Vai, while also making guitar solo driven music, actually makes interesting songs that you don't tune out after the first 2 minutes of listening,
For me, that description fits Yngwie more than Satriani. Satch had at least 1%, maybe even a whopping 2% soul. Vai is probably sneaking up on double digits.
I really hate the "soul" accusation. It's so arrogant and pretentious. Look, I get it, their music doesn't tell you anything, it's not your thing, it's OK. It's about you, it's not about them. Not saying there's anything wrong with you because of it. There's a lot of great music I simply don't like. It's normal.
You don't feel anything with their music. I do. Lots of people do. Is our "soul" bone defective? Are you the judge of musical taste? Can't you see we laugh and cry with their music just as easily has you do with what you consider "music with soul"?
My experience is that the same people who accuse them of being 100% technical and souless are precisely the ones so fixated on the technique they can't actually just see past it and just listen to the music itself. Do you think we get goosebumps because of how fast we see the dude fingers move?
Regarding the actual musicians. I can't say much about Malmsteen because it's not my taste but the dude singlehandedly created a new genre. I can't put him down just because his music is not my preference.
Satriani is certainly the most melodic of them. The guy launched multiple great albums. Until the early 00s. Every album until then was simply amazing. Vai could only launch 2 or 3 with the same quality. But after Super Colossal he lost his edge. He still makes good stuff but never like what he made between 1984 and 2006. It was out of this world (wink, wink).
That's a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I'm sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole "soul" thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of "soul" are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton's voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It's imperfect, it's unrepeatable, and it's amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It's no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it's markedly different. Listeners who don't identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn't mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way "defective". These guys wouldn't have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn't seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups
That's your opinion. I've heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an "imperfection" doesn't ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn't mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn't mean the lack of "imperfections" will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as "perfect" as it gets. But one wouldn't call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn't admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I'd respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
I don't mean to antagonize you, but I've heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called "imperfections". A song like Satriani's Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai's Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don't think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They're perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton's performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It's not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn't touch me. But it's my "failing" not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what's under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played.
More assumptions. You know this how?
It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different.
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don't think your assumption is correct.
Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like
And it's not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it's machine-like it's because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can't accept it's just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for "liking machine-like music" and "they themselves prefer something with soul". Can't you see how that kind of statement puts other people's tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they'd smile condescendingly and say "well, that music has its merits...sure...but it's too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles". We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That's how people with the "soul" argument come off, intentionally or not.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn't). So, something to consider.
I'm a Satriani fan and, while I totally disagree with you calling him a mediocre song writer, I can't help but understand your point about Searching and Made of Tears. If that's your sample of his music I totally understand your view.
Searching is just a catchy Whammy trick followed by an unending jam/solo. It's very uncharacteristic of him. Made of Tears is not a bad song (one of the best on Super Colossal and it's not a good thing) but is definitely off what I was used to hear from him when that album came out.
The thing is, if you want to know what Satch is about you have to hear what he did before Super Colossal. I like Super Colossal. But for me it's when his fire died. Sure, you can still hear his genius there but only on the occasional song. For me Ten Words is the last song where you find that. One of his most simple songs. It's an appropriate farewell. What came after is still good...but it's not mind-blowing.
Super Colossal came out in 2006, you should hear what he did before if you want to know why he's considered one of the most melodic guitar players ever. Is There Love in Space already has some signs of his "downfall" but you have to be Searching them (wink, wink).
Before that everything is genius and everything is different. I'd say, in my opinion, he hit his peak on the 2 albums before that (Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music). But even before those two you have lots of material showing what he used to be about.
Steve Vai is maybe more original. It's a matter of preference. But I've only felt about him the same way as old Satch on 2 albums. The rest is nice but meh. I am looking forward to their collaboration though, it gave me good vibes.
Satch for sure is an extremely talented guitarist and understands that the key to a good song is a melody (or "hook") that is simple, memorable, and catchy. Almost every song he wrote has this at its core. The problem is simply that this is insanely difficult to do and he struggles with it, especially on his later albums
That rap is absolute garbage. For reasons I can't explain it makes me unbelievably angry to have to listen to. It probably has something to do with a combination of my anxiety and sensitivity to loud noises, but I don't know. I do like metal, although I don't like it particularly loud.
90% of all radio songs lately have been horrendous covers of old songs, with some of them literally being just that old song, but with a cookie cutter beat under them. The other 10% are just said cookie cutter beats with some generic singer doing an annoying voice over them.
Popular music is becoming more creatively bankrupt than it ever has been.
This may not be an unpopular in the outside world but somehow I bet it will be here, the vast majority of metal is just straight noise and incomprehensible yelling to me. I do enjoy when metal songs are covered by bluegrass bands though
I really want to like Ska, and I really like nearly the entirety of this album, but whenever I try to branch out from there I come up dry with anything I really enjoy.
Bands that title their album random symbols (or a series of them) are assholes.
I'm looking at KMFDM (can't even encode "symbols" accurately) and Justice (their first album, often called latin cross). Both great albums that suffer from fucking horrible visibility because of their shit names.
What?? KMFDM back in the 90s were groundbreaking with their name and album art alone. Very stylized, nihilistic vibes aesthetically when I would see their albums in the record store - even before I ever listened to them. Hell, I even shoplifted a cassette tape from Camelot Records when I was a teenager just cuz I was so intrigued as to what this band was about.
You’ve awakened my “old man yells at cloud” vibes with this one.
Hey, both the bands I mentioned are awesome - I just object to the symbolic naming of albums. If you read "KMFDM's Symbols album" and knew exactly what I'm talking about then you're part of an in-group and everyone not in that in group standing with us in a record store in the 90s wouldn't have a clue which album we were talking about... if we were talking about the album over lunch and they went to a record shop to pick up a copy they wouldn't be able to find it without awkwardly asking a clerk.
Obscure symbol album names create elitism that we don't need - you could easily find Nirvana's Nevermind but by naming their album... that untranscribable string of symbols they made it less accessible to new listeners.
I don't think I'd call them assholes... more just shortsighted about the realities of selling an album, specifically in how you refer to the album both in speech and in writing.
Everyone calls it "KMFDM - symbols" for a reason. I agree only in that it drives me insane when I would rip CDs and have to deal with trying to figure out what to name them. Also, fuck Leæther Strip for their stupid "æ" in the name.
Most unpopular among my friends would be something along the lines of "metal is the best music" or "electronic music/techno sux, because it's all the same".
I like to troll a bit with them, but honestly I do like me some metal. It's so variable, there's progressive Opeth on one side, brutal machinegun Cannibal Corpse on the other, insane meatgrinder Mayhem on the third and groovy jumpy Pantera on fourth. And we're only at the beginning. But I get that some (most) people find it all too heavy. Their loss, not mine ;-)
It's insane how versatile their music is. One song is calm prog like Pink Floyd the other is really metal. And the singer rocks, going through all this like it's nothing.
Trent Reznor's original version of Hurt is better than Johnny Cash's version, which is terrible. I strongly dislike him bringing in the religious aspect by changing the lyrics and I just plain don't like his voice.
I can't stand Queen, even though I have respect for their skill. (my highschool had an "arts program" and they bombarded us with musicals, Queen, and some sort of Queen musical)
NIN does nothing for me, and I've tried several albums and owned one. It's just.. nothing soup.
95% of music in any genre is garbage, but you can find the 5% gems if you go looking for it.
Nickleback - Silver Side Up is a pretty decent album. Sure, that song is annoying and extremely overplayed, but I quite like the rest of the album.
I must admit that beyond that particular album I don't know much about them, so if you claim that the rest of their discography is garbage, I'll take your word for it.
IMO early Nickleback up to about the early/mid 2000s was awesome, I still listen to their older stuff once in a while. Someday is their best song IMO and its from the late 90s (I think?)
I discovered them through "Savin' Me" and I unironically love that song (and its music video) to bits. Even if some of the lyrics are a bit flimsy and dramatic, the song overall is so emotionally powerful. Same goes for "Hero" (packaged with the first Spidey movie). Strip away some of the ear candy in the Kroeger production and they both still hold up as beautiful songs.
That Portlandia sketch with Jello Biafra waking up from a coma to the Yuppies having won was probably the only really good and well thought out sketch on that show.
I generally don't have any interest in music... I mean, is fine some of the time, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way for it. I also don't think it should be allowed as "background noise" in public places. It can have profound effects on your mood without you even realizing it's happening.
There is very little bad music in the world, only wrong ways to "music" to it. Some is meant to be listened to, some danced to, some bonded over to, some created and some thought about.
It's not unpopular among my generation, but it's unpopular among the younger generations. I think that the heavy use of auto-tune in today's music makes all of it sound unoriginal. Every new pop song sounds pretty much the same to me.
The average quality of music in the world doubled the day Kurt Cobain solved his headache problem. Grunge was a disease caused by not changing your clothes, and using too much heroin instead of learning to play instruments and sing.
Also, Courtney Love is 10x the musician Kurt ever was, listen to any track on America's Sweetheart and you'll break your heart. It's better that she's free.
The Beatles are pretty lowbrow compared to the hype given to them which is based mostly on charisma instead. If they made their song debuts on The Masked Singer, not nearly as many people would be particularly drawn to them.
I say that if you want to appreciate the Beatles for the first time in 2024, spend a solid month listening to nothing but popular music from the 1950's (and earlier), then put on one of their albums.
The older music is fine and enjoyable, but you'll hear why, the Beatles still get regular airplay today, and e.g. Pat Boone does not.
If that's the reason, where does the idolization come from? Even as human individuals, the Beatles members are worshipped to the point they can save a dying business by talking about it. It's suggestive of the fact there's some unspoken gimmick at play.
My take is that people value music both for the music itself, and for the social identity that comes from how we relate to it. The Beatles benefited from Beatlemania back in the day, which was the same as the Swifties phenomenon today: a social-identity group of fans. There might have been better bands in the early '60s, but the music of the Beatles was really quite good, and still holds its own today. Tons of great music has come along since then, so the Beatles catalogue no longer stands out, but they still benefit from the social-identity hype of Beatlemania, and are still revered because they were (lucky enough to get to be) pop-music pioneers.
Some things that are apparently classics that generally, outside a handful of titles for some of those, bore me to death: Red Hot Chili Pepper, Tool, Radiohead, Metallica…
However, I set my ringtone forever ago and it never annoys me when it comes on. I like hearing it. It's a chiptune from a keygen of soft software I pirated as a teen lmao.
Baroque music sounds absolutely shit. Composers try to mix in so many different voices that it’s the musical equivalent of a TV panel show where everyone is shouting over one another.
On that note: harpsichords in ensembles are background noise at best and very few people would notice their absence.
I'm with you on this one. There are lyrics on almost every single track for crying out loud. Throw us instrumental lovers a bone won't you? Songs that are lyrically driven but are otherwise super-repetitive instrumentally tend to put me to sleep.
What I love about concerts is when the band goes off script and just starts jamming. Even a 5-minute drum solo will have me grinning ear to ear, and that's what I'll be remembering on the way home.
Repetitive instrumental pattern is my #1 skip reason xD that "Aight I'm bored" moment when you realize the song has nothing more to give is a sad waste of time.
I love 21 pilots and Foo fighters for their great instrumental + vocal balance
Trash lyrics fucking up an otherwise good song. It happens far too often.
That's why I'm just a bit of a fan of Thom Yorke's whole "using my voice as an instrument, the words don't mean anything" vibe because at least he purposefully isn't trying to make meaningful lyrics and instead is just trying to add another instrument to the music.
Contemplate Clair de Lune from Debussy, take a gander at Gwyn, Lord of Cinder's theme from the Dark souls OST, let your mind wander at Time from the Inception OST. And that's only the most mainstream I could think of.
Beautiful music is everywhere, from every media, in every genre, you just just have to listen.
I kind of agree with you, there is a lot of great soundtracks. However, for me a soundtrack is part of a larger medium, which it underscores or sublements. Most of them make medicore songs at best when listend to in isolation.
Can't you say that of everything though ? Take rap for example, doesn't it fit in a larger medium that is the rapper's life ? You cant have a piece of art existing in a vacuum. If I listen to Gwyn's theme, am I liking it because I played the game or because it's intrinsically beautiful ? Does it make it less beautiful to me ? Does it matter ?
I didn't mean that the life of the artist is relevant, but lyrics are the reflection of an artist's existence, so even if you don't care about the artist themselves you're still listening to their lyrics.
That's why I say pieces don't just exist in a vacuum.
Imo it depend what the instrumental is.If it's some aggresive guitar riffs that bands like Mayhem or Siculicidium could drop, i will love it. It's just some weird noises made by a computer i will find it boring.
There is definitely exceptions. Though guitar instrumentals don't do it for me, even though I generally listen to the rock/metal genre.
But for example I really like violin covers by this one artist/youtuber of movie and game soundtracks (especially the Zelda games). But that's some of the only instrumental music I listen to and only when I'm in a specific mood.
And even there I think nostalgia is doing most of the heavy lifting for me enjoying the songs.
What about some post rock? I find it very nice relaxing music and being without lyrics is also part of that. Bands like God Is an Astronaut, Explosions in the Sky, Mono, Mogwai, etc. Even Sigur Ros which technically include singing, but it's just gibberish to have "another instrument".
Sure, no problem. I discovered the genre at uni and it really helped me to focus on studying. It's probably not for everyone (what is), but I really got into it. Love the soundscapes people are making there. Close the eyes and let your mind go...
If it's impossible to consistently make good songs. Even an artist whom a person loves will at best make 20% of their songs worth listening to. In a 1 hour set, usually 1-2 songs are worth saving into the library. Anyone who says stuff like "I love this artist's album" is full of crap.
When people complain about new music not living up to old, it just means they've quit exploring and form their prejudices on the pop genre they hear, which has always been the lowest hanging song on the tree.
absolute truth right here. I used to be like that, "Brehh Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd and Queen were the last good bands". Looking back I was such a tool. First because it's such a douche thing to belittle people for their music preference, and second because there is a ton of a great music. Now I can say I'm honestly a huge swiftie and I like a ton of music across several decades.
We have the most variety of music in history right now. To say "I don't like new music" is absurd, and you're exactly right, just means they just don't even try.
I think survivorship bias plays into it as well. Yeah, most the stuff on the radio today is kinda meh. Most the stuff on the radio in those days was kinda meh too. All the meh songs got forgotten, and you only remember the bangers. You've already seen it happen to 00s music and we're watching it happen with the 10s.
But yeah, it's wild how many people look at how accessible different types of music are now and just... don't go looking.
For so many artists, they'll have a single hit that survived the test of time and most that didn't. We hear the one song that not only topped the charts but continued to be remembered. I tried going back to the top 100 songs of the 50's. Some of them are good (Hound Dog), but others frankly just aren't very good. Contrast that with the modern day, I had a neighbor growing up who is a professional singer who has better original songs.
Then you just get the factor of time itself. Old includes all surviving music before the present day. When you have centuries of music (if not more),
As an unpopular opinion on the other end, it’s ok to stop participating in pop culture. Pop music, Blockbuster movies, and TV are all meant to sell consumerism to young people with disposable incomes. Not to people who are bogged down by kids and mortgages.
New media isn’t made for your tastes, so unless you make an effort to change your tastes to those of the current generation of young people, new media will never be seen as good enough by you
I think there's an important difference between "there is no new good music" and "I don't like any new music".
The former is making a broad proclamation. The latter is keeping it limited to your personal experience, even if phrased a little sloppily.
Though I guess you could argue people saying the former really mean the latter and are just communicating kind of badly.
Doesn't this usually refer to music on the radio? I think most people understand that there's lots of good music if you look for it, but the problem is the "popular" music is getting more and more formulaic
The thing is, I don't want to have to look for it. Growing up I could turn on the radio and hear amazing music on pretty much any popular channel. Depeche Mode, Billy Idol, David Bowie, REM, XTC, Goo Goo Dolls, En Vogue, Green Day, Alanis Morrissette, Boyz II Men, Sarah MacLachlan, and so many others. It was a preponderance of great music with some shitty stuff interspersed.
Growing up, everything you heard was new to you. An experience. People older than you was saying the same shit about the music you were enjoying at the time. That's how it goes.
Modern electronic music is the spiritual successor to classical music (and modern-day "classical" compositions are just rehashes).
I can get down with this.
I don't disagree, but can you explain your reasoning behind this?
Mostly because electronic music is made by a single composer and that the performance by the musicians itself is not as central to the composition.
And that Mozart would be probably making electronic music if he was born in this era.
Upvoted because of bad/unpopular opinion, don't agree at all.
Extremely debatable. With Renaissance and Romanticism came the cult of personality around celebrities. Lisztomania basically mirrored Beatlemania but for the virtuoso Hungarian pianist and composer, in the mid 1800s. Haydn and Paganini reportedly had a rather large female followings who weren’t really interested in their knack for musical harmony. IIRC, there are accounts of Mozart indulging in the lifestyle of a young royal composer with some renown.
I don’t know if he’d be making electronic music, honestly. Mozart broke so many of his contemporary musical rules, with all that has been invented since, I find it hard to believe he’d limit himself to it. Maybe progressive/experimental stuff ala Aphex Twin lol?
The composers are usually not the musicians though when it comes to classical music, especially since most of the composers are already dead 🤪
But just imagine a Beatles cover band becoming more famous than the Beatles themselves. Something like is common when it comes to orchestras that play classical music though.
Sure, there is some personality cult around famous conductors and so on, but that is really more comparable to DJs that remix but do not compose their own electronic music.
I mean, of course it’s gonna be interprets nowadays if the composers are dead, but composers were also often musicians or directors for their own music when they were alive 🤷♂️ It’s very difficult to play multiple instruments by yourself to hear your own composition when multitrack audio recording wasn’t a thing lol
A more accurate equivalence for the Beatles cover band would be if they were from year 2187 and all of The Beatles’ recordings were lost to time, which wouldn’t be particularly weird at this point, considering nobody alive in this year would remember what hearing The Beatles was like.
I guess if you’re talking about classical music as we live it now the comparison kind of makes sense, but “classical music” means so many things, spanning a couple centuries through multiple countries and waves - e.g. Bach, Mozart and Glass barely have anything to do with each other.
Mozart would probably go fucking nuts looking at modern notation software like Sibelius/MuseScore/Dorico tho lol
I upvoted you, but you are not entirely right in my opinion.
Not all classical music is created equal. I am quite convinced that if J.S. Bach had lived today, he would make music like Squarepusher. However, somebody like Gustav Holst would probably be in some kind of doom metal or progressive metal.
Thoughts on Ummet Ozcan?
Taylor Swift is fine, her music is enjoyable, but ultimately kind of forgettable. Her popularity comes from the social-cohesion function of popular music.
She took what she learned in country music and applied it to pop, which has a much larger audience, catapulting her to success. Country songs tell a story, which engages the listener, and makes the songs memorable. That's why people still get excited about a country song that was popular 30 years ago, they remember the story, and the lyrics. She has done that for pop music and listeners love it. Plus, she focuses on being popular. She has said that she really wants people to like her, so she actively works towards being likable. Last, but certainly not least, she was smart to remaster all of her songs, giving her full rights to the music. That put a lot more money in her pockets, and she has used that money wisely to continue promoting herself, her music, and her tours. She's a smart lady, who seems to have a fun personality, and is very easy on the eyes too. She basically has everything needed to be immensely successful.
IDK if it’s unpopular, but I’m worried that TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube Shorts have completely screwed with what kind of music gets popular nowadays. It seems like every popular song has some kind of intense drop because content creators love the “quick build up to some kind of visual punchline” video format and it has ruined what I think could otherwise influence and encourage originality
Historically, music changes to fit the medium that's used to deliver it to the listener. Short form video is no different. I just have to trust that artists will always find ways to say what they need to say. After all, "the enemy of art is the absence of limitations."
I have never heard that quote. From what context does it come? It sounds somewhat ridiculous to me
It's often attributed to Orson Welles, but I don't know if that's accurate. It is paradoxical, yes, but I find it to be a commonly relatable sentiment though across many art forms. It almost seems like the art world's version of "necessity is the mother of invention".
Without limitations, there's little opportunity for art; or to frame it another way, if everything is expected, nothing can be surprising. It's when an artist's work "jumps off the page" that people are in awe, so it's important there's a "page" to "jump off of" as it were.
Also record labels probably can pay to have tiktok promote their music and that makes people like it artificially.
Ditto
The same thing happened in the mid 2000's with ringtone rap. This phenomenon is older than people think.
Separating the artist from the art is fine.
You can like music by someone who doesn't share your social, political, or religious beliefs with.
Upvoted because this is the one I most strongly disagree with.
Hitlers art but ignore the holocaust?
Lost Prophets but ignore the lead singers horrifying SA of children?
Kanye West and his anti semitism insanity?
Chris Brown and beating the shit out of women?
R. Kelly and SA a child?
Rowling and her hatred of trans children?
Michael Jackson and his .. weird child obsession?
Gary Glitter and his SA?
Separating the artist from the art is fine for me as long as you don't support them. There is nothing inherently wrong with consuming media you like from a controversial figure.
Of course it's hard to separate the artist and the art if you actively give them money for it.
I like some of Kanye West's music but I would never spend a single cent on one of his albums, watch an ad on Youtube for his music videos or listen to his songs on streaming services.
I cant stand listening to someone singing, knowing full well they rape children 🤷♀️
each to their own I suppose
Yes, that’s what separating the art from the artist means.
Well aware. I am listing examples of why I cant separate. Hence my “disagree” comment
🤨
It depends: if you only listen to music (or view artwork) to feel "good" or enjoy "basking" in the emotions it evokes, then it makes sense to steer clear of artwork you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable.
But if you find value in viewing artwork that illicits a multitude of emotions, evokes introspection, throws you off balance, and forces you to consider concepts you wouldn't otherwise, then taking a moment to peak into the mind of someone you fundamentally disagree with is a great way to do that.
As Werner Herzog put it, "the poet must not avert his eyes".
Then apparently for a person who can separate them, there are zero examples. Or null
The Pianist is one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen… even though Polanski.
I'll go a step further:
You have to separate the art from the artist because there is not a single artist I've ever encountered who wasn't some kind of fucking trashhole of a person.
Artists spent their lives on being artists, not developing good interpersonal skills or understanding politics or philosophy.
Beleiving an artist is a "good person" is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Start out assuming they suck dogshit and you usually end up being right.
I think it's reasonable to draw some lines that, when crossed, you'll choose to disengage from their art.
The musician doesn't have to be a saint. But if I find out they, I don't know, love eating live puppies, I'm going to prefer spending my time and attention elsewhere.
I agree, but I like to start from a position of "this person probably sucks" because then I'm never disappointed.
This is a fair position to take.
I tend to avoid listening to interviews with bands I like in case they're terrible.
Though weirdly I'll chat with folks at merch tables.
Agreed. Show me a flawless human being, and I'll show you someone who doesn't have anything interesting to share with the world.
Sam from Future Islands is a pretty dope guy.
My mind is telling me nooooo
But my body
My bodyyyyy is telling me yesss
This is actually really popular among my music students. I completely disagree on most case. X raped 300 kids but hey, he makes pretty good beats so let's pay 200$ for a concert.
I'm alright with this as long as you pirate it lol
Yarr harr
I guess it's the same as buying Nestle Hot Chocolate knowing full well child labor was involved. It's ok as long as your sweet tooth is satisfied.
You got downvoted by someone who didn't understand sarcasm so I evened it back out.
Most rap sucks and it's effects on mainstream media have had detrimental effects on society as a whole.
It literally just glorifies the ghetto lifestyle of being a piece of shit and acting like it's the only way you can live life.
I felt that was true for a long time. There are a lot of sub-genres out there that don't promote that kind of thing. Honestly, and this is probably me wearing a conspiracy theorist hat, a lot of hip-hop that essentially glorified a lot of horrible traits was just what a lot of old, rich white dudes figured would make them money.
Counter example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhMwGT55A8k (sorry about the YT link, but that's where I know this lives)
Arrested Development touches on that in at least a few of their recent songs. This is one that immediately springs to mind, but there are others:
Full lyrics here
Song here
do i have to tell you how this industry goes down
they wanna promote us as the lowest things around
stereotypical images of blacks all around
police beat us to the ground
do i have to tell you how this industry goes down
promote the thugs with the criminal sound
stereotypical images and white supremacist images of us never innocent it kills
kills, snitches and witnesses
i guess the business is exploit us sexually
but keep us intellectually primitive
sedate the sensitive
nullifying all their initiative
to ever unify, just relying on representatives
our english is now seen as this, opposite of geniuses
the truth is meaningless
they deliberately been deceiving us
...
Edit: Realized the lyrics site had a couple words wrong.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Song here
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rhMwGT55A8k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
its* effects.
Yup. Unpopular opinion indeed. Upvoted.
Look into underground hip hop, there's all sorts of awesome music of much higher caliber than mainstream rap/hip hop.
Mf Doom, Busdriver, Kool Keith (and his many many aliases), Aesop Rock (not ASAP Rocky or whatever), and I'm sure lots of newer stuff I'm not even familiar with. Digable Planets are pretty big and they're good (and old, like me)
.
Yes unpopular, but your final sentence indicates a deep lack of understanding regarding the origins, purpose, and breadth of the genre.
You are welcome to your opinion, and I'm 100% sure that no one coming in like that is going to look any deeper. I'm just sharing my opinion that yours is uninformed and superficial.
Hey that's fair. I'm not privy to a lot of the socioeconomic shit that took/takes place that led to the rise of rap and what I call ghetto culture.
I just think it's been glorified to the point people who have no experience with ghetto culture outside of rap music start acting like they thugs n shit. Like "gangster" shit started happening everywhere with a shitload of people fully embracing not only the visual look but the "hustler" "gangster" lifestyle.
Also don't mistake my ignorance for inability to learn. I'm willing to listen and learn about it all I just don't think it'll change my outlook on how it's effected everyone everywhere negatively.
And you know maybe I'm wrong and I'm just upset things aren't changing the way I want them to. In that case oh well I'll live.
Rap was important and had a clear goal; to inspire afroamerican people, kids to learn, to live their life and fight for their rights. to get up from the ghetto, to keep on going, make them see they aren't alone, they have their backs by the community. (In the US)
this all was rather successfull.
but then, I don't know what rap's function is today. if there is any... so what you are saying, I can aggree with it, but I tend not to forget what was the original goal of this genre, and this is why I can't completely dismiss rap.
Agreed wholeheartedly. And just to pile on another unpopular opinion: it all sounds like trash. Literally it's not music. Just a repetitive beat while some douchebag talks fast at you.
"the Beatles are overrated" is a poorly defined statement often made by people who give the impression they want to be seen as an iconoclast of some sort.
Ok. Overrated on what metrics? Historical impact? Popularity at the time? Popularity now?
"I don't like the Beatles' music" is probably closer to what people mean, and that's fine. I rarely listen to them on purpose. But the whole "I don't like them, and neither should you" thing is kind of insufferable.
When I say they're overrated, I mean I don't understand why they're so popular. They're not bad but they're not that good, either. I don't understand the praise lauded on them. It's too much relative to their quality.
I can understand if someone loves them in their time. For example, Nirvana was absolutely amazing in their time. However, it's been 30 years and that sound is a lot more mainstream, but in their day, they were breaking new ground.
But my kids age? Why do people think they're that good?
TBH people listened to these Beatles high on acid. And somehow the radio stations where persuaded to play their songs more frequent.
Perfect recipe for verse rush
I generally assume that "popular thing is overrated" is generally said just to troll people. At least, I like to dog on things that are popular that I'm not in to just to get a raise out of people that can't accept any criticism of their thing.
Some music is made by and for lowlifes, where I live is Vallenato, Campesina, Rancheras, Bachata, and 90%of reggaeton.
Lyrics about asking for forgiveness after cheating, smoking, domestic violent (being the one that does the domestic violence), admitting to spike drinks and brag about it, simping for drug Lords, and women are nothing but a sex object.
The people who listen to that music is just as you imagine them. Uneducated, sexist, wife beaters, going around in huge SUVs blasting that music outloud with no respect for anyone around then, they are the ones who start blasting the music at 1AM on a Wednesday and doesn't let anyone sleep in their entire neighborhood.
People give me shit for this and claim is "culture" but I think there is such a thing as music for lowlifes.
While I can see where you're coming from, about 90% of the music I listen to is some kind of metal. Most of it is just about cool nerdy stuff but there's definitely some truly horrible shit in there. I have yet to and don't intend to do any of it.
I think the bias comes from how loud some of these shitty people are. They build the stereotype. For the most part, people just mind their own business, go to work, raise their kids, and bob their heads to the beeps and boops.
I see where you're coming from, because I kinda also hate the genres you mentioned in specific, but man, it's not ALL bad. You put on some Juan Luis Guerra and he makes better bachata than anyone else you can think of. It's actually fucking enjoyable. It took me decades to even begin to appreciate some of the more pop music (or even tolerate it, cause fuck regueton....but everyone listens to it where I live), and he definitely stands out.
That's it, I just wanted to mention the 440.
Eric Clapton is wildly overrated
YES! He's a massive idiot too.
Cocaine is his only good song.
Now this is an unpopular opinion, mostly about Cocaine being good in any capacity.
Cocaine is great! If it’s good cocaine. And as long as the person doing it is not a fiend.
I guess my unpopular opinion is that I don't think that's a very good song :)
Layla is also pretty good imo.
There are too many damn love songs. 75% of all music does not need to be about love, relationships, and breakups. I stopped listening to radio because all the damn love songs got annoying.
Can we please have more songs about literally anything else. Weed, flowers, rainy days, animal companions, construction work, types of cars, card games, anything. There’s more in life to sing about than just relationships and/or the lack of them!
Sincerely, A person whose sexuality is “No” and has no interest in that kind of relationship.
There is, in fact, good country music that isn't just about trucks, beer, flags, and right-wing U.S. propaganda.
People have a lot of hate for the genre due to the mass appeal, common denominator examples. But like with all music, dig a little deeper beyond what gets radio play and you can find some good shit.
Had a chat with a coworker about this. I'm not a big fan of the genre as a whole, but something happened to the genre around 20ish years ago. The country twang went from being a natural signature sound of some artists to being something everyone emulated while singing their bird cage bottom piece of shit piece about their truck.
My grandparents used to watch this show on TV called Club Dance. Imagine Soul Train for old white people; it was shot in a fictional "saloon" and they'd have both professional country dancers and amateurs who wanted to be on the show. Most of the music I remember hearing about the show was basically about dancing. The whole "truck jeans beer girl creek boots truck" phenomenon hadn't been invented yet.
Don't leave us hanging! What are your suggestions?
Here is a random list of songs I like, in my opinion under the umbrella of country in one way or another (though some stretch that a little. Or a lot. Don't @ me, die-hard country fans).
Some may, indeed, involve beer, trucks, and American Christian propaganda - but pleasant sounding at least. I'm also confirmed to be pretty lame, and that may be reflected in my choices here.
I also never said you needed to dig deep - some/most of this is like, a fingernail scratch. But if you find something here you dig, strongly recommend diving deeper into the artist.
Merle Haggard - Mama Tried
George Jones - White Lightning
The Highwaymen - Highwayman
Dick Curless - The Heartline Special
Eddy Arnold - Cowpoke
Conway Twitty - Hello Darlin'
Townes Van Zandt - Waiting Around to Die
Sons of the Pioneers - Empty Saddles
Marty Robbins - Running Gun
Willie Nelson - Bubbles in my Beer
Hank Thompson - A Six Pack to Go
Johnny Cash - Sunday Morning Coming Down
Sonny James - Baltimore
Del Reeves - A Dime at A Time
Dale Hawkins - Everglades
Jimmy Bryant and Speedy West - Blue Bonnet Rag
Tim Carroll - I Think Hank Woulda Done It This Way
Buddy Emmons - Orange Blossom Special
Tommy Collins - You Better Not Do That
The Louvin Brothers - Satan is Real [here's that propaganda I told you about - still love this song]
Eddie Noack - Psycho
Chet Atkins and Jerry Reed - Jerry's Breakdown
Tom T. Hall - That's How I Got to Memphis
Roger Miller - Dang Me
I like the list, but there's a disturbing lack of Steve Earle.
Go listen to Ray Charles's album covers of country songs, "Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music."
And then go listen to Sturgil Simpsons “Meta Modern Sounds in Country Music”, both incredible albums
Not them, but Red Headed Stranger is probably one of my favourite concept albums ever.
I have a real love hate relationship with country music, I love almost everything except it feels very low energy most of the time and like you said the classic truck songs
I've found bands like poor man's poison and the dead South, hurry up and wait by ben miller band is a great example of something decent
Disturbed's cover of Sound of Silence is not only awful, it is an antithesis of the meaning of the song. Anyone who likes that version better than S&G's arguably doesn't understand the point of the song, and the fact that everyone holds it up as the gold standard of "covers better than the original" is even worse.
A close second is Postmodern Jukebox and their horrendous tendencies to take tempos to an opposite extreme instead of finding more meaningful ways of changing the genre of a song. I like some of their stuff, but the number of people who love their cover of Welcome to the Jungle is mind-boggling to me.
There are plenty of songs that I prefer the cover of to the original (Whitney Houston's 'I Will Always Love You'), or ones that just give the original a modern coat of paint without changing much else (Smash Mouth's 'I'm a Believer'), but these songs in particular are just awful imo.
I don't mind a cover changing the meaning of a song, but stuff where the cover is just the song again is...lazy as fuck?
Like Fast Car by (country music guy) is fantastic, but it's the same as the original, which is also fantastic. Feels cheap or something, I don't know. Like the whole Weezer cover album was boring as fuck. The songs are technically great, but why listen to that over the originals? Rivers said his goal was to try and reproduce the original sound, which seems like an interesting exercise for the band, but not for the listener. So that wraps back around to respecting the band.
Anyways, I have a lot of strong feelings about covers. Make it your own, even if you don't change it that much.
I think Johnny Cash's cover of 'Hurt' is probably the gold standard of a cover exceeding the origional
Modern music slaps. Just gotta find the right albums.
There's people on spotify with less than 5000 monthly listeners pumping out music so good it would have topped charts 10 years ago. The quality and talent of artists these days is insane.
These days? This has always been the case. I remember downloading mp3s from unknowns who offered their music for free in the internet on the early 2000s. Great music.
Care to share some of your favorites?
One of my favorites recently has been Djesse Vol. 4 by Jacob Collier
Depends on how new you want it, but Rime of Memory by Panopticon is great.
Most hip hop is missing key musical elements and just isn’t good. I have no idea why the genre became so popular.
It's why I got so into Busdriver for a while. Not a lot of rappers out there trying to rap to a melody instead of just a beat.
Further, even if they are out there, they aren't as popular.
Yeah there is definitely some hiphop that I do enjoy but it’s a small minority of the overall scene.
Are you a Ben Shapiro fan?
Lol no, why?
Not saying it makes you like him but he has the exact same take
Well that’s probably the best argument against my hot take I’ve seen haha.
What till you hear that "hip hop" track that Ben guests on..... Or better yet just don't bother.
The only thing that ole Benny Shaps has ever said even remotely related to music anyone should listen to is him reading the lyrics to Wet Ass Pussy.
Hah. Yes that was actually funny.
He also has no idea wtf he's talking about
Trash talking, scandalous
Lyrics ruin most music. This is one is weird because I actually love the sound of the human voice, but it most music its just ugly. Also most of the lyrics themselves suck. Usually vague, meaningless, hoping you'll interpret them as something deep. There's just so many songs that most lyrics have to be bad.
Also drums ruin most music. They are harsh, dissonant, overly loud, overpower subtler instruments, and reduce complex, varying melodies to a simple beat. Even when I want simple heavy beats, I prefer electronic alternatives (no idea what they're called) so it's not so harsh
David Bowie had like, 2 okay songs.
You're walking on dangerous road mate
You're wrong but I'll bite. What 2 songs lol.
And I'm joking with the you're wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Bring Me The Disco King, and that other one about taking protein pills
Unrelated but pooping ok?
Fiber for the win!
We're in the best time to listen to music. There's amazing stuff out there. It just doesn't come to you automatically, you've got to seek it out.
Now, it's a pretty bad time to be an artist trying to make a living. But it's also the easiest time to DIY music.
Rap and Hiphop are just shit music.
I have a pretty broad music taste, I have rock, classical, pop, eurodance, opera, bitpop, industrial, metal, ballads and more on my phone, except rap or hiphop.
There is just something in me that as soon as I hear either it just sounds like shit.
I like it because I can equate it to poetry. You have to be one talented motherfucker to come up with some of those rhymes, and to be still able to put it along to a rhythm and beat, sometimes incredibly fast (Busta Rhymes, George Watsky).
ETA: I also have a soft spot for three particular white Jewish boys from NYC
I've been thinking about something similar (as someone who isn't a fan of rap/hip-hop). No matter how much I don't like it (the actual music behind it is too bland for me), it has the greatest potential to deliver deep lyrics with puns and other wordplay.
But then it got me thinking: What the HELL is holding us back from improving the other genres' lyrics, or actually slapping some decent music on top of rap/hip-hop music, and not just some bland base or short and repetitive catchy tune?
Rock had excellent lyrics in the 60's and 70's, but lyrical poetry kind of fell off a bit after that era. In the 90's a lot of bands were experimenting with mixing rap, rock, rasta, and other genres together. Some of it works really well, and some of it doesn't, but it's all pretty unique music. Eminem did an excellent job of mixing rock and pop with rap, and he has a lot of success to show for it. So, we've seen a lot of experimentation and progress over the decades, but we don't see much of that any more, at least not from major labels. They figured out a decade and a half ago that there's a very algorithmic approach to selling lots of music, and they'd rather continually follow that formula than take a risk on originality. So now most of the music coming from major labels are songs that are written by studio song writers, following a specific formula proven to sell albums, and the artist is secondary. They'll find someone with a good stage presence, that looks good, teach them to dance, and hand them a stack of songs to perform under heavy auto-tune. Most of the popular music I've heard in the last 10 years is devoid of soul.
There's a lot of rap and hip-hop that isn't just running along to a bassy beat. Busta Rhymes doesn't rap to a beat, and he comes up with some clever lines. I've heard that Childish Gambino is one of the most clever writers right now, with some lines in Bonfires and Sweatpants being pretty damn hard.
I really like A Tribe Called Quest as well, because they have a more jazzy sound than most. I REALLY like Digable Planets though because they're like the ultimate fusion of funk, jazz, and hip-hop.
I may check some out, thanks for the examples!
For more unconventional hip-hop, try Flobots. Handlebars is the only song that got radio play and it's alright, but most of the rest of that album is better. Mayday is my favourite song by them
Also, I implore you to listen to JU$T by Run The Jewels and really listen to the lyrics.
I tried to, but I just coulnd't stand the rythm or the rapper's voice.
Sorry but the genere just isn't for me.
The one song that might classify as rap/hiphop that I do enjoy is https://youtu.be/KD59LJX2r38 though is has a lot of pop in it, the video is quite cool, and I would be lying if I said that I would not like to have a fur baseball cap.
It helps if there's a transcript to read along with it. Zack De La Rocha from Rage Against The Machine has a verse at the end of that song that hits really hard, because he's a great lyricist.
There's a line in El-P's verse where he says "hand on my heart and my mind on my drugs, got a Vonne-gut punch for your Atlas Shrugged," and the whole song is about modern ultra capitalism and our state of society at large.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/KD59LJX2r38
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You shouldn’t generalize, a lot of the stuff that gets played a lot is not indicative of the whole genre. There is some rap that makes me cover my ears, and there is some rap that makes me feel enlightened. Hip hop it just depends on the song, since there is so much variety.
I mean, OP litterarly asked us about what our most unpopular opinion about music is, this is mine.
I would never impose this view on others, they are free to like what they like.
That's true, I was just hoping to maybe convince you to try out something that maybe you don't know is wonderful yet. I've had that experience with music before, and I think it helped me to understand why people like things
I have had it happen several times with music, lastly with Opera and Classical music.
This doesn't get you moving and feeling good?
It would get me moving, away from the source of the music, which would make me happy.
It is just not music for me.
Here are some songs from my 25 most played songs on my phone, in no particular order:
Gary Moore - Over The Hills And Far Away
Welle: Erdball - Der Türspion
Slade - Myzterious Mizster Jones
Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Murder On The Dancefloor
Sweet - Popa Joe
Queen - Hammer to Fall
His Bushlanders & Slim Dusty - The Sequel To Pub With No Beer
Billy Joel - We Didn't Start The Fire
Laibach - Tanz Mit Laibach
Billy Joel is the only thing I recognize on your list. I guess we have very different musical tastes. I like pretty much every genre of music, but I gravitate towards rock and metal.
Wait, you don't even recognize Queen?
I do, but I'm not familiar with that particular song.
On the rare occasions I'm scanning through FM radio stations, the reason I hit the Next button the fastest when I find myself "listening" to a hip-hop station? The hi hat. tss ts ts ts ts ts tss ts tssssss. It's most of what you hear, everything else is mixed down in the mud beneath it. I'm informed this is an...artistic choice?
Pink Floyd is the most mediocre group in the prog rock scene (also works if you remove everything after 'group')
I ain't gonna call them mediocre myself, and The Wall means a lot to me personally with my own life journey, but there's absolutely better, more musically interesting prog rock groups out there than Pink Floyd.
Limiting drummer (so I hear)
Being a metalhead, most of my opinions about music are unpopular I guess. Or are they?
They have their place. Which is a hill far far away and not indoors.
You might like this line from Arrested Development, Season 4:
I'm Scottish, so I felt guilty for laughing at that as much as I did :-)
On rare occasions, I do think bagpipe music can be spectacularly beautiful and moving, but it takes a really talented piper and/or some contextualising occasion (like a major sports event) to really make me like it all that much.
I think even bagpipe players agree with you.
I fuckin’ love bagpipes… but I also love Xiu Xiu so I wouldn’t trust my musical tastes.
How do you feel about Tuvan throat singing? I feel like both sounds are complex and deeply interesting but I also think it's an acquired taste.
When someone dies or leaves the band, you have a new band and should give it a new name.
"A three-legged dog is still a dog. It just has to learn to run differently." - Michael Stipe
But when every leg is replaced? When head is replaced too? When torso is broken and remodeled? Is it still that dog or something different?
I'm ok with band switching members, but there should be a limit...
Meanwhile, the ship of Theseus...
I had to google whether this is some idiom unknown to me, or if you're mocking me, or what it really is. I'm no philosopher, but at one point it's not the same ship for me.
Oh, not mocking you. It's just a semi famous Greek thing about when changing the parts of a thing changes the thing. It's hard to draw clear lines about it.
Especially in the case where you take the parts off the original ship one at a time and replace them, while reassembling them somewhere else. Now you have two ships and it's unclear which is the "original"
It applies somewhat well to a band changing members, but I guess if your band is only like 3 people it's less fuzzy. A symphony of 100 people that changes one member every year, though, would be harder to call.
For anyone else who doesn't know: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Yeah. I was thinking like the usual 4 piece rock band. You switch one member and it's ok. Let's say next year one member dies, so he's replaced. Still ok. But when there's ultimately nobody from the original lineup, it's just not the same band for me. On paper it is, but for me it's just milking the name...
I agree in general, but I think longevity comes into it too.
If the band lost a couple of members early on, but replaced them, then had decades of success and eventually replaced the remaining originals, you still have the early replacements there, who were involved for most of their career.
It would seem harsh to say it's not the same band just because none of the original members are there.
Good question, but the comment I was replying to only mentioned a single band member change.
Philosophically it's hard to say at what point it stops being the same band. It's the Ship of Theseus, or as it's often known here in the UK, Trigger's Broom, after a scene in the sitcom Only Fools and Horses.
I dislike modern pop's mixing of the human voice, mixed so high compared to the rest, to the point where you can't hear instruments anymore. The music is often there just for accompanyment, elevetor music. I rather have chillwave, where everything is one big reverb trick pony, than having to hear people screaming.
Lyrics don't add value to 99.99% of music and any notes from them should be from an actual instrument.
Imagine Dragons is pretty good
How is that a unpopular opinion ? We were all rocking Believer as kid
Fuck I’m old.
I've never heard of this band but Wikipedia tells me Believer came out in 2017... lol how old can you possibly be?
I was definitely no longer a kid long before 2017
Ah my bad
Get off my lawn.
I don't care for Dylan or the Beatles. At least I understand the ground-breaking work of the Beatles, but Dylan is incomprehensible.
and largely always was
https://youtu.be/ukq-Zc7nGw8?feature=shared
I don't understand Dylan but I believe he was lauded because of other musicians looking for anything new. Dylan pioneered the 3 minute song as a short story. So if you are a pop artist struggling to write a new song, it opened up lots of new ideas.
Dylan called his technique his crutch in writing "4th Time Around" to Lennon about Norwegian Wood copying Dylan's style.
There are great songs and albums in all genres.
There are terrible songs and albums in all genres.
Listening to an album as it was released, front to back, is the best way to consume music.
The beatles are vastly overrated. They may have been trailblazers at the time but their music really doesn’t hold up
Decade or two ago I would agree with you.
Nowadays not that much. Ofc those radio songs you've heard more than billion times are awful and helps nobody to appreciate Beatles. But if you dig a bit deeper into songs that are ignored by radios, there are quite some good songs.
For one, I can't believe Helter Skelter was made by the same Beatles as e.g. Help. Or whole Sgt. Pepper album is nice too.
Maybe I should specify, I don’t like typical radio music.
Metal head etc etc.
Go listen Helter Skelter then. That's some Beatles I can appreciate.
I never got the hype for Satriani’s music. He’s a virtuoso for sure, but I never really found his music interesting.
This is probably high school nostalgia kicking in, but Limp Bizkit is great. lmao
There is actually some great kpop music out there.
Satriani is a great guitarist (among the best), but a mediocre song writer. He suffers from what I like to call The Solo Syndrome (not a reference to guitar solos). A song tends to be better when multiple musicians have had input, otherwise there's too much focus on only one instrument. A lot of solo musicians' music suffers from this.
Take for example Satrianis "Made of Tears". How much better wouldn't the song have been if an actual basist had written a cool bass riff to go along with it?
Or another example from Satriani: "Searching". Excelent guitar hook in the beginning and the end, but I would've loved it more if there were other bandmembers who could tell him that the middle section is long and boring and would be better spent playing WITH other instruments instead of TO other instruments.
I find that Steve Vai is a better (and comparable) songwriter (although a lot of his songs aren't to my taste)
That's very far from true. The last decades have brought forth countless young talents. Every single one of them smokes satriani in a pipe. Easily.
Right on. I was kinda holding back from saying his music is boring, but you explained it better. And I agree, Vai, while also making guitar solo driven music, actually makes interesting songs that you don't tune out after the first 2 minutes of listening,
100% technique, no soul
That's how I describe his music
For me, that description fits Yngwie more than Satriani. Satch had at least 1%, maybe even a whopping 2% soul. Vai is probably sneaking up on double digits.
I really hate the "soul" accusation. It's so arrogant and pretentious. Look, I get it, their music doesn't tell you anything, it's not your thing, it's OK. It's about you, it's not about them. Not saying there's anything wrong with you because of it. There's a lot of great music I simply don't like. It's normal.
You don't feel anything with their music. I do. Lots of people do. Is our "soul" bone defective? Are you the judge of musical taste? Can't you see we laugh and cry with their music just as easily has you do with what you consider "music with soul"?
My experience is that the same people who accuse them of being 100% technical and souless are precisely the ones so fixated on the technique they can't actually just see past it and just listen to the music itself. Do you think we get goosebumps because of how fast we see the dude fingers move?
Regarding the actual musicians. I can't say much about Malmsteen because it's not my taste but the dude singlehandedly created a new genre. I can't put him down just because his music is not my preference.
Satriani is certainly the most melodic of them. The guy launched multiple great albums. Until the early 00s. Every album until then was simply amazing. Vai could only launch 2 or 3 with the same quality. But after Super Colossal he lost his edge. He still makes good stuff but never like what he made between 1984 and 2006. It was out of this world (wink, wink).
That's a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I'm sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole "soul" thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of "soul" are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton's voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It's imperfect, it's unrepeatable, and it's amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It's no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it's markedly different. Listeners who don't identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn't mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way "defective". These guys wouldn't have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn't seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
That's your opinion. I've heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an "imperfection" doesn't ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn't mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn't mean the lack of "imperfections" will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as "perfect" as it gets. But one wouldn't call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn't admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I'd respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
I don't mean to antagonize you, but I've heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called "imperfections". A song like Satriani's Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai's Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don't think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They're perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton's performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It's not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn't touch me. But it's my "failing" not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what's under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
More assumptions. You know this how?
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don't think your assumption is correct.
And it's not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it's machine-like it's because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can't accept it's just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for "liking machine-like music" and "they themselves prefer something with soul". Can't you see how that kind of statement puts other people's tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they'd smile condescendingly and say "well, that music has its merits...sure...but it's too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles". We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That's how people with the "soul" argument come off, intentionally or not.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn't). So, something to consider.
I'm a Satriani fan and, while I totally disagree with you calling him a mediocre song writer, I can't help but understand your point about Searching and Made of Tears. If that's your sample of his music I totally understand your view.
Searching is just a catchy Whammy trick followed by an unending jam/solo. It's very uncharacteristic of him. Made of Tears is not a bad song (one of the best on Super Colossal and it's not a good thing) but is definitely off what I was used to hear from him when that album came out.
The thing is, if you want to know what Satch is about you have to hear what he did before Super Colossal. I like Super Colossal. But for me it's when his fire died. Sure, you can still hear his genius there but only on the occasional song. For me Ten Words is the last song where you find that. One of his most simple songs. It's an appropriate farewell. What came after is still good...but it's not mind-blowing.
Super Colossal came out in 2006, you should hear what he did before if you want to know why he's considered one of the most melodic guitar players ever. Is There Love in Space already has some signs of his "downfall" but you have to be Searching them (wink, wink).
Before that everything is genius and everything is different. I'd say, in my opinion, he hit his peak on the 2 albums before that (Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music). But even before those two you have lots of material showing what he used to be about.
Steve Vai is maybe more original. It's a matter of preference. But I've only felt about him the same way as old Satch on 2 albums. The rest is nice but meh. I am looking forward to their collaboration though, it gave me good vibes.
Satch for sure is an extremely talented guitarist and understands that the key to a good song is a melody (or "hook") that is simple, memorable, and catchy. Almost every song he wrote has this at its core. The problem is simply that this is insanely difficult to do and he struggles with it, especially on his later albums
That rap is absolute garbage. For reasons I can't explain it makes me unbelievably angry to have to listen to. It probably has something to do with a combination of my anxiety and sensitivity to loud noises, but I don't know. I do like metal, although I don't like it particularly loud.
People like Hip Hop because it makes them feel cool for listening to it.
Mine is: I don't really listen to music
90% of all radio songs lately have been horrendous covers of old songs, with some of them literally being just that old song, but with a cookie cutter beat under them. The other 10% are just said cookie cutter beats with some generic singer doing an annoying voice over them.
Popular music is becoming more creatively bankrupt than it ever has been.
This may not be an unpopular in the outside world but somehow I bet it will be here, the vast majority of metal is just straight noise and incomprehensible yelling to me. I do enjoy when metal songs are covered by bluegrass bands though
Beyoncé is not a very good singer.
She is, she just doesn't use it to full effect. The vocal range she uses in her releases is such a small sliver of what her voice can do.
She's got talent, but if it weren't for Jay-Z, she would have had a career similar to Kelly Rowland.
Kelly who?
I just don't listen to Ska because never feels like the time. But whenever I've heard it I've actually liked it.
I literally always have the time to listen to The Impression That I Get by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and so should you!
No? Well...
I really want to like Ska, and I really like nearly the entirety of this album, but whenever I try to branch out from there I come up dry with anything I really enjoy.
Guns 'n' Roses sucks.
I think that's pretty widely agreed upon - ditto with KISS.
Bands that title their album random symbols (or a series of them) are assholes.
I'm looking at KMFDM (can't even encode "symbols" accurately) and Justice (their first album, often called latin cross). Both great albums that suffer from fucking horrible visibility because of their shit names.
What?? KMFDM back in the 90s were groundbreaking with their name and album art alone. Very stylized, nihilistic vibes aesthetically when I would see their albums in the record store - even before I ever listened to them. Hell, I even shoplifted a cassette tape from Camelot Records when I was a teenager just cuz I was so intrigued as to what this band was about.
You’ve awakened my “old man yells at cloud” vibes with this one.
Hey, both the bands I mentioned are awesome - I just object to the symbolic naming of albums. If you read "KMFDM's Symbols album" and knew exactly what I'm talking about then you're part of an in-group and everyone not in that in group standing with us in a record store in the 90s wouldn't have a clue which album we were talking about... if we were talking about the album over lunch and they went to a record shop to pick up a copy they wouldn't be able to find it without awkwardly asking a clerk.
Obscure symbol album names create elitism that we don't need - you could easily find Nirvana's Nevermind but by naming their album... that untranscribable string of symbols they made it less accessible to new listeners.
I don't think I'd call them assholes... more just shortsighted about the realities of selling an album, specifically in how you refer to the album both in speech and in writing.
Everyone calls it "KMFDM - symbols" for a reason. I agree only in that it drives me insane when I would rip CDs and have to deal with trying to figure out what to name them. Also, fuck Leæther Strip for their stupid "æ" in the name.
Most unpopular among my friends would be something along the lines of "metal is the best music" or "electronic music/techno sux, because it's all the same".
I like to troll a bit with them, but honestly I do like me some metal. It's so variable, there's progressive Opeth on one side, brutal machinegun Cannibal Corpse on the other, insane meatgrinder Mayhem on the third and groovy jumpy Pantera on fourth. And we're only at the beginning. But I get that some (most) people find it all too heavy. Their loss, not mine ;-)
Gawd, I lurrrrve me some Opeth.
It's insane how versatile their music is. One song is calm prog like Pink Floyd the other is really metal. And the singer rocks, going through all this like it's nothing.
Trent Reznor's original version of Hurt is better than Johnny Cash's version, which is terrible. I strongly dislike him bringing in the religious aspect by changing the lyrics and I just plain don't like his voice.
Yeah, I said it.
I can't stand Queen, even though I have respect for their skill. (my highschool had an "arts program" and they bombarded us with musicals, Queen, and some sort of Queen musical)
NIN does nothing for me, and I've tried several albums and owned one. It's just.. nothing soup.
95% of music in any genre is garbage, but you can find the 5% gems if you go looking for it.
SRV is the Steven Segal of guitar.
Bomfunk MC's Freestyler is the peak of musical creation. (Ok, prolly no but I love coming back to it.)
(Fwiw, initially I read "triple !" (i.e. !!! or ChkChkChk) in your op comment and thought why?, that's a great band.)
The Kinks are better than The Beatles
The Chats are better than The Beatles
ABBA = shite.
IMO, obviously.
Got any more room on that hill?
Sure, grab a seat, friend!
But the A*Teens ROCK!
The what now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-Teens
Nickleback - Silver Side Up is a pretty decent album. Sure, that song is annoying and extremely overplayed, but I quite like the rest of the album.
I must admit that beyond that particular album I don't know much about them, so if you claim that the rest of their discography is garbage, I'll take your word for it.
IMO early Nickleback up to about the early/mid 2000s was awesome, I still listen to their older stuff once in a while. Someday is their best song IMO and its from the late 90s (I think?)
I discovered them through "Savin' Me" and I unironically love that song (and its music video) to bits. Even if some of the lyrics are a bit flimsy and dramatic, the song overall is so emotionally powerful. Same goes for "Hero" (packaged with the first Spidey movie). Strip away some of the ear candy in the Kroeger production and they both still hold up as beautiful songs.
The hipsters are right, popular music directly coorelates to shitty music.
I only want to hear you sing if you're singing your heart out to the void.
Geezer Butler is the most important member of Black Sabbath.
People who suscribe to Spotify don't give a shit about musicians.
That punk died in the early 80's.
That Portlandia sketch with Jello Biafra waking up from a coma to the Yuppies having won was probably the only really good and well thought out sketch on that show.
Sir, this is not a "Your unpopular opinion about sketch shows" thread.
Please leave without making a scene.
The sketch supports the assertion that punk died in the early 80's. That's all.
Sir, you are making a scene.
*throws trashcan through window
Punk!
The Simpsons bootleg one is pretty good imo.
I thought it was 2 "No more yuppies."
I generally don't have any interest in music... I mean, is fine some of the time, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way for it. I also don't think it should be allowed as "background noise" in public places. It can have profound effects on your mood without you even realizing it's happening.
I can't even remember how many times the wrong music as background noise has screwed with my mood for no reason
There is very little bad music in the world, only wrong ways to "music" to it. Some is meant to be listened to, some danced to, some bonded over to, some created and some thought about.
It's not unpopular among my generation, but it's unpopular among the younger generations. I think that the heavy use of auto-tune in today's music makes all of it sound unoriginal. Every new pop song sounds pretty much the same to me.
Coldplay are boring
Talk radio/podcasts/audiobooks are better then music 90% of the time
The average quality of music in the world doubled the day Kurt Cobain solved his headache problem. Grunge was a disease caused by not changing your clothes, and using too much heroin instead of learning to play instruments and sing.
And, I'm peak GenX and a Seattleite.
Alright, Courtney, no need to shit on his grave.
Also, Courtney Love is 10x the musician Kurt ever was, listen to any track on America's Sweetheart and you'll break your heart. It's better that she's free.
That's kind of a dark way to word that, damn.
Music is an art and listening to music / going to concert is hobby. It is totally fine not to have a taste for it, for any kind of it.
Many of my friends get super personally offended when I say that phish isn’t a great band
Phish is great at what they do, I just find their music dreadfully boring and long
The Beatles are pretty lowbrow compared to the hype given to them which is based mostly on charisma instead. If they made their song debuts on The Masked Singer, not nearly as many people would be particularly drawn to them.
I say that if you want to appreciate the Beatles for the first time in 2024, spend a solid month listening to nothing but popular music from the 1950's (and earlier), then put on one of their albums.
The older music is fine and enjoyable, but you'll hear why, the Beatles still get regular airplay today, and e.g. Pat Boone does not.
If that's the reason, where does the idolization come from? Even as human individuals, the Beatles members are worshipped to the point they can save a dying business by talking about it. It's suggestive of the fact there's some unspoken gimmick at play.
My take is that people value music both for the music itself, and for the social identity that comes from how we relate to it. The Beatles benefited from Beatlemania back in the day, which was the same as the Swifties phenomenon today: a social-identity group of fans. There might have been better bands in the early '60s, but the music of the Beatles was really quite good, and still holds its own today. Tons of great music has come along since then, so the Beatles catalogue no longer stands out, but they still benefit from the social-identity hype of Beatlemania, and are still revered because they were (lucky enough to get to be) pop-music pioneers.
Some things that are apparently classics that generally, outside a handful of titles for some of those, bore me to death: Red Hot Chili Pepper, Tool, Radiohead, Metallica…
Not unpopular, just weird: the way to find your favorite song is keeping one as an alarm sound without starting to actively hate it.
Yup, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine theme song as my alarm, 5 years and counting
Next level: set it as your boss' phone ring tone.
This has been my alarm for 3 years and I still love it
LoL this made my day. Thank you.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I feel like that's impossible for me.
However, I set my ringtone forever ago and it never annoys me when it comes on. I like hearing it. It's a chiptune from a keygen of soft software I pirated as a teen lmao.
Johnny Cash's Hurt is overrated.
Johnny Cash is great, and deserves his legacy, but that cover is mediocre.
Phil Collins's solo work is mind-numbingly, eye-bleedingly, toe-curlingly boring and awful.
All music without lyrics/singing is background music.
The majority of both Drake's and Kanye's discographies are horrible. I've had this opinion since way before they've had their public drama.
People who don't enjoy music are somehow missing a part of their humanity.
Old bands such as Joy Division are amazing and most new music doesn't even get close to that.
Not a "good ol' time" advocate but yeah, music was way better in past.
Scat is, well, scat
Baroque music sounds absolutely shit. Composers try to mix in so many different voices that it’s the musical equivalent of a TV panel show where everyone is shouting over one another.
On that note: harpsichords in ensembles are background noise at best and very few people would notice their absence.
The vast majority of music without lyrics sucks.
For me it's the opposite. The song start and the music is a banger but as soon as the lyrics comes, it's ruined.
I'm with you on this one. There are lyrics on almost every single track for crying out loud. Throw us instrumental lovers a bone won't you? Songs that are lyrically driven but are otherwise super-repetitive instrumentally tend to put me to sleep.
What I love about concerts is when the band goes off script and just starts jamming. Even a 5-minute drum solo will have me grinning ear to ear, and that's what I'll be remembering on the way home.
Repetitive instrumental pattern is my #1 skip reason xD that "Aight I'm bored" moment when you realize the song has nothing more to give is a sad waste of time.
I love 21 pilots and Foo fighters for their great instrumental + vocal balance
Trash lyrics fucking up an otherwise good song. It happens far too often.
That's why I'm just a bit of a fan of Thom Yorke's whole "using my voice as an instrument, the words don't mean anything" vibe because at least he purposefully isn't trying to make meaningful lyrics and instead is just trying to add another instrument to the music.
Classical music and the entire lo-fi genre would like a word with you. (And I'm forgetting a lot of them, like bossa)
Or do you mean removing voices from songs ?
Either way, there are music with absolutely legendary instrumentals that would be bangers with or without voices.
Nah, classical music is one example. Another big one is techno/electronic stuff.
Contemplate Clair de Lune from Debussy, take a gander at Gwyn, Lord of Cinder's theme from the Dark souls OST, let your mind wander at Time from the Inception OST. And that's only the most mainstream I could think of.
Beautiful music is everywhere, from every media, in every genre, you just just have to listen.
I kind of agree with you, there is a lot of great soundtracks. However, for me a soundtrack is part of a larger medium, which it underscores or sublements. Most of them make medicore songs at best when listend to in isolation.
Can't you say that of everything though ? Take rap for example, doesn't it fit in a larger medium that is the rapper's life ? You cant have a piece of art existing in a vacuum. If I listen to Gwyn's theme, am I liking it because I played the game or because it's intrinsically beautiful ? Does it make it less beautiful to me ? Does it matter ?
Maybe. I don't really care about artists and usually know nothing about them, so that aspect is usually irrelevant to me.
I didn't mean that the life of the artist is relevant, but lyrics are the reflection of an artist's existence, so even if you don't care about the artist themselves you're still listening to their lyrics.
That's why I say pieces don't just exist in a vacuum.
That's your opinion and I respect it
Imo it depend what the instrumental is.If it's some aggresive guitar riffs that bands like Mayhem or Siculicidium could drop, i will love it. It's just some weird noises made by a computer i will find it boring.
There is definitely exceptions. Though guitar instrumentals don't do it for me, even though I generally listen to the rock/metal genre.
But for example I really like violin covers by this one artist/youtuber of movie and game soundtracks (especially the Zelda games). But that's some of the only instrumental music I listen to and only when I'm in a specific mood.
And even there I think nostalgia is doing most of the heavy lifting for me enjoying the songs.
What about some post rock? I find it very nice relaxing music and being without lyrics is also part of that. Bands like God Is an Astronaut, Explosions in the Sky, Mono, Mogwai, etc. Even Sigur Ros which technically include singing, but it's just gibberish to have "another instrument".
I'll save this comment, because I'm not going to check those suggestions out right now.
Maybe in a few weeks you'll get a random reply to this comment. I've done it before, but no promise.
Sure, no problem. I discovered the genre at uni and it really helped me to focus on studying. It's probably not for everyone (what is), but I really got into it. Love the soundscapes people are making there. Close the eyes and let your mind go...
As a comedy music act, Ray Stevens should get into the Rock and Roll HoF before Weird AL Yankovic
I think The Doors were awful.
Awful people or awful music?
Both. Read Pamela Des Barres I'm With the Band and Jim is kind of an ass.
The best AI music is better than most human music of the last few years.
Has it come to this? by The Streets is awful, the worst song I’ve ever heard. It plays a lot on a particular station and it drives me nuts
Not my opinion. Echoing Mike Patton.
"The worst thing about music is that humans want to play it."
And also, paraphrasing "music is like sex. I hope the computers take it over. The further from music is from music, the healthier it is for music."
Both quotes are from an interview he did on Angel Dust (TV show) back in like 1992 or 1994 or something. Like, before auto tune.
Music is distracting and hinders conversation
If it's impossible to consistently make good songs. Even an artist whom a person loves will at best make 20% of their songs worth listening to. In a 1 hour set, usually 1-2 songs are worth saving into the library. Anyone who says stuff like "I love this artist's album" is full of crap.