If it's not written between 1700-1825 it isn't classical music.willard3 said:Classical music, baby. That's where it's at.
Seriously. Listen to Requiem by John Rutter (written in 1975, so not really classical, but...) if you want music that touches your soul.
WRONG! The Classical period started in 1750 with the death of Bach. OH SNAP.berethond said:If it's not written between 1700-1825 it isn't classical music.
The best music in existence is Jazz.
I like a lot of Rock too, but Jazz kicks the pants off of everything.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my feelings about it. Disturbing the "force" is the biggest inhibitor of new ideas and musical experiments.Srsly said:Ahem. I. Love. Music. There's one thing to say you listen to it, but it's different to truly love and appreciate it. I understand what many of your are saying. Yes, I agree that some bands are totally bland and just continue pumping out albums and songs to please the masses, as well as their companies. But the reason that they're pumping out all these generic songs because it has a sense of familiarity. What many artist fail to realize, if they pigeon hole themselves to something, breaking out into something different might cause a disturbance in the 'force'. Especially if it doesn't catch on well with the masses. Why many artist probably continue with the generics because that's what some of the masses like to hear.
Personally? I stay away from the radio like a plague. I haven't really listened to the radio since my Pop/Techno 103.5KRock days... That was when I was back in 1999-2000. Moving on. Sometimes in order to find good music, you need to really dive into the next. A lot of good sites like OurStage, LastFM, etc are good places to listen to and find new music. Put in a band you like and it finds similar artists. I've found a lot of bands that way. Myspace music is fairly good at finding new bands. I check their front page to see if any of their newly added bands are go. Hell, sometimes iTunes can help with your quest for good/new music. If you don't actually look and just scrape the surface just looking for music, you'll always find generic stuff.
Once you sift through all the bullshit music, you can find some pretty good new and old artist that aren't in the forefront of popular artist now. Underground can be the best, especially in a time where trying to go against the grain of generic music making and you want something new.
EDIT: Also, expanding your music taste can open up a whole different world for you. Eclectic is where it's at, baby.
Haha, a "dick-spank", wonderful. About labels, I find it depressing that they might have like some unrecognizable artist that sounds great, but they don't really 'sell' them. Instead, some record labels ride on the backs of their artist that are actually bringing in money. Rather than giving their newer artist a boost. If it's not that, the newer artist they sound just like everyone else on their label. With such claims as, "We're looking for this particular sound," meaning "If you don't sound like artist A, B, C, D, we're not interested." I hate when labels claim they're looking for something new when they're looking for a new, fresh face that they piggy back on all the way to the bank.Puppeteer Putin said:Yeah, this pretty much sums up my feelings about it. Disturbing the "force" is the biggest inhibitor of new ideas and musical experiments.
On the flip side these sales from the major bands SHOULD be funding scouting initiatives for new talent or create the need for specialist labels. Of course the music industry is stuck in the 1960-70 Movie Studios mentality, every label should select a style and stick to it.
For the most part though I'm not fussy, as long as it's not on the radio 30 times per second I don't mind giving it a listen. If I was a dick-spank that claimed "All rap and pop is shit", I wouldn't be any different from any teeny bopper that says Jet is the next best thing since the Beatles.
Glad you like it.Srsly said:Haha, a "dick-spank", wonderful. About labels, I find it depressing that they might have like some unrecognizable artist that sounds great, but they don't really 'sell' them. Instead, some record labels ride on the backs of their artist that are actually bringing in money. Rather than giving their newer artist a boost. If it's not that, the newer artist they sound just like everyone else on their label. With such claims as, "We're looking for this particular sound," meaning "If you don't sound like artist A, B, C, D, we're not interested." I hate when labels claim they're looking for something new when they're looking for a new, fresh face that they piggy back on all the way to the bank.Puppeteer Putin said:Yeah, this pretty much sums up my feelings about it. Disturbing the "force" is the biggest inhibitor of new ideas and musical experiments.
On the flip side these sales from the major bands SHOULD be funding scouting initiatives for new talent or create the need for specialist labels. Of course the music industry is stuck in the 1960-70 Movie Studios mentality, every label should select a style and stick to it.
For the most part though I'm not fussy, as long as it's not on the radio 30 times per second I don't mind giving it a listen. If I was a dick-spank that claimed "All rap and pop is shit", I wouldn't be any different from any teeny bopper that says Jet is the next best thing since the Beatles.
Also, making a statement that all rap and all pop is shit is making such an ignorant blanket statement. Granted, MOST of the stuff produced now is lame. However, sometimes you can hear something catchy that's stuck in your head for a few day, then discard it like a bad bra. So don't knock everything that's being produced. Either you listen or you don't. Plain and simple.
I'm going to sound like a prick but, most of us claim that we wan't originality. Well, if you think about it, what song hasn't been song? What subjects haven't really been covered? Really now. Just a thought.
Could you recommend some stuff for me to check out? I love discovering new music.berethond said:If it's not written between 1700-1825 it isn't classical music.willard3 said:Classical music, baby. That's where it's at.
Seriously. Listen to Requiem by John Rutter (written in 1975, so not really classical, but...) if you want music that touches your soul.
The best music in existence is Jazz.
I like a lot of Rock too, but Jazz kicks the pants off of everything.
Thanks a lot for that, I haven't seen anyone playing traditional-esque blues in a long time... very refreshing for meWasder said:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8R2a7ZLpA
Music has no soul? I guess largely that is true. But not with this man.
I hope this isn't based on my OP. I will admit that there is real genuine music on the radio, but for every real heartfelt artistic expression there's a pile of crap to wade through. I'm also not one of those people who thinks 'music was so good 20 years ago' I'm actually rather equally annoyed by 90's and 80's songs which are lacking in the feeling department too. If the singer sounds robotic, or electronic, that bothers me. Isn't music supposed to convey emotion, and feeling? You mentioned Kelly Clarkson and her powerful vocals actually DO THAT for me, whereas Britney Spears saying 'womanizer' about 80 times in 4 minutes does not...zen5887 said:What a surprise - a 'true music fan' doesn't like stuff on the radio. If I had a nickel..
Oh close enough.willard3 said:WRONG! The Classical period started in 1750 with the death of Bach. OH SNAP.berethond said:If it's not written between 1700-1825 it isn't classical music.
The best music in existence is Jazz.
I like a lot of Rock too, but Jazz kicks the pants off of everything.
(btw, notice I used a lower-case "c" in my other post...anything using an orchestra is basically considered "classical", while "Classical" denotes Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.)
I like jazz a good bit too. Which period do you like? Dixie, Swing, Big Band, Bop, Cool....? (sorry, i'm being pretentious again.)