Well, the shit fest that happened in Other Music gave me an idea. The idea of music being good or bad is very subjective, I was thinking maybe we could try to actually have an intelligent debate on what people think is good or bad and why people get so defensive when a band they like are critiqued. Now, I personally like 3OH!3 but I do not think they are an amazing band with great musical talent. Its just something fun to listen to. So what I bring to you is a question...Why do people feel the need to try and analyze why someone likes a band? Any input about any band or anything is welcomed, but lets try and keep it civil.
I like whatever grabs me. There's plenty of people on here, who have expressed their hatred for Jack White, and I don't lose sleep over what people think about my taste in music. It's just natural that we hold this life long argument over "no that band sucks" and "my band is better than yours!" Pfft, whatever. If I have a chance to convert people into my taste in bands, I take that opportunity. But other than that, I really couldn't care if someone turned around to me and started insulting my taste in music.
I've always listened to the music that I enjoy. I've never stopped listening to an artist just because someone else thought that they weren't good. To do so would be to forfeit who you are. It doesn't matter to me whether or not someone likes or dislikes an artist, but to claim someone else isn't "intelligent" for liking a certain artist is absolutely moronic. I'd never, ever do that. Sure, I'll make the comment about not liking a band or a singer, but I'm not going to claim that people who listen to that band or that singer are idiots and should jump off of cliffs or "get a new CD collection." That's completely ignorant. Unfortunately, you'll never get a consensus on what's "good" and what's "bad," because what's "good" to someone else might be crap to another person, and vice versa. To me, good music is music you can enjoy no matter what, whether you're in a pit moshing to it or chilling in your room doing homework. But if you think it's "bad," that doesn't mean it's not "music" or you're not intelligent for liking it (even if you think it's bad). As for 3OH!3 (since you mentioned them), I like them because they're extremely fun and their live show is absolutely fantastic. And they're great to play at parties. That doesn't mean I think they're full of talent juice, but it takes talent to get people moving. If you don't like them, fine, but that doesn't mean they're not talented. I used to hate My Chemical Romance (they're still not my cup of tea), but I don't think they're talentless.
Will, everything you said is exactly how I feel. I have a very eclectic taste in music that ranges from Coldplay to Lil Wayne to 3OH!3 to My Chemical Romance to Pantera to Gwen Stefani. There are different reasons for me liking each and every artist I listen to...and yes I consider them artists because no matter what kind of music they make, music is art. Good, bad, whatever you may think about it, it is still music just like a painting is still a painting, no matter how good it looks.
That's how I see it. If you think something is bad, that's fine. Someone else is going to think it's good, and that's also fine. Who knows? The band you think is absolute shit that shouldn't even exist may have saved someone else's life at some point. You never know. I admit I could've handled that thread better, but they came out swingin' so I went in swingin'.
I know a lot of people who are actually like that actually. Not necessarily because of Pitchfork but yeah.
The generalisations do come from both sides. In the case of 3OH!3, pretty much every time I've criticised them or seen them being criticised, including on these boards, at least one person has said something to the effect of "I guess people who don't like them just don't like fun music" which is almost insulting to me. I listen to MC Lars and MC Hawking, I listen to Cobra Starship, I listen to Beastie Boys, and there's probably countless other music that I listen to that could be defined as "fun". It's as if people just presume you're some snob who only listens to Radiohead and Brand New if you criticise a "fun" band and sometimes it annoys me how being one of those bands seems to make you exempt from criticism in the eyes of some people. I think 3OH!3 are bad and I'd say I can justify that pretty easily, and moreover that is the case with any other music I dislike, but if other people listen to them and like them then whatever. That's their taste. It is pretty silly how people will just like whatever's cool in whichever magazine or website. With Pitchfork I think it's that little bit sillier though because they generally use this pattern of disliking a band as soon as they break through to the mainstream, unless it's hip-hop in which case they'll give whichever album a high score around 99% of the time, even if the text part of the review isn't that positive.
Then on the other side, you get the people that tell you to listen to real music if you happen to like bands like 3oh!3, which I would take as people taking the music too seriously. I never meant to say people who didnlt like them weren't into fun music, but that's the feeling I get from most of the kids that hate them, like on absolutepunk.
I think why people get so defensive for their favorite band is because that band's music has touched them in some way and when someone else insults the music and/or band, people take it as a direct insult to themselves and feel because the music is a part of them, they must retaliate like it was personal. I just wish the majority of the time they're retaliation would be more mature.
It worked incredibly well for shock value though. As far as music's concerned, I have to say that I'm extremely adaptable and that I listen to a stupidly large mixture of music that varies from dubstep to (vague) metal and I can understand why people like certain types of music if there's talent there or if some thought has gone into the songs that are being made. Generally what annoys me (this works in the case of whatever that band was called) is that bands can get away with releasing songs that have no thought to them and don't showcase any kind of intelligence at all (whether it be lyrical or musical intelligence). I'm also not a big fan of bands that form with the sole intention of latching onto a certain genre to make money, although I can understand why this happens. It just so happened that I got sent a link to the video I posted and therefore it (or they) got singled out so if I offended anyone by displaying my distaste for the band then I apologise. The thing is though, I believe I have the right, as does anyone else, to point out when I think something is absolutely dreadful and the reasons why I think that it's dreadful. As it's been said however, people who like a certain type of music or band don't take too kindly to others insulting their musical tastes even if they have specific reasons not to. Basically, there's no middle ground. As for the case of music being subjective, I'd have to agree completely. In my eyes, that band was not what I'd classify as music however if others believe it is then each to their own. One thing that people don't seem to remember though, is that it works both ways so just because you may think it's music, it doesn't mean that I do. Calling someone ignorant for not accepting that you don't have the same ideas of what constitutes music is, infact, ignorant.
It's human nature to be curious about that which we don't understand. People are curious creatures so they analyze, plain and simple. This is the Internet. People are willing to complain/debate/instigate anything and everything that'll reward attention. But really, if you feel the need to justify your tastes, perhaps you're not comfortable with them to begin with. As long as my favorite bands, musicians and composers continue to produce quality work I enjoy, I could care less whether or not it's acceptable by my peers; I'll continue to support them without the need to feel it's my duty to defend their honor.
I think I said it in the actual thread itself, but that's not how I meant it. To say someone has bad taste in music or should "get a new CD collection" is ignorant. I accept you might not like the same bands I do, but I'm not going to call you ignorant for it, unless you're reaaaaally missing out.
Look, i think it's justifiable to call some bands/performers musically untalented. Pressing two keys on a keyboard, and then hitting the loop button to create your riff, then looping a generic 'doof doof doof' 4-4 beat for an entire 'song' is not a talent. The people who make these 'songs' are good business people, excellent marketers, but far from musicians of any kind. That's why it annoys me when someone tells me (now don't flame me, I'm picking a random name) 50 Cent is more talented than Dream Theater or even Linkin Park. In the end, in my opinion, what consitutes a good song, band or artist is whether they get remembered. We all remember/know of The Beatles, Elvis, The Eagles, Guns N' Roses, Metallica etc etc. The next generation will know Nine Inch Nails, Linkin Park, Korn, Coldplay and My Chemical Romance. I very much doubt that anyone will remember, for example, Simple Plan or Adema.
Music thread/GSYWTLO thread ranting: Yknow what I hate? When people have shiny Ipods and mp4s with God knows how much space and they have only around 20 songs from some latest stupid movie they have watched and some Photo Albums with the titles of "FinallY SaLy's 16!" ---- Ugh, effing hell.
You don't have to be musically talented to make money in the music biz. One of the best early songwriters wasn't even musically trained. I think the discussion at hand is about the tastes of other people. But I mean, if these producers can make a catchy beat with 'two keys on a keyboard, and then hitting the loop button to create your riff, then looping a generic 'doof doof doof' 4-4 beat for an entire 'song'', then I think they're talented enough to make heaps and money. And I'd want in, to be honest, musically talented or not. And I'd make the argument that 50 Cent IS more talented than both Dream Theater and Linkin Park. Look at the guy's marketability. He may not be great in the hip-hop scene anymore, but his name is instantly more recognizable than both DT and LP. He's played in clubs, in gangsta's stereos, the radio. Who wears his clothes? Who drinks his vitamin water? Who drinks his alcohol? He basically orchestrated his rise to fame, and that's talent if I've ever seen it.
Yeah I know, I think there are certain kinds of music and bands/artists that you just can't overanalyse and probably aren't supposed to, and there are people who have to be able to do that with everything they listen to. I know you weren't trying to offend anyone or whatever, so no hard feelings
True, but that's not because he's a good musician -not saying that he isn't- but it's simply because people look up to him for god know what reason, I really don't want to get into this. Now it's became all about style and not so much about the music itself. Just like with most of these days' emos/goths/punks or whatever. That's just how I see it, though.
I think Harlz was making the point that 50 Cent is probably more talented as a businessman than as a musician. Which I would agree with. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I just recognise him more in that way.