|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-10-2008, 08:42 AM | #151 (permalink) | ||
I'm sorry, is this Can?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,989
|
Mass appeal never makes me shy away from something, stuff like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin is incredibly popular but I love it.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
02-10-2008, 02:47 PM | #152 (permalink) | ||
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
Quote:
Quote:
And in response to anybody who cares to ridicule it, the early Beatles stuff was virtually always great, just not as realized as what came later on. The idea that it's a load of sugary bubblegum crap is utter BS. On the contrary, it's brilliant pop, characterized by extremely diverse influences. I think this very topic deserves a thread in and of itself - reckon I'll get to making one next week. |
||
02-10-2008, 04:18 PM | #153 (permalink) | |
Ban Captain Caveman
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In The Realms of Poetry
Posts: 560
|
I'm gonna side with Rainard on this one. And then hit Comus on the nose with a newspaper. "That's a bad Comus! No! Bad Comus!"
__________________
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2008, 05:47 PM | #154 (permalink) | ||
I'm sorry, is this Can?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,989
|
You spew on and on about your own opinions yet when I state mine you continue to spew on and on about how it is different to your own and thus invalid.
I find the Beatles to be very bland and as do a lot of people, I find some music rewarding because it challenges and inspires, and also entertains, instead of giving a short term piece of pleasurable listening. A proper album or piece or song should continue to entertain once that first time novelty has worn off, there should be subtleties that you will be overjoyed at finding on the 100th listen instead the exact same beat, melody and lyrical undertones each time. My first and second post you quoted Rainard were not related as such, I wasn't saying it is more rewarding specifically (although it is). At that point I was answering to another common criticism that pseudo intellectuals like to go on about how if something is popular it will become hated by certain people, I was mainly stating that I am of no such character.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
02-10-2008, 05:58 PM | #156 (permalink) | ||
I'm sorry, is this Can?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,989
|
I'd never compare something as good as the beatles to linkin park. I'm talking pure pop, not something that pretends to be something else like LP.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
02-11-2008, 01:24 AM | #158 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
Quote:
Secondly, even in cases where you do naturally find yourself getting tired of one album quicker than another, how does that make the other more "proper"? All it seems to mean to me, is that the albums accomplish different things. Like an experience I had last year: The National's "Boxer", I was able to listen to dozens of times and could happily listen again today, whereas GaGa... by Spoon, I loved, but couldn't listen any more after say 10 listens. With that said, I still think Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga is the better album. The reason its appeal has a shorter span is that it's more immediate music. I don't think there's any legitimacy to claiming that something more poppy and immediate is therefore not as proper as something built upon more depth. They're just *different* types of music, with entirely different aims and goals. They ought not even be compared. |
|
02-11-2008, 03:43 AM | #160 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
|
That is, the genres should not be compared. It's totally senseless to say one genre is producing more proper music/albums than another. It makes more sense to speak in terms of immediacy, and to keep in mind the goals and aims of a particular type of music.
|
|