Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen
I didn't devalue it. Read again. I will not be lured into re-explaining myself each time somebody fails to digest a simple sentence.
|
You criticized my high amount of value for it, so yes in essense you did devalue it.
Quote:
|
How about the other things I mentioned? Humour,
|
Rare. Even the funniest songs I've heard doesn't remotely compete with standup comedians and comedy movies/
I have fun listening to passionate music.
hmmm....
If the sound itself isn't passionate or raw, then they might as well speak thier philosophy or write in down as a book.
Sometimes but that goes along with humor.
Uninteresting, just tell me the damned story or act it out or something.
If they are using music as a platform for politics, unless they put some passion into the sound they might as well just perform a speech.
Quote:
|
all equally valid purposes for music. None of which necessarily need to inspire feeling or emotion in order to be done well.
|
Expressing feelings, emotion and passion
with sound is the primary function of music.
Quote:
|
Not insignificance (stop putting words in my mouth already, it makes you look foolish!), but a subset all the same.
|
You said small, which is closely synonymous with insignificant , and it isn't true either way, passion and emotion is an enormous facet of music.
Quote:
|
Like I said, music is not necessarily supposed to be "passionate and meaningful" - that's just one possibility for what music could be.
|
Like I said, we ned something to play in the background of commercials.
Quote:
|
And yet you seem to know virtually nothing about their lyrical content to the point that you exposed yourself by making that incredibly ignorant statement about the extent of their use of psychedelia.
|
More matter less art please.
Quote:
|
It is true that the earliest Beatles stuff from '63 were lyrically speaking quite simple love songs. What I will say is that all of those songs express a lot more in terms of REAL human sentiment and things that matter to most REAL people than anything at all in the entire Godsmack catalogue - to say nothing of what the Beatles did later on. How about that, eh?
|
Oh now the Beatle's artistic merit is greater than godsmack because of it's realism? What's wrong with exaggeration and hyperbole in art? It's about expression, and the more exaggerated it is the more effective it is (generally)
We use art as a facet to escape reallity, especialy in the case of music, to get away from it all.
Quote:
|
EDIT: I could go even further and tell you that Godsmack is actually complete corporate garbage. They're a major label band aimed at a certain niche market of angst ridden adolescents who are likely to find it deep and profound.
|
Godsmack wasn't/isn't
extremely popular, they aren't putting in effort to make machine generated chart music. They have produced 4 full albums and an acoustic EP since they began in 96, thier last album in 06. 10 years for 4 albums, they are obviously putting effort into thier albums.The only time I've ever heard Godsmack outside thier albums was a few years ago they let the Marines use the begining of the song 'Awake' for one of thier commercials.
Thier music videos are played on MTV2 or VH1 at 2:00am, you never see them being plugged and commercialized by mainstream TV or radio, they obviously aren't some corporate band, let's get real now.
At the root however, you find that lyrically they deal with the most hackneyed and cliched themes that exist
period in popular culture and have nothing unique to say at all. Mass marketed exploitative rubbish.[/QUOTE]
Yeah like Wicca, reincarnation, drug rehabilitation, religous constriction, a song about a man who's wife and child died, cookiecutter bullsh
it I know.