Why do people stil think that fame, popularity, and Success are a measure of quality when it comes to music?
| Like i mentioned online once that i think Sliknot is trashand people tried to tell me that because Slipknot is one of the most successful bands of all time and have several platinum albums they will be remembered as one of the all time greats. Now this is laughable for several reasons one being that the band has sold about 20 million albums which really isnt impressive, plus plenty of what are considerex the all time greats such as Jimi Hendrix and The Velvet Underground were not that comercially succesful. Plus plenty of artists who are highly famous and popular at one point in time are soon forgotten proving to be just a fad. Also theres plenty of underground artists who can match or surpass the most popular classic bands in terms of quality and raw talent they just werent radio friendly or commercial some simply not having the right luck to catch on. |
 |
| Cause human beings are natural bandwagoners |
 |
| I think their train of thought goes, "well a lot of people like them, so they must be doing something right!" |
  behind these hills i'm reaching for the heights  |
| Because there's no objective quality in music. Unless you're talking only about harmonic, melodic and rhythmic complexity, in which case punk, rap, electronic, country or blues are all shit genres, and there's nothing good except classical music, jazz, and a few subgenres of metal. Outside of that, there's absolutely zero objective quality in music, and popularity (or the ability to make a lot of people enjoy your art) is the closest existing thing to an objective measurement of talent. Even if it's popularity within a niche audience. Also, the claim that Jimi Hendrix was "not that comercially successful" is ridiculous. His debut album was the best selling album in the US the year it came out, and within one year he was headlining the biggest music festival in history. That's far more commercially successful than Slipknot will ever be. The Velvet Underground might have been commercially unsuccessful when it came out, but now it's hugely popular among classic rock fans. And those bands you consider "all time greats" were considered shitty music for a degenerate youth at the time, compared to superior old-school jazz or classical music. |
YarrowiaOct 17, 2016 3:09 PM
Yarrowia said: Because there's no objective quality in music. Unless you're talking only about harmonic, melodic and rhythmic complexity, in which case punk, rap, electronic, country or blues are all shit genres, and there's nothing good except classical music, jazz, and a few subgenres of metal. Outside of that, there's absolutely zero objective quality in music, and popularity (or the ability to make a lot of people enjoy your art) is the closest existing thing to an objective measurement of talent. Even if it's popularity within a niche audience. Also, the claim that Jimi Hendrix was "not that comercially successful" is ridiculous. His debut album was the best selling album in the US the year it came out, and within one year he was headlining the biggest music festival in history. That's far more commercially successful than Slipknot will ever be. The Velvet Underground might have been commercially unsuccessful when it came out, but now it's hugely popular among classic rock fans. And those bands you consider "all time greats" were considered shitty music for a degenerate youth at the time, compared to superior old-school jazz or classical music. Why you say a few subgenres of metal but leave rock out? Also i meant Hendrix and Velvet underground werent nearly as succesful commercially as like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Queen. I stil dont think as popular as they are now that The Velvet Underground has sold too many albums. |
|
| So what you're basically asking is "Why do illogical people use illogical reasoning?" |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Comic_Sans said: Exactly! The whole thing is just makes no sense, I find it all very illogical.So what you're basically asking is "Why do illogical people use illogical reasoning?" |
|
Waifu_Strangler said: They use illogical reasoning because they are illogical peopleComic_Sans said: Exactly! The whole thing is just makes no sense, I find it all very illogical.So what you're basically asking is "Why do illogical people use illogical reasoning?" |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Waifu_Strangler said: Why you say a few subgenres of metal but leave rock out? Also i meant Hendrix and Velvet underground werent nearly as succesful commercially as like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Queen. I stil dont think as popular as they are now that The Velvet Underground has sold too many albums. Because if you talk about "objective quality", aka harmonic, melodic and rhythmic complexity, there's nothing outstanding in rock music (and that's coming from a rock fan and musician). The only exception might be prog rock (more Rush or Genesis than Pink Floyd). Rock is a basic formula that took its roots in blues and never really changed until metal began to use more exotic scales , chord progressions and time signatures. If you analyze Jimi Hendrix's music, it's just basic pentatonic scales played over simple blues or folk chord progressions. There's nothing objectively good or innovative about it (except the new guitar techniques he brought), he took the simple old blues formula and added his touch to it. What make people enjoy Hendrix is the passion, the power, the raw feeling coming from his playing that was completely different at the time. But that's a feeling that cannot be quantified as "objective" quality, and many people will find it boring. In the end you can claim that Slipknot is shit and Jimi Hendrix or Pink Floyd are way better (and i would agree), but that's just a subjective opinion, like everyone else's. If you want an objective measure of quality, either you analyze music as a musicologist (in which case as i said, everything is worthless outside of classical, jazz and metal), or you're left with using success (because it shows that an artist has been able to touch a lot of people with his music). Everything else will just be subjective. |
Yarrowia said: Waifu_Strangler said: Why you say a few subgenres of metal but leave rock out? Also i meant Hendrix and Velvet underground werent nearly as succesful commercially as like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Queen. I stil dont think as popular as they are now that The Velvet Underground has sold too many albums. Because if you talk about "objective quality", aka harmonic, melodic and rhythmic complexity, there's nothing outstanding in rock music (and that's coming from a rock fan and musician). The only exception might be prog rock (more Rush or Genesis than Pink Floyd). Rock is a basic formula that took its roots in blues and never really changed until metal began to use more exotic scales , chord progressions and time signatures. If you analyze Jimi Hendrix's music, it's just basic pentatonic scales played over simple blues or folk chord progressions. There's nothing objectively good or innovative about it (except the new guitar techniques he brought), he took the simple old blues formula and added his touch to it. What make people enjoy Hendrix is the passion, the power, the raw feeling coming from his playing that was completely different at the time. But that's a feeling that cannot be quantified as "objective" quality, and many people will find it boring. In the end you can claim that Slipknot is shit and Jimi Hendrix or Pink Floyd are way better (and i would agree), but that's just a subjective opinion, like everyone else's. If you want an objective measure of quality, either you analyze music as a musicologist (in which case as i said, everything is worthless outside of classical, jazz and metal), or you're left with using success (because it shows that an artist has been able to touch a lot of people with his music). Everything else will just be subjective. Who are these metal bands though you think are more complex and innovative than the likes of Gentle Giant, Frank Zappa, Magma, Can, and Brian Eno? |
|
bluemerMMMC said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbb30Ur2jKQ ANIME: YU YU HAKUSHO SONG: DRAKE AND JOSH BLAZING CROPS BY COLE THE KID AND BLUEMER THIS IS MY FIRST AMV, LMK WHAT YOU THINK, THANKS Umm bro dont spam my threads okay? |
|
bluemerMMMC said: My b fam, dont really know how navigate thru this shit too good. found the AMV section lol Its ok i was just confused at first lol. Thought you might be a bot. |
|
Waifu_Strangler said: Who are these metal bands though you think are more complex and innovative than the likes of Gentle Giant, Frank Zappa, Magma, Can, and Brian Eno? Frank Zappa is much more jazz than rock. The rest is pretty much prog rock or avant-garde, but clearly not typical rock music. Prog metal bands (Animal as Leaders, Dream Theater) are typically even more complex than prog rock bands. Metal shred guitarists also know a lot about music theory and use tons of unusual scales and can completely change their style between songs (Joe Satriani, Paul Gilbert, Guthrie Govan...). Even mainstream bands like Megadeth, System of a Down, or even Babymetal use exotic scales and unusual time signatures making them musically more complex than 99% of pure rock bands. Metal in general was much more innovative than rock in bringing influences from all kinds of music (jazz, classical, medieval music, asian music) and trying different song structures, while rock music is most of the time stuck with its blues roots. If you ask a rock guitarist to play on a 7/4 song using more than 3 scales, chances are he will unable to do it unlike tons of metal guitarists. But my point is not to say metal is better than rock music (i don't even listen to that much metal, i'm more into 70's rock myself), but that talking about "real" music quality makes no sense, especially if you use it in favour of popular modern music. You can only objectively compare complexity in music, and it's pointless. Most people will agree that Hendrix is a better artist than Yngwie Malmsteen even though Malmsteen produces more complex music. There's no objective way of measuring quality in music. That means that popularity is not a bad way of measuring talent, since there's no better way to do it without involving personal opinion. So yeah, i understand how someone could defend his favourite by saying it's succesful, since it's the only thing that he can say that has more weight than "it's good because my opinion is better than yours/it's bad because my opinion is better than yours". |
YarrowiaOct 17, 2016 5:12 PM
| I think the mentality was there and always there. Not only music but also other medium. It's ppl just too lazy or want to simplifies their thing and take commercial success as statistical look of objectivity. Well can't take ppl privilege, but it was lame if it bring as an argument yeah - but not every ppl could cope his opinion with technical and literal stuff about what they hear or watch. Idk a "real" objectivity in music, sound almost nonexistent? Well I come to believe bunch of subjective opinions by musicians, music enthusiasts or ppl that hear more diverse of things like or not is the closest to that word rather than some random fans that just hear couple of band/artist - not always but yeah |
 la critique de l'intention pure |
| Because it's a saturated industry. 90% of what's out there is crap, so most people just wait around for the 10% to come to them. It's so hard for underground artists like me to get fans involved and talking. |
| "A pig that can't fly through spacetime is just a prematurely ejaculating, wet dreaming virgin." |
| slipknot is fucking garbage irredeemable garbage made by complete hacks that only got popular because "muh HARDCORE METAL AND UNIQUE STAGE PRESENCE XDDD" absolute trash 99% of metal is awful but slipknot takes the cake |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
Kuro_Negati said: Because it's a saturated industry. 90% of what's out there is crap, so most people just wait around for the 10% to come to them. It's so hard for underground artists like me to get fans involved and talking. prtty good b8 not gnna lie  |
Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| People think KAyne west music is good? Lmfaooooooooooo |
 |
Yomiyuki said: Kuro_Negati said: Because it's a saturated industry. 90% of what's out there is crap, so most people just wait around for the 10% to come to them. It's so hard for underground artists like me to get fans involved and talking. prtty good b8 not gnna lie It's not bait. The average lifespan of a label these days is 3-5 years. If an artist can't get a liveable wage going within 5 years, he/she usually never will. I like that pic, by the way. :D |
| "A pig that can't fly through spacetime is just a prematurely ejaculating, wet dreaming virgin." |
| While I do believe sales have some indication of talent/quality (see top 10 best selling albums of all time list), there are tons of bands that are considered underground or aren't very successful that are incredibly talented and produce great music. If someone only recognizes bands as good by their sales numbers, they're ignorant people that don't know good music. |
the40ftbadger said: i have palpable amounts of salt for FO4. It's like a clown put on my dead dad's clothes and is running around my house going "LOOK I'M YOUR DAD, ISN'T THIS FUN?!?!" |
| To this day, I struggle to understand what exactly defines quality in music. Taste I understand, and a better working of the elements of a music genre, I understand. Even style, or the lack thereof, I understand. But I fail to exactly see what gives certain songs an inherit quality or not. |
"I'd take rampant lesbianism over nuclear armageddon or a supervolcano any day." ~nikiforova |
InsaneLeader13 said: To this day, I struggle to understand what exactly defines quality in music. Taste I understand, and a better working of the elements of a music genre, I understand. Even style, or the lack thereof, I understand. But I fail to exactly see what gives certain songs an inherit quality or not. The quality of a song is in the artistry- how advanced the chords, how dynamic the structure, whether the artist experiments or just copied a trend, how much is the artists creation as opposed to sampling and ghost work, etc. |
| "A pig that can't fly through spacetime is just a prematurely ejaculating, wet dreaming virgin." |
More topics from this board
» Favorite childhood TV shows?56709 - Apr 17 |
26 |
by 707supremacist
»»
60 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Game of Thrones vs Attack on TitanDOSS300 - Mar 26 |
11 |
by WatchTillTandava
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Currently listening to ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )tsukareru - Mar 29, 2021 |
7587 |
by SilentAssassin88
»»
5 hours ago |
|
» What was the last song you listened to? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Death - Oct 1, 2020 |
3387 |
by SilentAssassin88
»»
5 hours ago |
|
» This is one the most gay music vids i have seen^^tsukareru - 8 hours ago |
0 |
by tsukareru
»»
8 hours ago |