Techno?

[YungYung]

Re: Techno?

And your basing this on what? Oh yeah, the music you've heard. And I think it's safe to say that the large majority of that music is North American. I'm not bashing at american music or anything like that at all, but to make a generalization like that is totally absurd.

By saying that the music that isn't on the top charts are crap is like saying the food at the busiest restaurants is crap. It makes no sense. People flock towards something because obviously there is some sort of appeal. What's attractive to them doesn't have to be attractive to you. And if it's not, that doesn't give you the right to just label it as 'bad' either.

You're entitled to your own opinion Rai, and I respect that. But please don't make huge generalizations like that. Unless you're saying that I'm some chinese teenager who doesn't know **** about music, and I don't respect originality.

Edit: post directed towards Rai, not hr2.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

Actually, YungYung, that's why it works; they make you think you're actually listening to some band who "made it all the way" when you're really listening to some band they decided to put in front of you.

It's not an "opinion," it's a flat out fact that the music on top charts isn't innovative, creative, or challenging. That isn't a belief or a judgement or a personal conclusion, but rather, absolutely factual. You will not hear creative original talented music on top charts. Why? Because they want you to mindlessly listen to shit and eat it all up, not to actually think about what you're listening to.

People who don't know anything about music will typically back up their lack of opinion by saying "NO ITS MY OPINION ITS MY MUSICAL TASTE"
No it's not, retard, it's what they've handed to you and told you to like.

It's not that it's "not attractive to me," I find the tripe catchy, because it is catchy, but I realize it's not catchy because it's good, it's catchy because it's made in order to manipulate you and get all your money.

"Hit" music isn't on the top charts because it's good, it's on the top charts because big companies want you to listen to pointless mind-numbing catchy garbage and hand them all your dinero.

[Hr2]

Re: Techno?

Tell me what is better music...

Music that you can listen to for years and years, in the case of jazz and classic rock, decades, and in the case of classical music, centuries...

Or music that cycles every couple weeks then magically appears 5 years later on Soft Rock 106.5FM.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

The truth.

Agreed.

Also, Emccky, The Beatles were a rather original band, and were only on top charts because it was the 60's. If an equally original band happened now, they would not hit the top charts.

Otherwise, you'd be hearing Richard D. James on your FM radio.

[Moogy]

Re: Techno?

Basically anything on the "charts" of any country is worthless. Music is something that it's pointless to use popularity as a factor in your opinion of it as.

No one actually likes pop "music." Pop music is little more than a few "catchy" (the most dispicable thing in the world) chord progressions with incredibly generic and horrible singing and production. Anyone who likes it is an idiotic sheep who'll accept anything. Pop music is the aural equivalent of 2+2=5.

There is a lot of music worth listening to. However, there is an incredible amount that is utter garbage and an offense to all humanity. Few are able to make the distinction.

[Hr2]

Re: Techno?

Rock music in the 60s and 70s is far different from rock music of today. Despite them being commercial and living it up, they got there all by themselves and spent a lot of time to get where they got to. There were probably a bunch of terrible bands back then aswell, but bands like The Beatles and the Rolling Stones revolutionized the whole scene like no band has done in this terribly stale scene of boring rock and mostly terrible rap and emo music.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

Once you realize that 99% of people are complete and utter idiots (which is common knowledge), if you have any brain at all, you should realize that the music that 99% of people listen to is music that is made for idiots.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

oh fuck i just crashed the opinion train

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

oh **** i just crashed the opinion train

That would be clever if sheep had opinions.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

I was actually more or less making fun of the rampant forcing of opinion by you and others that share your opinions upon other people.

But hey, interpret the statement as you wish.

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

I'm not trying to make anyone listen to the music that I listen to.

But I am telling them that the music they listen to is an insult to the word "music," and that anyone who actually respects the whole concept behind art can realize that.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

So you are attacking their opinions and degrading the people themselves by suggesting that they are ignorant to a grand concept.

All right, we'll leave it at that. I want to go a different route.

You make your statement as if there are universal, objective prerequisites for a medium to be considered "good art" or "good music". If you wouldn't mind, could you produce these prerequisites, and then logically prove why they are universal, objective prerequisites?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

Yes, yes I would. Thank you for asking, Kilga.

Art is creative expression, therefore, "art" that is neither creative nor earnestly expressive, but rather is constructed for the sake of making cash, is not "good art."

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Techno?

All right, now can you logically prove that all popular music is neither creative nor expressive, but merely contructed for the sake of making cash?

[TheRaiRaiEatsBalloons]

Re: Techno?

Yes, yes I can.

http://www.mtv.com/