RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 y the way, anyone seen the music video? i have. i like the video. Sooo many reasons. b/c christina's sooooo fly, and you're not? and anyway...why doesn't anyone just like a regular, normal song? why does everyone have to like/listen to music that they claim is "sophisticated" in a way, having "more complex rhythms" and all that crap. tell me one good song. what's your favorite song? a good one, that i've probably heard. i have a small musical... ...repertoire. ( ) my favorite song is still "mary had a little lamb". i think everyone just wants to grow up too fast... mary rocks my socks. she always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Originally posted by Das Mole what's your favorite song? a good one, that i've probably heard. Stravinsky - The Rite Of Spring It's a good one alright... My take: Musical tastes are hard to justify. I happen to like music that is challenging to listen to. If music is too simplistic, if I feel like "I could play this song note for note after one listen" then it loses my interest quickly. I want to listen to stuff that I know I couldn't play without studying it in depth for a while. On the other hand: A great pop song is deceptively simple, and notoriously difficult to compose. For example: Anything the later period Beatles wrote is amazingly complicated, but are so catchy you make the mistake of thinking that it is simpler than it really is. That's why it still holds up today. The problem with most pop today is that it really is as simple as it sounds. Unfortunately that can make for an entertaining listening experience in the short run, it doesn't hold up in the long run. It gets old too fast. Will anybody be listening to most of today's hits 40 years from now? Not likely. Challenging music, just like challenging literature, theater, and film, forces you to think and reform new ideas about the world around you. Dance floor pop music serves a temporary purpose as soundtrack of the mating rituals of the young in our societies, but it doesn't stay with you for long. It is disposable. It makes no real lasting impact on your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Das Mole, have you not heard of differing taste? You seem to be in this deluded fantasy that if you like a song then everybody else must too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Das Mole, have you not heard of differing taste? You seem to be in this deluded fantasy that if you like a song then everybody else must too. um, not really. i don't where you getting that from...all i wanted to know is why people thought it wasn't a good song...or why whenever i say i like a certain song, people completely bash it and says it's crap. i think everyone else thinks that i need to like the songs they like...i can't just have my own opinion and everyone leave it, they have to say bad things and then when i say something bad about the things they like, i'm considered "naive" like i have no clue what's going on. that's what i can't stand about some people here, is that they twist things around so that things are in their favor and they make me look like the fool. well, you know what? i'm no fool. i have a certain "taste" for music too, maybe you don't like it, but you don't have to pick on me for it. and i'm not the one who hasn't heard of different taste, and apparently, if that is the case, then nobody else has either, b/c people can't seem to understand why i like the songs i like, and they think "oh, how can you not like", i dunno, "the beatles". you know why i don't like the beatles, or nirvana, or all that other stuff, is because, as edlib said, those songs are "so catchy you make the mistake of thinking that it is simpler than it really is. That's why it still holds up today". well, to tell you the truth, i don't want to listen to the same song for the rest of my life. i'm not listening to music so i can like a song that was made 40 years ago (i know, some songs i like are covers of old songs, but that's a little different). i like how songs change and i'm not listening to the same song all year long, or longer. i think, as they say "variety is the spice of life". not "monotony is the spice of life". anyway.... no, i'm not in a deluded fantasy, no, i don't think everyone likes the songs i like (which doesn't even make sense, everybody hates the songs i like, and i know that, i'm not a moron), and yes, i do know that people have different musical tastes. that's why people don't necessarily like the songs i do. i don't mean to be mean to anyone for liking a certain kind of music, however, sometimes i feel like some people are trying to be mean to me for liking the kinds of music that i like to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Das, There's nothing wrong with liking Top 40 pop, as long as you realize that many people might disagree with your tastes, and that the artists making it probably won't be around still making it in a couple of years. The other thing is this: as you get older you will find that pop music will suddenly change around you, and you might not like what it becomes, and that all your old favorites are nowhere to be found anymore and that commercial radio becomes unlistenable except for nostalgia-themed "Oldies" stations. You will find yourself asking "Why dosen't anybody make good music anymore? The stuff these kids today make just sounds like noise to me!" It has happened to every generation before, and it WILL happen to you! Guaranteed. Listening to music that has already proved itself timeless just might help cushion the blow when it happens. And only good things can come out of trying to expand your musical horizons. It doesn't mean you have to stop liking popular hits if you listen to jazz and classical,.. although I suspect you just might find yourself being a bit more discriminating about which hit songs you like if you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 as long as you realize that many people might disagree with your tastes i don't know how anyone got the impression i didn't realize that...it's so obvious even the biggest simpleton could figure that out. there's a difference between wanting to know why people seem to filled with disgust when i mention i song i like, and then have to say how awful and s*** the song is, rather than wanting to know why people like the music they like. that the artists making it probably won't be around still making it in a couple of years uh, yeah. i'm not stupid. i don't stay attached to people or things for very long. you might not like what it becomes don't worry. i will. It has happened to every generation before, and it WILL happen to you! Guaranteed. oh really? my own mother will listen to the stations i listen to with no problem and like the songs. no, she wasn't a teen parent. she's 42. she doesn't seem to have a huge problem with it. Listening to music that has already proved itself timeless just might help cushion the blow when it happens. *turns on old 60's rock songs* hmm...*yawn* *snore* And only good things can come out of trying to expand your musical horizons my horizons have nowhere to expand to. -i hate country -i hate jazz -i hate classical -i hate "older" songs, from way back when i pretty much can't stand a lot of music. i find many kinds of music to be extremely boring. i need to hear words when i listen to music. i want to sing along with the song when i hear it. i guess the thing is this. i don't understand...what is so great about older songs. don't you want something new once in a while? once you listen to an old song, that's it. there are no new old songs. they're old! and, i have something to say about this as well: all your old favorites are nowhere to be found anymore and that commercial radio becomes unlistenable except for nostalgia-themed "Oldies" stations. well, i don't listen to a song anymore once i can't find it on the radio all too often. i will never listen to an oldies station in my life. i loved beyonce's "crazy in love" when it came out roughly a year ago. i can't even stand listening to it now. in fact, i don't even care if the song exists any more. and it's beyonce, my favorite singer, for christ's sake! i won't have any "old favorites". i listen to the new things. once beyonce doesn't sing anymore, i'll probably forget about her. new singers come out, and if they're good, i'll listen to them. i don't stay attached or bonded to old singers and all that. once a song is old, it's old. it's worn-out. it's lost it's entertainment value. it's not fun to listen to anymore. and, i also have to say, i don't listen to music to get something out of the song (which is probably why i don't like country music, it tells a story), i listen to music for entertainment purposes. it's not like i listen to a song to think afterward "that's a good life lesson". i'm not that kind of person. i don't look for values or morals in the daily aspects of my life. maybe that's why people think of me as foolish and dumb. i don't know. i just feel like for whatever reason, i mention a song, people say it's awful, how can i like song, it's so simple, you can't get anything out of it. and then i say "well, i like to listen to it for enjoyment." and then if i say someone's song is awful, or i hate it, or how can they like it, then the person comes back at me and says "it's such a good song. you just don't understand. you'll get it eventually. this song is so much better". well, i think it's all a matter of opinion, but some people like to say "it's classier, and more complex, so it's better". i say "screw you. you don't know what you're talking about. i like this song. you like that song. whatever". but people just can't leave it there, can they? of course not! people then say "oh, but this and that and this and that and blahdee blah blah blah" going on about how complex it is and how it's not a simple beat, and how their song never gets old, and how it'll be around forever. i personally can't stand how nobody can just respect me, and then when i treat them how they treat me, with no respect, i come off as a jerk somehow, and i absolutely hate it. everything gets so warped and twisted and turned and then i look like the butthole. like i don't know what i'm talking about. i will say that yes, i am a little bit narrow-minded, maybe b/c i can't "support my facts and say why the song is bad", while everyone else has all these factual statements, and everything is purely just analytical, and.... gah! i'm just gonna end there. sorry. i'm spilling out every thought i'm having at the moment....getting carried away. i'll just end it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Das Mole, you come off as the jerk yourself - we don't need to do anything. It's when you come out with comments like "why doesn't anyone just like a regular, normal song?" and "why does everyone have to like/listen to music that they claim is "sophisticated" in a way, having "more complex rhythms" and all that crap." that you really come off badly. What is "regular" or "normal" music to you, then? I don't consider any form of music at all to be "normal", it's all different and certain genres will appeal to different people. You say that 60's rock is boring - but to many people that is perfectly normal music to listen to, and it certainly isn't irregular. Even various people from my college listen to 60's music often - nobody thinks anything of it. I have a feeling you're at the age now where you get looked at oddly if you don't listen to what everyone else is listening to. I can't think of anything else to explain it. For some reason, you seem to shunt listening to anything but whatever's currently in the charts, and then defend them like they're your family - you seem to listen to them just for the sake of them being new. Your response of "don't worry. i will." to edlib's comment about possibly not liking how modern music may sound in the upcoming years is a sure sign of this. How do you know that you'll like it, if you've not even heard it yet? You're just following a blind faith, and will probably end up liking whatever they turn out - no matter how bad it is. My advice; step away from the charts and see what else is out there. I may be wrong here, but aren't you an aspiring musician yourself? You'll get nowhere if you don't broaden your musical variety - I can guarantee that. "once you listen to an old song, that's it. there are no new old songs. they're old!" There's that many old songs out there, I don't think you'll find them in short supply mate. "Old" doesn't necessarily mean that old either - what about all the stuff released through the 90's? Is that too old for your divine standards? If so, then I really do have pity for you. Oh, and this post is horrible unstructured, and hasn't come out exactly how I intended it to. So, here's some cliff-notes: - You're following the charts blindly. - You're not prepared to listen to anything that isn't new. - You have a very closed mind, musically. - There's no helping you, you just need to grow out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Oh, and since you fired this question at me, allow me to backfire it at you. Das Mole, why is Dip it Low a good song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Fellows, fellows. Let's listen to something we can all enjoy: Alexander's Ragtime Band *Dances a 1910 dance* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 - You're following the charts blindly. honestly, i don't give a rat's ass if people like the music i like or if they don't. if i did, why would i share my opinions on songs that i like? - You're not prepared to listen to anything that isn't new. exactly. why would i want to listen to something that isn't current and that i have to search for on the internet or download, or find some oldies station. - You have a very closed mind, musically. how do i have a closed mind? i've listened to the types of music that people suggest, and i'm being completely honest, i don't like them. i'm not trying to fit in with my peers. i have other things that i like and that are my own qualities that make me fit in just fine. and did it ever occur to you that for the mass majority of people in my age group to be classified as liking a certain type of music, that some people actually have to like the music? how else would people be pressured to fit in? what if i'm one of the people that truly likes that kind of music? - There's no helping you, you just need to grow out of it. helping me?! HELPING ME?! exactly what the f*** does that mean? "helping me get some musical taste" as you would say it? i don't need any f***in help. i'll like whatever kind of music i want to. are you trying to insinuate that i'm strange for liking the music that i like? because if that's the case, then you really have some deep-seated issues. Oh, and since you fired this question at me, allow me to backfire it at you. Das Mole, why is Dip it Low a good song? dip it low is a good song because it has a good beat, i happen to think that christina milian has a nice voice, and i like the music video. (btw-i don't recall asking you what made a song good) Das Mole, you come off as the jerk yourself - we don't need to do anything. It's when you come out with comments like "why doesn't anyone just like a regular, normal song?" and "why does everyone have to like/listen to music that they claim is "sophisticated" in a way, having "more complex rhythms" and all that crap." that you really come off badly. do you realize what an ironic statement this is? you're coming off like a jerk, too. the reason i said "why does everyone have to like/listen to music that they claim is "sophisticated" in a way, having "more complex rhythms" and all that crap," is because everybody always attacks me for having any kind of opinion at all. you know at first, i made the suggestion, then samnmax says something, and all i did was ask "why isn't it a good song?" then people have to say crap about it, and then i replied and said "why doesn't anyone like a regular, normal song?" you wanna know what that means? all i meant was, everyone says the songs they like are more complicated and everything is more intricate, like some kind of beautifully woven tapestry. and if you use your brain, the person who talks about their song that way is essentially calling it "excellent". by those standards, my song would be "average", or potentially even lower than that. and in my mind, at the time, when i was getting slightly irritated and just typing whatever came to my mind, the word "average" was synonymous with "normal". okay? and yes, i do realize i'm being very defensive. but perhaps if you weren't so offensive, i wouldn't be so fired up right now. If so, then I really do have pity for you. then pity me. pity me to your heart's content! divine standards oh, give me a ****in break. "divine standards"? yeah. right. obviously, you're the one with the god damn divine standards, to the point where you can't just accept the fact that i like a certain kind of music that you feel is beneath you. You're just following a blind faith, and will probably end up liking whatever they turn out. actually, i don't like every single song that's new on the radio that singers turn out. in fact, i only like probably about 60% of the new songs that come out. allow me to backfire it at you i have something to say about this again, and that is, that even if i did ask you that: 1) i probably didn't ask it directly to you, not everything is about you, and 2) you never even answered the question anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Yes, you're right - you're being way too defensive. Someone made a small comment with regards to your musical taste, and look at the plethora of paragraphs which has emerged from this. I've said my piece, so I'd just be repeating myself if I were to continue. And yes, I am a jerk. It obviously bothers you that we've questioned your taste in music -- but guess what? It happens in life. I'm sure there's plenty of people that would question my enjoyment of film soundtracks, and heavy metal, but I really couldn't care less. I'm not dead set against chart followers like yourself, I just think it's a shame that you're not willing to expand your horizons and step away from the mainstream menace. I think one of the terms is "trend whore"? Anyway, that's enough. Obviously our tastes clash, so let's leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 okay, well, i don't think this whole thing just sprouted from one little comment, someone had to say something about how my taste in music sucked, and i won't take an insult without saying something back... and, yeah, fine, i'll call myself a "trend whore", even though i don't like the choice of wording...and i tried expanding my horizons, but what can i say? if i don't like a type of music, i just...don't like it. there's nothing i can do about it. either way... sorry i attacked you and all that stuff, and yeah. i'll leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 O_o... this was quite interesting... (in a scientific point of view...) ... or wasn't it real at all and just constructed? maybe THEY just want to test us... ... er... forget it... i haven't slept for 38,5 hours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 nope. 100% real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Das, I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from. As a musician, I have always tried to listen to everything that I could, and even forced myself to listen to things I didn't quite like at first, to try to see what others heard in it, and appriciate the effort and talent that goes into making it. I also realize that no music exists in a vacuum... all music comes from somewhere. Everybody is influenced by someone else, and in turn their influence was influenced by someone even further back. When I discover a new form of music, I always try to trace back to the roots of that music as far as I can go. A couple of things sprang to mind while reading your responses (I'm not going to try a point by point thing...) 1.) If you've never heard a song or a band before, then isn't it "new" music (to you anyway) even if it was published years ago? I only ask because I recently got into a band that I never paid much attention to in the past, XTC. I had heard a couple of things on the radio years ago, and more recently on internet radio, but had never bought one of thier albums. Prowling the local used CD shoppe a few weeks ago I came across one of thier CDs for under 3 bucks and decided to take a chance on it. It is freakin' brilliant! Yesterday I was in another CD place and emptied out the XTC bin... I bought everything they had. I consider it "new" music, even though none of the CDs are less than 10 years old. 2.) I listen to new music,.. I never said I didn't. In fact, since I work in the music industry it's kind of a pre-requisite to stay current if you want to keep working. For the last decade or so I have worked in most of Boston's concert venues, and I have seen most of the top bands and artists, some of them before they hit really big. I saw the Bare Naked Ladies at a show I was working about 2 years before they had a big hit on the US charts and thought "These guys are great! They sould be famous!" I was happy when they did. But I also try to be a bit discriminating when I listen. It becomes pretty apparent which hits are made in a spirit of crass commercialism, written to exploit a market and make a buck, and which are the real deal. 3.) Personally, I continue to follow artists I happen to like after they fall from the charts and the public eye. Just because radio isn't playing them anymore doesn't mean they aren't continuing to make great music. 4.) I think song popularity charts, Top 40 radio, TRL, and the like are the worst things to ever happen to music. These things aren't designed to promote music, but to sell radio and TV advertising. The music is secondary, if even that. It's a lowest common denominator thing... what can we promote that will appeal to the largest section of the public so that we can sell the most ads to bring in the most revinue? So we all end up with lots of obviously crafted and super-produced 3-minute pop songs performed by pretty, young, barely talented (but photogenic,) interchangeable mannequins who can be taught which end of the mic to sing in and a couple of dance steps, and who can be promoted the hell out for a year or two, then quickly disposed when the public's interest wavers for even a millisecond and replaced with someone exactly the same while real musicians with real talent toil thier lifetimes away largely unrecognized. Sorry,.. but it bugs me just a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinkie Posted July 13, 2004 Author Share Posted July 13, 2004 The real way that music hits the top 40: From the New Yorker magazine, by James Surowiecki. Pop music thrives on repetition. You know a song's a hit when you've heard it so often that you'll be happy never to hear it again. Even by Top 40 standards, though, the playlist adopted a few weeks ago by the Nashville radio station WQZQ was extreme. On May 23rd, Billboard reported, the station played Don't Tell Me, the new single by Avril Lavigne, three times an hour, every hour, between midnight and 6 a.m. This didn't have much to do with the tastes of WQZQ's d.j.s or listeners. Instead, an independent promoter working for Lavigne's record label had effectively paid the station to play the song. "Don't Tell Me" had been hovering just outside Billboard's list of the country's ten most frequently played songs, which radio programmers use to decide what singles get airtime. The extra spins the promoter bought—sometimes called "spot buys," because what's really being bought are blocks of ad time, as with an infomercial—were meant to bump "Don't Tell Me" up the list. By early June, Lavigne had a Top 10 hit. She also had a lot of angry music fans to contend with. Spot buys may be legal, but to most people they're the "new payola," a modern-day equivalent of Alan Freed's taking money under the table to play rock-and-roll records. (Freed called the payments "consulting fees.") It's an obvious comparison, but a misplaced one. Spot buys aren't the same as old-fashioned payola. They're worse. "Payola" became a household word in the fifties, when a host of d.j.s were found to be playing songs in exchange for favors and money, but the practice is as old as pop music itself. A century ago, songwriters routinely paid vaudeville singers to perform their tunes, hoping to goose demand for sheet music. In the thirties, music publishers paid off radio bandleaders. And although some forms of payola were outlawed after the mid-century scandals, various loopholes allowed other incarnations to thrive, under the guise of independent promotion. With money from the record companies, promoters used oblique tactics—subsidies, gifts, "research funds"—to encourage radio stations to add new singles to their playlists. By 2000, tens of millions of dollars a year were being spent on what you might call legal payola, and although bad publicity has severely curtailed the promotion business, paying to play is still integral to the way radio works. Despite its sleazy reputation, payola has a certain rationale. In a typical year, upward of seven or eight hundred CDs are issued each week. Not even the most dedicated program director can hope to sift through all the new songs. So stations need a way to filter the possible hits from the certain bombs. Pay-for-play schemes provide one rough-and-ready way to do this, because they involve what economists call signalling. By putting money behind a record, a label signals its belief that the record has a chance to be a hit; no company will spend a lot of money trying to sell something it doesn't have high hopes for. And hits, of course, are the only thing that radio cares about. You can see the same process at work in many other businesses, too. Supermarkets and drugstores accept billions of dollars a year in "slotting fees" to position products at the end of an aisle or at eye level. Book chains sell space on the tables at the front of their stores. And record stores accept advertising dollars from labels to push certain albums. Here, too, being willing to shell out for a good space on the shelf is a statement about how much you think people will want your product. This is, at best, a flawed way to find hits. Unless a record label has a good sense of what people want to hear, it could be buying airtime for flops. And labels that don't have the cash to promote their records are out of luck. But the surprising truth is that, historically speaking, payola has often fostered musical diversity, rather than squelching it. In the fifties, the music industry was dominated by a few giant labels, much as it is today; because of payola (and payola-takers, like Alan Freed), the smaller labels that revolutionized the industry—including Atlantic, Chess, and King Records—were able to get their music on the air. In retail, too, paying for space hasn't necessarily hindered innovation. Even as slotting fees have become more common in supermarkets, for instance, the number of new products that reach the shelves each year has exploded. And the same is true with books. We tend to assume that payola favors the big players because they are the ones with the big money. But the big players also have big sales forces, big brand names, and big connections. They'd win without having to ante up to get in on the action. Paying to play, then, creates a rough marketplace democracy: if you can come up with the cash, you get a shot. But that's all. Labels can buy themselves exposure; they can't buy themselves a hit. If people don't want to hear a record, radio stations won't keep playing it of their own accord. And that's where spot buys come in. Unlike conventional pay-for-play deals, spot buys like the one that propelled Avril Lavigne into the Top 10 aren't meant to introduce listeners to songs; they're meant to game the playlist system. It's a salient feature of modern media that being thought to be popular can make you more popular. Best-selling books and records are discounted more than slow-selling ones and are positioned more prominently. Songs in Billboard's Top 10 automatically end up being spun more. And if you invest lots of money in creating an illusion of popularity—by, say, buying hours of airplay on the radio—you may end up making yourself more popular. In the process, what real listeners want matters less than it ever did. In "Payola Blues," Neil Young sang to Alan Freed, "The things they're doing today / Will make a saint out of you." He didn't know the half of it. — James Surowiecki. stolen from http://www.melodicrock.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Now I'm disillusioned. But I always thought Avril Lavigne was just another girlie. She just has a different style. Nelly Furtado roxors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by edlib 4.) I think song popularity charts, Top 40 radio, TRL, and the like are the worst things to ever happen to music. These things aren't designed to promote music, but to sell radio and TV advertising. The music is secondary, if even that. It's a lowest common denominator thing... that's exactly what think about the Top 40, too... Originally posted by edlib So we all end up with lots of obviously crafted and super-produced 3-minute pop songs performed by pretty, young, barely talented (but photogenic,) interchangeable mannequins who can be taught which end of the mic to sing in and a couple of dance steps, and who can be promoted the hell out for a year or two, then quickly disposed when the public's interest wavers for even a millisecond and replaced with someone exactly the same while real musicians with real talent toil thier lifetimes away largely unrecognized. i don't know about other countries, but you can see this in germany very well. Top 20 in germany (afaik) 01 O-Zone - Dragostea Din Tei 02 Eamon - F**k It (I Don´t Want You Back) 03 Haiducii - Dragostea Din Tei 04 Mario Winans Feat. Enya & P. Diddy - I Don´t Wanna Know 05 Britney Spears - Everytime 06 Nightwish - Nemo 07 Usher - Yeah 08 Big Brother All Stars - Unser Haus 09 Söhne Mannheims - Vielleicht 10 De Randfichten - Lebt Denn Dr Alte Holzmichl noch ...? 11 Soul Control - Chocolate 12 Oomph! - Brennende Liebe 13 D-12 - My Band 14 Sido - Mein Block 15 Sandy - Unnatural Blond 16 Blue - Breathe Easy 17 Max - Can´t Wait Until Tonight 18 Baby Bash - Suga Suga 19 Christina Feat. Samy D Milan - Dip It Low 20 Maroon 5 - This Love as you can see, there's pretty much "easy listening" music that is produced to make much money in the charts... (with the "Big Brother All Stars" being the cheapest rip-off (they just took this 80-years song "our house" (i don't really know from whom it's originally... it this "our house, in the middle of the street" thing...), wrote an easy text about how great the big brother house is and let these guys currently sitting in this house "singing" it...) and Nightwish and Oomph being an exception (they both existed for some year and never really gave a damn about the charts afaik...)) there's also the said "Dip It Low" in the charts, which i don't know at all... (because i don't care about the charts myself (i had to ask the guy sitting beside me where i can find them...)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 why is it a good song? because it's featured by sammy deluxe. why isn't it a good song? because there are versions which are not featured by sammy deluxe. seriously it can be a good song but after listening to it three times christina's vocals and the whole stuff becomes boring. the only one who lightens it up is sammy.. ^_____^;; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Edison 007 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by DrMcCoy as you can see, there's pretty much "easy listening" music that is produced to make much money in the charts... (with the "Big Brother All Stars" being the cheapest rip-off (they just took this 80-years song "our house" (i don't really know from whom it's originally... it this "our house, in the middle of the street" thing...), wrote an easy text about how great the big brother house is and let these guys currently sitting in this house "singing" it...) and Nightwish and Oomph being an exception (they both existed for some year and never really gave a damn about the charts afaik...)) "Our House" was written my the ska band "Madness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 02 Eamon - F**k It (I Don´t Want You Back) this song sucks ass. anyway...about edlib's comments... Everybody is influenced by someone else, and in turn their influence was influenced by someone even further back. i saw the radio station on a commercial, and since i live in chicago, i used to always listen to b96 (which is the worst radio station ever, btw), and they always did remix crap. like, every 5 minutes for an hour. you couldn't just hear a song w/o it being modified and some loser beatboxing in the background, so i needed to listen to something else b/c i couldn't stand it. so...i thought "hey i've heard of this station, lemme listen to it", and they never do remix crap except for like, two hours on friday and saturday nights (the appropriate times), so i listen to it. it's a top 40 station, and i just liked the music...so i was influenced by a commercial. As a musician, I have always tried to listen to everything that I could, and even forced myself to listen to things I didn't quite like at first, to try to see what others heard in it, and appriciate the effort and talent that goes into making it. well, that's you. to me, it's like trying to force feed myself a pile of dog s***. that's what it would be like listening to something i didn't like and trying to begin to like it or see why other people like it. i've listened multiple times, not sure if i was clear about that, to different types of music. my mother listens to country music all the time. i can't stand it. i've listened to jazz music. kenny g and what have you. i can't stand it. obviously, everyone knows what classical music sounds like. i don't like it. i've heard easy listening so many times, i don't like it. and christian rock...i won't even go near it to begin with. 1.) If you've never heard a song or a band before, then isn't it "new" music (to you anyway) even if it was published years ago? well, i guess it is "new" to me, but perhaps the style of music is a little bit old. i probably haven't heard of a lot of groups that were around a decade ago, i was only 4-5, but if i listened to them now, i can almost 100% guarantee you that i really wouldn't like the sound of the music. But I also try to be a bit discriminating when I listen. It becomes pretty apparent which hits are made in a spirit of crass commercialism, written to exploit a market and make a buck, and which are the real deal. honestly, i don't give a rat's ass who the singer is as long as i like the song. i don't care if they're just a tool used by the huge recording company to make money. i don't care if they'll be around for generations and they have actual talent. i'm not going to hear them live. and if i did, if they had talent they'd actually be singing, and i'd know it, or they'd be lip-syncing, and i'd know it. either way, it doesn't make a difference. the majority of the time, i'd be hearing them on the radio or on a cd. 3.) Personally, I continue to follow artists I happen to like after they fall from the charts and the public eye. Just because radio isn't playing them anymore doesn't mean they aren't continuing to make great music. sure, me too. i know i said something like "if beyonce stopped making music i would probably forget about her". i didn't mean "if beyonce stopped making top 40 hits i'd forget about her", i meant "if she stopped making music", and i couldn't find her music anywhere, and i kept listening to new artists, i'd probably forget the music she made. 4.) I think song popularity charts, Top 40 radio, TRL, and the like are the worst things to ever happen to music. i disagree. i see top 40 or trl as a little competition to get your faves to the top. you want to see your favorite song at the top of the top 40 chart? request it. call in to the station and request the song. wanna see it at the top of trl? vote at mtv.com. while real musicians with real talent toil thier lifetimes away largely unrecognized. all i can really say is, "oh well". that's just the way it works in the music industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by DrMcCoy 02 Eamon - F**k It (I Don´t Want You Back) 04 Mario Winans Feat. Enya & P. Diddy - I Don´t Wanna Know 05 Britney Spears - Everytime 07 Usher - Yeah 18 Baby Bash - Suga Suga 20 Maroon 5 - This Love It's this sh*t that makes me wish Eminem would come out with another album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by Thrik I'm sure there's plenty of people that would question my enjoyment of film soundtracks, and heavy metal, but I really couldn't care less. Dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 hehehe.. err.. uuhhmmm... *nods* .. *blink* .. well, .. i really do love the indy 3 soundtrack. it is soo.. refreshing.. hmm.. heavy metal, eh? .. ookayy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.