For me : Trippie Redd’s “!” Is actually a great album
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.
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 think Johnny Cash’s cover of ‘Hurt’ is probably the gold standard of a cover exceeding the origional
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 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.
As a comedy music act, Ray Stevens should get into the Rock and Roll HoF before Weird AL Yankovic
All music without lyrics/singing is background music.
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
Johnny Cash’s Hurt is overrated.
Johnny Cash is great, and deserves his legacy, but that cover is mediocre.
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.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.
Sam from Future Islands is a pretty dope guy.
Agreed. Show me a flawless human being, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t have anything interesting to share with the world.
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.
I’m alright with this as long as you pirate it lol
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?
The Pianist is one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen… even though Polanski.
the examples you gave
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
🤨
Then apparently for a person who can separate them, there are zero examples. Or null
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”.
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
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 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.
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.
deleted by creator
Modern electronic music is the spiritual successor to classical music (and modern-day “classical” compositions are just rehashes).
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?
Modern electronic music is the spiritual successor to classical music
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.
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 can get down with this.
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)
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.
Lyrics don’t add value to 99.99% of music and any notes from them should be from an actual instrument.
“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.
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.
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
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?
