Music Ranting

Recommended Videos

Jao123

New member
Oct 11, 2011
2
0
0
Being the type of person to obsess over music and it's impact on society as a whole, well at least American, there is a certain type of music that does invade my life from time to time. I do not hate all pop music, at best it's tolerable and at worst it is a vapid shallow wasteland. In a way it is both, but music itself is a very subjective thing, prone more than anything else to arguments on the validity of one artist versus another, and what qualifies as an artist and what does not.


This brings me to the reason I am writing this. I don't know if anyone has heard of Ke$ha, but I assume most people have. She has had several hit songs and is one of the biggest artists in my nation. I find her music empty but tolerable. People had been talking about her music today, so out of curiosity I decided to watch one of her live videos.

It started off with her wearing a deadmau5 style helmet. I don't know why. All of her backup dancers were sporting colorful mullets. Last time I checked, mullets are not stylish. They are not even remotely attractive. Setting this nonsense aside, that is not really the issue I had. It came at the end.

Out of nowhere she had a guitar. She held it up. On the backside of the guitar, was the word Hate. I hoped beyond all else she would not destroy this instrument. Lo and behold, indeed she did. At this moment I was shocked, but not for the proper reasons.

The Who is the first band I can think of that would actively destroy their instruments. This was never meant to be a niche. It's not cute. It used to be a representation of aggression, of an inner turmoil that could not properly be expressed in the most personal and deep songs, and it was shocking because when Kurt Cobain (Nirvana for those not aware, which more than likely is no one,) was a deeply disturbed man. He was a manic depressive junkie. He smashed his instruments because he had anger inside him. He wanted to lash out, and he did that with his music. He smashed his guitars because he didn't care. He was misanthropic and disgusted not only with himself but the people that would take his music and commericalise it to make it something false. What he considered art turned into cheap plastic nothing, and that in itself killed him.


When Ke$ha smashed that pink guitar, I saw a staple of raw passion desecrated. I saw honesty vanish behind a wall of pink glitter and auto tune. Pure music is dying quickly, this act of false...musicians in the past did not simply hold a guitar for the sake of smashing it. They poured their souls into every note and smashed it when they had nothing left to say, and all that could never be properly said had to come out somehow. Now it's just a gimmick.


How nice.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Doesnt all music have the right to exist? Even those like The Who, Led Zepplin, Metallica, etc. they were all the Ke$ha of their day. its revolution like this that changes music. without it we wouldnt have the Blues, which means no rock and roll, which means no metal. we wouldnt have a lot of music genres if people didnt break the mold and try and be innovative.

EDIT: I also have to wonder what you consider "pure" music. Cause Im willing to bet what you consider "pure" isnt, in fact, "pure"
 

Jao123

New member
Oct 11, 2011
2
0
0
I never said it had no right to exist, that is a grand assumption you're making. I stated in the very first paragraph that musical taste is subjective. I'm wondering what part of this revolution you're talking about. I'm not seeing revolution, I'm seeing stagnation. I have to wonder why you are so concerned by what I consider pure. Your opinion and mine are going to differ on that. Are you a valid source to decide what is or is not pure? That's a statement made for the sake of argument and superiority.
 

SundayModulator

New member
Oct 10, 2011
11
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
Doesnt all music have the right to exist? Even those like The Who, Led Zepplin, Metallica, etc. they were all the Ke$ha of their day. its revolution like this that changes music. without it we wouldnt have the Blues, which means no rock and roll, which means no metal. we wouldnt have a lot of music genres if people didnt break the mold and try and be innovative.
Though it may be true that such bands were seen in such a light doesn't mean that they were so. Every era had its wealth of stagnant dreck that were commercially, and sometimes, critically revered. I don't believe someone like Kesha's music stands up to the Who in terms of quality. Maybe it is hard to compare the two due to differing genres. What about comparing Kesha to the Beach Boys? I don't think art is always subjective, but I understand that what are viewed as great bands now were seen as shitty pop acts or whatever back then (not always but some,) but it does not mean their music is such. I highly doubt Kesha will be seen in such a light in twenty years.

OP: It seems more like you are arguing about an image. It reminds me of a discussion I had a while back about whether another "revolution" the equivalent of something like the Sex Pistols can happen again. I think most people can tell the difference between manufactured crap and genuine angst but the problem now is that corporate entities can quickly pick up on trends and commercialize them. Not really relevant, but I thought that was interesting.
 

Stall

New member
Apr 16, 2011
950
0
0
Some folks say her music is "half parody," so take that for whatever it is worth...
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
SundayModulator said:
emeraldrafael said:
-Good counterpoint Snip-

...
I was more just speaking about whats viewed as dumb by those who like the older music that is liked by the new generation of listeners and the whole "its not as good as such and such because such and such are so great even today" thing. Everyone starts new, and whos to say ke$ha wont be the Who of her generation in 20 years. Autotune and dubbing and such seem to be becoming the norm, or at least thats the impression you'd get listening to the Top 40 list.

While she's by no means the starter... she's definitely a name you place on it and will go down in history as one of its greats. Like kanye.
 

SundayModulator

New member
Oct 10, 2011
11
0
0
I was more just speaking about whats viewed as dumb by those who like the older music that is liked by the new generation of listeners and the whole "its not as good as such and such because such and such are so great even today" thing. Everyone starts new, and whos to say ke$ha wont be the Who of her generation in 20 years. Autotune and dubbing and such seem to be becoming the norm, or at least thats the impression you'd get listening to the Top 40 list.

While she's by no means the starter... she's definitely a name you place on it and will go down in history as one of its greats. Like kanye.
That's true. Kesha might be a great influence in the future but I think what the OP was most frustrated about was how popular acts nowadays lack substance, not whether they will be seen as great innovators or not. But it's possible that she will be soon as a good artist in the future and I agree with you about how people who listen to older music unfairly views newer music.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Jao123 said:
Now it's just a gimmick.


How nice.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but smashing guitars was always a gimmick right from the start. Plenty of stories of The Who stealing cheap guitars from pawn shops so they could smash them onstage that night in an entirely staged, premeditated display. It's no more or less theatrical than what Ke$ha did. Also, smashing shit is fun, and that's the real reason for its popularity, who says that rock musicians should be the only ones who get to do it.